Chart longevity

ckravitz · November 2013

It was touched on in another thread by someone else, and i agree with it... the song I think that would boost sales for Lightning Bolt is .... I know this will pain some of you (not me, I like it) .... Sleeping By Myself.

The song screams radio hit to be honest. Catchy, cross-genre, and perfect length.

igotid88 · November 2013

The Juggler wrote:

how can you become a nielsen member?

I sent an email in 2009 asking. This was the response. Not cheap

No. You need not be a business. Our rates are below.

The Ltd. Access package is what you would need to track your titles weekly. The cost is $1,595.00 per quarter. You can track up to 20 of your own titles or digital tracks weekly. You may change 1 per week. The reports are delivered each Wednesday morning directly to your email! We bill this access directly to your credit card at the start of each quarter so you can pay it off monthly & get flyer miles for the expense!

You can also buy a 1-time report for 1 title for $650.00.

Full access to our TITLE section online starts at $7,950.00 per quarter.

Full access to the Entire system online starts at $14,950.00 per quarter.

If you have airplay on your record, you may be interested in our "Indie Basics" package. The cost is $3,000.00 per 13 weeks and the package provides sales, airplay, first play email alerts and merged info for marketing your record.

We also have a "Digital Only" package that gives you online access to all digital track purchased info and all Digital charts starting at $7,500.00 per quarter

The Juggler · November 2013

igotid88 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

how can you become a nielsen member?

I sent an email in 2009 asking. This was the response. Not cheap

No. You need not be a business. Our rates are below.

The Ltd. Access package is what you would need to track your titles weekly. The cost is $1,595.00 per quarter. You can track up to 20 of your own titles or digital tracks weekly. You may change 1 per week. The reports are delivered each Wednesday morning directly to your email! We bill this access directly to your credit card at the start of each quarter so you can pay it off monthly & get flyer miles for the expense!

You can also buy a 1-time report for 1 title for $650.00.

Full access to our TITLE section online starts at $7,950.00 per quarter.

Full access to the Entire system online starts at $14,950.00 per quarter.

If you have airplay on your record, you may be interested in our "Indie Basics" package. The cost is $3,000.00 per 13 weeks and the package provides sales, airplay, first play email alerts and merged info for marketing your record.

We also have a "Digital Only" package that gives you online access to all digital track purchased info and all Digital charts starting at $7,500.00 per quarter

huh??? their response almost seems like a joke.

BF25394 · November 2013

The Juggler wrote:

BF25394 wrote:

After three weeks, "Lightning Bolt" sits at #11 on The Billboard 200. How does this compare with prior Pearl Jam studio albums in their third week of release?

"Vs.": #1
"Vitalogy": #3*
"Yield": #5
"No Code": #7
"Pearl Jam": #10
"Lightning Bolt": #11
"Backspacer": #16
"Binaural": #26
"Riot Act": #67
"Ten": Not charted

*Does not include two weeks available on vinyl only (debuted at #55 vinyl-only, then fell to #173 before leaping to #1 upon the CD release).

thanks. i enjoy tracking this stuff in this thread. could you include the actual sales figures?

I don't have that information for each of these albums on a week-by-week basis but, even if I did, it wouldn't be particularly illuminating because the record sales environment has changed radically over this time span. "Vs." sold more copies in its first week than "Backspacer" has in over four years since its release. Part of that is a function of Pearl Jam being less popular, and part of it is a function of album sales precipitously declining as a general matter. (Part of it, I suspect, is also a function of direct sales from the Ten Club that I do not believe are picked up by Nielsen Soundscan-- although I would love for someone with inside knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong about that. The Ten Club really didn't get into direct sales until "Pearl Jam" in 2006.)

T-Bone 82 · November 2013

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi

Hitsdailydouble had it at 27k last week.

Billboard had it at 166k in week 1, 46k in week 2. That brings the total to around 239k since the release.

For a rock record, I think that's the best anyone has done in quite a while.

T-Bone 82 · November 2013

BF25394 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

BF25394 wrote:

After three weeks, "Lightning Bolt" sits at #11 on The Billboard 200. How does this compare with prior Pearl Jam studio albums in their third week of release?

