50 Years, 50 Albums: Cutting The Catalogue

[Peter Franks]

My apologies for bumping this thread to the top once again, but there was one last point I wanted to make after I got back from vacation a few weeks ago. (This thread was near the top when I left.) It concerns the following:

The sad thing is that this discussion is kind of pointless. It's very unlikely that BMG will change their minds. Ernst has stated that in order to get Elvis albums in stores, it has to be new albums - old titles just doesn't show up there. Most stores orders new titles and forget about the old ones. That's why BMG release new love and Christmas compilations every deleted - see guidelines #2 year.

Keith is right in saying that BMG have stated that the reason for their never-ending torrent of budget releases and Christmas-, gospel-, and greatest hits compilations is poor sales from the original catalogue. They make two arguments:

1. Customers will only buy new compilations, not old ones
2. Customers will not buy catalogue albums (Elvis Presley, From Elvis in Memphis, Elvis Is Back!, etc.), only compilations

The first point they make doesn’t even seem likely. Do they honestly believe that the average customer can distinguish between the original albums and modern compilations? Do they honestly believe that the average customer can distinguish and have a preference between, say, White Christmas (2000) and If Every Day Was Like Christmas (1994)? It’s been stated so very often in the past, but these albums aren’t even in stores long enough to make a name for themselves, so it’s unlikely that they’ve amassed any sort of presence in the popular culture.

Up until recently, we, the fans, had little to argue against the second statement. BMG refused to publish sales figures to support their claim, and there was no other way for us to find out to what extent their argument was valid. Fortunately for us (and this was the point I wanted to make), popular internet-based store Amazon.com published a list of their best selling artists since 1998. The list can be found here, but I’ll reproduce the list here in case the page gets removed at a later date:

Congratulations to our 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame musicians, whose CDs have sold the largest number of copies at Amazon.com in the seven years since Amazon began selling music in 1998. We would especially like to thank Hall of Fame musicians Bob Dylan and Norah Jones for performing at our 10th anniversary concert event, A Show of Thanks, on July 16.

1. The Beatles
2. U2
3. Norah Jones
4. Diana Krall
5. Eva Cassidy
6. Frank Sinatra
7. Santana
8. Enya
9. Bob Dylan
10. The Rolling Stones
11. Dave Matthews Band
12. Bruce Springsteen
13. Sarah McLachlan
14. Dixie Chicks
15. Josh Groban
16. Elton John
17. Rod Stewart
18. Pink Floyd
19. Jimmy Buffett
20. Celine Dion
21. Sting
22. Johnny Cash
23. Ray Charles
24. Van Morrison
25. Elvis Presley

The importance of this list isn’t necessarily in the ranking order, as much as who is on the list. The most interesting listing is the top one: The Beatles. The Fab Four (#1; Capitol) released only a select few albums between 1998 and 2005 (the time period the list is focused on): The revamped Yellow Submarine (1999), the greatest hits compilation 1 (2000), Let It Be… Naked (2003), and The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1 (2004). That’s it. It should be noted that, during this time, the entire original catalogue was also available for sale. Considering only one of the aforementioned titles sold extremely well, one can assume that most of those sales came from the original catalogue. (The tremendous sales of 1 is a negligible factor anyway, since the same point could just as easily be made for 30 #1 Hits.)

And The Beatles aren’t the exception here. There are several other artists on that list whose presence must surely be due to the availability of their original catalogue. Bob Dylan (at #9; Sony/Columbia) only released a handful of albums during this time: six volumes of the official Bootleg series, an Essential collection, and re-masters of his original albums (with original track lists intact), including on Hybrid SACD in 2002. The Rolling Stones (#10; ABKCO) barely released anything during this time: the majority of their original catalogue was re-mastered on Hybrid SACD in 2002 (tailored to both UK and US listeners), the greatest hits collection 40 Licks (2002), and three singles collections geared towards collectors (2004/2005).

I’m sure similar arguments and lists can be made for artists like Bruce Springsteen (#12), Elton John (#16), Pink Floyd (#18) and other “veteran” artists, but the point is obvious: BMG are wrong. Not only do original catalogues sell, but artists who have made their original catalogue available have sold more than Elvis.

