How people use Nielsen to hurt musicians.

I read an article today at Digital Music News about comments by Tommy Silverman - founder of Tommy Boy and the New Music Seminar.

With all due respect, his information is wrong.  But worse, the conclusions he reaches from this faulty information could be damaging to artists.

Some highlights include statements like:

Silverman counted 105,575 new album releases that year, and found that just 225 of those were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time.  Of that, just 14 were do-it-yourself artists, unaffiliated with a major, indie, or other entity."

and

"What does this say about the Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' promise?" Silverman blogged in Musician Coaching.  "Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit 'breaking' music.  Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both.  I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history.  Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it.  I know this is a bold statement but it is true."

I wrote a response to the editor of the blog where the article appeared, I do not know if he will post it, but I feel so strongly about making certain word gets out, I am re-posting my response to Tommy's statements here

------------

I hope this email finds you well.  I am writing you in response to Tommy's information and posting - the good news, he is dead wrong. The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.

The Nielsen data cited is not only incomplete, but also provides a false analysis.

Let me provide you some hard stats to back this up:

According to Nielsen and Tommy  there were:
"...106,000 new (music) releases in 2008"

In 2008, TuneCore released approximately 90,000 newly recorded releases

This means, according to Nielsen and Tommy, almost every single new music release in 2008 was distributed via TuneCore.

I know this simply not to be true - the base assumption that Tommy is making is as dead wrong as his other statistics.

Another example, Tommy states:

" just 225 of those (the new releases) were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. "

This is an empirically false statement for a few reasons.

First, in order for Nielsen to accuratly track sales, the UPCs for those albums must be pre-registered in their database.  If the UPC is not registered in its database, Nielsen can not match the sales data to an album (or song). For example, if a digital store tells Nielsen it sold 100 copies of UPC # 123456789, and Nielsen has no idea what UPC # 123456789 is, it can not report the sales.

Next, the majority of the 90,000 releases via TuneCore in 2009 were not registered with Soundscan therefore making it impossible for them to track or report on the sales.

But these two points are actually kind of moot.  Music is no longer bought by the album, it is bought by the song across an artist's catalog.  Tracking album sales as the sole indicator to determine if something is "breaking" is analogous to tracking only vinyl album sales to determine if something is "breaking"

Some examples:

When they were unsigned, the following TuneCore artists sold the following quantities of songs across their releases:

Kelly sold over 2,000,000 million tracks
William Fitzsimmons sold over 150,000 tracks
Soulja Boy sold over 200,000 tracks
Boyce Avenue sold over 1,200,000 tracks
Ron Pope sold over 250,000 tracks
Colt Ford sold over 300,000 tracks
Secondhand Serenade sold over 250,000 tracks
Tapes N Tapes sold over 200,000 tracks
Nevershoutnever sold over 1,000,000 tracks
Drake sold over 300,000 tracks
MGMT sold over 225,000 tracks
The Medic Droid sold over 150,00 tracks
Nickasaur sold over 150,000 tracks
Harry and the Potters sold over 200,000 tracks

This is just a very quick partial list that goes on and on and on

Under Tommy's model, none of these artist sales count as they are not "album" sales.

With all due respect, Tommy might discount selling over 1,000,000 songs by an "unsigned" artist as not "breaking", but I do.

On a macro level, in 2009 alone, the internet allowed the "long tail" unsigned artists that used TuneCore to generate over $32,000,000 in music sales by selling over 42,000,000 songs - this is more than one song a second selling by a TuneCore Artist on iTunes.  This "long tail" catalog that TuneCore's Aritsts represent is now one of the most valuable music catalogs in the world. And this all happened due to the net, social networking and access to the media outlets (like YouTube).

"Breaking" is not just about selling albums or even just the music - it is about generating revenue off of fame.  This is done via merch, gig, publishing, music sales, ad revenue and more.  Nevershoutnever sold over 35,000 t-shirts in a number of months via a regional sales program with Hot Topic. Surely Tommy does not mean to discount these sales and revenue simply because the artist is selling merch?  How about if the band sold no music but consistently sold out 1,000 venue clubs and made $15,000 a night?  Why does Tommy discredit bands for their success if they are not selling "albums"?

Another distributing and incorrect point suggested by Tommy is that music sales are down due to the fact that there is more music available to buy, share and discover.

As a matter of fact, its quite the opposite

In the late 90's - also known as the "golden age" of market share and revenue for the music industry - more music was being released and bought than ever before (as an example, Warner was releasing one new release a day). Despite this increase of releases, sales (not just revenue) went up, not down.

Or from a pure logic perspective, if iTunes had 2,000,000 less songs, would an artist that is not selling now as no one likes their music magically start selling.  Or to flip it around, I would suggest more music on the virtual shelf causes more music to sell as it allows the music buyer to discover music via the digital stores own recommendation association engines.

Tommy's goes on to state:

"Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both."

This statement is also dead wrong - and he knows it based on is own experiences at Tommy Boy.

Historically, in the music industry, 98% of what the record labels distributed, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to market and promote and get played on commercial radio and MTV did not "break".  If "breaking" simply "required mass exposure", there would have been a 98% success rate, not failure rate. But music is not a math equation, and therein lies the problem with Tommy's statement.  Yes, to break you need exposure, but that by no means guarantees success.  The music has to cause reaction. For example, if "Smells Like Teen Spirit' was not a song that people liked, it would not have mattered how much money was spent on getting you to hear it.

And that's the excitement and beauty of the internet.  The masses now have direct access to the media and "music discovery" social networking outlets. - i.e. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, Jango and more. These new social networking and media vehicles allow mass communication in an instanteous fashion at a click of button. Suddenly one person's opinion does matter and can can impact a bottom line.  Even the digital stores themselves provide a vehicle to market and promote yourself off off (i.e. iTunes iMixes or recommendations of other music to buy).   Through these vehicles the internet has delivered the ability for anyone to "break", and they actually are.  The masses now have access to the media outlets to get heard. The problem is the old school view that  "breaking" is simply defined by selling albums.  This could not be farther from the truth.

Tommy also goes onto say:

"I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history.  Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it.  I know this is a bold statement but it is true."

It might be a bold statement by Tommy to help get headlines, but it's also false (and kind of silly). The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.

The distressing part for me about this is based on Tommy's statements,  if an artists' release is not counted by Nielsen than it is not actually released.  If music does not sell as an album then it has not sold. In effect, he is de-legitimizing artists.

With all due respect, I believe an artist's release should "count" even if not recognized by Nielsen as this de-recognition closes off possible opportunities based on the perception that a release is not "real"

I also find it distressing that the media, and other outlets, turn to Nielsen as the definitive source to determine what is occurring in this industry thereby decreasing the opportunities for musicians and artists that are not part of this old school system.

The reality is the majority of music is now being created, released and sold outside of the traditional system. Ad agencies, music supervisors, video game manufacturers, radio programmers etc turn to Nielsen for information to discover music in an attempt to use/license it. They need to understand that the Nielsen information is an incomplete and an inaccurate portrayal of reality. This inaccurate perception is holding back opportunity and validation for others.  Tommy needs to stop propagating this false perception as it hurts artists.

It's important that an accurate picture of what is occurring be presented to fans and businesses to provide additional choice and opportunity for musicians.  They work hard enough as it is, the last thing we need to do is propagate a false reality to hurt them.  Tommy's heart is in the right place, we are here to help musicians, but let's start with a more accurate description as opposed to a "bold" but false statement that helps promote an agenda.

Comments

[Lee]

This is strange... I do not know Tommy personally, but I sat beside him in a conference where the Nielson group discussed statistics of 2008. Tommy and a man beside him were both up in the front with me taking detailed notes of the numbers being given. He later used those same stats in discussions with other colleagues of the industry. That being said, he may be putting too much faith into the numbers the Neilsen group is putting out. However, I wouldn't say his conclusion is incorrect should those numbers actually be true... but based off the Tunecore numbers, the Nielson stuff just doesn't add up.

