how many copies do they need to sell to get to number one?
It's a nortiously quiet time of year for singles. You'd probably be looking at around 50,000 for a number 1. It's possible to hit the top 40 with as few as 2000. I suppose it all depends on what else it has to compete with.
I doubt anyone is expecting it to go top 40 - the fans have it already, other potential buyers haven't heard it. It would be nice if it did and all, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't.
I doubt anyone is expecting it to go top 40 - the fans have it already, other potential buyers haven't heard it. It would be nice if it did and all, but don't be disappointed when it doesn't.
No one is expecting it to take over the world, but I would be surprised if it didn't make Top 40 after Jonathan Ross. Would that be this Sunday or next Sunday?
1) The single sales charts are a load of rubbish these days, not many sales needed to enter it
2) There'll be a fair few in the general public who will have no idea about the single, and it being exposed on national TV will only help it.
3) Pulp's sales will probably go up generally. Look at U2's increase in sales after Glastonbury! An increase of 700%, ridiculous given that it's one of the most known bands in the world!
4) NEW FANS! People may watch it and think 'who the bloody hell are they? They're pretty good' and buy it!
Possibilities are endless people...
-- Edited by PulpBristol on Saturday 2nd of February 2013 04:05:50 PM
I doubt anyone cares about Pulp other than their fanbase. Which is already something, but don't expect a Common People 2. It wont happen, even in the future
I did notice on the iTunes download chart on Friday that After You was at 60 something but Common People had also entered the chart at 130 something - ish.
But surely that's because they gave away potentially 12,000 copies?
Also with 1 promo appearance and 2 hours after to count in the downloads it wasn't likely to go far. I hope they aren't put off any future plans 'cos of it.
-- Edited by Jarvgirl on Monday 4th of February 2013 09:57:11 AM
Pulp are really, really, really not gonna care whether the song charted or not, nor will they have expected it to. They won't be naive about the music industry, especially with Jarvis having released records over the last decade and working for 6Music, they know that a record with no promotional push is not going to get massive sales, and they'll also know that bands such as Pulp can no longer be judged on sales, especially not where the singles market is concerned.
If Pulp did another album, I'd fully expect it to go top 10, but I'd doubt that the lead single (assuming there was one, rather than just a free track to download, which would also be sent to radio) would even hit the top 40.
-- Edited by calumlynn on Monday 4th of February 2013 03:02:59 PM
Yeah but if you posted last Monday saying 'we're on Ross this week, by the way buy this' then it makes so much more sense to do the follow up post today like 'now you've seen it, here's those buy links again'
Do any indie band get near the singles charts anymore? I see Biffy Clyro are straight in at number one with their new album this week and Everything Everything got to number 3 or something the other week in the album charts. But do these types of artists sell many of the lead singles, a week or two prior to the albums anymore? It doesn't seem so. Is it because most of the fans wait until the album comes out and then download everything or because it takes far more sales to get into the singles chart?
Do any indie band get near the singles charts anymore? I see Biffy Clyro are straight in at number one with their new album this week and Everything Everything got to number 3 or something the other week in the album charts. But do these types of artists sell many of the lead singles, a week or two prior to the albums anymore? It doesn't seem so. Is it because most of the fans wait until the album comes out and then download everything or because it takes far more sales to get into the singles chart?
Just a different market these days. Often singles go on sale as soon as they're on radio, which means there is no 'release date' like there used to be. Also no physical market, plus indie bands not being seen as a huge commercial concern like they were a few years back. Of course, it could all come around again, but even that Jake Bugg (who is awful, but was last year's only breakthrough that could be considered derrivitave of indie), who had a number one album and was a big mainstream hit, currently has number 26 as his highest chart place for a single.
Another interesting thing to note is that the singles market is increasingly 'stand alone'- songs by artists which feature another artist etc and are designed as tracks rather than just being put out to shift an album. Of course, there are exceptions such as Rhianna etc
I'd be astonished if this had any bearing on anything; we're just not living in an age where singles chart positions mean what they used to mean. Whether they're any more or less important or valid is a red herring; it's just not the same as when Pulp finally made their massive mid-90s breakthrough.
Singles sales have never been higher, but that's a bigger spend spread more thinly - for a number of reasons, but mainly because of the digital revolution and the change in chart rules which means it's now possible to buy absolutely any single track and have it count for the charts. What you're getting in most cases is the exact same digital file you'd get if you bought the album download, so all but the most hardcore fans buy the album download. If it's not available yet, and if you've kept your album tightly under wraps, and if you promote, promote, promote that lead single, you might still be okay, but otherwise it's an absolute lottery as to whether you're going in at number 5 or number 195.
A couple of cases in point: the Pet Shop Boys didn't get a Top 40 single from their recent Top 10 album. Robbie Williams' follow-up to his chart-topping "Candy", "Different" - plugged to death on TV and radio over Christmas, just a couple of months later (but crucially after the album was already out) didn't go top 40 either.
I'd be astonished if this had any bearing on anything; we're just not living in an age where singles chart positions mean what they used to mean. Whether they're any more or less important or valid is a red herring; it's just not the same as when Pulp finally made their massive mid-90s breakthrough.
Singles sales have never been higher, but that's a bigger spend spread more thinly - for a number of reasons, but mainly because of the digital revolution and the change in chart rules which means it's now possible to buy absolutely any single track and have it count for the charts. What you're getting in most cases is the exact same digital file you'd get if you bought the album download, so all but the most hardcore fans buy the album download. If it's not available yet, and if you've kept your album tightly under wraps, and if you promote, promote, promote that lead single, you might still be okay, but otherwise it's an absolute lottery as to whether you're going in at number 5 or number 195.
A couple of cases in point: the Pet Shop Boys didn't get a Top 40 single from their recent Top 10 album. Robbie Williams' follow-up to his chart-topping "Candy", "Different" - plugged to death on TV and radio over Christmas, just a couple of months later (but crucially after the album was already out) didn't go top 40 either.
Also, hi.
This 100%. Wish i could have put it so articluately.