It’s clear from this list that catalogue albums do sell, and there is no need to constantly release new compilations, or delete Elvis’ original albums from the main catalogue. During this time, BMG released and rearranged most of Elvis’ catalogue and then deleted the whole thing, released two major hits-compilations and repackaged them half a dozen times, and released more gospel- and Christmas-sets than a sane person can keep track of. It’s quite apparent that record labels can make a significant profit from original albums, and as much as I would have liked to have used a different example (for once), The Beatles provide the strongest evidence for this. And as long as BMG stick to what they’re doing, they run the risk of Elvis disappearing from that list entirely.

[Graceland Gardener]

Peter,

don't apologize for that.
This isn't the Top 40 format
and threads aren't songs that slip off the "front page" and can never return.

some of the best reads here, and best discussions here, are past threads - not always whatever's the "current" top 10 threads.

[Peter Franks]

Peter,

don't apologize for that.
This isn't the Top 40 format
and threads aren't songs that slip off the "front page" and can never return.

some of the best reads here, and best discussions here, are past threads - not always whatever's the "current" top 10 threads.

Thanks, GG. I apologized because this topic has come back "from the dead" several times now, and I'm sure that there are individuals here who were sick of the discussion several bumps ago. (Also, moderators on some boards frown upon bumping old threads, and I don't want anyone to think I'm bumping this thread simply because I created it.) So my apology was geared mostly towards those who feel I'm wrong about the matter but won't shut up about it.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Peter, first, welcome back, and yes, no need to apologize. (By the way,
this thread was once even longer, folks but we lost several pages
during the spring changeover in servers!)

The late (and quite obscure) Eva Cassidy and one
"Josh Groban" beating Elvis?

Way to go, "BMG Strategic Marketing"!

The forthcoming HITSTORY is only the latest example
of BMG's short-sighted thinking:




To me, it never got much better than the real, original Elvis catalog,
which is mostly shown below:

[ColinB]

Peter -

You wrote:

It’s clear from this list that catalogue albums do sell, and there is no need to constantly release new compilations, or delete Elvis’ original albums from the main catalogue.

Well, RCA/BMG/Sony/Ernst/Roger/Whoever are in the best position to judge.

They have the sales figures.

They must know whether it is commercially viable to keep the original Elvis albums in the current catalogue or not.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

They "must know"?

They wouldn't be the first corporation to run a good
"brand" into the ground.

[ColinB]

Greg -

You wrote:

They wouldn't be the first corporation to run a good "brand" into the ground.

Yeah, I know.

My remarks were tongue-in-cheek.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

See, you disappear for a week and I forget what a hillarious,
droll sense of humour you have!

And I was trying to reconcile your comments with those
of the other thread about EPE's leadership.

Silly me.

[ColinB]

Greg -

Actually, it was two weeks.

With my goldfish memory, you'll have to be more specific about this 'other thread' !

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Actually, I could tell it was going on two weeks.

I figured perhaps you had resigned in a huff...

That other (Neil Young) thread for those who missed

Colin B. Wrote:

You gotta make allowances for Graceland/EPE.

It's not run by professionals.

It's run by people like Priscilla's dopey brother-in-law.

Who else would employ him ?

Can you imagine their faces if they ever read this stuff?

[minkahed]

Actually, I could tell it was going on two weeks.

I figured perhaps you had resigned in a huff...

That other (Neil Young) thread for those who missed

Colin B. Wrote:

You gotta make allowances for Graceland/EPE.

It's not run by professionals.

It's run by people like Priscilla's dopey brother-in-law.

Who else would employ him ?

Can you imagine their faces if they ever read this stuff?

they still probably wouldn't give a sh*t...

[ColinB]

Greg -

You wrote:

Can you imagine their faces if they ever read this stuff?

By all accounts, the brother-in-law would need for someone to read it to him.

[jeanno]

Peter :

This is some great article you wrote.
I definately enjoyed reading it.

My opinion would be to keep for the main market ALL original albums published between 1956 and 1977 (except budget things like the CANDEM series or the GREATEST HITS). I would complete it with , let´s dream a little bit, 5 BOXSETS (50´s Masters / 60 Masters I / 60´s Masters II / 70´s Masters I / 70´s Masters II) that would gather all the studio mastertakes. All the rest, alternate takes, ESENTIAL serie, complete shows, etc. should be available in the FTD format. Pretty simple (naïve maybe) but more coherent than the awful BMG / SONY List.