[Tony]

Neilsen numbers no longer accurately reflect the state, and, especially, the direction of recorded music sales.

The new industry that is evolving is made up of many acts for whom the majority of their sales are not counted by Neilsen.

Seems time for the mainstream media to get hip to what's really happening.

[Paul Resnikoff]

Jeff,

For some reason I did not receive your note? But no problem, word travels fast and we're publishing your response. Actually, my in-box has been filled with lots of other responses on this as well. There is lots of debate ahead.

paul resnikoff > founder > publisher > digital music news (digitalmusicnews.com)

[db]

Soundscan numbers have NEVER been accurate anyway. When I worked for the big labels, we knew that the "weighting" could actually pull sales numbers up or down at a multiple of as much as 6X! Just like Alexa is used to" chart" the popularity (by visits) of a website...Nielsen is merely a barometer—and a creaky one at that. Jeff--you make a great point...if a band is doing business—even just regionally...then, that can never be dismissed. If someone likes your music at any level and there is any type of financial transaction involved...rejoice...be glad...and keep going!

David Bach
www.bachdavid.com

[Steve Lawson]

Great stuff, Jeff - thanks so much for posting this, and publishing the figures. I wrote something to a similar effect yesterday, critiquing the entirely bogus notion of an 'Obscurity Line' -

http://www.stevelawson.net/2010/01/quick-thoughts-on-obscurity

I'll be sharing your post around as widely as I possibly can :)

Steve

[Scrabblequeenbe]

A nice article. Can you please explain to me why people that can't sing, outsell people that can sing. That is a mystery to me. The indie artist that have no money, They have the internet, but only their fans find out about them. Somethins is wrong, could it be American Idol?

[bk]

Good response Jeff but almost sad that this needs to be stated in 2010. This is a 2007 issue. I thought everyone had figured this out by now.

[Billy Fields]

One question based on your comment:

"Next, the majority of the 90,000 releases via TuneCore in 2009 were not registered with Soundscan therefore making it impossible for them to track or report on the sales."

Why aren't you setting up your releases so they report to SoundScan like most other labels and distributors do? Seems like that function should be covered by the fee that the artist is paying to TuneCore and would further legitimize the service you provide.

[George Howard]

I'm not sure how to say it any more clearly than this:

The music business is over.

All of us that were lucky/unlucky enough to have been involved in the so-called music business for the past 20 or so years know this.

The problem is that Tommy Silverman and his ilk, with all due respect, don't want to admit this, because they don't know what else to do.

That's the only explanation I can come up with: some combination of fear and greed is driving this misguided (and, frankly, damaging) attempt to try and convince people that rather than innovate and expand markets we should, instead, recoil and continue to adhere to practices and metrics (soundscan, really...soundscan - arbitrary, capricious, and irrelevant sort of since its inception?!) that by any rationale measures do. not. work.

Refusing to innovate and expand the market is OK, I suppose, on a personal level. Companies and business people do it all the time, and they limp along unhappily until they are made obsolete by people and companies who do innovate and expand the market. Such is capitalism.

What, in my opinion, is not alright (and this is the mantra that consistently irks people, and I find it very instructive to look at who gets the most irked) is preying (and profiting) on the hopes and dreams of easily manipulated and uninformed artists and, instead of offering good, sound, advice, charging for non-actionable "advice," or, worse, the "promise" of access. Instead of offering solutions for how the musician CAN do it themselves (or with a solid team), they present it in a manner that leads the musician to think they CAN'T do it themselves ... that is, unless they hire this person to show them how.

I just don't get this. It's disempowering. It subjugates and controls the artist and makes them dependent rather than independent.

Let me take it out of the realm of the music business for a second. The recent Conan v Leno kerfuffle. Wildly entertaining. Seems like Conan got shafted; seems obvious that NBC is trying to keep their "middle American" audience via Jay. Guess what: they both sort of suck. Also, they're both largely irrelevant.

Given the choice between watching Jay or Conan, the vast majority of young people (high school, college, etc.) will opt to ... watch something online.

It's hard to believe I even have to say this, but the battle isn't between Conan and Leno, it's between the networks and boxee or hulu (I know hulu has network ties), or dude in his dorm room with a webcam and an idea. And, yet, how do we measure that...oh, right, Nielsen. Dear Lord.

We're sucked into the NBC debacle in the same way we're sucked into old-school thinking regarding the music business, the movie business, the book business, etc.; because of its mass it has a certain gravitational pull.

However, mass does not equate to relevance. Additionally, mass does not axiomatically equate to a good biz model (how are those big labels doing?)

The fundamental flaw in the argument of Silverman et al. is that of continuing to attempt to quantify the "music business" in some sort of binary fashion: the music business is not x; the music business is not y; the music business has a specific set of rules; the music business has a specific set of metrics.

None of that is true. You have one goal as a musician, and it's the same goal you must have if you are in any business: attract and retain customers.

Your job is not to sell records, your job is not to get high chart positions or high soundscan numbers.

Your job is to attract and retain. Profit is a byproduct of this.

The faster and more efficiently you can attract and retain, the better. You go from being dependent (on "validation" from irrelevant things like soundscan) to being independent, and, thus, in control.

TuneCore (disclosure: I sat in Jeff's father's dining room and batted around the original TuneCore concept with Jeff, Gary and Peter) is a tool. It's one of many that you need to employ. Any artist has the same access to this tool. The reality is that any artist has basically the same access to all the tools.

I wrote about this recently; I call it "The Leveling": www.twitter.com/gah650

What this universal access does is shifts the burden and responsibility from labels, distributors, etc. to artists. How can you, as an artist, best utilize these tools to attract and retain?

More artists did this successfully this year than last, and more will do so next year. Each artist that does so is one less artist that cares at all about soundscan and all of the other trappings of the old music business.

Those institutions had their time. Their time is over. There will be many who attempt to prop them up for their own self interest, but, their day is done.

The day of the successful independent artist (musician, filmmaker, writer, etc.) is just dawning.

[cory huff]

It's one more example of how the Myth of the Starving Artist is perpetuated. There are hundreds (thousands) of artists who are making a living doing what they do, whom very few people have ever even heard of.

Matthew Ebel, Amanda Palmer, Jason Parker, the list goes on and on. Musicians who are only known by their fan base, who make a living doing what they do, and they are incredible - and they are so NOT being counted by the mainstream.

[Matt]

Jeff:

If you use the standard track equivalent album figure of 10 tracks per album, you have a threshold of 100K tracks sold in a year to match Silverman's 10K in album sales. How many of your artists sold over 100K tracks in 2008? While the point about what measure is accurate in tracking "success" these days is well taken, 10K in album sales is such a low bar that I would content it's still a safe comparison.

Please share more data!

[Amy]

It has to be true that SoundScan numbers were always inaccurate. My father owned a record store (three at one point) in a smallish Texas town for over 35 years, until he closed his business and retired in the mid '90s. Our sales were never counted by SoundScan. Until the end, we wrote down the catalog number of each album we sold on pads and I manually entered them into our computer, which data was only used in-house. The closest we ever came to being "online" was when we had a TicketMaster outlet in the store (for which we had to pay for a 24/7 long distance connection).

How many other small record stores like ours were there in this country whose sales also never got counted? If we took an album from a local group on consignment, or from a small regional label, and they sold well, none of that ever got "counted" by the "people that count". We made a nice living that way for years until the big boxes finally hurt us to the point where Dad didn't want to continue. And the major labels encouraged our demise by charging us more per album than the larger retailers, guaranteeing that we couldn't come close to their prices--never mind that many of them used music as a "loss leader". It became very clear that we didn't count, in so many ways. We were indie before we knew it was "cool" and before we had the internet to be able to reach out to those with similar experiences and get in touch with the business outside of the system that discounted us.

But the old school system is becoming more irrelevant by the day. And my guess is that less and less people care about the ramblings of the old guard distributed by the old school media behemoths that are still trying to figure out the internet, or figure out how to beat it.

