Vol 2, Issue 7: Setting The Record Straight, What it Actually Means to Have a Gold, Platinum, or Diamond Selling Album

Recently, while reading a copy of what I thought to be a credible and well-researched music magazine, I was greatly appalled when I stumbled across an article that inaccurately detailed the makings of a gold album, attributing this status to an independent band's latest disc whose sales had barely even scratched the surface. While 5000 discs may seem like a triumph for an indie act, I have it on good authority that not even 10,000 in sales will merit a band “a pat on the back” from a record label in today’s harsh and competitive market. After reading this piece it occurred to me that if a so-called entertainment journalist could make such a problematic mistake, I'm almost positive that several indie bands out there could do the same. And so, this week, I've chosen to tackle yet another beast of the music industry: that of, music recording sales certification, more commonly known as the album rankings of gold, platinum, and diamond.

Although each territory has enacted individual means for ranking record sales, almost all of these systems follow in the footsteps of the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) method which was pioneered in 1958 in order to monitor the sales of vinyl LPs. For the purposes of this article (and to avoid confusion), I will strictly be referencing figures that denote album rankings in our home territory cited by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), and the certification process as illustrated by the RIAA method. (If you are interested in comparing our sales expectations with those of other countries worldwide, I encourage you to conduct an internet search on “music recording sales certification” for more information).

Perhaps part of the confusion with which each of these sales levels represents, stems from the fact that the numbers pertaining to each rank have not stayed consistent over the years. While gold status was once awarded to artists whose sales exceeded 500,000 copies (or $1 million in sales) of a given album back in the 50s and 60s, today’s gold rankings are attributed to a significantly lower sales target; that of, 50,000. The impetus behind the modification of these sales targets is tied closely to the expansion of the music industry (well, consumerism in general) and more recently, the introduction of the internet and digital sales.

Initially, associations such as the RIAA did not quite know how to credit internet downloads of songs and/or albums in relation to physical cd sales largely because the costs of manufacturing, shipping, and retail cuts are eliminated, and thus, digital downloaders can afford to sell an artist’s work for a significantly lower amount, while still producing a profit margin. Additionally, the purchasing of album singles has recently expanded into a larger market (largely due to the hotly debated continual decline in the quality of albums as a whole over the past 10 years) with the internet acting as the perfect purchasing medium due to its ease and accessibility. But, with the introduction of the internet and digital downloads, also came the genesis of digital piracy making it increasingly difficult for artists to generate high sales rankings based on their internet music consumers alone. While one may have hypothesized that a gold album would have the same sales target whether generated through physical sales or digital sales, this in fact, is not the case. While 50,000 physical cd sales will merit an artist this ranking, only 20,000 downloads serves as the online sales equivalent, and a single itself may be ranked gold if it reaches a mere 5,000 units in sales whether through traditional or electronic means. With all of these varying numbers serving to entitle an artist to essentially the SAME rating, it’s easy to see how someone could improperly allot this status to a musical act!

So how exactly does the process of album certification work? Well, for one thing it is not automatic. Record labels are required to pay a fee (between $350 and $450 for RIAA members, and non-members respectively), on behalf of their artists, in order to have the artist’s album sales audited by the RIAA’s official accounting company of over 20 years, Gelfand, Rennert & Feldman. “The audit calculates what product has been shipped for sale, net after returns, versus product used for promotional purposes, for the life of the release. When certifying audio and music video releases, the independent auditor is careful to survey the entire music marketplace. An artist's gold or platinum award represents sales through retail, record clubs, rackjobbers, and all other ancillary markets that legitimately distribute music. Once a title’s sales has been audited and verified as having reached requisite levels, a formal certification report is issued and sent to the title's record company.” (As outlined by the RIAA’s official website). So then what’s the difference between the RIAA’s auditing process and submitting one’s sales to the Neilson Soundscan charts?

