Posted May 28, 201411 yr There's been a dramatic decrease in album sales this year and I really do think that if things do not improve, they should really think about lowering album certification thresholds- especially at which an album becomes 'Platinum' that's getting harder for acts to reach at this rate. I also don't know why after reaching GOLD, there is such a big gap to reach Platinum. Just an opinion but wondered what y'all thought :D
May 28, 201411 yr I do agree that the album thresholds need to be changed. The single ones are equally ordered yet Gold for album is so close to Silver for some reason. I believe, it should either go: Silver | 100,000 Gold | 200,000 Platinum | 300,000 or a more likely result, due to falling album sales Silver | 50,000 Gold | 100,000 (125,000 is too awkward!) Platinum | 200,000
May 28, 201411 yr Author Silver | 50,000 Gold | 100,000 (125,000 is too awkward!) Platinum | 200,000 I think it would be ideal for Platinum to be reduced to 200,000 as that gap is ridiculous for some acts to reach.
May 28, 201411 yr I totally agree with this, in fact I was thinking about only earlier today! Katy Perry is a prime example of falling album sales, Teenage Dream effortlessly nosedived over its millionth sale yet PRISM - which I feel is also a brilliant album - has only just passed platinum after both Roar and Dark Gorse being huge, and with all the hype it's had you'd think it would've at least passed the half a million mark by now! Silver - 50,000 Gold - 100,000 Platinum - 200,000 Platinum x2 - 400,000 Platinum x3 - 600,000 and so on...
May 28, 201411 yr If I'm honest, I think (if anything) they should have INCREASED when album sales were at their peak. I think a platinum selling album should be DIFFICULT to get, and only the best selling albums should have it. Gold and silver certifications are about right too. The fact that it's taking the likes of Paloma etc a while to get there is irrelevant; it's achievable and at least they can say they deserve it when they get there.
May 28, 201411 yr Not sure if I agree with lowering the benchmark just because sales are falling - If we continue like that we'll end up awarding a Silver certification for 10,000 sales!
May 28, 201411 yr They should absolutely be lowered. Certifications exist to reward artists for impressive sales and it is entirely unfair to measure releases in 2014 the same way we measured releases in 2000 considering how much more difficult it is to shift 300k than it was back then. The way certifications should be approached is simple. Set a target for the number of Silver/Gold/Platinum albums each year and shift the certification thresholds to try and keep that target close enough to being met every year. Aside from anomaly years with more or less big releases than usual, that would ensure fairness in the system. My own choice would be something along the lines of: Silver - 50k (never understood why this was the rather odd number of 60k) Gold - 100k (I think Gold has historically been too low a threshold) Platinum - 200k As much as chopping 100k off Platinum seems a tad extreme, it brings the UK in line with most other countries where Platinum is double the threshold of Gold. "Certifications should be hard to get" doesn't work as an argument because certifications should not change in their difficulty of being acquired over time - if they were too easy to get in 2000 then they should be too easy to get in 2014, too. Not to mention the definition of what's "too easy" is entirely personal (I don't believe it has ever been too easy to achieve a Platinum album). Maintaining a constant difficulty level is much fairer and less biased.
May 28, 201411 yr Author I think it would be impressive just to see an artist manage to shift 150k this year let alone 300k.
May 28, 201411 yr I think the record industry really needs to look at added value and innovation rather than reducing certification thresholds - Music is as still as popular as ever however the UK record companies seem not to have adapted to the way in which people want to access it [in relation to the albums market].
May 29, 201411 yr Katy Perry is a prime example of falling album sales, Teenage Dream effortlessly nosedived over its millionth sale yet PRISM - which I feel is also a brilliant album - has only just passed platinum after both Roar and Dark Gorse being huge, and with all the hype it's had you'd think it would've at least passed the half a million mark by now! Off topic but I'd love to see your definition of effort if: six hit singles over the course of a year and a half (all of which had heavily hyped and teased, big budget videos), collaborations and remixes for single versions with high-profile rappers, massive TV promotion, continuous print and media exposure (not to mention a very public marriage and break-up), a huge arena tour, an album re-release off the back of a held-back #1 single etc. etc. (at which point I think the album+re-release finally crossed the million mark)...is effortless? :P. I can't actually name an album campaign that put more effort into attaining sales than 'Teenage Dream' :D. I think 'Prism', as the follow-up to her smash 'era' and in a somewhat tougher market, is doing absolutely fine, all things considered. On topic, I wouldn't mind an amendment to silver but I like 300k as the figure for platinum and believe it's still suitable (although at the same time, I do get the arguments for it to be more reflective of the market so I don't really know :unsure:). Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Noahspike
May 29, 201411 yr The only change I would suggest would be to reduce Silver to 50k, since 60k never made any sense to me.
May 29, 201411 yr Of course they shouldn't. You have to able to do like for like comparisons. New differently named lower awards should be introduced if anything.
May 29, 201411 yr No, I think they're fine as they are. I would, however, like to see a Diamond Award introduced for 1 million.
May 29, 201411 yr Author No, I think they're fine as they are. I would, however, like to see a Diamond Award introduced for 1 million. I think that's a bit pointless since 3 x platinum is like 100,000 less than 1 million
May 29, 201411 yr Well, without even considering the state of the album market, it slightly annoys me that they don't go up in equal amounts. :kink: Should go: Silver - 100k Gold - 200k Platinum - 300k With regards to the poor sales climate, I'm kinda torn. On one hand, it would be nice to have certifications relevant to the sales climate, because a 300k album these days would have sold more copies many years back, and certifications could be a good way to reflect that. However, it could also be a good way to reflect that sales were low - only x number of albums went platinum last year so it's clear that the climate is worse than 10 years before, for example. Also, consistency is good.
May 29, 201411 yr Of course they shouldn't. You have to able to do like for like comparisons. New differently named lower awards should be introduced if anything. Copper Certification - 10 sales Brass Certification - 20 sales Fake Silver Certification - 35 sales :lol:
May 29, 201411 yr Author Well you never know, album sales may increase again next year and everyone will be like, remember the time sales were ridiculously low ^_^
May 29, 201411 yr Of course they shouldn't. You have to able to do like for like comparisons. New differently named lower awards should be introduced if anything. But that's exactly why they should be lowered. You cannot compare Platinum albums from 2013 and Platinum albums from the early 2000s "like for like", because the market has changed and certifications haven't changed with it.
Create an account or sign in to comment