Album Sales Fall Below 1991 Levels by George Ziemann -- August 23, 2010 According to Nielsen/SoundScan, the week ending August 15 was the first time since they started keeping track in 1991 that less than 5 million albums were sold. While this comes as no great surprise, what I find interesting is the general logic that tries to explain it. The actual story comes from Paul Grein at Chart Watch, but I was pointed to a discussion at Pulse Music Board, which reposted the entire article (without a link). "Weekly album sales reached their all-time peak in the week ending Dec. 24, 2000, when fans bought 45,372,000 albums. The biggest seller that week: the Beatles' compilation 1, which sold 1,259,000 copies. "But things started to slip after 2000 and especially after 2004." I think I've already covered that. "On Jan. 18, 2009, sales dropped below 6 million for the first time. ...on May 30, 2010, sales dropped below 5 million for the first time." Grein also provides interesting historical numbers concerning the holiday seas, traditionally the strongest selling period of the year. "Weekly album sales in the run-up to Christmas topped 30 million units in every year from 1994 through 2006." 2007's pre-Christmas week moved 25.57 million copies. 2008 -- 17.16 million. 2009 -- 17.14 million. "There's another way of documenting declining album sales. Four of this week's top 10 albums sold fewer than 30,000 copies. Two weeks ago, a record five of the top 10 sold fewer than 30K." "From the start of the Nielsen/SoundScan era through Sept. 2, 2007, no albums made the top 10 with weekly sales of fewer than 30,000 copies." On June 6, an album made the top 10 with sales of just 20,000. The "pop" in "pop music" is supposed to mean "popular." There are more than 300 million people in the United States. You can make the Top Ten and only sell a copy to 7/100 of one percent of the population. 7 people out of 100,000. Doesn't sound very popular to me. What's the problem? Some people blame it on the singles market. Here's a comment from below the story at Pulse Music: "itunes flips the switch to 'album only' then album sales will jump and singles will fall. They may someday have to (label pressure would demand it a some point) "That would be all that it will take" Label pressure would demand it? Or what? They take their music out of the world's largest retailer? Yeah, that'll help sales. Never mind the fact that this would seem a rather obvious breach of the antitrust laws. The labels are in no position to demand anything. And from what I've seen over the past 7 years, Apple isn't that interested in kissing the RIAA's ass. If they were, a single would cost $2.75. Or more. Here's another comment from that forum, from CookyMonzta, who happens to be the reader who pointed me at this story in the first place, so I know he won't mind being quoted at length. "The singles market was artificially destroyed in 1999-2000 by the record companies in an effort to force consumers to buy more albums. It backfired because at the time singles were still in great demand (case in point, Cher's 'Believe' went double-platinum in 1999, and Madonna's 'Music' went platinum in 2000)." I'd add that the industry did not make the same effort to kill the single in the UK. Things did not change "across the pond" like they would in the U.S. "When the industry tried to empty the singles racks, the public revolted and headed for the Web (via MP3). And as I recall, albums were doing quite well throughout the 1980s. "It was 7 years before a single would officially go double-platinum again, with Daniel Powter's 'Bad Day' in 2006 being the first download to do so. Meanwhile, album sales were dropping. "Why is that? As far as the public is concerned, the quality of the top albums' contents has gone to the dogs fast. And that is exemplified by the fact that digital album sales have not even come close to keeping pace with digital singles sales. We now have quintuple-platinum singles on record, courtesy of the MP3 format. "In 2000, there were 202 gold, 88 platinum and 32 double-platinum albums. Last year, only 62 went gold, 22 platinum and a measly 5 double-platinum. If the album sales decline keeps pace, we will have fewer than 20 gold albums in 2019 (I still think it could be as few as 10), because digital album sales are nowhere close to picking up the slack. "The fat cats who run the music industry have absolutely nothing and no one to blame but themselves. No one wants to pay $18.99 for an album that costs less than a dollar to make, when the chances are likely that one or 2 songs are worth the money but the rest of the album is $#!