HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Actually Michael's "#1s" is second in tie with the Andre Rieu DVD, because the Eagles DVD is 20p, while Michael's is 21p. I'm not sure why their order is switched.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Feedback Requested: Bad25 Sales. Why low sales?
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
Actually Michael's "#1s" is second in tie with the Andre Rieu DVD, because the Eagles DVD is 20p, while Michael's is 21p. I'm not sure why their order is switched.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Bobmoo79, I agree but promotion is the difference.
Dangerous/Bucharest was promoted correctly as the first live solo MJ concert for television. Something like you want to see the living legend at his best, you’ll watch this, you may never get this experience again. It took years to get to DVD. Years later it is still the first concert everyone (fans, casual, everyone) thinks of showing Michael’s skills live. That’s perfect promotion.
Bad 25 was not promoted that way. The excitement and achievements of the Bad tour was not recreated with promotion and that’s what it needed. Those who saw it can relive good times and those that didn’t can discover and get a feel for what that time was like, why it was special. Instead we got you asked for it, we’ll give it to, its bland quality but, that’s what you asked for and we are not going to do any extra work so take it, whatever. Not fair to say whatever to Michael's legacy. They decided to make it all about the performance for the Royals instead of the record breaking feat of the residency WITHIN a record breaking world tour that MICHAEL did. The sell is Michael, not Wembly, the Royals, the date he performed with them in the audience, too much emphasis on that and not on Michael and the importance of that tour.
I agree they could have used several Wembly performances with better quality to make one (that’s what happened with Dangerous) or better yet, chose U.S. dates and make the Royal performance an extra performance on a separate DVD sold with the better quality one (and live cds). No one would complain about the poor quality if it’s a 2nd concert. We would be too happy to have a full concert as an extra. Michael was uninhibited with his performances in the U.S. and it shows just in the MTV videos of the Bad tour compared to the Wembly show.
It is sad because you only get one opportunity to do these things right and they can never make up for this.
Dangerous/Bucharest was promoted correctly as the first live solo MJ concert for television. Something like you want to see the living legend at his best, you’ll watch this, you may never get this experience again. It took years to get to DVD. Years later it is still the first concert everyone (fans, casual, everyone) thinks of showing Michael’s skills live. That’s perfect promotion.
Bad 25 was not promoted that way. The excitement and achievements of the Bad tour was not recreated with promotion and that’s what it needed. Those who saw it can relive good times and those that didn’t can discover and get a feel for what that time was like, why it was special. Instead we got you asked for it, we’ll give it to, its bland quality but, that’s what you asked for and we are not going to do any extra work so take it, whatever. Not fair to say whatever to Michael's legacy. They decided to make it all about the performance for the Royals instead of the record breaking feat of the residency WITHIN a record breaking world tour that MICHAEL did. The sell is Michael, not Wembly, the Royals, the date he performed with them in the audience, too much emphasis on that and not on Michael and the importance of that tour.
I agree they could have used several Wembly performances with better quality to make one (that’s what happened with Dangerous) or better yet, chose U.S. dates and make the Royal performance an extra performance on a separate DVD sold with the better quality one (and live cds). No one would complain about the poor quality if it’s a 2nd concert. We would be too happy to have a full concert as an extra. Michael was uninhibited with his performances in the U.S. and it shows just in the MTV videos of the Bad tour compared to the Wembly show.
It is sad because you only get one opportunity to do these things right and they can never make up for this.
Last edited:
Richard Lecocq
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 118
- Points
- 0
good project/concept / bad outcome
why ?
--> no promotion
--> DVD quality has nothing to do with Michael Jackson's standard (the arist that was aways known as an innovator in picture and soud....). Makes look Bucaredt 92 look HD....
--> no strong single (like a "live" single off the concert, it would have been MJ's first live singler ever as a solo artist)
--> BAD 25 documentary not included in the release
--> weak 2CD edition (shoukd have included something more like a DVD of all the short films as a regular and worldwide release w/ Grammy Performance to reach out to the mainstreamaudience (T25 was CD+DVD btw...). Michael Jackson is about Sound AND Picture.
just my humble opinion.
why ?
--> no promotion
--> DVD quality has nothing to do with Michael Jackson's standard (the arist that was aways known as an innovator in picture and soud....). Makes look Bucaredt 92 look HD....