I was always a nobody on the fringes of the business and now I'm not even in the business, just a music lover. But that's what I think, in case anyone cares.

[Matt Laszuk]

And one more bit of data that's likely relevant:

Once you find the number of artists that sold more than 100K tracks in 2008, find what the distribution of those sales was for each artist.

A distribution focused on only a handful of tracks (say, the number that might fit on an album) is very different from a distribution focused on only one or two tracks. The former could indicate a good album, a good songwriter, or a dedicated fanbase, while the latter clearly indicates a hit.

This sort of analysis will shed more light on how likely it is for the average artist to achieve "success", and will paint a clearer picture of what that "success" is, at least in terms of sales.

[Jeff Price]

In response to Billy:

I believe its inappropriate for TuneCore to claim artists as "TuneCore's" and claim market share. However, any artist can register their UPCs with Soundscan if they like - they then get the credit (after all they are also the "label")

That being said, Neilsen takes other entities data (the labels, the artists, the retail stores, the distributors) adds value to it and then with no permission or ask from the artist or labels sells it - however, they keep all the revenue. At the very least, in my opinion, they should be sharing some portion of that revenue back with the entities that created the thing they are selling - this includes the artists.

Finally, Soundscan has little relevancy these days - most of TuneCore's customers are not going for commercial radio play, physical shelf space or MTV play. And the Billboard charts (created from Soundscan's data) no longer accurately reflect the reality of the music business

And to get on my little soapbox, I believe Soundscan needs the artists data more then they will need them. I am not in business to help and bolster Neilsen's marketshare on data that they can package and resell.

[Richard Bauer]

Let me start with a few caveats:
1) George, please add 'as we knew it' to your 'the music business is over' comment. The 'music' part of the business is thriving.
2) Tommy, kind of shocking coming from someone who i've always admired for helping to put indies on the map
3) Paul, bravo on quick response showing social media savvy

It is back to the future. Great songs matter, not albums. Building a fan base matters, not marketing muscle. Making a living matters, not being a rockstar. The real question is how does one now measure success?

Is it gross income across a weighted multitude of income streams? Would that be based on a calendar or fiscal year? Interesting concept the IRS would love. Should all the indie distributors report in to Nielson? Why, so they can continue to manipulate numbers but now with a hint of authenticity? What about streams, blog posts, search requests, touring schedule, and so on.

The point of your post is well taken. The old measurement tools are imperfect. The old guard is sadly blind in the woods. However, music creation is thriving. Success is measured individually.

[Jeff Price]

In response to Matt

To my point, I think its a huge mistake to gauge an artists "success" solely on music sales - this is why labels are entering into "360" deals. They realize that the success of an artist is no longer defined as the number of albums and/or songs that are sold. Album/song sales are just one possible indicator, but I would argue that a band that gives all their music away for free but sells 100,000 t-shirts/fills a venue/gets corporate endorsements etc are also succesful

That being said, there will be a TuneCore public data site launching sometime in the near future which churn the data in far more interesting and relevant ways.

[Zoe Keating]

I'm SO GLAD this is being discussed. I posted a comment on the Music Think Tank Blog which I'm reposting here....

---
Billboard magazine wrote a story on me last year (http://bit.ly/laSxw). This would make most indie musicians happy, but I was miffed about it because of this line:

"...For an artist with a niche audience and total sales of 16,000 for her 2005 solo album and a 2004 EP, according to Nielsen SoundScan..."

I was miffed because those numbers are digital sales of my album as reported via iTunes (which started selling my music in summer 2006)...and are a fraction of my sales. By my reckoning, I've sold 30,000 copies....but I'm not allowed to report them.

(of course, Billboard *IS* Neilsen so I shouldn't have been surprised)

I thought I'd make an effort this year to get ALL sales of my upcoming CD reported by Soundscan. I sell physical copies primarily from my website and at shows. So, I bought a barcode scanner for my fulfillment person and wrote to Neilsen, naively asking about their required format for uploads of weekly reports.

This was their reply:

" Zoe,

The online store will be eligible to report to Soundscan once there are at least 12 artists with albums available for purchase at all times. Accounts are only assigned to record labels to report venue sales. The label must be in business for more than 2 years to be eligible to report those sales as well.

- Joe Johnson
Retail Coordinator
The Nielsen Company
"

I've always suspected that behind the endless variations in the press on the "No one is selling music" story....there are plenty of independent musicians who do...but we can't prove it.

[George Howard]

@Zoe - you are an inspiration and an example to more artists than you can possibly know. I know this, because I point to you as an example all the time.

@Rich - nah, not going to change my line to "the music business as we knew it."

I picked my words carefully, and stand by them. calling it the "music business" (with whatever qualifiers ("as we knew it," or "the new music business," etc.) is reductive and inaccurate, and limiting.

It's one of the problems: people feel there is some distinction between the music business and other forms of business, and therefore think there are different rules, etc. There aren't: it's about attraction and retention.

So, I assert again: the music business is over.

[Zoe Keating]

WE might know that Soundscan numbers are not the whole picture and say "so what?".....but I recently had a conversation with someone at the NYTimes (someone who is not a music industry expert, but could be called an expert on digital media) who had NO IDEA that unsigned artists sales are not tracked by Soundscan.

So, I find the endless stories quoting the decline of music sales... supposedly backed up by Soundscan numbers...to be a problem and I would like to see articles on the music "industry" be a little more researched. Yes, the "industry" includes top 40 artists who are selling less, but it also includes increasing numbers of niche artists who are selling more in a sustainable and non-splashy fashion (and, in case its not obvious, when they sell 10K copies they get to keep all the money, so they can actually make a living).

[Jeff Price]

Zoe - that is EXACTLY the point! You hit the nail on the head - the music industry has changed. The old school entities that tracked what was occurring are no longer as relevant as they were

Mainstream media has no idea as there is nowhere for them to go to get the information and in the interim Soundscan and the RIAA are the go to source

TuneCore will be launching a data site sometime in the near future that will begin to address this problem.

[J G D]

I'm not defending Tommy, as I agree with you that his conclusions are baseless. But, to underscore a point made above, other than 2 artists, no artist listed by you sold more than 300,000 tracks/songs "across all releases." As these sales were undoubtedly spread over a number of years, this is not a serious economic achievement. Even with supplemental merchandise and live performance income, after expenses (which often must be paid prior to income received), this still represents a struggling artist. Tunecore might be a viable commercial enterprise for you, based on the gross sales you cite, but for individual artists, sharing music will forevermore be a hobby not a business.

[C M]

J G D said: no artist listed by you sold more than 300,000 tracks/songs "across all releases." As these sales were undoubtedly spread over a number of years, this is not a serious economic achievement. Even with supplemental merchandise and live performance income, after expenses this still represents a struggling artist.

300,000 tracks sold on iTunes is $210,000 for an independent artist with no record exec mouths to feed. Even spread out over 4 years, by musician standards that is not struggling. That's not even including hard copy sales and merch.

[Jeff Price]

To JGD

No, these sales were not spread over a number of years - as one example Nevreshoutnever sold over 250,000 songs in 45 days.

I respect your opinion, but also disagree - there is new "middle class" and "upper class" of musician based on the opportunities created by the net and other technology.

I ran a record label for 17 years, and I can (sadly!!) state that there are far more artists making more money with less risk and upfront expense now than at any other time in the music industry.

bands are making money in new ways, and making more of it

[Suzanne Lainson]

I was curious about nevershoutnever and the 35,000 t-shirts via Hot Topic. I notice that the artist is signed to Warner Bros. So if a successful unsigned artist goes with a major label, doesn't that kind of validate the concept that in the end major labels are still perceived to have clout?

[Richard Allen]

Niche you want Niche

over 100 Zydeco bands are out there playing all over the country and the world, some do 80-100 gigs a year and no mainstream recognition....real musicians real funky dance music...and almost never heard on the radio

http://www.myspace.com/zydecodj

[Jeff Price]

TO SUZANNE

I don't believe choosing to work with someone else means you are not currently succeeding.

