I saw the other thread concerning the album certifications and I thought why not make this? The UK music market is MUCH smaller than the US however our certifications are so much higher in ratio with the states. You need only 1,000,000 sales to be certified platinum across the pond yet 600,000 sales are needed over here! Florence + The Machine's Shake It Out peaked at #72 on the Billboard Hot 100 and was certified platinum yet half of our #1's fail to even reach Gold status. I feel the certification boundaries should be:

 

Silver: 100,000

Gold: 200,000

Platinum: 400,000

 

This is just my opinion however, what do you think? :lol:

 

 

I think making it easier for artists to gain a certification kind of makes them meaningless? Like in Australia where a single peaks at #21 and gets certified triple platinum!

I think making it easier for artists to gain a certification kind of makes them meaningless? Like in Australia where a single peaks at #21 and gets certified triple platinum!

 

Well yes I agree with the fact that Australia's certifications are ridiculously low haha :lol:

If anything the reverse- they should be increased. Taking into account inflation and the relative cost of "singles" and albums these days it should take more to get certain certifications, the amount of million sellers over the last 5 years bears this out.

I was actually gonna say that they should be increased. :D I think Silver should be 300k as many hit songs end up reaching that line

Edited May 28, 201411 yr by Let Go For 2nite

Just because the threshold for a platinum disc is fairly low in the US as a proportion of the population does not mean we should follow suit. With a relatively higher threshold a platinum disc from the UK should count as being more prestigious than one from the US. Let's keep it that way.

Personally I think the UK certifications are a bit iffy but I'm not sure how to approach it. I like Silver and Gold but I'm not a huge fan of how difficult it is for a British single to go multi-Platinum in comparison to (as mentioned), the US. At the same time Platinum at 600k seems like a great number too. So I'm undecided.

 

In any case the time for significantly lowering certifications in UK singles has been and gone. This isn't the mid-2000s anymore.

I think they are about right, I like the idea of a 'million seller' being the big milestone so raising platinum wouldn't be something I would be up for either. I also like that we don't have ludicrous numbers of songs being certified as like 4/5/6 times platinum, just devalues the achievement of actually managing it.

I think they are about right, I like the idea of a 'million seller' being the big milestone so raising platinum wouldn't be something I would be up for either. I also like that we don't have ludicrous numbers of songs being certified as like 4/5/6 times platinum, just devalues the achievement of actually managing it.

Yes but there's not much value on achieving 4x Platinum when it is essentially an impossible feat :lol: 2x Platinum is very much the "elite" certification, though I suppose I could see 'Happy' nabbing 3x Platinum down the line.

I think the way we have it right now it actually means that for the very, very rare song that will sell 2.4 million/4x Platinum it really is a huge achievement, which it absolutely should be. If the maximum threshold is such that it's a regular occurrence for even moderate hits to pass it then I think it's not doing what it's supposed to do, ie. reward those songs which are sufficiently popular among a broad section of the public.

 

Yes, that isn't actually a problem with the UK system and actually my problem with the US (and other) system, but hey it's kind of topic appropriate.

I think the way we have it right now it actually means that for the very, very rare song that will sell 2.4 million/4x Platinum it really is a huge achievement, which it absolutely should be. If the maximum threshold is such that it's a regular occurrence for even moderate hits to pass it then I think it's not doing what it's supposed to do, ie. reward those songs which are sufficiently popular among a broad section of the public.

 

Yes, that isn't actually a problem with the UK system and actually my problem with the US (and other) system, but hey it's kind of topic appropriate.

I think it's a happy middle that should be reached. The US are very lenient, Australia more, but I think the UK is perhaps a tad too far on the other side of the spectrum. Though I can see what you mean about a song reaching 4x Platinum being extremely special due to the high thresholds.

A Platinum certification award is supposed to indicate a rare and special achievement but over the past few years the amount of singles qualifying for the award have been so numerous that it is no longer a special event. Lowering the sales threshold needed to qualify for a Platinum award would make a mockery of what the award is supposed to represent. The sales level should be higher not lower. However having once lowered the sales thresholds for Silver, Gold and Platinum (in January 1989, following what had just happened in the US for Gold and Platinum awards), the BPI are unlikely to ever raise the Platinum threshold back to its old level of 1,000,000 sales.