--> no strong single (like a "live" single off the concert, it would have been MJ's first live singler ever as a solo artist)
--> BAD 25 documentary not included in the release
--> weak 2CD edition (shoukd have included something more like a DVD of all the short films as a regular and worldwide release w/ Grammy Performance to reach out to the mainstreamaudience (T25 was CD+DVD btw...). Michael Jackson is about Sound AND Picture.
just my humble opinion.
Richard Lecocq
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 118
- Points
- 0
and also : over the last 3 years, thare have ben too many releases+ mainstream public gets tired of this.
and also : I know too many fans who haven't bought BAD 25 simply because they have been too disappointed with all the latest releases.
Hoping for THRILLER BluRay in late 2013 (to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the short film).
If it's not BluRay or highest quality, "fuggetaboudit".
and also : I know too many fans who haven't bought BAD 25 simply because they have been too disappointed with all the latest releases.
Hoping for THRILLER BluRay in late 2013 (to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the short film).
If it's not BluRay or highest quality, "fuggetaboudit".
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Good idea. They really need to put Thriller+Making of on Blue Ray! But this time Sony needs to get their act together and show respect to Michael by making it a high quality release. No more Vision please.
Smooth72
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,115
- Points
- 83
I agree with the quality thing but... Let's move on to post Invinceable and let it all loose. All footage From Vince on would be high quality so let's have some of that stuff. Even if it's just MJ messing around. We know he wasn't just sitting on his ass. There was recording in 2003 and 2005 surely 2008 and 2009.
Richard Lecocq
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 118
- Points
- 0
Sony had nothing to do with the content of Visions : it is not THEIR sources that were used but the Estate's.
I checked the Sony Music archives and some videos there are in excellent quality,; but again, they were not used for this release. Sony only received the master from the Estate and it was sent to factories. You know the rest.
I checked the Sony Music archives and some videos there are in excellent quality,; but again, they were not used for this release. Sony only received the master from the Estate and it was sent to factories. You know the rest.
Robbsaber01
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,749
- Points
- 113
If it wasn't for this thread I would have thought the sales were BOOMING. When I went to HMV there seemed to be no copies left. The guy checked the back when he came back I luckily found a copy in the wrong section..only ONE copy so based on this I thought the sales were great where I live. The problem lies in promotion. That's the bottom line.
Love.him
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,667
- Points
- 0
Haven't read the rest of this thread, but my impression of why sales have been low is because the promotion was too targeted to people who are already fans, people who grew up with Bad in the first place. For example, Ebony magazine's review of the album was that this re-release was for already fans. Maybe the Spike Lee documentary should have been released first then the various album collections.
Also some stores didn't stock the product well. It took a few weeks before they got the deluxe versions if at all.
Also some stores didn't stock the product well. It took a few weeks before they got the deluxe versions if at all.
nickzark
Proud Member
maybe you have wright.it was not so in 90's . Greece is little country never had big market but the old days there was strong promotion here in Greece.
melly flew us
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Messages
- 25
- Points
- 0
all the hmvs in my town raun out oc opies instantly.
but they didn't buy enough copies to cover demand presumably because they thought that the lack of promotion from the label would mean too much left-over stock.
in my opinion sony are to blame - don't tell me they don't know how to market music in the 21st century:
adele is on their books and has sold 4 million cds in the last year;
justin timberlake's new album has sold more in it's first week than any other pop offering.
why? because of promotion. if you're not going to do a good job just leave it alone.
but they didn't buy enough copies to cover demand presumably because they thought that the lack of promotion from the label would mean too much left-over stock.
in my opinion sony are to blame - don't tell me they don't know how to market music in the 21st century:
adele is on their books and has sold 4 million cds in the last year;
justin timberlake's new album has sold more in it's first week than any other pop offering.
why? because of promotion. if you're not going to do a good job just leave it alone.
I have no idea if this has anything to do with the sales looking so low but I'll share:
On Wikipedia's page for Bad 25 it says this:
Again, I don't know if that makes any difference. How are the album sales being counted? If people are buying one edition over the other, does this have any effect?
On Wikipedia's page for Bad 25 it says this:
Again, I don't know if that makes any difference. How are the album sales being counted? If people are buying one edition over the other, does this have any effect?
OnirMJ
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2010
- Messages
- 6,437
- Points
- 83
It reflects on the charts, but not on the sales number which are low, like 50% of what was expected.
piperdarcy
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Messages
- 29
- Points
- 0
No promotion = low sales. No one really knew about it, other than die-hard fans. To many, it was just a re-issue of something they already had.