I don't know the deal terms, but I strongly suspect the contractual terms NSN negotiated are radically different than a "traditional" deal based on the fact that NSN was succeeding on their own.

I also think it remains to be seen what Warner does - that is, OK GO was signed to a major and their record was not selling. OK GO then uploaded their "Treadmill Dance" video to YouTube and it took off selling them hundreds of thousands of songs and albums etc.

Just yet another example of the net "breaking" a band - I would not discredit the net simply because OK GO were signed to a major. And that's the point. The majors/indies/unsigned bands all have access to and use the same media outlets to break.

[Jeremiah]

In the article you stated that Tunecore has sold 42,000,000 songs, and while that is an impressive number it doesn't mean much without knowing how large the catalog is, for all I know you have a catalog of 50,000,000 songs and most of them have sold once.

Listing 14 artist that have "broken" without knowing how many artists you work with doesn't really help much either, if there are 150,000 artists using Tunecore thats a pretty small percentage of artists "breaking".

Your statistics to try and prove more people are "breaking" don't really hold up any better that the guy trying to prove they aren't. I will say as a consumer that I feel like there are a lot less artists achieving mainstream notoriety than in years past, but it seems like it is easier for a small band to have a niche following worldwide.

[Billy Hume]

Tommy is old school and should not be taken too seriously. The future of the music business will NOT be forged by people who came out of the old school paradigm but by some one young who 'doesn't know what he is doing'.

Not to blast Tommy too much (nice guy, let us stay at one of his spots in Manhattan while we were up there), but I did work with him while he still had Tommy Boy and frankly I didn't think he knew what the hell he was talking about when it came to the music. Could he pimp the system that existed then? Yes. Could he market? Yes. But I don't thin he can't (as I think most label heads and A&R) tell a good song from a bad one.

I've worked with plenty of artists signed to major labels with hit songs that were pretty much broke or were going to be broke in a year. If you understood the how a label contract is structured you would realize what a scam it is. Now I work with a lot of indie artists who might be selling less than some of the big names I've worked with, but are making WAY more money and actually OWN their own music and master recordings.

[Jeffdolan]

Jeff,

Thanks for writing. I may have missed something important here, but did TuneCore get denied by Nielsen somewhere? Why can't you apply and report your artists' sales through Nielsen? Just wondering where the "us versus them" positioning is coming from. Love the discussion!

[Darryl Williams]

I believe the article represents what we all know well.Tthe "business" side of music has run it's course. Artist and those who love their work will continue to connect without the support of the majors. Anyone who looks at the industry from a historical perspective, will be able to track when certain shifts took place and what they led to.

The old guard is truly on lifesupport as has been pointed out earlier, and the media convergence currently under way just may be the the solution for artist, listeners and those of us involved in other aspects of the broadcast industry.

[Pavlos]

I see crazy numbers here ...
how can an indie artist sell so many copies , without airplay ? or major label support ?
Big lies for me ... don't believe a single number from Tunecore or other indie artists replied here.

It's internet and everybody can say anything.
I ve been releasing breaking music , with the best quality and never sold more than few hundred copies.
Sorry folks , you can't be better than me.

:)

[Picnickibun]

makes for a fantastic debate

[So Shush]

Given more and more people are streaming to hear music are downloads an indicator of a band or artist's “success” anyway? And is it all purely about money - what about the art of making music and the diverse culture of listening to it. Who's “breaking” in the “mainstream” seems divorced from that like never before.

[Oil Can Joe]

Well said, Jeff. That's a lot to digest, but its a true old school vs. new school music industry debate right there. Well not so much a debate, but a clear window into the way things used to be vs. the way they are now. And while the "old" way is still standard ops. at a lot of record companies, the new way is also picking up steam and perhaps those industry vets who fail to adapt will eventually become irrelevant.

One point of suggestion as a TuneCore customer... perhaps a check box option to auto-submit new releases to SoundScan? Surely they can accept a digitized auto-fed submission that gets pushed from your side? Its clear Neilsen is missing MUCH and is not tracking a (growing) segment of the industry. For their own relevance, one would think they would welcome the idea with open arms?

[Ed Gamble]

I think that for myself, I would rather sell less copies of my albums and keep more of the income for myself (not to mention keeping my soul in the process) so I say the heck with major labels and I will keep doing what I am doing with tunecore. If I could sell a million copies of one of my songs for a buck a piece I would be a lot richer than if I signed with a major and sold 100,000 albums.

[The Truth]

Jeff,

I'll keep it simple. When you got 'em, you got 'em. You, in fact, got 'em. Why waste your time typing when the truth will make your point for you?

Distressed? You do not have to worry about whatever-that-guy's-name-is. I would suggest that more pressing matter is your open source business plan. You are exposing a ton of information, great for competition's sake but bad for corp revenue. You are essentially, in these posts, giving away your product for free. Yes, you provide a means for artists to distribute music but you have competitors that are going to enter this field immediately and just as for you their barrier to entry will be low.

The good thing is that artists and fans benefit. Businesses will compete but don't play against them with an open hand. Let them figure it out.

Love the idea. Love the enthusiasm. Love open source but unless Tuncore is 501(c)(3) I would hold back on the extensive breakdowns.

[Tinu]

I don't usually respond to blogs but I just couldn't resist this one.
I did my 1st album subsidiary under a major deal and I must say it opened my eyes to see how the major labels break an artist. My 1st album debuted on the billboard chart and within weeks we were approached by promoters asking for $100,000 to help "push" the album to top 10 on the chart. Basically, they have contacts at multiple mom and pop soundscan registered stores that scan this CDs multiple times to make it show up on soundscan as multiple sales and voila! you find yourself in the top 10. Naturally I didn't have $100k to part with and had to settle for the position I got naturally. I have to say it has changed my perspective about the music business and now find it hard to respect or believe any artist portrayed in the media as "sold 700,000 copies in 1 week" kind of stories anymore. A lot goes on to get the album those kind of numbers. I have seen and heard it all to believe how the "cookie is baked". I have a tremendous amount of respect for artist going at it organically even if it takes months to achieve it. Like someone said earlier, a lot of major label artist have fame and awareness but not a lot of money in the bank to match the hype.

http://www.tinuonline.com
http://www.facebook.com/tinuonline

[Billy The Mountain]

Great position Jeff and it neeeded broadcasting...I ran it on my blog off the Lefsetz newsletter, but keep the pressure on...you/we are winning...Billy The Mountain

[Michele Vreeland]

It seems we are hitting a new frontier here folks in the "New Music" industry. It's true that Numbers don't lie. But when many new artist come out into the internet music marketplace. The lot of them don't know exactly what to do once they release an album or a single. There is not much offered out there to help guide them through the process.

Yes, some of them are doing well within their niche. But the many have still yet discovered how or when to schedule their releases and manage their time well enough to run a business with their music. SO Only time will tell who are the true breakout indie artist of our time.

Having that been said. The possibilities are endless. It is only limited to your own imagination. DO your homework. Keep open to the possibility's. And keep writing great songs. That's my motto. : )

[M W]

Some of the 14 artists Jeff mentioned have gone on to better things...some have faded away already...so although they sold a nice number of tracks they haven't broken through. Jeff@tunecore is known for being long winded and argumentative - music supervisors don't look at Soundscan, they listen to stations like KCRW and KEXP, follow blogs like Pitchfork and Stereogum...might even see what thesixtyone.com crowd is digging.

While I wouldn't use Soundscan as any indicator of a band breaking, Jeff's counterpoints have just as many holes in them.

[Simon]

Back in the day small bands would be ignored by the majors and indie labels and self release. They might then get picked up by a label and would promptly sign on the dotted line to get completely ripped off and never own a note of music they ever wrote again.

Now it's completely different, apparently. Now we can get ripped off by companies who will help us release online for a small fee (for doing what? Tracking a token on a database?) and still get ignored by all the labels.

