Thursday, October 17, 2019

[enter-talk] SUPER M IS ALSO GETTING CRITICIZED BY ROLLING STONE


(pic not included)

Article: here

Even the US' representative music journal Rolling Stone is bashing Super M for their #1 spot.
Rolling Stone's chart is the rival chart to Billboard's.
The article is pointing out how Super M had 60 merch/albums bundles and saying how they couldn't even beat out Kevin Gate's streaming for his one song 'By My Lonely' with all their songs combined. The article even talked about them as the "Number One drama" and is making fun of them. Money-Sooman, are you satisfied now?

post response:
[+713][-73]
original post: here

1. [+264, -11]
F*cking embarrassing

2. [+234, -11]
From the New York Times, Korea Herald, Buzzfeed to Rolling Stone ㅋ This is trouble. SM made the k-pop Avengers of the top bundle group

3. [+185, -8]
Hul, from the NY Times to Rolling Stone ㄷㄷ

4. [+76, -1]
I'm just someone who likes k-pop and I got curious after this post and went to look this up and there were a lot of people mentioning Bangtan in the comments. I'll tell you what it is. Did Bangtan achieve #1 with bundles? No. Did Bangtan do bundling before? Yes. Bangtan hit #1 3 times and the second time they hit #1 and they did their first stadium event and they did bundling once. The Forbes article talked about them and I went to read that article too to see if there were any proofs that they hit #1 because of bundling since that's what people were claiming. The article was released the day before their album came out and they were predicting Bangtan's success. The article didn't talk about the result of their album, but they were just predicting, as opposed to this case. The fact is that Bangtan could've became #1 on the Billboard charts regardless of bundling or not. People who are spreading the fact that Bangtan hit #1 because of bundles is really not true from what I see. They hit #1 just fine even without bundling. The other thing is the article saying that Super M had over 60 bundles available and were criticizing them, but whether it was 60, 100, or 200, it's true that it was a marketing tactic. People are saying "but even other big stars are doing it, Super M did went a bit overboard but what's the difference?". The issue is that the location of where the albums were bought was reflected on the American chart as said in Korea Herald. They had an interview talking about how most of the album sales were from Korea and I read that too. It was saying how the problem is that the sales from Korea are what made them rank on the American chart. They said that Super M sold over 110K album but we don't know how many of those were sold to Korea. BTS was #10 on Billboard's Hot100 with Fake Love, but Super M couldn't even rank on that chart. So this just means that their American fans might have bought all the 110K albums but they are not streaming their songs... Unless you tell me that their sales outside of US was what made them rank on the charts, this is an unexplainable situation.

5. [+72, -2]
The most problematic thing that's talked about Super M right now is the song sales. The US calculates your success based on your physical album sales + downloads + streaming. Super M sold over 160K physical albums but their number of downloads and streaming are terrible. A lot of people are talking about that. They are also saying how they have almost no US sales but were #1 on Billboard 200, but were not on any song charts, which was a curious occurence since it never happened on the Billboard. Their fans are shielding them saying how American singers also use bundles. But those singers who do bundling and hit #1 on the Billboard 200 are also #1 in song sales charts. This means that it's because they are that famous that they are selling well. Super M is nowhere on the charts. In other words, Super M was able to be on the Billboard because of their sales outside of the US.

0 comments:

Post a Comment