West Coast Connection Forum

DUBCC - Tha Connection => Outbound Connection => Topic started by: The-Leak (aka) kingwell (bka) JULES on May 25, 2007, 10:30:23 PM

Title: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: The-Leak (aka) kingwell (bka) JULES on May 25, 2007, 10:30:23 PM
In Hollywood, when hardly anyone is interested in an upcoming film, they say it isn’t “tracking” well. I’m assuming that’s what’s going on with the new 50 Cent album. In case you haven’t heard, Curtis was recently pushed way the fuck back to September from its original release date next month.

Of course the official reason Fiddy gave this site is that there was some snafu on the manufacturing end that’s going to take another month or so to fix.

To wit:

“Yes it’s true my album has been pushed back because it wasn’t delivered to the plant in order to be distributed and delivered world wide so it has to be pushed back,” 50 told XXLMag.com.

Which sounds like a buncha BS to me, no offense to my benefactor or anything.

The reason we know it only takes a few days to print up a buncha copies of an album is because that’s when a lot of these albums end up getting bootlegged. On the rare occasion that an album makes it through its entire promotional cycle without being leaked, like with the last T.I. album, it still ends up hitting the streets a few days before it hits the stores, because that’s when it’s being manufactured.

Once you send an album off to be manufactured, there’s basically no way to keep it from being leaked. You’ll recall that this is why I had to call bullshit last year when Lupe Fiasco announced that he was going to prevent his album from being bootlegged by waiting until the last minute to record it. (Haven’t parts of that shit been bootlegged already?)

Speaking of which, I can only imagine the fallout if Curtis somehow ended up on the Internets some time next month, a couple of months still before its new street date. Granted album sales are already down so much these days, but if Linkin Park can sell 700,000 of its new… um, release, then I’m sure that Jimmy et al. over at Interscope are counting on the Fiddy album to be able to pull something similar.

Part of the reason it’s being pushed back is because they want to release it on the same day worldwide. A lot of bands these days will release their album on one day in Europe and then wait six months later to release it here in the US, but obviously that’s not an option with Curtis. If they tried anything like that with Fiddy’s album, people would just bootleg the shit out of it everywhere it’s not already out.

At any rate, the longer the new Fiddy album sits around waiting to be released, the more likely it is to end up in the hands of Arabs, and you know what that means. Curtis could single handedly end up funding the next 9/11. No but really, if I’m 50 Cent, and obviously I’m not (have you seen my abs lately?), I’m not sure if I’d even want to take the chance of having my shit so widely bootlegged.

So obviously the problem with the new 50 Cent album has to do with marketing more so than manufacturing. My guess is that the TIs at Interscope are aware that basically no one at all likes any of the umpteen singles so far, and so far this beef with Cam’ron, from which the album received its title, even, has been more sad than it’s been genuinely amusing, so they’re gonna try to do something between now and September to generate some more interest.

It’ll be interesting to see what that is.

-Byron Crawford
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: The King on May 25, 2007, 11:51:56 PM
I agree with some of the stuff said. This album can't flop. And the executives at Interscope are so scared it might, they are pushing it back. Would it have flopped? We'll if they would've kept the released date in June, it probably wouldn't have. It might have done a mill in 2 weeks, but they probably won't take that chance. An international release is a good idea, since their banking on worldwide sales.

The problem is, the promotion and buzz for this was huge already. 2 videos, 2 more to come, BET performance the same day as the release date, 50 been hitting every major hiphop tv show, interviews, the beefs. This thing had huge buzz, and they threw that all away.

Now Interscope has to start all over again, and re-promote the album. That probably means half the songs finished will be thrown away, which may be good. Maybe their doing what they did for Banks. Waited for a better single (Hands Up) to be made + a video for it, since Cake and My House weren't doing well. The problem again, is the huge single Hands up, didn't work. He had huge buzz in the summer, then they pushed him back. It happened to Busta, Buck, Banks. It happened to them all.

You announce a release date, build a buzz, then push it back. It's a horrible way to do business.

The only good thing to come out of this is a better album. With more time he'll put more effort, and maybe a better Dr.Dre single. But I doubt he'll sell as well as he would've.
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: Narrator on May 26, 2007, 02:12:18 AM
I think the singles failing to heat up the charts definitely has some part in the pushback, but keep in mind that this is 50 Cent we're talking about here.  In spite of the fact that G-Unit isn't nearly as commercially successful right now as they were just 2 years ago, it's safe to say that "Curtis" is going to sell well over a million copies at an absolute minimum, and probably more.  Will it sell as much as his last two?  Almost surely not, given the decline of G-Unit and the decline of record sales in general.  But really, I think this album is commercially bulletproof regardless of whether its singles become hits.
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: wcsoldier on May 26, 2007, 02:40:04 AM
people who think being pushed back gonna help his sales are in denial... it's gonna hurt them a lot.. I don't know what y'all talking about, Staight to the bank was doing well, Amusement Park gonna be (would be now) a huge hit for the ladies... I don't like both of these tracks but I didn't see this album floppin at all by droppin June 26 th.. now it's gonna flop 4 sure
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: Elevz on May 26, 2007, 02:55:47 AM
^^ What makes you say they were (going to be) huge hits? Amusement Park hasn't even entered the charts yet (except for #50 in the Hot Rap Tracks) and Straight To The Bank is already down from the Billboard Hot 100 (!!!) after entering unimpressively only two weeks ago.

50 is all over the place (I mean look at the amount of 50-topics in Outbound), but his sales don't reflect any of this. I'm guessing it's safe to say for the first time 50's marketing team has failed so far...
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: sniperuk on May 26, 2007, 05:25:23 AM
the more likely it is to end up in the hands of Arabs, and you know what that means. Curtis could single handedly end up funding the next 9/11.








wtf?
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: Mr. O on May 26, 2007, 10:04:27 AM
...and they wonder why he's taking over rapcity.
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: Lunatic on May 26, 2007, 10:14:17 AM
50 won't sell no more then 2.5 mill (in the u.s.)
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: edimean22 on May 26, 2007, 05:57:43 PM
nigga he gon sell maybe 1.5 mil
Title: Re: Why was Curtis pushed back? (Read this)
Post by: BIG.DADDY on May 27, 2007, 03:17:00 PM
with 50's shit being pushed back till September, what does that do for detox? safe to say that wont be out in '07