We still get situations like the one I came across today. We have a fantastic songwriter, his music has been used on adverts across 5 continents, in over 100 territories, is licensed and relicensed and none of the labels (indie or major) will give him the time of day.

If you don't believe me, check this guy out: http://www.gilesgoodenmusic.co.uk - Sony, Mars Inc, a National Tourist Board... nothing... crazy.

[Chai]

I've read some of the comments with a great deal of interest. People arguing about the numbers being sold, well folks it comes down to the artists and how well they utilize the tools (internet, software, etc) that can make for a level playing field.

I remember in the 70s a man with a funny name used late night television and tabloid ads to sell his albums and sold millions. Before than no one had ever heard of this man nor his music, no record companies just him. How? He had vision inspite of what others may have said to him and used the media that was readily available to generate interest in his record.

I can tell you big business does not like it when the "little guy" manages to make a living without them which is why Tommy Silverman made those statements.

Big record companies can relax people are sufficiently misguided to believe they can't make it on their own and will forever be vying for the crumbs on the floor.

[James]

To Pavlos: While I don't fully agree with Jeff entire blog or even see why Tommy would even state that you need "luck" AND "money" to break as a new artist, I kinda have to comment on Pavlos statement: "I ve been releasing breaking music , with the best quality and never sold more than few hundred copies." I promote for a group called BMC Boyz and through Tunecore we sold 700 units on Christmas, we average about 200 sales a week... We probably sell about 200 physical cds a week (according to nielson soundscan we sell about 150 but some stores that sell our music don't report)And quite honestly our sales increase every week so its only a matter of time until we reach a thousand sale a week. So I am here to absolutely tell you that those numbers can be done.

[S]

This is dead on, well said. Nielsen is going to hate you!

[Kevin Wood]

You go Jeff. . . we artists appreciate your having our backs. I agree moreso with your side -- more artists are having a chance to generate some success. If we can lower the bar a little, as you allude to, from "breaking it" to doing well and making a living, then the number of artists doing that these days has certainly gone up, I would think.

Nowadays, there are many independent artists making more than they spend and selling more music, especially with the help of the internet and downloads, than they would have in the old school days relying on trying to play live or getting signed and the label actually backing them.

While I find this topic very interesting and even entertaining, may I suggest we spend our time and energy talking about the issue that really matters. That is -- illegal downloads! Several nationally-published music business articles are saying that around 90 to 95% of all music downloads are illegal! And, with physical CD sales continuing on their gradual and inevitable decline, this issue becomes even more important.

Think about it for a minute. If somehow all musicians and labels formed a coalition (beyond the efforts of the RIAA, which is overwhelmed trying to get albums removed from the plethora of torrent websites) and figured out a way to limit illegal downloads to say, 50 - 60%, which should somehow be achievable, then we musicians and labels, big and small, and online distributors (iTunes, AmazonMP3 etc.) would more than quadruple our earnings and thus, re-enter a new "golden age" of music sales.

There's got to be a way to do this. And a way that is beyond the majors trying to sue a handful of abusers to make a point. It makes no sense to me why many of us have brushed this reality off as "inevitable losses" or "beyond our control." The music industry has already bent by dropping the price of an album, but to allow the giving away of 90% of our product, and hence our lifeblood, should not be allowed to go on.

In the 90's, probably less than 1% of CDs were stolen out of the record store. And now, over 90% of downloads, which account for over half of sales are illegal? This is unacceptable. If we all came together and came up with ideas/solutions, and pressured lawmakers and internet companies who hosted these brazen websites and torrent sites that offer our music for free and without our permission, then we just may quadruple the number of musicians who could make a living from music. And that would be not just "golden," but music to our ears.

Please Jeff. . . help us with this and you'll truly revolutionize the industry.

[derek simmons]

the good ol days of manipulating artists are gone, for all you major labels, "its war"
i used to be one of those starving artists looking for a deal, now i preach the benefits
of self promotion,distribution,marketing etc..
and finally, we get all of our money, thanks to digital mediums like tunecore, cd baby etc.
yes people, its time for the underdog to rise.

[Goop]

Zoe, (I am late to this string)
I feel your pain! My crew and I were at the same place with Soundscan/Neilson and a barcode scanner we purchased in 2006-2007 with an artists named Christy Clayton. We received the same type of letter.

To top it off, we were with a distribution company at the time that took our first $4000.00 worth of sales. Even after we payed up front for our placements in FYE stores along with payments for assorted other "sundries" we were under the illusion we needed based on our own "old school education." This company WAS called BCD out of Houston, Tx and did some pretty underhanded things to not just us, but enough artists that they changed their name. They listed themselves as our label for goodness sake so, the checks went to them. Look her up on iTunes and see for yourself.

Needless to say, we learned. From that point on we could now care less about any type of institutional distribution.

If you look at her myspace site from that time, (christyclaytonband) you will not only see the plays (which we all know can be manipulated), but the pictures from the extensive touring we did and radio performances we hustled. I will report that we sold hard copies in excess of 100,000 (supported by manufacturing invoices)in venues that held from 250-3500 across America yet, no one in the "industry" knew who we were, but we owned our own tour bus, stayed in nice hotels, supported children and ate well for two reasons; the bookers knew who we were and so did the fans. What else does an artist need?

Digital distribution is a great tool, especially when you are first starting out. But once you can coral a following the real money is in the hard copy, and the best way to sell the hard copy is to tour. In this respect some things will never change. Oh yeah, contrary to stories, CD's are still viable pieces of merchandise. Remember, broadband is still in a minority of homes especially in rural America which, in my opinion is where a new act from a major city should start. Rural America wants to be entertained and if you are decent, they will give you a shot and hand you $10.00 for something.

Just like a lawyer, teacher or tech guy, Tommy needs to enroll in a continued education course concerning the music business or, A. Simply realize and be proud that he was great in his day B. Sit on his porch and tell stories of the good ole days.
Personally I think it is now time for him to S.T.F.U.

Jeff,
Right on man. Any musical artist that sells anything directly related to their music and/or, because of their live performance is a great success. Our "keepers of the swag" used to hear people say to their friend "Don't worry, I will RIP the CD for you, go ahead and buy that Koozie/T-shirt/Keychain etc." So, to gauge an artist financially on music sales alone is a HUGE mistake. Would you judge Wal-Mart on the amount of Depends they sell when they also sell appliances? (Ok, I went out there on that one)
Bottom line: Any artist with A. Good songs B. Organization C. A little business acumen D. A decent understanding of radio play..ie the difference between reporting and non-reporting stations E.The balls to not only hit the road, but the stamina to stay there....Will do just fine. Then you get to learn about the wonderful world of publishing. LOL

BTW, some of your forums are KILLER! Thanks

[Jeremy Ryan Creative]

Kudos Jeff! The old-school thinkers like "Tommy Boy" are determined to sink with their antiquated business model. Music will forever move onward & upward... with or without them. Although I appreciate Tommy's past contributions to the world of music, I am saddened by his recent remarks. Thank you TuneCore for providing artists with the next generation of fair and affordable music dissemination services. And thank you for defending the legitamacy of all artists.

[hazyinseptember]

Interesting debate. But with all that info, my band is struggling to sell any songs online. We sell more CD's at gigs that we ever have tracks through Itunes.

I believe it can be done, but struggle to see the how.

www.dizzygotheca.com
www.myspace.com/dizzygotheca

[SmacOne]

I have been studying my craft and the industry for quite sometime now.

The old business model is dead.

The old business model made it impossible for someone like me to even release an album without getting an OK from someone else and being forced to jump through hoops. And if that album didn't sell... I was done for, REGARDLESS of other revenue coming in.

The new business model encompasses album sales AND EVERYTHING ELSE(Single MP3's, Merchandise, Commissions and/or guarantees from playing a live venue, Royalities from streamed music etc.)

Major labels are mad because they are not included in the new business model.

