https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:03:38 +0000 Thu, 01 May 2025 02:01:16 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=10193 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66505&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66505 Author: EdisonLite
Subject: 10193
Posted: 01 May 2025 at 2:01am

Paul (Todd), that's fascinating data. While it's not all that surprising to see each format rise and fall, to see the actual #s for each year was really cool. Thanks for sharing.]]> Thu, 01 May 2025 02:01:16 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66505&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66505 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66224&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66224 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10193
Posted: 25 March 2025 at 11:17pm

Wow, I never knew that, Paul! That certainly goes a long way to help explain the sudden, very drastic drop in vinyl 45 sales between 1988 and 1989. When I initially saw those figures, I wondered if this might have been an reflection of public dissatisfaction with the state of the popular music at that time. But if that was the case, then it didn't make sense to me how album sales could have simultaneously increased during that same time period. So, thanks for relaying that information!]]> Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:17:41 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66224&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66224 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66212&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66212 Author: Paul C
Subject: 10193
Posted: 25 March 2025 at 11:43am

A significant reason that sales of 7-inch singles fell from
65.6M in 1988 to 36.6M in 1989 was the decision by record
companies to stop accepting returns from merchants of
unsold 45s, which caused many retailers to stop stocking
them.

The label numbers listed on the Billboard Hot 100 were for
the 7-inch single until July 21, 1990. The listed label
numbers were for the cassette single from July 28, 1990 to
June 20, 1998, and for the CD single starting June 27,
1998.]]> Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:43:28 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66212&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66212 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66178&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66178 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10193
Posted: 23 March 2025 at 1:17am

I just replied to your initial post about correctly estimating the cassette single domination era in the Third Eye Blind - Semi-Charmed Life message thread, Ed!

Also, congratulations once again on surpassing 5,000 message board posts!]]> Sun, 23 Mar 2025 01:17:56 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66178&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66178 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66172&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66172 Author: edtop40
Subject: 10193
Posted: 22 March 2025 at 3:32pm

in the semi-charmed life post..]]> Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:32:19 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66172&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66172 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66171&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66171 Author: edtop40
Subject: 10193
Posted: 22 March 2025 at 3:31pm

just found my recollection from 2009 about the format
leadership.....man we are getting old!!]]> Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:31:35 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66171&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66171 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66169&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66169 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10193
Posted: 22 March 2025 at 1:22am

PopArchivist wrote: Todd Ireland wrote: A couple of other thoughts that have occurred to me... I firmly believe that CD singles were really never marketed properly in the U.S. and therefore never truly enjoyed a bonafide sales boom here. By the time this format had finally emerged as the preferred one among consumers, record labels began to stop making popular hits available as retail single releases in favor of forcing consumers into having to purchase these songs on their more expensive album counterparts. Meanwhile, there was no uniform packaging standard with U.S. CD single releases. Thus, consumers were treated to a messy hodgepodge of the product being issued in everything from standard jewel cases to slimline jewel cases to cardboard sleeves to "digipaks", etc. which made storing them both a pain and an eyesore. I give full credit and props to European countries for marketing CD singles the right way... As far back as 1989, or even 1988 in the U.K., one could reliably find pretty much any hit song available on CD single and uniformly issued in a slimline jewel case! I can attest that the CD single sometimes came in awkward packaging (a cardboard slip cover around 93-98 was very common offering no protection). They were not as nicely done as an album of the era which has a jewel case. I can agree that Europe marketed the CD single the way it should have been. By 1999 Billboard had finally allowed album tracks to chart. The CD single was still very popular. The point where the CD single fell off the cliff was after 2009. The 2007-current period is dominated by digital downloads, including Itunes and Amazon exclusives etc. As Aaron can now attest, and as Pat before him CD releases of new stuff do not exist. Many of us board members for our personal collections saw this coming decades ago with Napster and P2P. Storage is now affordable to the point where you can amass thousands of tracks and unload your physical CD collection. The times they are a changin'.....