[familyjules]

My opinion would be to keep for the main market ALL original albums published between 1956 and 1977 (except budget things like the CANDEM series or the GREATEST HITS). I would complete it with , let´s dream a little bit, 5 BOXSETS (50´s Masters / 60 Masters I / 60´s Masters II / 70´s Masters I / 70´s Masters II) that would gather all the studio mastertakes. All the rest, alternate takes, ESENTIAL series, complete shows, etc. should be available in the FTD format. Pretty simple (naïve maybe) but more coherent than the awful BMG / SONY List.

Makes total sense to me!

Jules

[jeanno]

Thanks Jules!

[Rich_TCB]

My apologies for bumping this thread to the top once again, but there was one last point I wanted to make after I got back from vacation a few weeks ago. (This thread was near the top when I left.) It concerns the following:

The sad thing is that this discussion is kind of pointless. It's very unlikely that BMG will change their minds. Ernst has stated that in order to get Elvis albums in stores, it has to be new albums - old titles just doesn't show up there. Most stores orders new titles and forget about the old ones. That's why BMG release new love and Christmas compilations every deleted - see guidelines #2 year.

Keith is right in saying that BMG have stated that the reason for their never-ending torrent of budget releases and Christmas-, gospel-, and greatest hits compilations is poor sales from the original catalogue. They make two arguments:

1. Customers will only buy new compilations, not old ones
2. Customers will not buy catalogue albums (Elvis Presley, From Elvis in Memphis, Elvis Is Back!, etc.), only compilations

The first point they make doesn’t even seem likely. Do they honestly believe that the average customer can distinguish between the original albums and modern compilations? Do they honestly believe that the average customer can distinguish and have a preference between, say, White Christmas (2000) and If Every Day Was Like Christmas (1994)? It’s been stated so very often in the past, but these albums aren’t even in stores long enough to make a name for themselves, so it’s unlikely that they’ve amassed any sort of presence in the popular culture.

Up until recently, we, the fans, had little to argue against the second statement. BMG refused to publish sales figures to support their claim, and there was no other way for us to find out to what extent their argument was valid. Fortunately for us (and this was the point I wanted to make), popular internet-based store Amazon.com published a list of their best selling artists since 1998. The list can be found here, but I’ll reproduce the list here in case the page gets removed at a later date:

Congratulations to our 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame musicians, whose CDs have sold the largest number of copies at Amazon.com in the seven years since Amazon began selling music in 1998. We would especially like to thank Hall of Fame musicians Bob Dylan and Norah Jones for performing at our 10th anniversary concert event, A Show of Thanks, on July 16.

1. The Beatles
2. U2
3. Norah Jones
4. Diana Krall
5. Eva Cassidy
6. Frank Sinatra
7. Santana
8. Enya
9. Bob Dylan
10. The Rolling Stones
11. Dave Matthews Band
12. Bruce Springsteen
13. Sarah McLachlan
14. Dixie Chicks
15. Josh Groban
16. Elton John
17. Rod Stewart
18. Pink Floyd
19. Jimmy Buffett
20. Celine Dion
21. Sting
22. Johnny Cash
23. Ray Charles
24. Van Morrison
25. Elvis Presley

The importance of this list isn’t necessarily in the ranking order, as much as who is on the list. The most interesting listing is the top one: The Beatles. The Fab Four (#1; Capitol) released only a select few albums between 1998 and 2005 (the time period the list is focused on): The revamped Yellow Submarine (1999), the greatest hits compilation 1 (2000), Let It Be… Naked (2003), and The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1 (2004). That’s it. It should be noted that, during this time, the entire original catalogue was also available for sale. Considering only one of the aforementioned titles sold extremely well, one can assume that most of those sales came from the original catalogue. (The tremendous sales of 1 is a negligible factor anyway, since the same point could just as easily be made for 30 #1 Hits.)

And The Beatles aren’t the exception here. There are several other artists on that list whose presence must surely be due to the availability of their original catalogue. Bob Dylan (at #9; Sony/Columbia) only released a handful of albums during this time: six volumes of the official Bootleg series, an Essential collection, and re-masters of his original albums (with original track lists intact), including on Hybrid SACD in 2002. The Rolling Stones (#10; ABKCO) barely released anything during this time: the majority of their original catalogue was re-mastered on Hybrid SACD in 2002 (tailored to both UK and US listeners), the greatest hits collection 40 Licks (2002), and three singles collections geared towards collectors (2004/2005).

