sure, we'll see that as the times go on. If there's the effect of the death on sales then every next album will sell less and less and it would again make it unprofitable to go through the trouble to release any future albums.
That's not true, because the death itself is not the only contributor to the sales. There are many other factors:
-is it new or a re-release
-is there a controversy
-is it properly promoted
-is it a good quality
-are there similar products being sold at the same time
etc.
No one is denying Bad sales. Again the only focus here is the "current" sales. My point was - perhaps not understood - if the Estate goes all these trouble to release Bad 25 and if it doesn't perform satisfactory then it will become less likely that there would be a Dangerous or History or Invincible 25. Again all of these sales discussion is about what to expect in regards to future release trends, not to compare and contrast albums in regards to what is best etc.
But my point is not the old sales only.
My point IS current sales. What I meant is that alongside "BAD 25", currently there is also "BAD 2001" and "BAD" that are not removed from the shells. They are offered as alternatives to BAD 25 or vice versa. So businesswise it would be foolish to expect BAD 25 to sell more than a studio album such as "Michael". That's why it's uncomparable.
Well people did not really specifically opted for This is it. In 2009 like I said Thriller, Number Ones, Essential, King of Pop, Bad, Off the Wall and Dangerous also sold millions of units. Everything was being sold in 2009. So you really cannot make a case that people "opted for This is it". Actually they preferred Thriller and Number Ones over This is it.
Well, what I meant is that, unlike BAD 25, "Michael" too had benefitted ot only from the death publicity, but also from the fact that it was a long awaited new studio album since 2001. And that 9 year long wait alone contributed to the sales more than BAD 25 which came along rather as a surprise for mainly fans. For general public BAD and BAD 2001 was sufficient, and I highly doubt it that the Estate wasn't aware of it. Of course that every businessman expects to sell the max, but again, i doubt the Estate expected BAD 25 to sell more than "Michael". And again, mathematically speaking BAD 25 cannot be isolated from BAD and BAD 2001 as they are also currently offered in the shops, which means people have choice between three different packages: BAD, BAD 2001 and BAD 25. If they opt to buy BAD or BAD 2001 instead of BAD 25, we cannot exclude them from the sales. In other words, currently BAD and BAD 2001 are detriment to BAD 25, teh same way OTW 2001, Thriller 2001, BAD 2001 and Dangerous 2001 went to the detriment of Invincible. MJ's previous success on thsoe albums practically shaded Invincible.
be relatively harder for them as they don't have Michael here to promote the albums. Lady Gaga - like her or hate her - is really promoting her album. Justin Bieber's appearances on Dancing with the Stars etc also promoting his album. Adele's concerts and award winning has an effect on the sales.
Harder doesn't mean impossible. With a creative mind everything is possible. Michael believed in his short film creations. They have to find a creative alternative.
Estate had promotion ideas as well. Yes I agree that This is it soundtrack benefited a lot from the highly successful film. Michael album had 3 music videos and singles. Bad 25 had the Pepsi campaign. We'll see how the Bad 25 documentary by Spike Lee would have any effect on the sales.
Pepsi campaign was not as global as back in 1987-88. The building of hype should be continuous. But I have impression that they just triggered it and stopped at teh worst moment.