Although Canadian artists are strongly encouraged to issue all of their off-stage and retail sales to Soundscan for reporting, interestingly enough, the RIAA does NOT use these figures for their calculations in regards to album rankings. Why you ask? Well, according to the RIAA, they feel that Soundscan’s records are less reliable as their system is newer, whereas the RIAA has a history of over 40 years. Moreover, Soundscan figures strictly measure over-the-counter sales at music retail locations and off-stage sales, whereas the sales audits conducted by the RIAA encompass a far greater avenue of non-traditional music sales tracking including business generated from non-retail record clubs, mail order houses, speciality stores, direct marketing outlets, TV-advertised albums and internet downloads. So then what’s the point of issuing one’s sales via Soundscan at all?

Well, the simple fact remains that independent artists, more often than not, generate the highest amount of album sales directly after live performances, an avenue that the RIAA does NOT take into account for its calculation. If an independent act generates extremely high off-stage sales, then they have the potential of attaining powerful promotional opportunities as their sales records will be reported in the Billboard Charts. Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that many independent artists (most, I’d argue) are unable to take advantage of the Soundscan database reporting system due to its extremely high membership rates and exclusionary policies regarding the necessity of being signed to a label that has been in business for at least two years and represents at least two acts with current releases. It’s also important to note that if an act does manage to get signed to a label with Soundscan reporting capabilities, all of their generated sales previous to their record label signing will NOT count towards their total sales of a given album (Sad, but true folks. A lot of artists get screwed this way.)

As I’m sure you’ve deduced at this point, the changes incurred within the album ranking system of the RIAA since its inception, along with the development of territory-specific sister companies with varying ranking standards, have led to a great deal of controversy in regards to what really are the top selling albums of all time. It is difficult for us to compare modern standards with those of the past also taking into account the phenomenal surge of the uniquely experienced consumerism of the 20th century. However, the important question that needs considering in today’s market is as follows: will these ratings be likely to decline as the problem of digital piracy persists? I can only assume that they will.

With an overabundance of supply, and a waning degree of demand, it would seem to me that artists today are facing a serious threat of being put into extinction. Can you think of any other profession in which rendered services are guiltlessly and unapologetically stolen by consumers? I didn’t think so.

For a further outline of each ranking’s sales targets in Canada, please visit the CRIA’s official website located at http://www.cria.com/

About the Author:

Rose Cora Perry is the frontwoman for Canadian hard rock band ANTI-HERO known as “The 21st Century Answer to Nirvana”, as well as the sole owner and operator of HER Records, a management company in which she offers marketing, promotion, publicity, tour booking, and artist development services.

Her band ANTI-HERO has toured extensively across North America playing notable festivals such as Warped Tour, Canadian Music Week, NorthbyNorthEast, Wakefest, and MEANYFest.

Voted “Best Rock Act of the Year” by numerous industry publications, their critically acclaimed debut album, "Unpretty" is available worldwide for purchase.

Rose Cora Perry is a dedicated promoter of D.I.Y. ethics, and an avid supporter of independent musicians.For more information on Rose Cora Perry and her band's accomplishments, please visit http://www.anti-hero.ca/ or http://www.rosecoraperry.com/

Vol 2, Issue 6: The Truth About Canada`s Grant Programs, and How They Actually Serve to Reproduce the Industry, Rather than Foster New Talent

For an ambitious indie rock band, there is nothing more like “music to the ears” (pardon the pun) than hearing about the artistic grant programs that the Canadian government has put in effect in order to “provide assistance toward the growth and development of the Canadian independent recording industry.” In theory, this goal of FACTOR, (The Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records) seems quite noble as it’s based on the premise of need and merit. Further, it provides a sense of hope to independent musicians who greatly require financial assistance in order to take their career(s) to the next level through recording, and touring endeavours. However, from both personal experience and observation, I can tell you that neither FACTOR nor Videofact, the two central grants programs so crucial and intertwined with successful exposure in Canada's music industry do anything, BUT help new and independent bands who are not only worthy of such help, but as well, sincerely need it.