I’m sure similar arguments and lists can be made for artists like Bruce Springsteen (#12), Elton John (#16), Pink Floyd (#18) and other “veteran” artists, but the point is obvious: BMG are wrong. Not only do original catalogues sell, but artists who have made their original catalogue available have sold more than Elvis.

It’s clear from this list that catalogue albums do sell, and there is no need to constantly release new compilations, or delete Elvis’ original albums from the main catalogue. During this time, BMG released and rearranged most of Elvis’ catalogue and then deleted the whole thing, released two major hits-compilations and repackaged them half a dozen times, and released more gospel- and Christmas-sets than a sane person can keep track of. It’s quite apparent that record labels can make a significant profit from original albums, and as much as I would have liked to have used a different example (for once), The Beatles provide the strongest evidence for this. And as long as BMG stick to what they’re doing, they run the risk of Elvis disappearing from that list entirely.

This is a brilliant post, Peter. It makes total sense, and BMG/Sony should read this. If I were you, I would send them an e-mail of this. Would they give an answer?

Don't apologize for "resurrecting" this thread. Because it's important.

Maybe this is over-dramatic, but BMG/Sony are killing Elvis again.

Rich

[Rigs]

What can I say: "history repeats itself"

If you look at the late 1970's and most of the 1980's, you will see the same thing as you see this present day.

Those years the market was overflooded with crappy releases. Albums such as reconider baby,. the rocker, a valentine gift for you, always on my mind and several tons more of the same thing.
It all sounded very nice but is was the same material with a different sleeve and a different title.

Than in the 1990's with the up coming popularity of the compact discs RCA/BMG released every original album on cd. The soundtracks where made alvailable on the double features series, and for alternate work you had the essential Elvis series. 1995 was the year the Elvis cataloque was perfect. all of the music was available and placed where it belonged. Than in the late 1990's, the upgrades came. All very nice packages,..but orginal albums were mixed,..songs where added and the original playorder of the songs was lost. But this was only the beginning of the return to releasing pure crap. (present day)

FTD:
1999 saw the arrival of the elvis collectors label. A dream come true for every fan. The idea was great, alternate elvis work made legally available for every fan. So now we have every oringal album available on the normal label and alternate work on a the FTD label. PERFECT

PRESENT DAY;
After several years of great releases on the follow that dream label. BMG got the idea,..of cutting the orginal elvis catalogue (as read in P. Franks great post) Doing this they came up with an alternative. The Classis albums series and the soundtrack series. on first hand fine releases. But just think about it for a few minutes....................................................................................................................What we are doing here is buying the same music over and over again. The new classic albums and soundtrack will make all previous ftd studio releases unnecessary. Why should one even listen to fame and fortune, studio B, Long lonely highway, 6363 sunset, so high, memphis sessions, the jungle room sessions, out in hollywood,.silver screen stereo, the nashville marathon when all of this music will shortly be available on the classic album series,.. I don't know about you,..but thinking about that I think it's a shame that all of these releases are soon to become pointless. Because why should you listen to fame and fortune when you can listen to elvis is back. My point is the classic album series are great but they arrived a couple of years too late.

Not only the Sony BMG label has become a total mess (reliving the 80's) with there greatest hits,..love,..country ,..gospel cd's. But the FTD label is becoming a mess to. There now at a stage that they are also duplicating material withtin the FTD Label.
But lets face it they are smart. because they know we are all stupid enough to buy the same thing over and over and over again untill we die.

And within a few years when cd's will be replaced,.the will re release every orignal album just like they did in the 90's and make a great catalogue again,..and a few years after that they will srew it up again only to fix it several years later again,..so on so on so on... And they all know we will buy Elvis is back a dozen times more..............

[JerryNodak]

Rigs: When cds come to an end, my music buying days will end as well.
I've lived through 78s, 45s, lps, 8 tracks, cassettes and other formats that never really took off. Quad, for instance. Then came cds which I really like for their overall sound, convenience and virtual indestructability. I'm NOT converting my entire collection over to the next mass market sound marvel. I'll simply go out and buy a couple of spare cd changers and let the rest of the world go by.

