My father-in-law forwarded a column by Michael Moore to me the other day. (Link works for now, but may only work for a while; it’s his “Mike’s Message” column from April 7.)
One of the major points that he makes is that it’s really not a financial risk to criticize the war or President Bush. He talks some about the box office performance of Bowling for Columbine after his controversial Oscar speech, and then makes a case study of the Dixie Chicks. An excerpt:
Now, I seem to recall reading that although their chart rankings remained excellent or improved, sales were actually down. Because sales were down for just about everybody that week, though, the Chicks’ chart positions weren’t negatively effected.
Moore cites a couple more examples (concert tickets still hard to find, Internet downloads of their song still really popular), then makes this assertion:
This is the statement I’m really curious about, and I’d like as factual an answer as is possible.
Did their anti-Bush comments cause the Dixie Chicks to lose money? What was the economic impact of Natalie Maines snarking on Bush? Is the media wrong about this, is Michael Moore wrong in his assertion, or is the truth somewhere in between?
[Obligatory note: I’m looking for a factual answer to this question. Not a debate about what the Chicks said, what Michael Moore said at the Oscars. I’m really not attempting to start yet another Iraqi war wrangle. Please don’t hijack my thread. Thank you.]
They did lose some radio airplay of their music. I’m not sure all the details but that might lead to less royalties for them.
Their US tour starts in 2 weeks and from what I have read the ticket sales were very high. They did not give refunds to people who wanted to return their tickets. There might be no-shows at the concerts which could impact sales of T-shirts and stuff like that.
I’d say that what Ms. Maines said had some effect on sales and airplay, but not as big of an effect as was expected. This, in part, probably comes from the fact that they do well enough crossing over to “pop” listeners so that boycotts by country-music listeners (the people doing most of the complaining) don’t have that large an effect.
Oddly enough, I also know some non-country music fans who bought their album as a show of support (they thought it was a remarkably brave thing to do – saying what you feel rather than what everyone wants you to say). Those albums will sit unopened on a shelf somewhere.
I also wondered a little if banning the song from radio play didn’t end up encouraging some CD sales because you had to buy the album to hear the songs you’d been enjoying freely on the air waves.
As Quinn pointed out, the Dixie Chicks also have major crossover appeal, so ticking off one fan-base isn’t going to hurt them as much as you’d expect.
Plus, U.S. audiences love the underdog, so if they are ever perceived as the “much-maligned Dixie Chicks” it can’t hurt them too badly.
Everything Mike Moore says about anything is cleverly disguised rhetoric and amounts to crap in reality.
The latest Dixie Chicks album was really good, and anti-Bush sentiment is strong enough even in Texas that it shouldn’t really have hurt them. As a Texan I have to say that I’m pretty mad that Bush claims to be one.
I think it’s too soon to get a definitive answer to the question. It might be worth asking again in a year or so. The answer should be fairly obvious by then.
Sauron, that’s a good point. The real impact of their statements may not be known for a long while. Of course, it’s going to be difficult to figure out what would’ve happened to their career if they hadn’t made those statements. That’s probably too hypothetical for GQ.
I guess my question is more specific: as of April 7 (the date of Moore’s column), was there conclusive evidence that the Dixie Chicks lost money, made money or broke even because of those comments? I’m willing to believe any of those scenarios at this point.
Heh, no offense, but buying the Dixie Chicks’ album to “show your support”? How could their single purchase possibly stand out against the millions and millions of others who buy it? It’s called “popular music” for a reason, ya know.
It is very hard to talk about whether they “made money”, for several reasons. First, most measurements of “made money” have to do with unit sales of their records, or sales of concert tickets. Those are not direct measurements of how much income the Dixie Chicks themselves get. Some acts are able to get terrific deals with concert promoters that guarantee a certain (high) minimum, regardless of ticket sales.
The Dixie Chicks’ concert series was announced, and basically sold out, before Natalie made her comment. I suspect that, had she made it prior the road trip was announced, it might not have sold out so soon (but, it probably would’ve sold out anyway).
A single person buying their album, who otherwise would not have, as a show of support, makes exactly as much sense as a single person who otherwise would have bought the album boycotting it in protest. I won’t discuss (in GQ, at least) exactly how logical that is, but it’s equally logical either way.
I believe I read somewhere recently (sorry, I don’t have a link) that the Dixie Chick in question has retracted a bit from her initial anti-Bush comments…saying, in effect, that they were meant as a joke or something like that.
IF this is true, I think it would indicate that the Dixie Chicks themselves believe the comments are hurting CD and/or ticket sales. I mean, you wouldn’t backpedal on comments that caused sales to SURGE, would you?
As usual, Michael Moore is completely misreading the controversy.
When the media reported that the Dixie Chicks were losing sales due to their political remarks, they were NOT doing so with a “Ha ha, those stupid liberals are losing money, serves them right” tone. Quite the opposite. They reported it it with an outraged tone. “This is terrible! Those women have constitutional rights! How DARE anybody boycott their CDs and concerts.”
It was the same during the first Gulf War. I lost count of how many times liberal columnists and commentators shed tears for poor Woody Harrelson, who was allegedly losing roles and paychecks because of his opposition to the war (“thirtysomething” devoted a whole episode to a thinly disguised Woody Harrelson). I repeat, it was NOT conservatives who reprted that Woody HArrelson was being hurt- it was liberals who made that claim, in hopes of gaining sympathy for Woody. (In reality, it’s hard to imagine how Woody’s career could have gone much BETTER after the Gulf War!).
Now, HAS the controversy cost the Dixie Chicks money? My GUESS (it’s only a guess) is that it’s cost them a small amount of money, but not enough for anybody to get excited about. People who liked their music before, still do. People who bought tickets for their upcoming concerts aren’t going to burn those tickets.
But most people just don’t take entertainers all that seriously as political spokespersons. VERY few people take the Dixie Chicks seriously enough to bother boycotting them.
In my opinion, IF the war had gone badly, they MIGHT have experienced a more severe backlash. But since the war SEEMS to have ended fairly quickly, easily and painlessly, there aren’t likely to be many real repercussions.
Okay, so far we’ve had seven speculations and zero sources of information to the answer to the OP, which includes, “I’m looking for a factual answer to this question.” Just making sure we’re all on the same page.
I was flipping through the April 5, 2003 issue of Billboard and there is a regular column in there which deals with album sales. It said that sales of the Dixie Chicks album had declined after the remarks were made, but it was still the in the #1 position on the Top Country Albums chart. Also, album sales are traditionally “soft” at this time of year, so a downward trend in sales isn’t unexpected.
I changed my mind. I’m leaving it open, and I’m just going to summarily ban the author of any subsequnt post which is not a factual contribution to the question below.
shrug I think the theory behind buying the album in “support” is that, as Chronos said, it offsets the “damage” of those who would normally buy it but aren’t. I don’t think it’s particularly meant to stand out in any way.
I’m sure the songwriters who wrote the songs are happy enough to get their 7 cents.