And who cares if 90% of my music is pirated?
I'd rather earn 10% of my sales , rather than the 3-5% I would with a record deal, and get those bootleggers to buy something else like a ticket to a show or a t-shirt. I'm actually embracing these statistics and using it to my advantage for publicity. My first album due for release late spring is titled "Bootleg This" and I even made a song called "Unsigned Hype" describing my views on their views of the game.

The idea of "breaking" is just that... an idea. If I'm making a decent living off of doing what I love, that'll work for me.
I care less if "they" think I never "made it." If I'm making a living, then I'm making it. I care less about "breaking" into the mainstream. What they are fuels me to be something different.

And thank you tunecore for allowing me that opportunity.

[dblackburn]

Hey Jeff,

I saw this guy speak at an ASCAP seminar last March in New York.

I can't emphasize this enough. This guy has no idea what he is talking about and he is not running any sort of successful side of TommyBoy.

Very disappointing.

[G. Ziemann]

The old dogs continue to deny reality (possibly in a futile attempt to change it), which is what got them in the mess they're in to begin with.

Independent market share (aka "Others") is down to 11 percent according to Nielsen. If they're ignoring 90,000 releases, Nielsen's numbers are meaningless.

The RIAA thinks that if they don't count the rest of us, if they simply pretend that we're not here, thenwe don't exist. But $1-$10 at a time, we're starting to siphon off some of cash flow that only the labels were once allowed to collect.

By the time they admit it's happening, they'll have to try to sue someone.

As for "You are essentially, in these posts, giving away your product for free." The Truth does not recognize that there is no product. It is the handling of their clients and their clients' products (not their own) that is the service being provided.

Even when competition to Tunecore does show up (and there already is some), people like Jeff will probably keep us here.

[Kimberly Steele]

Jeff got Tommy dead to rights. Any person of average intelligence can see that the old payola/Nielsen/major label system (that Tommy is playing fiddle on) is sinking faster than the Titanic. The major labels deserve their demise, which they earned by rewarding the talentless, screwing the real artists, cooking the books, and clinging to old technology once they realized they were losing the game.

I predicted most of this stuff would happen years ago (somewhere around 1999) and that single MP3 sales would overtake album sales. All that I predicted came true: the rise of the indie artist, the death of the major labels, and the availability of free music on the internet.

Here's what I believe is next: free internet streaming radio will replace 99 percent of terrestrial forms of radio, that other 1% being your slightly off-kilter neighbor syndicating Dr. Demento Show reruns out of his basement. You will be able to listen to podcasts or last.fm free in your car or phone and the feature will come standard. ClearChannel will suffer the business equivalent of a massive stroke. It will be the final wooden stake in the putrid heart of the old music industry. Also, indies will start creating alliances around highly specified genres and websites will grow up around said alliances.

[BaTTEYmusic]

You are both right. Technology (internet, social media, recording software, etc) has removed the barrier to entry into the industry for artists. What a label use to do for a band a band can do on it's own for low cost, i.e. DIY/Indie. However this does muddy the water for fans by bringing in poor compositions into the mix when anyone can register with iTunes.

Technology has created a "supply and demand" issue which has devalued music. It always happens when the supply is great than the demand. Now let me explain the "demand". The demand for music is greater than ever, however the demand for crap music is low and what is being "exposed" through the mainstream by major labels is crap music that three generations of fans do not want to buy. They want to buy or see is the next Led Zepplein, Jimi Hendrix or Ray Charles, not Britney Spears. Therefore the argument for "technology hurting REAL musicians" is accurate.

How technology helps: It does give an artist creative control and business control of their career. When I last checked the music industry is about making music and selling it to fans, correct? With technology allowing an artist to create music for nothing, upload it to a server for nothing, and connect and market that music direct to the fans with a click of the button; there is no need for the "middle" man who has been ripping off artist since the beginning of the industry.

With that being said artists have to wear both business and musician hats, but it is what it is, and personally I think that is what will rise to the top. We are in a different time with different tools to "break" or "expose" a band/artist and you have to take advantage of that as an artist.

As for Nielsen, it has no relevance today for all the points made. Also, artists can have their own website that fans can access and buy downloads, ringtones, merch, dvd, cd, etc through that artist ecommerce store so why would you even have to sell through iTunes or another distribution channel. If you are going to say because iTunes has millions of users, great, those users do not know about the new indie artist unless they have been exposed through marketing, promotions, pr, etc to know to buy that artist's music on iTunes.

Having your music registered on Nielsen was just a way for labels, promoters, and the "old model, boys club" to watch for "who is selling". In a day and age where artist can own their music, market and promote, tour and put on their own shows (rent out venue, sell tickets) get heard on internet radio (where most people listen to music and it pays licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI); why the hell would you waste your time trying to prove yourself to an irrelevant model and entity?

All the industry pundits are arguing over album sales, CD sales, delivery method, music format when what they should be talking about is the musical merit of what is released. At the end of the day you have to make music that resonates with the masses on a soul level. Why do you think the Icon artists such a Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Jimi Hendrix, etc are bigger today than ever before? They have soul and are/were great musicians.

So bottom line; bands and fans have the power, so why do we keep having this discussion about the middle man? Just take control and have a voice.

Peace,

Lawrence BaTTEY
www.lawrencebattey.com

[Greg Caldarone]

Some much big talk. It is so easy and plain to see. We are seeing and hearing the same boring artists on radio and television over and over. It IS true, with all the incredible and ORIGINAL talent around us, there is no original voices or styles to be heard. If you have to search for it, then Tommy is right. Without the media success is very difficult. Money, like any business, VERY ESSENTIAL. You can't get started without backing. Don't tell me numbers, I know what I see. And what song released on mainstream radio does not do well today. Young people don't know anymore what's good. They think when they hear it on the air and the DJ is TELLING them it's a hot song. THEY BUY IT! ( the bull and the song). The labels are fraudulent. They are not signing talent. They are doing favors for their friends. Independent artists most definitely can earn a living. But Lady Ga Ga, Rihanna, Alicia Keyes,Taylor Swift, Adam Lambert, Black eyed peas etc. are not independent artists. Please name some, that I"ve heard of, that are. Some where between this article and Tommy lies the truth, but sadly it is closer to Tommy.

[walter]

Drake sold alot with out being sign for plus, Mystique GP & Willi Williams - Vanity, for the first time since bob marley time, spread to all genre of music. And also being love by millions because of the internet.

[Daniel Lars]

Think Tommy has some valid points in regards to big time $$$ sales require big time promoting and money, for all the little "sheeple" out there that think if it's on the radio/Oprah/Late Night TV, ect...than the big time units move through the pike like nobody's business.

Do agree and happy to see that the internet and many independent artists like myself have shaken up the record industry bad, which was well overdue. Another reason I have high regards towards artists like Prince, is that fact that he gave the record company "the finger/told them where to go," did his own thing, after his contract was done.

When I had my debut CD initially listed on CD Baby back in '03, and shortly later on many online music sites for download, there were some small royalty checks coming in the mail time to time, but certainly nothing big to brag about or really help pay my bills...lol!

[Kent McAlister]

A great dialogue going on here.

Tommy Silverman is clearly part of the old guard and I agree his article is ridiculous and indicative of the industries' death throes.

I do however agree that you need money to get places in this business. Unfortnuately it is a fixed game in that regard at ALL levels. I've watched plenty of independent peers have success when they have the dough to make it happen, and have watched bands that blow the doors off everything independent and major fizzle out not for a lack of business know-how, but for a lack of money.

Alot of what is on commercial radio is liked because it follows a mold, and unfortunately most of the consumerist massses who can't think for themselves consume it under the mentality that "if it's on the radio, it's good." Money is thrown behind manufacturing celebrities. A song can be mediocre at best, but that doesn't matter. Just flip on any top 40 station in any genre for even a half an hour and see what I mean. of course, this is subjective and my opinion, but I'm guessing it is shared by several others reading this.