[Scatter]

Peter.......thanks for resurrecting this thread. Your points are well taken, and it would benefit both EPE and the fans if they would heed them. Don't hold your breath though.

Jeanno......love your idea as well. See breath comment above.

[Amajoe]

In the sixties Blue Hawaii or G I Blues outsold Elvis Is Back, musical comedies draw more than the more “ambitious” movies. This shortsighted strategy, which at the time might have made sense turned out to be fatal in the long run.

Today we have the same situation: Compilations and projects like 30 # 1 Hits or Elvis by the Presley´s outsell Elvis´ original albums and BMG follow the same short sighted strategy as Parker had before. Fairly I have to admit, that the task to reposition Elvis is a monsterous one. Ernst made up alot of lost space with his 60´s and 70´s box sets and went in the right direction with his re-issue campaign from 97-00. But the perfect combination of only the best original albums(20-30), nearly no soundtracks or compilations, lost albums, the best remastering and top packaging and commited promotion was still absent. Somewhere along the way, the latest at the release of 30 # 1 hits, BMG lost trust in Elvis catalog. Elvis CD´s from BMG cannot hold up to CD´s from other labels, neither in sound quality, packaging or compilation. Compare Johnny Cash´s new Legend Box to Artist of the Century or Hitstory. Compare Dylan´s original albums to Elvis´ and don´t forget to take a look at Universal´s 2 CD Deluxe Series for their most acclaimed albums. Exceptions would be stuff like Elvis at Sun or the Elvis re-issue.

The Amazon list is very revealing and proves what others have pointed out, that artists like the Beatles and Dylan, who have very few compilations and all their original albums available have not only easily outsold Elvis but are far more respected as `serious and respectable recording artists´. This is where the circle closes. The line can be traced from Parker´s business strategy to today´s BMG strategy. In between Elvis is to blame himself for going for the big bucks in movies and endless touring instead of concentrating on what he could do best and sacrificing his artistic integrity.

The Beatles stopped giving concerts in 66 and concentrated on sessions often spending weeks on a single song seeking perfection, whereas Elvis often recorded an entire album in a single night pressed between movie obligations. The fans, music critics and the general public have thanked artists like Beatles, Dylan, Springsteen and Cash for their commitment to their art and non-bullshit commitment to quality by showing respect and opening up their purses.

But it is BMG´s role to represent Elvis in the best possible light by eliminating the bad from the main catalog and recreating a catalog that can match other great artist´s catalog, which I regard to be Beatles or Dylan. The Beatles minimalistic catalog even offers a rarties project, which concentrates on only the highlight of their vast unreleased vault. Dylan has a rareties series similiar to Elvis´ Essential series, which sarted out in 97. Till now in 8 years 7 albums have been released concentrating more on quality than quantity. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Elvis had had a similiar project like the Beatles Anthology. 4 CD box set for all important 70´s rareties in one place, 4CD for the 60´s and because too much material was lost a 2 CD set for the 50´s.


Regardless of all stated above Elvis´ popularity, legend and myth are greater than ever, sadly overshadowing his artistic achievements. I fear in the future more people, when “consuming” Elvis will do this by means of impersonators, cheap memorabilia or related projects like Elvis Idol. If they want to listen to him the 50 or 60 greatest hits will finely do. Elvis will turn more and more into other legends like Charlie Chaplin or Marilyn Monroe. Icons that are popular but who are not regarded as relevant historic AND contemporary artists. It is also revealing that BMG has a new division called Elvis Content Management, which concentrates on exploiting Elvis the Icon. Years ago it was called something along the lines of Elvis International Commitee, which concentrated on Album release strategies.

I believe it is too late to turn the wheel around - last chance being 2007. CD´s and/or albums are dying formats and the single is experiencing a major revival in the shape of the single song download, which will pave the way for the future music consumation. Let´s not forget that BMG are losing exclusive rights to Elvis music in Europe year after year. In this future only a very few rare artists, who have made their mark in previous decades will be able to sell more than their greatest hits.

Sometimes I think BMG have realized the situation and are not willing to invest the money and effort to achieve what everyone wants on this board and are more comfortable by milking the cow on FTD, where they can sell original albums with added unreleased material three times more often than on the main label, where they would release the album without new outtakes.

