[ SECRET POST #4701 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4701 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #673.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

But what's the point? If the singles aren't that good, they get less radio play and playlist exposure and there's a lot of money in being on rotation on various "top something playlists" and still a lot of money in being played on the radio. No matter how good the rest of the album is, if the record company doesn't put it forward as a single, it isn't added to the playlists, etc., so it's not generating that much money for her...?

I mean, I'm indifferent about her, so I never check her full albums, I only know the singles, because that's what gets played in my gym and sometimes appears as the next autoplayed video on YT - I never get to her "better work" and I'm definately not the only one. If that's a strategy, then it's a shitty strategy.

[(Anonymous)]

But what's the point?

Like I said, controlling the narrative. If media outlets are going to get more clicks for negative reviews, let them have their negative reviews - then give them an album that is undeniably better than their negative reviews were predicting. A) they'll basically have the change their tune, and B) they won't mind changing their tune, because "we thought it was going to be trash but it's not!" is also pretty decent clickbait. The worst thing that can happen to Swift as a salable artist is for the media to finally get to proclaim that her new album is a flop. Because that's the first major step on the road to pop-cultural irrelevance (or at least drastically reduced relevance).

It doesn't matter if the first two singles suck. The media will talk about them and play them anyway, en masse, ad nauseam. But if the first two singles are strong and everything after that is weaker? That's inviting them to proclaim indifference way, way too early in the album's shelf life. It's just not a good marketing strategy for the point she's at in her career. There was a long while where leading with strong singles made sense, but not anymore.

Bland singles don't hurt her much. We've seen that pretty thoroughly by now. She and her team have run the numbers, and know that her singles will get a huge amount of radio play regardless, because they're her singles. The people who are going to buy the album buy the album anyway, because they're fans, or because they want in on the hype. Or because they're easy to please and they like mainstream pop music.

[(Anonymous)]

She's not really played all that much on European radio, but whatever. She's certainly earning millions, I don't really care if she's not earning 10.5 mliion a day instead of 8.5 million/day because she's choosing wrong singles.

You seem to pretty convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - maybe it is, maybe it's not. Maybe it's also just the case of "the songs you like better than the singles are getting less traction from their focus group or are acctually less in touch with current music trends and would fare even worse".