How much more could the Jackson 5 have sold?

[IhateTheMedia]

From 1969-1972 during their peak the Jackson 5 released 6 albums and 15 singles, their total sales stood at 33 million singles and 8 million albums (41 million total), 8 of their singles had sold at least 2 million and two of their albums sold more than 2 million. The Beatles for comparison from 1963-1965 released 15 albums and 33 singles with up to 100 million records sold which came because of the sheer volume of releases they had.

When MJ left the group for Thriller they had sold 100 million, How much more could they have realistically sold if they were putting out albums on a comparable level of volume? and would it have been possible given their touring schedule?

I unironically think they could have had at least 200 million

 

[etoile 37]

Well given that as the Jackson 5, a big part of their fanbase were children and teenagers with a limited budget, I think the number of albums they could have sold even if they had released more would still have been limited by how much money their fans had to spend. So I say quality over quantity!

 

[innuendo141]

The difference between the Jackson 5 and The Beatles is that they were children, and if they were to have recorded any more than they already did I'm sure that Michael's story (and possibly one or several of his brothers) stories may have ended long before their time. They were already recording so much, plenty of which never saw the light of day until after 1976.

They sold as much as they could, and they sold plenty for a child group that blossomed into a pretty sensational adult group. Their albums sales dwindled for a reason too.

The team at Motown were always ruthless about their artists and recordings. They got out of the Jackson 5 what they could. Which was plenty.

 

[Hot_Street]

Because of Michael's vocals, a lot more recordings should have been sold.

 

[filmandmusic]

They peaked saleswise from 1970 to 1972, then came the slump. The beatles never knew a slump, they kept selling large quantities in their 8 year career. Those 3 years of the Jackson 5 were as impressive as any other acts in music history though.

 

[R1chard]

The J5 sold as many copies as they could have. It was literally Motown's job to maximize sales.

Like, they were already releasing up to 3 albums per year. That's way too overexposed - that probably turned some people off.

You want proof? Lots of the stuff the J5 recorded between albums WAS later released as compilations (Joyful Jukebox Music, Boogie, Come and Get It). And... nobody bought them.

You got your Beatles dates wrong, btw.

 

[DuranDuran]

Like, they were already releasing up to 3 albums per year. That's way too overexposed - that probably turned some people off.

Before the mid-1970s, the average act released 2 or 3 albums a year, and in some cases non-album singles in addition to that. That's what the record labels required then. In a 2 year period in the late 1960s, James Brown released 9 different albums, some were vocal & some were instrumental. The Beatles had multiple albums a year in the US. Their albums on Capitol Records were mostly different from the ones in other countries. That's the reason The Beatles shot that "butcher babies" album cover photo, they didn't really like how Capitol chopped up their records. Some of the "Paul is dead" clues came from the USA version album covers. Elvis Presley released more than 1 movie a year in the 1960s and they each had a soundtrack.