With impossible and even sometimes ridiculous grant application requirements (such as the stipulation for touring grants that denotes you must have sold at least 2000 copies of your album within your desired touring territory, or the recording grant condition that states you must have obtained a FACTOR-recognized distributor prior to the recording of the album for which you want funding), along with the favouring of applications submitted by record labels, the common allocation of funds into the hands of artists whom have held professional status in Canada's industry for, in some cases, over 15 years, and the lack of a restriction measure in place which would discourage the granting of funds towards artists who have already been past recipients of said monies, it would seem to me that the goal of FACTOR, and VideoFact seems rather focused on perpetuating a cycle of the same artists maintaining chart-topping success, rather than giving new talent a fighting chance as their so-called mandates would claim.

Additionally, rather than providing independent artists with advice on how they can better their chances of obtaining grants, standard form letters are issued to artists who are declined funding which in many cases outline “steps to improve one's application” that are completely irrelevant to the given case. I remember receiving one of these “advice” letters in which my band was instructed to work on obtaining media exposure and booking tour dates in order to add legitimacy to our Videofact grant application. Anyone who has followed my band’s history or has visited our website would be well aware of how extensive our media and booking portfolios are. Furthermore, enclosed alongside our Videofact application was a detailed copy of our press kit which outlined all of our career highlights and accomplishments –perhaps they just missed that (it was only in a big red folder marked ANTI-HERO). Might I also add that in another application, we hired a professional firm to outline our music video synopsis, budget, and storyboard to give our application even more edge, yet still, we were rejected.

What this suggests to me is the following about these programs: grant-issuing agencies do NOT review applications from artists who are not already established at a professional level and/or are not backed by a label to some degree. Evidence for this rather problematic finding can be seen in the grant recipient lists (available on FACTOR's & VideoFact's websites) that rarely (and I mean RARELY) contain artists of whom you've never heard (I encourage you to check out the charts for yourself if you do not believe me)! Further, the eligibility requirements of both FACTOR and Videofact’s programs reinforce this point as the reason as to why artists are applying for these loans in the first place is so that they can essentially garner more attention, establish a larger fanbase, and improve sales. Thus, the likelihood of an independent artist (with absolutely no label support) obtaining the goal of 2000 album sales within 18 months of its release, is, unfortunately in today’s industry, highly unlikely.

Again, as referenced in one of my first articles of the year, if Bon Jovi, an artist that’s been around for decades, was holding the top Soundscan slot with only 7,000 in cd sales, how can the record industry possibly expect a band without a well-established reputation, and without necessary promotional/marketing funds to sell that many discs in that allotted time period? It’s not impossible, but HIGHLY unlikely.

On the similar notion, in terms of the recording grants’ requirement of having a reputable distributor in place prior to the recording of one’s album: what I’m wondering about this, is first off, does the Canadian music industry sincerely believe that a distributor will just slap their name (and reputation) onto a record they’ve never heard or for that matter support an artist who’s never released a previous album, and so there is no way to judge their sell-ability? Not a chance.

So, what does this all mean for independent artists? Firstly, this biased selection process adds credence to my rantings about how truly difficult and unfair this industry is. Secondly, as an independent artist, it would seem that the Canadian music industry is fairly adamant in stating that you can only get so far on your own before encountering a situation in which you need an “inside man”. Thirdly and most importantly, the favouring of established artists indicates to me that the Canadian music industry is not as willing to take risks on new talent as it is a safer bet to invest in artists whom they know are able to generate money, which once again reaffirms the fact that business trumps talent in the music biz.

While there have been some recent developments in terms of trying to alleviate this major dilemma such as the offering of seminars by FACTOR that provide tips on how to prepare successful applications, along with the growth of independent firms that assist artists in undergoing the grant application process (as it can be rather hectic, time consuming, and confusing), this issue of course still remains.

I hope that in the future these grant agencies will begin living up to their mission statements, and start giving underdogs a chance. Who knows they may even be surprised by how much undiscovered talent there is out there? And perhaps, the monotony of mainstream radio will be alleviated as well.

