HMV responds to Morrissey’s “Queen Is Dead” singles sales complaints - Pitchfork

HMV Responds to Morrissey’s “Queen Is Dead” Singles Sales Complaints - Pitchfork
By Jazz Monroe, June 20th.

Retailer says they wanted to “give genuine fans as much chance as possible to buy a copy”

HMV has responded to Morrissey’s Facebook post accusing the store of trying to “freeze sales” of the Smiths’ “The Queen Is Dead” single reissue. Morrissey complained Saturday that the store was limiting the 7" and 12" singles’ sales to one-per-customer. (He encouraged fans to wear false noses, clip-on ears, nurse outfits, stilts, or “variable wigs” to fool cashiers.) In a statement to Pitchfork, HMV says they wanted to “give genuine fans as much chance as possible to buy a copy” of the limited-edition single, and that, by Saturday, it had nearly sold out anyway. Read their full statement below.

"Our stores are encouraged to use these stickers where a release is known to be extremely limited in order to prevent bulk buying and on-line resales at inflated prices. This approach gives genuine fans as much chance as possible to find and buy a copy. Over 90% of the allocation we were given across both formats had sold before Morrissey posted his comments on Saturday evening."

The Pitchfork story was immediately then shared via N.M.E.:
HMV responds to Morrissey’s ‘sales freeze’ claims.
http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-hmv-smiths-freeze-sales-response-2090678

Regards,
FWD.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Judging from 28 years' endless re-releases, they indeed handed over these rights, too. Otherwise both Morrissey and Marr would have launched lawsuits against the respective label(s) (including the current case).

yes, agree. Sorry but I was talking about... Is there something in the contract where they both agreed to by signing it that once it reaches the store that they do or do not have any say in how it is sold.

Because there are these stickers on other artists records also , so I assume the decision to put them on the records is the stores and not the labels.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

No, it's Mike Joyce's money.

Hasn't he complained yet?
Or am I now giving him an idea?

I'm sure Joyce was salivating heavily at the first mention of a Smiths release. So he was most likely on top of it.. in regards to getting his cut. As he should.



But, I'm not talking about that.

What I'm saying is... That record companies are a service that the artist pays for. So whatever money the company puts up first will be reimbursed to the company plus service costs. So in reality, the money is always the artists. And so the artists should have a say on how it's sold, though we do not know what is in their contracts that they agreed to.

My post was in reply to SuedeMoz.. who said 'How much money did the record company invest into the process of creating the physical product for this release? Doesn't that give them a say into how it's sold?'

and Uncleskippy.. who said.. 'Because he likes spending other peoples' money, not his own. It's that simple.'

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, we all know what reason is going to be given. So now, won't they just confess and tell us why they are censoring Morrissey? (for the proof is... obvious as snow) and who told them to do it? Surely someone's palms are getting greased.

How is censoring Morrissey if 100 different customers buy the CD instead of Grim buying 100 copies to sell on ebay at inflated prices?

 

[Anonymous]

How is censoring Morrissey if 100 different customers buy the CD instead of Grim buying 100 copies to sell on ebay at inflated prices?

Obviously his message is in the sales strategy

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Obviously his message is in the sales strategy

yep.

 

[Anonymous]

Obviously his message is in the sales strategy

Hum-grum lives and hearless ears. No one helps or aids the one, but one. Nonsense is a senseless word in a stinky world. Tried, try, trying... and repeat! xx