In France over the years and decades, the certification thresholds for albums and singles have gradually dropped alongside the gradually dropping sales climate. Presently, albums have a Platinum certification of 100,000 sales, while singles are Platinum after 150,000 sales. The reason for this is so that albums released in comparatively poor sales climates are not unfairly measured against albums released when sales are higher.

 

Obviously, the UK's album sales are consistently dropping, and in the mid-2000s saw a shocking drop in the level of single sales. It seems odd to me that given such fluctuating sales, the UK has never considered changing its certification thresholds. Many, many singles that were massive in years like 2004 have barely scraped Silver certifications, while comparatively 'was that really that big?' singles released in 2012 streak by Gold and even Platinum certifications. There's a similar but less extreme change in album certifications - obviously an album released in 2013 has to do a lot better in the chart to sell Platinum than an album released in 2003.

 

I know people are against "papering over the cracks" in the album market by stuff like adding compilations to the chart, but I don't think this is papering over the cracks. I think this is just like adjusting things for the effect of inflation - it ensures that historical comparisons are accurate. If two albums are released 10 years apart and have the exact same chart run (in the exact same parts of the year) but one is Platinum and one is Gold, can certifications really be deemed an accurate way of measuring album success?

 

I'd personally be quite happy to see certification thresholds in albums lowered a tad.

They were changed in January 1989, singles were 1,000,000 for platinum, 500,000 for silver and 250,000 for gold, this was reduced to the current levels for just the reasons you state, I think the chart supervisors/ BPI don't like playing about with it because it confuses people and if something sells 200,000 copies shouldn't be awarded the same status regardless of when it is released. I think there was more a case for altering in line with recession/ booms when only the physical was available or for a limited time, now that everything is available forever so even being released in a recession doesn't mean that it won't sell well when times are better?

They were changed in January 1989, singles were 1,000,000 for platinum, 500,000 for silver and 250,000 for gold, this was reduced to the current levels for just the reasons you state, I think the chart supervisors/ BPI don't like playing about with it because it confuses people and if something sells 200,000 copies shouldn't be awarded the same status regardless of when it is released. I think there was more a case for altering in line with recession/ booms when only the physical was available or for a limited time, now that everything is available forever so even being released in a recession doesn't mean that it won't sell well when times are better?

Oh! I wasn't aware of that. I really don't think confusing people is an issue - how many people will look at certifications and note sales other than people who'll have heard of the change in thresholds anyway? I see the point about digital sales but at the end of the day trickle sales mean very little when you're looking at figures in the hundreds of thousands. They're not going to push 'Toxic' into the million seller list any time this century.

 

I don't mind too much about singles, what happened in 2004 has been and gone and changing thresholds for less than a decade (2009 would have had so many Platinum singles with thresholds built for mid-2000s sales :lol:) only to have them spik again would be kind of ridiculous. However, if nothing else the refusal to adjust album certifications leads to inaccurate comparisons in artist discographies. Can a 2010 Kylie album really be fairly compared to a 2000 one without guesswork? I don't think cutting the Platinum album certification to 200k would do any harm. I don't think Gold should be altered because it's quite low here in comparison to other countries as is (most would have Platinum = 2x Gold, not 3x) and Silver is similarly alright. I could see media picking up on it in a negative light but I'd rather industry comparisons be fair than try to avoid negative press.

I'd just get rid of the lot of them. They are an anachronism these days.

It's people's decision to buy tracks/albums or not. And they can, they just have to decide.

 

Personally, I don't think consumption changes due to some recession or increased accessibility to music should influence a change to the certification thresholds. I'm certain there's some money to be spent in producing certifications for acts that achieve them.

300k definitely seems like too much for a platinum certification for an album these days. The only 2013 albums to have managed it so far are the 'Les Misérables' soundtrack, Bublé, Daft Punk, Rod Stewart, Bastille and Justin Timberlake. JT and Daft Punk have pretty much only scraped past despite absolutely humongous hype for both.