 

As for the US: the RIAA did in fact raise the sales thresholds needed for downloads to qualify for Gold and Platinum awards. When the certification awards scheme was introduced for downloads in 2004 the levels were set at 100,000 for Gold and 200,000 for Platinum. The industry didn't foresee that downloads would be so popular and when sales of downloads soared in 2005 and 2006 the amount of records qualifying for Platinum and then multi-Platinum awards became so numerous that the RIAA had to quickly revise the certification scheme and decided to set the sales levels needed to qualify for an award at the same levels needed to qualify for Gold and Platinum under physical singles sales, 500,000 and 1,000,000 sales respectively. At least in the UK the BPI were astute enough to just allow downloads to be certified in the same way, and at the same sales levels, as physical singles and didn't see a need to have separate certification award schemes for physical and digital singles.

 

Incidentally the RIAA in the US have now gone one stage further and have introduced a "Combined" Digital Single Award which allows labels to apply for certifications based on a mixture of downloads and on-demand audio and video streams. Under the new scheme, which replaced the old Digital Single award scheme in May 2013, the qualifying levels for a certification award are 500,000 units for Gold and 1,000,000 for Platinum. A unit is one permanent digital download or 100 on-demand audio and/or video streams. For video streams only official label/company videos count, not user generated videos.

 

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?co...ear_filter=2013

 

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?co...new-combined-GP

 

Let's hope the BPI do not follow the RIAA lead and allow audio and video streams to count towards certification levels in the UK.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Robbie

Incidentally the RIAA in the US have now gone one stage further and have introduced a "Combined" Digital Single Award which allows labels to apply for certifications based on a mixture of downloads and on-demand audio and video streams. Under the new scheme, which replaced the old Digital Single award scheme in May 2013, the qualifying levels for a certification award are 500,000 units for Gold and 1,000,000 for Platinum. A unit is one permanent digital download or 100 on-demand audio and/or video streams. For video streams only official label/company videos count, not user generated videos.

Yes, so Justin Bieber's "Baby" is now certified 12x Platinum, despite having just crept past 4,000,000 downloads!

 

--

 

Australia's thresholds are preposterously low, leading to Party Rock Anthem's 13x Platinum certification. Also, Tinie Tempah's "Written in the Stars" only reached #34 with a less-than-amazing chart run, but because it was during Q4 and its peak coincided with the gift-card-effect-week, it reached Platinum status.

 

I think the UK's certifications are okay as they are, but perhaps Platinum could be increased to 800,000 (doubling every time up to Platinum and then every 800k for multiples ???), but I do like 600,000, it's just a nice, round number.

 

If I'm right, I think Germany have a system where they have a Gold (150,000) and Platinum (300,000) status, but between Platinum and 2x Platinum (600,000) there's 3x Gold (450,000) and so on for 5x, 7x etc.. It gets confusing but it makes sense what they're trying to do :lol: HOWEVER, after June 1, 2014, Germany are actually increasing their thresholds to 200k for Gold and 400k Platinum, whilst introducing a Diamond certification for 1,000,000 sold.

Ten years ago we had this same discussion, and with the abysmal singles sales then, there was far more justification - but then sales recovered and the argument went away. For that reason, I would have to vote no.

I feel Platinum should be a status that a 'Hit' ala I Got U by Duke Dumont should be able to reach, and Multi-Platinum should be what 'Monster Hits' like La La La should hit, and then songs like Candle In the Wind should be able to reach Diamond as it seems as if it's an impossible feat to earn.

There's absolutely no need to lower certifications right now, it's good that platinum and especially double platinum are hard to achieve, as others have said, as it would devalue it if any old song could get there.

I feel Platinum should be a status that a 'Hit' ala I Got U by Duke Dumont should be able to reach, and Multi-Platinum should be what 'Monster Hits' like La La La should hit, and then songs like Candle In the Wind should be able to reach Diamond as it seems as if it's an impossible feat to earn.

 

But that's just renaming the certifications really. Being Gold status is still a great achievement for a song.

 

I don't think they should be changed, I'd hate to see lots of songs becoming 2x / 3x Platinum. It's an award that really should be left for songs that really have sold bucket loads.

They should be highered not lowered.

Back to the old 'traditional' pre 1989 levels of 1m platinum, 500k gold, 250k silver.

In the 80s a platinum single was a rare & precious thing, just a tiny handful of singles made it in the entire decade. For the last few years the top 15 or so best selling singles have achieved it. The top award should really be for phenomenal sales, not simply for big hits.

Edited May 29, 201411 yr by Col1967

Yeah just leave the amounts alone, sales are declining YOY although hopefully we won't be back to 1998 with only Pure Shores making platinum within that year (Unless Bob/Stan overtook in December).

 

Maybe the UK should have Diamond as like 1.5m sales since only 33 records have achieved this & it's attainable in the modern era but rare (only 2 in the download era with Happy & a few creeping up towards it)