[Amajoe]

In the sixties Blue Hawaii or G I Blues outsold Elvis Is Back, musical comedies draw more than the more “ambitious” movies. This shortsighted strategy, which at the time might have made sense turned out to be fatal in the long run.

Today we have the same situation: Compilations and projects like 30 # 1 Hits or Elvis by the Presley´s outsell Elvis´ original albums and BMG follow the same short sighted strategy as Parker had before. Fairly I have to admit, that the task to reposition Elvis is a monsterous one. Ernst made up alot of lost space with his 60´s and 70´s box sets and went in the right direction with his re-issue campaign from 97-00. But the perfect combination of only the best original albums(20-30), nearly no soundtracks or compilations, lost albums, the best remastering and top packaging and commited promotion was still absent. Somewhere along the way, the latest at the release of 30 # 1 hits, BMG lost trust in Elvis catalog. Elvis CD´s from BMG cannot hold up to CD´s from other labels, neither in sound quality, packaging or compilation. Compare Johnny Cash´s new Legend Box to Artist of the Century or Hitstory. Compare Dylan´s original albums to Elvis´ and don´t forget to take a look at Universal´s 2 CD Deluxe Series for their most acclaimed albums. Exceptions would be stuff like Elvis at Sun or the Elvis re-issue.

The Amazon list is very revealing and proves what others have pointed out, that artists like the Beatles and Dylan, who have very few compilations and all their original albums available have not only easily outsold Elvis but are far more respected as `serious and respectable recording artists´. This is where the circle closes. The line can be traced from Parker´s business strategy to today´s BMG strategy. In between Elvis is to blame himself for going for the big bucks in movies and endless touring instead of concentrating on what he could do best and sacrificing his artistic integrity.

The Beatles stopped giving concerts in 66 and concentrated on sessions often spending weeks on a single song seeking perfection, whereas Elvis often recorded an entire album in a single night pressed between movie obligations. The fans, music critics and the general public have thanked artists like Beatles, Dylan, Springsteen and Cash for their commitment to their art and non-bullshit commitment to quality by showing respect and opening up their purses.

But it is BMG´s role to represent Elvis in the best possible light by eliminating the bad from the main catalog and recreating a catalog that can match other great artist´s catalog, which I regard to be Beatles or Dylan. The Beatles minimalistic catalog even offers a rarties project, which concentrates on only the highlight of their vast unreleased vault. Dylan has a rareties series similiar to Elvis´ Essential series, which sarted out in 97. Till now in 8 years 7 albums have been released concentrating more on quality than quantity. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if Elvis had had a similiar project like the Beatles Anthology. 4 CD box set for all important 70´s rareties in one place, 4CD for the 60´s and because too much material was lost a 2 CD set for the 50´s.


Regardless of all stated above Elvis´ popularity, legend and myth are greater than ever, sadly overshadowing his artistic achievements. I fear in the future more people, when “consuming” Elvis will do this by means of impersonators, cheap memorabilia or related projects like Elvis Idol. If they want to listen to him the 50 or 60 greatest hits will finely do. Elvis will turn more and more into other legends like Charlie Chaplin or Marilyn Monroe. Icons that are popular but who are not regarded as relevant historic AND contemporary artists. It is also revealing that BMG has a new division called Elvis Content Management, which concentrates on exploiting Elvis the Icon. Years ago it was called something along the lines of Elvis International Commitee, which concentrated on Album release strategies.

I believe it is too late to turn the wheel around - last chance being 2007. CD´s and/or albums are dying formats and the single is experiencing a major revival in the shape of the single song download, which will pave the way for the future music consumation. Let´s not forget that BMG are losing exclusive rights to Elvis music in Europe year after year. In this future only a very few rare artists, who have made their mark in previous decades will be able to sell more than their greatest hits.

Sometimes I think BMG have realized the situation and are not willing to invest the money and effort to achieve what everyone wants on this board and are more comfortable by milking the cow on FTD, where they can sell original albums with added unreleased material three times more often than on the main label, where they would release the album without new outtakes.