Man, how I have always passionately hated to see CD singles packaged with the cheap plastic trays and awful cardboard slip covers that you describe! In fact, that rotten packaging deterred me from buying a number of CD singles during the mid-'90s that I otherwise was willing to purchase!

Meanwhile, judging by the sales data put out by the RIAA, I'd argue the point that CD singles really "fell off a cliff" was closer to 2000 and 2001. And the thing is, this was not due to declining interest and demand from consumers, but rather from record labels intentionally suppressing the release of CD single product. It's as though the labels never really wanted to see CD singles truly maximize their popularity out of fear that album sales would become cannibalized as a result, thus reducing profits. Yet, despite these unfounded fears, we witnessed cases like Santana's improbable comeback album Supernatural get certified a phenomenal 15x platinum (for shipping 15 million copies to retail), while still yielding two huge #1 platinum-selling singles, "Smooth" (featuring Rob Thomas) and "Maria Maria" (featuring the Product G&B)!]]> Sat, 22 Mar 2025 01:22:20 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66169&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66169 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66168&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66168 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10193
Posted: 22 March 2025 at 12:04am

Hykker wrote: Todd Ireland wrote: A couple of other thoughts that have occurred to me... I firmly believe that CD singles were really never marketed properly in the U.S. and therefore never truly enjoyed a bonafide sales boom here. By the time this format had finally emerged as the preferred one among consumers, record labels began to stop making popular hits available as retail single releases in favor of forcing consumers into having to purchase these songs on their more expensive album counterparts. Not sure what you mean by "never marketed properly". As I recall, many songs were only released as (ugh) cassette singles from the late 80s on. You can't buy what doesn't exist. And there seemed to be little to no pattern as to what was issued in what format. Add to that the fact that singles (regardless of format) were only produced in limited quantities so if you didn't get something early, there was a good chance you were outta luck.

Pretty much everything you just said here, Hykker, is exactly what I meant when I said that CD singles were never marketed properly in the U.S. There was simply no consistency whatsoever with the product that the record companies made available to consumers. This, in turn, made it difficult for consumers to get into the habit of buying CD singles because the availability of titles was so hit-and-miss (it was more often "miss" until around 1995 when CD single sales finally began to gain some steam).

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:04:08 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66168&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66168 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66160&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66160 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10193
Posted: 20 March 2025 at 5:46pm

PopArchivist wrote: Instead of maxing out space no one did or chose not to from the label.

It's not the disc's potential capacity that comes into play. It's the costs involved vs. what the buying public is willing to spend. The more music you cram onto a CD, the more the artists and songwriters make, which means the price of the CD has to go up to cover those expenses. When the CD price goes up, demand and sales go down. It's all a business decision that has nothing to do with the cost (or size) of the plastic holding the music.

Edited by aaronk]]> Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:46:59 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66160&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66160 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66159&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66159 Author: PopArchivist
Subject: 10193
Posted: 20 March 2025 at 4:57pm

Scanner wrote: Nice try, Paul. The split between the Pop books should have been between the Hot 100 as a record chart versus the song chart it became in late 1998. Perhaps you can address this if/when future editions of the Pop books are published. I think one problem with CD singles was also content...or lack thereof. CD singles and albums were the same size making singles seem like a ripoff when the same medium could have so much more content. At least a 45 was smaller than an album - you got less music and less physical product. Cassingles were the same - seeing so little tape through the window felt like such a ripoff especially when cassettes were not that durable in the first place.

I used to have the same argument for cost purchases. A CD single had 1, maybe 2 and sometimes 3 song/mixes. The Beatles red could fit the 2nd cd and even a few songs that were not on there. Instead of maxing out space no one did or chose not to from the label.

And yea a 45 had an a and b side. Elton's 1997 charity single was a perfect example of how huge the CD single had become by then as that one sold a ton. It pretty much ushered in the CD single as the dominant format and that is supported by the above research.

Do I think Record Research should have recognized and did the 1955-1998 book and 1999-present. Yes. That is the true divide between yesterdays music charting and today's.]]> Thu, 20 Mar 2025 16:57:57 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PID=66159&title=physical-single-sales-by-format-19882005#66159