"Vs.": #1
"Vitalogy": #3*
"Yield": #5
"No Code": #7
"Pearl Jam": #10
"Lightning Bolt": #11
"Backspacer": #16
"Binaural": #26
"Riot Act": #67
"Ten": Not charted

*Does not include two weeks available on vinyl only (debuted at #55 vinyl-only, then fell to #173 before leaping to #1 upon the CD release).

thanks. i enjoy tracking this stuff in this thread. could you include the actual sales figures?

I don't have that information for each of these albums on a week-by-week basis but, even if I did, it wouldn't be particularly illuminating because the record sales environment has changed radically over this time span. "Vs." sold more copies in its first week than "Backspacer" has in over four years since its release. Part of that is a function of Pearl Jam being less popular, and part of it is a function of album sales precipitously declining as a general matter. (Part of it, I suspect, is also a function of direct sales from the Ten Club that I do not believe are picked up by Nielsen Soundscan-- although I would love for someone with inside knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong about that. The Ten Club really didn't get into direct sales until "Pearl Jam" in 2006.)

I've always wondered that about the Ten Club sales too. I have to imagine those sales are pretty significant by now. Probably tens of thousands in the first week of a release.

igotid88 · November 2013

BF25394 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

BF25394 wrote:

After three weeks, "Lightning Bolt" sits at #11 on The Billboard 200. How does this compare with prior Pearl Jam studio albums in their third week of release?

"Vs.": #1
"Vitalogy": #3*
"Yield": #5
"No Code": #7
"Pearl Jam": #10
"Lightning Bolt": #11
"Backspacer": #16
"Binaural": #26
"Riot Act": #67
"Ten": Not charted

*Does not include two weeks available on vinyl only (debuted at #55 vinyl-only, then fell to #173 before leaping to #1 upon the CD release).

thanks. i enjoy tracking this stuff in this thread. could you include the actual sales figures?

I don't have that information for each of these albums on a week-by-week basis but, even if I did, it wouldn't be particularly illuminating because the record sales environment has changed radically over this time span. "Vs." sold more copies in its first week than "Backspacer" has in over four years since its release. Part of that is a function of Pearl Jam being less popular, and part of it is a function of album sales precipitously declining as a general matter. (Part of it, I suspect, is also a function of direct sales from the Ten Club that I do not believe are picked up by Nielsen Soundscan-- although I would love for someone with inside knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong about that. The Ten Club really didn't get into direct sales until "Pearl Jam" in 2006.)

If it has a bar code. It is being tracked.

BF25394 · November 2013

igotid88 wrote:

BF25394 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

thanks. i enjoy tracking this stuff in this thread. could you include the actual sales figures?

I don't have that information for each of these albums on a week-by-week basis but, even if I did, it wouldn't be particularly illuminating because the record sales environment has changed radically over this time span. "Vs." sold more copies in its first week than "Backspacer" has in over four years since its release. Part of that is a function of Pearl Jam being less popular, and part of it is a function of album sales precipitously declining as a general matter. (Part of it, I suspect, is also a function of direct sales from the Ten Club that I do not believe are picked up by Nielsen Soundscan-- although I would love for someone with inside knowledge to correct me if I'm wrong about that. The Ten Club really didn't get into direct sales until "Pearl Jam" in 2006.)

If it has a bar code. It is being tracked.

Why do you say that? It's true that the scanning of the bar code registers a sale, but that assumes that the entity doing the scanning is set up to transmit data to Nielsen Soundscan. Major retailers are set up to transmit to Soundscan, but why would you assume that the Ten Club (or its distributor) is? My local independent record store sells CDs with bar codes, but they don't scan the bar codes. They ring in the sales at cash registers that are not connected to any network, and their sales do not get reported to Nielsen Soundscan. Why do you assume that the Ten Club is scanning the bar codes and uploading the information to Soundscan when they ship the CDs?

By the way, I'm not saying I know that the Ten Club sales aren't reported for a fact. I'm just saying that it would require an unusual arrangement for the Ten Club to conform to how sales at retailers are tracked.

Santos? Any insight about this that you can share?

BF25394 · November 2013

T-Bone 82 wrote:

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi

Hitsdailydouble had it at 27k last week.

Billboard had it at 166k in week 1, 46k in week 2. That brings the total to around 239k since the release.

For a rock record, I think that's the best anyone has done in quite a while.