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

"Amajoe" wrote:

Regardless of all stated above Elvis´ popularity, legend and myth are greater than ever, sadly overshadowing his artistic achievements. I fear in the future more people, when “consuming” Elvis will do this by means of impersonators, cheap memorabilia or related projects like Elvis Idol. If they want to listen to him the 50 or 60 greatest hits will finely do.

Elvis will turn more and more into other legends like Charlie Chaplin or Marilyn Monroe. Icons that are popular but who are not regarded as relevant historic AND contemporary artists. It is also revealing that BMG has a new division called Elvis Content Management, which concentrates on exploiting Elvis the Icon. Years ago it was called something along the lines of Elvis International Commitee, which concentrated on Album release strategies.

I believe it is too late to turn the wheel around - last chance being 2007. CD´s and/or albums are dying formats and the single is experiencing a major revival in the shape of the single song download, which will pave the way for the future music consumation.

Let´s not forget that BMG are losing exclusive rights to Elvis music in Europe year after year. In this future only a very few rare artists, who have made their mark in previous decades will be able to sell more than their greatest hits.

Brilliant post, Amajoe (both times!)...You nailed it! I do, however,
think if they quickly turned around and realized what they were doing
wrong, there would still be time to "fix" the problem.

I'm getting more pessimistic.

On a more positive note (from Feb. 2006):

http://www.elvis-express.com/elvis_public.html


Mock-ups of the potentially million selling 5 CD sets
that could be exclusive to ASDA stores in the UK?

The very first day Garth Brooks' exclusive to Wal-Mart "limited edition" 6-CD box
set for $25 went on sale, it sold half a million copies.

So what can Sony/BMG learn from this?

As with the Brooks set, Sony/BMG need to team up with a major retailer like ASDA
(who incidentally are owned by Wall-Mart) and use this nationwide super store to
do all the promoting for the releases. With ASDA's public relations and advertising
machine behind this campaign, I could really see these sets selling like a dream,
as long as they were sold at a really good price of around £15.00 each set.

Nice big life size advertising stands, promotional fliers around every store, Even
have Elvis on the labels of some of ASDA' own food brands advertising the
releases.

Remember, these releases would be targeting Joe Public! They would contain the
old format albums that the fan already owns and that Sony/BMG have already
made their millions from sales, leaving the established fans with the FTD
collections. And at the same time, bringing in new fans and giving Elvis bumper
sales figures.

For a retail price of £15.00 (just £3.00 per album) I don't know any music fan who
would not buy these collections.

So this would be the general idea for the set up of these releases which could be
released at 2-3 monthly periods.

ELVIS - The Limited Box Vol:1 - rrp £15.00
Elvis Presley
Elvis
Elvis Is Back
Golden Records Vol:1
Golden Records Vol:2

ELVIS - The Limited Box Vol:2 - rrp £15.00
From Elvis In Memphis
Elvis Back In Memphis
Golden Records Vol:3
Golden Records Vol:4
Golden Records Vol:5

ELVIS - The Limited Box Vol:3 - rrp £15.00
That's The Way It Is
Elvis Country
Love Letters
Elvis Now
Elvis (Fool)

ELVIS - The Limited Box Vol:4 - rrp £15.00
Raised On Rock
Good Times
Promised Land
Today
Moody Blue

ELVIS - The Limited 'Live' Box Vol:5 - rrp £15.00
In Person
On Stage
As Recorded At Madison Square Garden
Live On Stage In Memphis
Elvis In Concert

http://www.elvis-express.com / Source: The Elvis Express

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

And from another thread: Ernst finally replies:

*********************************************
Excerpts from EIN's Interview

http://www.elvisinfonet.com/interview_ernst_sales.html

Ernst Jorgensen March 2006 Interview:

EIN: BMG and recycled/repackaged Elvis product. Some people (including EIN) are critical that BMG treats the Elvis catalog as a commodity rather than an artistic body of work. Is it fair to say that, as happened by the early 1990s, sales of recycled Elvis product are generally declining?

(That's not exactly the argument I hear being made- Greg)

Ernst Jorgensen: Over 12 million sold of “Elvis 30 Number 1 Hits”! If you talk about sales of original albums, they were never the best selling records.

That's not exactly the point. And E1 will prove to be a fluke but for a time, could have anchored a logical realignment of the catalog. It didn't happen and it's now a mess again.-Greg

EIN: Ernst, wouldn't it serve Elvis' legacy better if BMG started strategically marketing "genres" of his vast catalog (eg, soul and blues) to those particular market segments? This would build up Elvis' credibility as a serious recording artist and not just a recyclable pop artist.