Don't forget that sites like Sonicbids also contribute to "the race to the bottom" by gouging independent artists money to apply for gigs, with little or no return. It is also oversaturated with illegitimate/scam postings that are content to take an artists money without any intention of giving any of them gigs. My band has boycotted it for two years now, and despite getting one great gig from it when I first joined, we have gotten SEVERAL great dates by writing festivals/venues who instruct people to apply through soncibids, listing for them the reasons why we (and many of our colleauges) refuse to use sonicbids, asking them to reconsider, and then giving them a quick pitch with a link to our music on myspace or reverbnation.

I digress. Great response in calling out Silverman. The man exemplifies the typical big-shot jackass we've all come to know and cross paths with in this business.

All Good Things Everyone....

[Jeff Fust]

Jeff,

I think Tommy's article was out of touch. But the real issue at hand is breaking into the MAINSTREAM music realm, not just making $ elsewhere and in other creative ways.

I am a college professor and probably 80% of my students will tell you their favorite artists are Jay-Z, Fergie, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Kelly Clarkson, etc. I don't even think they know of anyone else. And they certainly don't register with sites like emusic and try out random songs. Fellow musicians and tasteful listeners do that. Also, most of my students never pay for downloads, yet they always have digital copies of their favorite songs! I personally love the way tunecore is developing and it think it's the way music should be distributed- but unfortunately younger generations do not feel like they should have to pay for music.

The bands you mention above may have had great sales and are successes in that right. But I personally wouldn't really count them as MAINSTREAM successes- because I've never heard of any of those bands.

Whatever these labels are doing, whether it be dominating radio play, marketing/ad placement, spending excess $, music videos, it does work and still is working among the masses.

If a middle class american family were having a discussion on music the kids or teens would know who taylor swift is, whereas they would have never heard of Nickasaur- the tunecore artist who sold 150,000 copies.

Our music exists but is in unchartered waters- it's there but you have to search for it. Their music is omnipresent in stores, movie soundtracks, late show appearances, internet, tv, radio... Big difference.

That is what has to change in order for tunecore to be revolutionary. Not only do we need digital distribution, we have to be able to get on broadcast radio like everyone else, get our videos on real television, physical cds in major stores like target, etc- take it to a completely equal level so that the major labels would have no competitive advantage over a self-represented musician or band working with tunecore. Then we would really see the best bands rise to the top!

Rock on!

[Leo Frappier]

I totally agree with this thread. The old model of album sales in stores (hmmmm... where are those now? ...unfortnuatley) versus online sales is not a valid comparison. I have not gone to a store a bought a CD in ages. I have to admit I went to Best Buy over Christmas and bought a CD just because I loved the music and wanted to hold something in my hand. I totally agree with the acts who push their CD's at live gigs, and support their drive and ambition. But the push is online direct marketing and Tunecore DRIVES that, and produces profit for us, The ARTIST, not the LABEL.

[Abu Bless]

Thanks for the info this only means they are getting nervous let us continue to fight the good fight.

[Christian Bonner]

I don't know if everything he's saying can be so easily discredited. I don't see any contrary statistics offered to prove that, for instance, the vast majority of independent releases weren't through Tunecore.
Yes, the Neilson data may very well be incomplete, but what other date do you have to go on?
About the social networking sites, I am registered on all of the mentioned sites as well as having distributed a record through Tunecore, and in a year I sold no more then 7 mp3s.
I agree that the mainstream music industry needs to catch up, but this article is needlesly provocative and in the end could end up being just as damaging as you allege Mr. Silverman's attitude is.
The bottom line is that no matter how your record is distributed, the main factor is selling music is still marketing. If anything the social networks sites make it harder to "break" new talent simply but flooding the media with so much so-called information, as to make it impossible for consumers to distinguish what is worthwhile or not. I'm sure that the unsigned artists you mention who sold 200 000 or however man units, as Soulja Boy did, only did so through massive investments of time and money in the act of self promotion.
Mr. Silverman may be a cynic, but you are in all lkelyhood guilty of preying on ambition and raising false hopes that with a few simple clicks of a mouse anyone can be a star.

[XKuei]

@Christian Bonner
quoting yourself:
"Mr. Silverman may be a cynic, but you are in all lkelyhood guilty of preying on ambition and raising false hopes that with a few simple clicks of a mouse anyone can be a star."

Now, quoting the article:

'For example, if "Smells Like Teen Spirit' was not a song that people liked, it would not have mattered how much money was spent on getting you to hear it.'

Alternatively, if your song is 'unbreakable', it doesn't matter how much time you spend (and money you don't) at social networking, it's not going to happen. If you sold only 7 mp3s or a non-internet artist sold only 2 albums on 365 days, something is wrong with the music, not the exposure or whatever else.

Not my intention to "bash" you, I didn't even hear your songs. But please take this into consideration.

[Lewis Alfred]

Hey yall check out this hot new exclusive at myspace.com/lewisalfred

His CD is on sale at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lewisalfred

The Hot New single is called Special request!

[Muhanguzi Robert]

Breakthrough promise is narrow,what could have best advise.

To.Tunecorner from 1ove INTL

[matic100]

Well done Leo Frappier! You've hit the nail right on the head.This has always been my sentiments when reasoning with other musicians

[matic100]

Sorry Leo Frappier! I meant Jeff Fust!!!!........but your comment was just as valid.

[Madalyn Sklar]

Great points, Jeff!!

[Steve Durham]

Thanks, Jeff.
Very Inspiring.

[Damien Cripps]

Dont really need to say much - these figures just in from Aria ( Australian Recording Industry Association) Today. Tommy may be wrong !

The Australian Copyright Tribunal sets new royalty rate for Australia payable to composers, songwriters and music publishers for digital music and video downloads.

The new rate, which has now been ratified by the Copyright Tribunal, brings to an end a clash which pitted music publishers against Apple, Telstra and major labels Universal and Sony Music. The new royalty rate which takes effect from 1 January 2010 is 9% of retail for music downloads and 8% of retail for music video downloads.

Presently Australia’s digital music market is soaring according to first-half 09 figures reported by ARIA. Digital track sales rose 36.46% to A$18.08 million, while digital album sales improved by over 56% to A$9.27 million.

[K]

That comment from the person who sold 7 mp3s in a year boggles my mind. Distributing only through my website I've sold 18 full albums (14 mp3s) in the last 4 months. If I keep pace, I'll have sold 3,000 .mp3s JUST from my website. And I don't expect to keep pace, because once I launch through TuneCore I expect to multiply.

[Jose J.]

Remember;It's about making MUSIC not money!!

[Natal John]

"A problem is not a problem. It is an opportunity in disguise." It sounds like an opportunity for tunecore to take over the musically world. I'm with you, and I'm sure thousands of artist/bands are too.

[Ken "Drummatron" Crosby]

Thanx Jeff for defending musicians and just flat telling the truth! I am a drummer in Stockton, CA, and we basically have no music scene, but tons of artist! But with the current technology, artist from Stockton can get their music out, despite being in a city that again, does not have a "New York, Los Angeles or Bay Area" type of music scene! Struggling musician would be an understatement! So thanx again for your response to Tommy's claims and the "old system" of the record industry!

[Vincent]

The problem with Myspace, Facebook, etc... is that a band or artist with little real talent can mix with those who have intense talent. This can make the "layperson" or young impressionable person believe the intense talent is lacking. In other words, what can the "layperson" go by?

I hope in the future most music we hear is real music with real talent. The ones who create and are happy to "make a living". Not the ones who try for easy street by playing substanceless crap.

[amir]

the truth of the matter is that Nielsen Rating has absolutely no place in this day and age. It is an out dated tool.

[MandownIP]

I appreciate Tommy's statement's, it let me know that the mainstream music industry is trying to discredit the growning competition! I also appreciate Jeff's point-by-point counter but would like to have average statistically data instead of top sellers. To me he's placing the emphasis on the wrong segment of the market too, "that's too much like the big boys." How about telling us the medium sells for a Tunecore distribute artist and the likelihood of them doing 1000 - 10,000 units. Those numbers aren't career changing numbers, but net $500 - $5,000 would make many artist proud, as well as, put a little butter on their bread.