You may not consider this rock, but "Babel" by Mumford & Sons sold over 600,000 its first week earlier this year. (I think "rock" is a pretty broad category; Mumford isn't "hard rock," but I'd still consider it rock.) The record has sold over 1 million copies in 2013. And Imagine Dragons has sold 1.1 million this year of "Night Visions."

fox_mulderX · November 2013

BF25394 wrote:

T-Bone 82 wrote:

http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/sales/salescht.cgi

Hitsdailydouble had it at 27k last week.

Billboard had it at 166k in week 1, 46k in week 2. That brings the total to around 239k since the release.

For a rock record, I think that's the best anyone has done in quite a while.

You may not consider this rock, but "Babel" by Mumford & Sons sold over 600,000 its first week earlier this year. (I think "rock" is a pretty broad category; Mumford isn't "hard rock," but I'd still consider it rock.) The record has sold over 1 million copies in 2013. And Imagine Dragons has sold 1.1 million this year of "Night Visions."

I can't wait for the whole Mumford and Sons fad to pass. Same with Black Keys.

BF25394 · November 2013

After four weeks, "Lightning Bolt" sits at #18 on The Billboard 200. How does this compare with prior Pearl Jam studio albums in their fourth week of release?

"Vs.": #1
"Vitalogy": #2*
"No Code": #7
"Yield": #10
"Pearl Jam": #17
"Lightning Bolt": #18
"Backspacer": #21
"Binaural": #34
"Riot Act": #90
"Ten": Not charted

*Does not include two weeks available on vinyl only (debuted at #55 vinyl-only, then fell to #173 before leaping to #1 upon the CD release).

Spiritual_Chaos · November 2013

I still can't really wrap my head around Riot Acts poor perfomance... I am Mine alone should have kept it higher up.

igotid88 · November 2013

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

I still can't really wrap my head around Riot Acts poor perfomance... I am Mine alone should have kept it higher up.

I think it was released in the wrong year. 2 years before or 8 years later it would have done better.

fox_mulderX · November 2013

igotid88 wrote:

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

I still can't really wrap my head around Riot Acts poor perfomance... I am Mine alone should have kept it higher up.

I think it was released in the wrong year. 2 years before or 8 years later it would have done better.

I can't agree with that statement. Riot Act, although having some gems, is in no way an album for the masses. Nothing about Riot Act has mass appeal. Listen to the way Eddie 'sings' on the album; it sounds like he couldn't give two shits. I'm pretty sure that was intentional because the tone of the album was pretty dark, reflecting that era in the United States, but he's never sounded so bummed.
Also, keep in mind that people were buying a lot more albums in 2002, so sitting at 90 might be the equivalent to sitting at 20-30 by todays standards. In the end, Riot Act went gold, like everything since Yield.

igotid88 · November 2013

fox_mulderX wrote:

igotid88 wrote:

Spiritual_Chaos wrote:

I still can't really wrap my head around Riot Acts poor perfomance... I am Mine alone should have kept it higher up.

I think it was released in the wrong year. 2 years before or 8 years later it would have done better.

I can't agree with that statement. Riot Act, although having some gems, is in no way an album for the masses. Nothing about Riot Act has mass appeal. Listen to the way Eddie 'sings' on the album; it sounds like he couldn't give two shits. I'm pretty sure that was intentional because the tone of the album was pretty dark, reflecting that era in the United States, but he's never sounded so bummed.
Also, keep in mind that people were buying a lot more albums in 2002, so sitting at 90 might be the equivalent to sitting at 20-30 by todays standards. In the end, Riot Act went gold, like everything since Yield.

I didn't mean it in terms of people buying or not buying more albums. I meant more in terms of where the country was at and the alienation of bands like PJ and the Dixie Chicks. Other than I am Mine. Radio was hardly playing the songs. And Save You and Get Right are really good songs for radio. But at that time they did little promotion. Letterman and Chop Suey videos. I also think the people who didn't give it a chance back then who now like it. Still haven't purchased it.

BF25394 · November 2013

fox_mulderX wrote:

Also, keep in mind that people were buying a lot more albums in 2002, so sitting at 90 might be the equivalent to sitting at 20-30 by todays standards. In the end, Riot Act went gold, like everything since Yield.

No, sitting at 90 in 2002 is equivalent to sitting at 90 in 2013. Chart position is a relative measure: how are you selling compared to other contemporary records. A greater number of sales in 2002 is equivalent to a lesser number of sales in 2013, for the reason you cite, but that is not true of chart position. If you're number 90, it means 89 albums outsold you; if you're number 20, only 19 outsold you.