What a soft-ball question.-Greg

Ernst: That is what we are doing with the 3 new February "genre" releases, Rock , Country and Inspirational (Gospel).

EIN: Critics will say the “genre” albums are just more of the same old recycled product. There have been many Elvis other rock, inspirational and country albums released over the years. Why not promote Elvis’ little known and under appreciated “soul” catalog and open up his appeal to a new market which will grow his legacy rather than just appealing to the same record buying demographic?

Ernst: I’m not sure what you mean. We try and market as much of the catalog as possible, but there are recordings that have more sales appeal than others.

You mean: "we flog the catalog as much as possible."-Greg

EIN: Do we really need a plethora of greatest hits collections, eg. Elvis 30 #1 Hits, Elvis Golden Records Vols 1-5, Presley All-Time Greatest Hits, rather than just concentrating on one or two important releases as happens with artists such as The Beatles?

EJ: Yes we do. That’s how the record business works. We are not deleting titles that our retailers want.

Not to be rude, but this comes off as a totally bogus response.-Greg

EIN: Yet, for the greatest hits of The Beatles you really only have the Red & Blue albums and The Beatles 1. There is a similar situation with other major artists like Jimi Hendrix, Marc Bolan and The Doors.

Ernst: I have certainly seen a lot of Doors compilations, but the point is that Elvis music was developed in the “singles” area, where the others launched their careers when albums had become the main product. We can’t change the past.

Isn't that what Sony/BMG is doing? Elvis' albums sold respectively and even quite well for their era, as Ernst says himself here in the same interview. Another regretable response.-Greg

EIN: It has been suggested that BMG’s current policy actually “hurts” Elvis’ credibility with the general public. Some would say that if BMG focused on promoting only a small number of “strategic” albums, Elvis’ sales of those albums would put him on a par with the sales achievements of The Beatles, The Eagles etc and the resulting Diamond Awards etc could only improve his artistic credibility. What is your view on this position?

EJ: I think we have about 60 albums available through normal retail, and eventually all the rest will be available through FTD. I think the question is based on a misunderstanding of the marketplace - confusing what the fan wants versus the what the general consumer wants. A romantic illusion. After all “Elvis Golden Records Vol 1” and “Elvis Christmas Album (the Camden Version) were Elvis’ best selling albums while he lived – not “Elvis IS Back” or “From Elvis In Memphis”.

Nothing surprising about that, but the last two weren't flops by a long-shot. As stated above, this a poor response, attempting to apologize for a mess of a catalog.

We're not romantics. That's a red herring. And some of us know a thing or two not only about how businesses (not just the record industry) operate, but also the history of Elvis' record sales. To say otherwise is a cheap shot, not that the internet world of Elvis fans doesn't have its share of cranks.

If I read correctly in Jerry Hopkins' book recently ( I don't have it in front of me), "Elvis Is Back" I think made it to #2 and was a "million seller." Probably not the true picture (Blue Hawaii outsold it) but outside of a few turkeys, so much of the catalog can be defended today -and sell steadily overtime. Championing such original releases over multiple (and absurd) hit or theme collections is actually the saner choice.

And do retailers really know what Elvis albums are? Believe in the catalog and stop flogging it and maybe they'd come to the table knowing that you have to keep some or all of his catalog in print. Otherwise, let it go out of print. People come to Elvis, not the other way around.

The genre sets could have potential, but in the end, seem to be another "filleting" of his music.

The E1 phenomenon continues to distort the reality that Elvis' sales are not limitless. Stick to a game plan that will age well and the legacy will be secure.

And the notion that we're championing some pie in the sky or false sense of Elvis' career is reads as corporate spin. Why bother attempting to apologize or "clarify" this very short-sighed corporate sales plan? Even in his career, Elvis' releases were too often a mess and I suppose it was too much to hope for: a continuing re-ordering of the catalog as happened mostly in the '90s for too-brief a period.

I recognize that Mr. Jorgensen ultimately has to nod along with the imperatives of the corporate suits. That sounds harsh, but so did the somewhat condescending tone of the interview. The interviewer probably could have been better armed with responses.