So for a critical mass of people the Beatles on iTunes is big news, and naturally they posted it to Facebook, which naturally got a higher than normal click-through rate. This combination of timeliness and virality is optimally captured by social media, and something for which search gets at best a trickle-down effect. But over the coming months, it becomes old news, and then people start searching for it.
And now having been reminded that The Beatles are now on iTunes, I'm gonna go download some.
Although it does make it very easy to complete a library that has all but one album or similar. Would be interesting to see how many complete sets were purchased vs. individual albums or even individual songs.
1. Experian Hitwise samples data from reporting service providers. According to Wikipedia [1] that's 10 million users in the United States. We all know how problematic Internet sampling can be for browser market share and so on, even if it is a large sample; and
2. What does apple.com have to do with the Beatles on iTunes? Most people I would guess access iTunes through the iTunes application.
Now I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just not convinced they're right. If Apple released their referrer stats, that'd be something else entirely.
You can link directly to a song or album within iTMS (the application) through an HTTP URL, which happens to be rooted on a subdomain of apple.com, which then redirects you to the actual itms:// scheme URI that opens iTunes.
Looking at the chart, I don't see it. Looks like it's within the normal noise to me. The second chart shows facebook going from 0.04% to 0.08% traffic. Not exactly something to write home about.
So why does hitwise's data show such different numbers for US and UK data?
Even twenty-somethings like myself probably own a few Beatles albums. Or we have transferred our parents' shelves full of LPs into a more durable format (or that's what we will tell the RIAA should they show up at our doors.)
http://www.allnewsmac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Th...
I got confused for a while, thought they'd photoshopped Steve Jobs's face over George Harrison's (left). Don't they look similar?
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i3...