By writing all of this, I do not mean to imply that these agencies have not benefited many artists in the Canadian music industry as they most certainly have, and I’m happy for the hard working well-deserving artists who have been grant recipients. The point I’m trying to make here is that there is an unequal treatment of signed/unsigned bands going on within this selection process, and I truly feel that independent artists need to be aware of this situation. Similarly, I hope that by writing this perhaps I can inspire a change in policy.

About the Author:

Rose Cora Perry is the frontwoman for Canadian hard rock band ANTI-HERO known as “The 21st Century Answer to Nirvana”, as well as the sole owner and operator of HER Records, a management company in which she offers marketing, promotion, publicity, tour booking, and artist development services.

Her band ANTI-HERO has toured extensively across North America playing notable festivals such as Warped Tour, Canadian Music Week, NorthbyNorthEast, Wakefest, and MEANYFest.

Voted “Best Rock Act of the Year” by numerous industry publications, their critically acclaimed debut album, "Unpretty" is available worldwide for purchase.

Rose Cora Perry is a dedicated promoter of D.I.Y. ethics, and an avid supporter of independent musicians.For more information on Rose Cora Perry and her band's accomplishments, please visit http://www.anti-hero.ca/ or http://www.rosecoraperry.com/

Vol 2, Issue 4: The REAL Deal on Record Deals

I remember the day that my band ANTI-HERO announced that we signed a distribution deal and how much it got blown out of proportion. Friends of ours began writing us letters wondering when we’d buy them each a hot new sports car or generously donate money to their cause? My response to them and anyone else who seems to be under the misconception that we are throwing parties just to roll around in our billows of cash is this: just because you sign a record deal doesn’t mean that all of your prayers have been answered.

For one thing, there are different kinds of deals a band can sign which may or may not include thousands of dollars being paid upfront to the artist. However, even in this "best" case scenario, what the music industry doesn’t tell you is that if your act flops, you will now owe that money back to your label. Don’t think that this is an uncommon dilemma in which bands find themselves. You just never hear about it because it would ruin our idealistic view of what "being signed" really means, thereby encouraging more artists to go at it independently further crippling the major labels and their stronghold on the industry.Now, not to get into semantics, but let me clarify one thing.

The word "independent" and/or "indie" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to artists. Contrary to popular belief, "indie" is NOT a genre, but rather it refers to the independent status of a band meaning that they are self-managed/published artist, and that they embrace the punk slogan D.I.Y. as their mandate. Even if an act is signed to an indie label, what one needs to understand is that all indie labels have an major label affiliate for distribution purposes, and usually a booking/publicity company affiliate, so further, the lines between major and indie become blurred. In my opinion, a true indie band is one that provides its own booking, management, publicity, distribution, and struggles its way to the top without any label support.Thanks for letting me get that out of my system.

Let’s now go back to the types of deals a band may be offered, so that you can establish which type of agreement would best suit your act’s needs.

1) Distribution: A distribution deal will make your album(s) available in retail stores, downloadable on sites such as iTunes, and/or online for purchase. The availability of your album in stores in various territories will highly depend upon your act’s touring history. With a distro deal, no upfront money is offered to the artist. For that matter, your act may be required to take money out of its own pockets to pay for the re-pressing of your cds with the distributor’s logo and copyright information. In addition, your distributing label will receive a substantial cut of the profits from all of your cd sales including your off-stage sales (the cds you sell at shows). If your cd is recalled or returned, again you will owe your distributor money for the inconvenience you have caused them. So, be sure that your cd is gonna sell.

Pros: Having a major distributor affiliated with your band may assist with publicity and bookings. Having your music worldwide will assist your act in widening its fanbase.

Cons: In-store cd sales are at an all-time low (in fact, many major labels are switching to cataloging only), and with illegal downloading programs such as Limewire, it’s difficult to make any money from online sales. In addition, you will now be sharing your profits providing your act with less money to spend on other areas that need development.