The Juggler · November 2013

igotid88 wrote:

fox_mulderX wrote:

igotid88 wrote:

I think it was released in the wrong year. 2 years before or 8 years later it would have done better.

I can't agree with that statement. Riot Act, although having some gems, is in no way an album for the masses. Nothing about Riot Act has mass appeal. Listen to the way Eddie 'sings' on the album; it sounds like he couldn't give two shits. I'm pretty sure that was intentional because the tone of the album was pretty dark, reflecting that era in the United States, but he's never sounded so bummed.
Also, keep in mind that people were buying a lot more albums in 2002, so sitting at 90 might be the equivalent to sitting at 20-30 by todays standards. In the end, Riot Act went gold, like everything since Yield.

I didn't mean it in terms of people buying or not buying more albums. I meant more in terms of where the country was at and the alienation of bands like PJ and the Dixie Chicks. Other than I am Mine. Radio was hardly playing the songs. And Save You and Get Right are really good songs for radio. But at that time they did little promotion. Letterman and Chop Suey videos. I also think the people who didn't give it a chance back then who now like it. Still haven't purchased it.

i don't think they were alienated until after riot act came out and videos of bushleaguer being performed live leaked out to the mainstream.

save you, while being all kinds of awesome, is a horrible radio song. he says "fuck" like 20 times. i don't think that has ever been played on the radio for that reason. how could it? and it's just my opinion, but i don't think get right is a very good song. i doubt mainstream radio would like it.

i do agree that them not promoting the album that much had a lot to do with it. but they promoted binaural the same kind of way, maybe even less and that album did better.

T-Bone 82 · November 2013

I think Riot Act was just a dud in general, in terms of commercial success and quality of content. A lot of people on this board would disagree with me on this, but that's my opinion.

There are a few reasons one could speculate on why it turned out that way. I think it may have had something to do with it being PJ's last record with Epic. I don't think Epic was really interested in promoting the band anymore and PJ was probably ready to go do their own thing but needed to fulfill their contract. Even though PJ stayed with the Sony family (J Records) for Self-Titled, I think they were given a fresh start and more control over the release and promotion process.

Obviously, pure speculation but I think could have something to do with it. Of course, there was also the Roskilde tragedy still fresh in their minds, so I'm sure that could have been a factor of the record sounding very downtrodden.

igotid88 · November 2013

The Juggler wrote:

igotid88 wrote:

I didn't mean it in terms of people buying or not buying more albums. I meant more in terms of where the country was at and the alienation of bands like PJ and the Dixie Chicks. Other than I am Mine. Radio was hardly playing the songs. And Save You and Get Right are really good songs for radio. But at that time they did little promotion. Letterman and Chop Suey videos. I also think the people who didn't give it a chance back then who now like it. Still haven't purchased it.

i don't think they were alienated until after riot act came out and videos of bushleaguer being performed live leaked out to the mainstream.

save you, while being all kinds of awesome, is a horrible radio song. he says "fuck" like 20 times. i don't think that has ever been played on the radio for that reason. how could it? and it's just my opinion, but i don't think get right is a very good song. i doubt mainstream radio would like it.

i do agree that them not promoting the album that much had a lot to do with it. but they promoted binaural the same kind of way, maybe even less and that album did better.

I think Binaural while great didn't help Riot Act. They didn't capitalize on the success of Last Kiss. I don't blame them. And released NAIS as the first single instead of Insignificance or Grievance. And this was before the live bootlegs and still in that time frame of where they were still popular. Not that they're not now.

igotid88 · November 2013

T-Bone 82 wrote:

I think Riot Act was just a dud in general, in terms of commercial success and quality of content. A lot of people on this board would disagree with me on this, but that's my opinion.

There are a few reasons one could speculate on why it turned out that way. I think it may have had something to do with it being PJ's last record with Epic. I don't think Epic was really interested in promoting the band anymore and PJ was probably ready to go do their own thing but needed to fulfill their contract. Even though PJ stayed with the Sony family (J Records) for Self-Titled, I think they were given a fresh start and more control over the release and promotion process.

Obviously, pure speculation but I think could have something to do with it. Of course, there was also the Roskilde tragedy still fresh in their minds, so I'm sure that could have been a factor of the record sounding very downtrodden.

From what I remember a lot of the people here didn't like it. Maybe they've changed their minds over the years.

Chart longevity

Comments

Categories