[Tommy Riley]

TOMMY SLIVERMAN IS AFRAID THAT HE WONT BE ABLE TO DECLARE WHO MAKES IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS ANY MORE . WE AS INDEPENDENT SINGERS, RAPERS , AND PRODUCERS CAN FINALLY SAY WE DON'T NEED YOUR (PIMP) CONTRACTS IN WHICH THE RECORD COMPANY MAKES MILLIONS AND WE MAKE PENNY'S . WE OWN OUR MUSIC, THE PEOPLE! DECLARE IF WE MAKE IT OR NOT, NOT SOME RADIO STATION THAT HAS BEEN PAID FOR BY SOME RECORD COMPANY . I guess the truth is scary for him , as for me (TOMMY RILEY) the truth shall set me free.
thank you for reading .... P.s my album is out now please tell me what you think

EMusic.com/album/Tommy-Riley-Trade-MP3-Download/11773107.html

[Scott]

Thanks Jeff say good luck To Tommy Boy his eyes of tears of money is cry for more power...........

[Bernadette Mcgee]

Tommy feels that independant artist is getting a better break through in the industry.Good statement Jeff you made your point To Tommy and the rest of Artist pimmpers This is 2010 the pimp game in the industry has been aknowledge from some time now.So dont hate congradulate.

[Chip]

Why doesn't TuneCore just report the sales to Nielsen? Problem solved, no?

[JeffCore]

TO CHIP:

I believe its inappropriate for TuneCore to claim artists as "TuneCore's" and claim market share. However, any artist can register their UPCs with Soundscan if they like - they then get the credit (after all they are also the "label") That being said, Neilsen takes other entities data (the labels, the artists, the retail stores, the distributors) adds value to it and then with no permission or ask from the artist or labels sells it - however, they keep all the revenue. At the very least, in my opinion, they should be sharing some portion of that revenue back with the entities that created the thing they are selling - this includes the artists. Finally, Soundscan has little relevancy these days - most of TuneCore's customers are not going for commercial radio play, physical shelf space or MTV play. And the Billboard charts (created from Soundscan's data) no longer accurately reflect the reality of the music business And to get on my little soapbox, I believe Soundscan needs the artists data more then they will need them. I am not in business to help and bolster Neilsen's marketshare on data that they can package and resell.

[Shinobi]

Jeff, the funniest or most ironic is that he asked for more data for an interview. I'm sorry he must mistake himself for a legitimate media outlet.

Maybe he should focus on the fact that he is lagging in "media credentials" that couldn't get him in to a Tone Loc concert.

NEXT!

[Chip]

Jeff,
You said:
"That being said, Neilsen takes other entities data (the labels, the artists, the retail stores, the distributors) adds value to it and then with no permission or ask from the artist or labels sells it - however, they keep all the revenue."

This describes Google's exact business model. Crawl sites, take data, repackage it and make tons of money from using it or selling it to others. I figured you be against Google as well, based on the rant, but I know that you run Google advertising for Tunecore, I've seen the ads.

Why is it that you support Google with your $$s, but pan Nielsen for doing having the exact same model?

I'm not looking for a fight, just a clarification on your rationale. I can't seem to reconcile what you are saying and what Tuncore is doing.

wrg to you comment about putting TC's 'ownership' on content, isn't there a way to pass the data to Nielsen without claiming ownership over it?

[Kieran Kelly]

We should do a little math to get to the main "spirit" of Silvermans argument. I am going to take numbers straight from Jeff's post

Top 14 selling tunecore artists sold
6,375,000 Tracks.

Tunecore artists overall sold ( this number would include titles from 2007 so pushing the over all per title sales down . Thus the number would be LOWER than even what I am posting )
42,000,000 Tracks . Subtract the 6,375,000 tracks that the top 14 artists that leaves you with

35,625,000 tracks sold for the other 90,000+ new and catalog titles.

Titles published in 2008
90,000

Taking out those 14 Titles
The AVERAGE tracks sold in 2008 of every other title on tunecore was
395 tracks sold( 39.5 total albums sold )

for a average title gross of
$277 dollars per year. for all but the top 14 Artists

Keep in mind that was only separating the top 14 selling artists from tunecore from the general pool .. what about separating the top 1000 titles .. I bet at that point the average per title track sales of the bottom 89,000 titles ( thats the other 98% for those keeping track) would be below well below 50 tracks sold per year average.

Silverman's Point is still valid even if the numbers are a little off. If anything it would further support the need for a team. As Almost all ( if not all ) of the top selling artists report to Nielsen . Where as the lowest selling releases would skew that ratio even lower than the $277 per title gross above
__________

[Adam D.]

To Kieran,

Actually, the top 14 sold 6,575,000. It doesn't change much, but it skews the numbers further against the other Tune Core artists.

I bet if you took the top 100 best-sellers you'd find everybody else releasing thru Tune Core is making less than a day's pay per year. At least, at some point you would get a big drop in the total sales per artist well before the median, as that cutoff to come AT the median would mean one or two more songs per artist (IF that) in a sample size of 90,000. Very informative math, Kieran.

[Adam D.]

To put my last comment into concrete terms, because Jeff wrote about 2 of the top 14 best-sellers on Tune Core and the relevance of Billboard in a post dated to July 2, 2009--more than six months before this one! And I am sure that we have NOT heard the last of it, in ALL its variations.

I stratified the top 14 best-sellers. Take the median (there isn't a true "middle," so . . . ) the number of sales is 225,000 units, taking the lower number to limit the disparity of sales. As one comment said, selling 10,000 units is 4.4%. Or put another way, 225,000 is more than 20 times that amount!

This leaves LOTS of room for range-y sales figures among artists selling in those unit marks. With no way of giving context to how realistic it is to sell 10,000 units among 90,000 artists, exaggerated hyperboles aside.

Still, 10,000 units comes nowhere near 225,000. The sales are so range-y that even among the top artists the top 3 nearly doubled the other 11, demonstrating my concept of a steep cutoff.

Merely considering the ratio of top bands AND their sales vis-a-vis the whole community, they are fewer than two-hundredths of 1% of the TC community. Need I lay out a feudal ethnography? To take Kieran's figure that 98% might sell 50 units per title, what you have to do to reach the 10,000 units mark is to post 200 songs!! To lend perspective that will cost you up front $2,000 of your $5,000 profit. Who has 200 resale-ready songs?

Bottom line: if you do NOT report UPCs to Nielsen and do NOT sell the units to have leverage why do you care what Nielsen does? I promise that the top 14 artists are doing fine and legitimized. You have to sell more units to win. That is the more important question TC can address. Promoting artists can help. However buying a review or sales charts is useless when you can solicit FREE reviews to be posted FOR FREE to a forum YOUR FANS follow, by a critic respected in your genre. Make reasonable demands.

Although I do not begrudge the success of the best-sellers, I refuse to allow spurious arguments to distress me if they do not affect my sales!

[Snfu Bar]

If the album is no longer the measure of sales for "breaking" which it might not be... than just divide songs sales by 12 (the average amount of songs on a CD) to come up with an "album equivalent" number to compare old to new.

Example Artist X has sold 24,000 paid SONG downloads - well, easy that = 2,000 ALBUMS...

so to break Silverman's threshold, artists need to sell a minimum of 120,000 paid SONG downloads to make it past the goal line...

[Robert Watson]

I haven't sold anything so far on Tunecore. I am wondering how do I market myself. I play psychedelic-experiemental instrumental rock music. I am just asking.

[Dco]

I agree, though there is more clutter to break through, more artists are still "breaking" now than ever before. The top40 mainstream acts are less famous than ever. Think about how many music lovers have never listened to Nikki Minaj or Justin Beiber. Could you say the same about the Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears 12 years ago? More musicians than ever are making a living making original music, with nationwide exposure, without million dollar record deals than ever before. You don't need stats to recognize that, just look around and start listening.