+." CookyMonzsta has done his research. In his e-mail to me, he added this: "In 2000, every one of the top 200 selling albums of the year (actual number was 202) sold 500,000, with 88 selling a million and 32 selling 2 million. "In 2009, only 62 albums sold 500,000, 22 sold a million and only 5 sold 2 million." Here's another interesting comment: "The reason albums were successful in the 70s is because it was a new artform. The Beatles started a trend that lasted until the late 70s. But, even with those albums that were hugely successful (Rumors, Led Zeppelin IV, Dark Side of the Moon) they play like a singles collection - a lot of well known songs." I was almost with that person, but let's get real. Dark Side of the Moon is like a singles collection? I always thought it was one contiguous thought. If I'm not mistaken, not one song made it into the top 10. "Money" might have come close, but I don't think it made it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. The same commenter puts some blame on disco for killing album sales in the 80s, seems to have missed the entire dismal Urban Cowboy phase and gives credit to Michael Jackson's Thriller because he "showed the industry how to sell an album: blatantly put a bunch of hits on it. Thus, album sales go back up." One album is not a trend, no matter how good it is. What was actually happening in the mid- to late-'80s is that the CD format appeared. People started replacing their vinyl collections. Slowly at first, then accelerating through the 1990s. Here's some related commentary from a completely unrelated thread posted months ago. "As consumers buy fewer and fewer CDs, an interesting phenomenon is occurring — artists who appeal to older listeners are showing up surprisingly high on the charts. "The reason: Adults are largely the ones buying CDs these days. Younger people tend to download in general and focus on singles." And a response: "Well, if this were right, no one would be stressing. You've got it half right: Old people buy CDs, but younger people are resistant to purchasing music at any price. The singles market is relatively larger, but still historically relatively small (no one ever added up all the tracks on every album sold in the heydey and treated them as individual units, as we do with singles today since iTunes). "The problem isn't that one cohort prefers physical media to digital. Rather one generation is happy to pay for music, while another has a strong preference for free (though they've shown more interest in rental music than their parents or elders). Media is irrelevant. Kids would happily rip free music on CDs, if it were as convenient as downloads. OTOH some older folks will never give up physical media, regardless of pricing (think vinyl)." I honestly think that both perspectives miss a major point of reality. Let's look at the key point again: artists who appeal to older listeners are showing up surprisingly high on the charts. There's an assumption being made there that may very well be completely off the mark. A more accurate statement would be that older music is showing up higher on the charts than would seem normal. But who says that's because of older listeners? The major point of reality -- Guitar Hero and Rock Band. My daughter was 12 when she got Guitar Hero. She jumped from Hannah Montana, High School Musical and Hillary Duff straight into the Allman Brothers, Beatles, and the Rolling Stones. And she really liked it there. I know I've said this before, but I don't think a lot of adults realize the impact that these video games had on the musical tastes of teenagers. Plus, she started playing violin and developed an appreciation for classical music as well. Classical and classic rock are simply more musically interesting than hip-hop, rap and the majority of what is called "pop" music. That's not my opinion (althought I agree with it), it's what the teens I know express on a regular basis. And a lot of them are tired of the excessive profanity in a lot of current music. Especially the girls, who aren't too happy about being called bitches and hos. "itunes flips the switch to 'album only' then album sales will jump and singles will fall." I don't think you can force people into buying what they don't really want. My daughter saves her money for video games. With very few exceptions, she wants individual songs, not full CDs. Take away the option and she won't buy any music at all -- she'll find what she wants through alternate means. And those alternate means are what lets her discover that only a couple songs off most albums are worth paying for in the first place. If the industry wants to change, they have to start making actual albums again, as opposed to just throwing a bunch of songs together. That's how the Beatles sold a jillion albums; it's the reason there is a factory in Germany that does noting but crank out copies of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. If you want to sell albums, you've got to make albums. It was never an easy task. Now that the industry is run by lawyers, accountants and venture capitalists instead of musicians, it's almost impossible.

Related Articles Album Sales Hit New Low -- Pulse Music Board Top 200 Albums (of 2000) -- MetalSludge.com (2001) Top 200 Selling Albums of 2009 -- u2.interference.com