2) Indie Label Representation: Signing to an indie label will provide you with distribution (though it may be limited to the areas in which your act tours), and likely booking and publicity services. However, booking and publicity services may be charged as extra expenses to your act. In addition, you will likely be required to continue to perform several of your own management functions to assist with the label’s efforts. There may or may not be an offering of upfront money, however, funds are limited so likely, it would not be a large amount. Indie labels often book tours and do promotions in which all of their artists are grouped together.

Pros: Less pressure to conform to current music trends. Higher likelihood of getting approved for grant programs.

Cons: Less funding for booking, and publicity than what a major label could provide you. You could get stuck in the stigma of only being successful when in conjunction with the other artists on your label. Competition is steep.

3) Major Label Representation: With major label representation, you get to focus on just being a musician. Your booking, management, and publicity is all taken care of. Your albums are available worldwide, and you will be provided with great opening and festival opportunities. However, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to get signed to a major label as their funds have diminished significantly due to illegal downloading. They are becoming more choosy with the artists that they represent, and are more likely to sign acts that mimic what’s currently popular on the airwaves producing short-lived careers for their artists. If music is your livelihood, becoming a one-hit wonder would be devastating.

Pros: Unlimited opportunities in terms of marketing, and promotions. Worldwide touring opportunities, and distribution.

Cons: Loss of control over the marketing of your act’s image and sound. Due to the extensive rosters of major labels, your act may be shelved for anywhere from a few months to a year. If your act flops, you will be required to pay the label back all of the funds with which it provided you for marketing, recording, and promotion etc.

4) Strictly Booking or Publicity Deals: If an act wishes to continue to be independent, but requires additional booking or publicity services, they can sign agreements with independent firms that will assist with booking or publicity for a monetary fee and/or percentage of your earnings. Most bookers and/or publicists are unlikely to work with bands that are unestablished and do not already have record deals or at least distribution.

Pros: Several venues, festivals, and/or media outlets do not accept unsolicited materials from artists, and therefore having an agent work on your behalf may open up some doors.

Cons: This is often an expensive endeavour and firms cannot provide a guarantee that their services will assist you. Just because your act is offered a show and/or press through one of these firms, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to be favourable.With any opportunity, there will always be upsides and downfalls, but knowing what risks your act is willing to take, and what services best suit your needs will assist you greatly in choosing an appropriate career path.

Irrespective of what any record deal promises to deliver, remember this: just because they say they will provide you with all these wonderful services doesn’t necessarily mean they will. Most acts are so overwhelmed at the very proposition of being signed that they put themselves in a scenario in which they can easily be taken advantage of. As most artists do not have the funding behind them to go through legal proceedings in the event that their label screws them over, labels are aware of the fact that they can away with making empty promises.

Although the workload of self-management is overwhelming at times, I find myself satisfied in knowing that what my band has accomplished is entirely in thanks to all of our hard work. Being a true indie band is something that has worked for us, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s been an easy road.

However, on the other side of things, I hope that you all now understand that just because an act is signed, it doesn’t mean that a) they no longer have to work hard and/or b) that their career will be well taken care of. Perhaps I’ve become jaded from my experiences in the music biz, but I personally would never put my life into the hands of another to sit back and watch it run its course. My life = my music, and I don’t feel that anyone is capable of truly understanding what that means to me except for me.

About the Author:

Rose Cora Perry is the frontwoman for Canadian hard rock band ANTI-HERO known as “The 21st Century Answer to Nirvana”, as well as the sole owner and operator of HER Records, a management company in which she offers marketing, promotion, publicity, tour booking, and artist development services.

Her band ANTI-HERO has toured extensively across North America playing notable festivals such as Warped Tour, Canadian Music Week, NorthbyNorthEast, Wakefest, and MEANYFest.

Voted “Best Rock Act of the Year” by numerous industry publications, their critically acclaimed debut album, "Unpretty" is available worldwide for purchase.

Rose Cora Perry is a dedicated promoter of D.I.Y. ethics, and an avid supporter of independent musicians.For more information on Rose Cora Perry and her band's accomplishments, please visit http://www.anti-hero.ca/ or http://www.rosecoraperry.com/