CSPC: Bruno Mars Popularity Analysis

• 24
Shares

The Commensurate Sales to Popularity Concept (CSPC)

There are two ways to understand this revolutionary concept. The first is the Scribe video posted below. If you are unaware of the CSPC method, you will get the full idea within just a few minutes.

If you are a mathematical person, and want to know the full method as well as formulas, you can read the full introduction article.

Now let’s get into the artist’s sales figures in detail in order to apply this concept and define the act’s true popularity!

16 thoughts on “CSPC: Bruno Mars Popularity Analysis”

1. Tom Riise says:

Impressive numbers for Bruno Mars 🙂

2. Al says:

Great numbers! Especially in the Philippines! Any reason for that?

Also you wrote Bruce Mars on page 17 just to point that out.

1. Hi Al!

Sometimes we really do weird typos 😉 now fixed, thanks!

About the Philippines, his roots are their, his mom is from this country, no doubt it helped! He also donated a lot of money after the typhoon in the past so clearly he remains linked to his origins and the people from there seem to reward that to him pretty well.

3. Gt says:

You do a great job and I trust your data, but your CSPC method seems very strange to me and it does not convince me. 10 digital singles, 1,5 albums and 1500 streams, 1.6 albums are a big inflation. Streaming and digital singles dont generate as much money as for that equivalence. Bruno Mars has sold almost 20 million more than in the last update. If you change your method again, in the next update he will have sold 80 million albums.

1. Hi Gt,

Why is it strange? I explained both ratios (downloads/ringtones and streams, both audio and video) on detailed articles based very precisely on the money grossed and the consumers habits.

If you check the US sales report for the first half of 2017, you will notice that CD sales grossed \$431 million while streaming grossed \$2478 million. You can add CD, LP and album downloads together, you will still fall short of half of the gross from streams. In fact, streaming represents now 62% of the gross against 16% for physical products. I say “now”, but streams are advancing so much that they already increased some 25% more since. During the full year 2017, the gross should end close to \$6 billion – to give you an idea, that’s almost as much as the entire US industry of 2010-2015 years which totalled \$7 billion each.

There won’t be relevant method changes in the future since now all formulas are mature. Bruno gained 15m, a pretty normal figure with the change of downloads, the success of his last album and the massive ongoing sales/streams of his catalog.

Oh and one last thing, the likes Mariah, Celine etc built 80m-ish catalogs in no time too, that’s kind of natural when you are one of the biggest acts in the planet!

1. Gt says:

Not counting his latest album, Bruno Mars has sold around 15 million albums in less than a year. That’s not normal. I know the importance of streaming, but you greatly inflate streaming of spotify, while you are barely count YouTube streaming (billboard will count youtube streaming for billboard 200). But one thing compensates to the other. However, I think the change of itunes downloads is very disproportionate. Singles can not equal 1.5 albums and less today, that all singles are discounted.

1. Gt, you seem to be mixing various things together.

Bruno hasn’t climb by 15 million in a year on a like-to-like basis, even less without the last album. That one is up to 5,65m, that already let us with a climb of “only” 9,5m. He was on 127m estimated by last year, now 149m. The new era brought 8m out of that 22m gap, catalog sales about 9m and previous figures’ underestimations some 5m. Then the ratio update (from 10:1 to 10:1,5) gives him 6m+ from his former digital sales and the new sales one more million. Basically, the increase is:
– 5,65m from new music
– 6,35m ratio change
– 600k catalog album sales
– 1,35m catalog track sales (9m)
– 1,3m catalog streams
– minus 2050k streams adjustments (downgrade of Spotify as per IFPI figures)
– plus 750k estimates adjustments (5m downloads, missed first mostly due to songs having distinct versions counted seperately)

While you are claiming his catalog sold 15m in one year, in reality it did 3,25 million in 15 months, quite a difference.

You argue downloads are cheaper now – it’s untrue, the RIAA yearly statistics show the same average for 10 years, e.g. \$1,2 (in 2016, \$907m gross, 751m units). You also forget those digital sales include ringtones which were worth nearly \$2,5 against albums at \$9,9 per unit.

Basing figures on valid facts is better than on impressions. There is nothing “greatly inflated”, there is evidences.

4. Marlon Serpa says:

Justin Timberlake deserves a study!

1. Marlon Serpa says:

Plus N’Sync

5. Mauricio Rivera Vera says:

Prices were increased from ~\$0.10 to around \$1.00 and sales volume decreased 2-3 times.

1. Hi Mauricio!

There is no weighting specific to countries for various reasons. The first is that prices are different everywhere, for all records, including albums. It isn’t possible to track all that, what we can do is work with averages. Once we start building exceptions, it gets messy. The second is that in a mechanics perspective, big changes of offer will be offset by big changes in consumption. In other words, if downloads go down, albums / streaming go up which balances everything. Look at how Korea is the only place where Adele’s 25 sold much more than 21, taht one itself starting to sell only from 2015.

The last point is that the price change which occured in SK is very poorly described online, the “big price increase in 2013” was indeed in reality a big price decrease in 2012.

Below is the sales number of the annual #100 hit:
2011 1643k
2012 1426k
2013 746k

Those figures explain why people though the price was massively increased in 2013. Let’s now check the annual gross of downloads only (in \$ millions):
2011 47,042
2012 14,72
2013 6,498

As you can see, while units sold went down only by 13% in 2012, the gross collapsed by 69%. In concrete words, as streaming was taking over (it doubled that year), downloads platforms tried to react by dividing the price by 3. Sales figures continued to be pretty thanks to that, although money-wise they haven’t prevent the loss with this strategy.

In 2013, the gross per download was roughly similar to the one of 2012, but the streaming explosion was inevitable, the share of DLs went from 43% to 6% from 2011 to 2013 while streaming increased from 36% to 85%.

Some may think those late cheap downloads shouldn’t be counted. But when we consider that:
– album sales for foreign acts are basically dead in SK
– Spotify isn’t used in SK which means we aren’t counting their streams either

At the end of the day, those downloads are our only way to factore in the western act’s popularity there. Download figures can look artificially inflated, but it is completely offset by the absence of sales in other formats.

6. GEORGE says:

unorthodox jutebox got like 6million+ by 2014 but its number in 2017 is 6.8million how is that accurate

1. Hi George,

I’m not sure to understand the meaning of your comment. Do you think it is too low or too high?

BTW, UJ wasn’t over 6 million by 2014. Below are his IFPI numbers:
2012 – 1,7 million
2013 – 3,2 million
2014 – 0,8 million
= 5,7 million units shipped by the end of the year.

7. Generis says:

So ifpi shipped for “Unorthodox Jukebox” 5.7M and you inflated 1.1M more sales it seems with bruno’s don’t apply ifpi numbers too, funny.

1. Hi Generis,

Are you that much of a troll, really? Do you think UJ sold 0 copy since the end of 2014, for real? Stop whining and start learning.

8. George says:

sorry maybe mine was sps don’t know if they use sps