ANTI goes platinum in the U.S

[Haroon 49,685]

16 minutes ago, ROARyals said:

Lmao at her haters who downloaded the album and didn't realize they were helping Rihanna to a platinum record.

I don't think they did, the copies were already bought by Samsung, whether or not people downloaded free from that wouldn't make a difference to the number  

[mic 1,415]

2 hours ago, Haroon said:

I don't see how it's cheating though, album copies were sold, why does it matter how many and from who? Money still came out of someone's pocket  

I thought the certifications were measuring the performance on the music market and the value in the eyes of public. Maybe I'm wrong but it just doesn't feel right. If it becomes a trend then any kind and quality of pop music will be able gain the acclaim for commercial success. 

[Deviant 85]

take that f*ckers.

[yASSsss 35,510]

so many haters.

Stay pressed while Rihanna remains unbothered with her platinum album

*bops to Work*

[StrawberryBlond 14,872]

It shouldn't be counted, plain and simple. When U2 did that deal with Apple where their album got put onto the device of anyone who owned an itunes account, those sales didn't count towards charting. The album didn't chart at all. Because it was free. Apple did an amazing deal with them, so they got the money back, (and then some) so it was no skin off their nose. But they didn't try to get platinum certifications for a free album. After a couple of months, the album was released physically with a new cover and you could purchase it digitally from other outlets too. Those sales caused the album to chart and counted towards certifications. Because they cost money, therefore, it counts.

So, my question is, how come Rihanna, using the same idea (corporation agrees to pay you a sum of money for a set number of albums downloaded for free) can somehow chart and get these free sales counted? It's ludicrous and unfair to other artists who didn't get this special treatment. If this becomes the new model, this means any big name artist can just get a corporation to fund their new album, meaning they'll shift platinum without having to try for it. They could just hire any billionaire to buy in bulk while they're at it. That's not what the charts are supposed to be about. They're supposed to be a reflection of what the public are buying, not what corporations are buying as part of a deal. It's bad enough how record labels can buy a portion of their artist's albums on the first week to help towards a #1 without outsourcing to multimillion dollar brands to make the the situation even more unfair.

If anything, this whole situation sums up the theory that what's popular isn't what's actually popular, it's what's paid for. No matter, the public will be the true deciders in how impactful and legendary this album becomes. If it burns out in a few months and no one remembers it by next year, no one's going to know or care if it "sold" 1 million or not. The public don't actually know about certifications, it's just us avid pop forum types who do. U2 have proved that just because hundreds of millions have listened to your album doesn't mean that it'll go on to be liked or even remembered. Beyonce's surprise release cost money and sold over 4 million worldwide and yet, more people remember that as opposed to the hundreds of millions who listened to U2's album for free. Rihanna's situation could be no different.

[Brian Ryan 1,468]

Congrats to Rihanna! The album deserves it. WORK, WORK, WORRRK! 

 

[boysboysboys 278]

14 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It shouldn't be counted, plain and simple. When U2 did that deal with Apple where their album got put onto the device of anyone who owned an itunes account, those sales didn't count towards charting. The album didn't chart at all. Because it was free. Apple did an amazing deal with them, so they got the money back, (and then some) so it was no skin off their nose. But they didn't try to get platinum certifications for a free album. After a couple of months, the album was released physically with a new cover and you could purchase it digitally from other outlets too. Those sales caused the album to chart and counted towards certifications. Because they cost money, therefore, it counts.

So, my question is, how come Rihanna, using the same idea (corporation agrees to pay you a sum of money for a set number of albums downloaded for free) can somehow chart and get these free sales counted? It's ludicrous and unfair to other artists who didn't get this special treatment. If this becomes the new model, this means any big name artist can just get a corporation to fund their new album, meaning they'll shift platinum without having to try for it. They could just hire any billionaire to buy in bulk while they're at it. That's not what the charts are supposed to be about. They're supposed to be a reflection of what the public are buying, not what corporations are buying as part of a deal. It's bad enough how record labels can buy a portion of their artist's albums on the first week to help towards a #1 without outsourcing to multimillion dollar brands to make the the situation even more unfair.

If anything, this whole situation sums up the theory that what's popular isn't what's actually popular, it's what's paid for. No matter, the public will be the true deciders in how impactful and legendary this album becomes. If it burns out in a few months and no one remembers it by next year, no one's going to know or care if it "sold" 1 million or not. The public don't actually know about certifications, it's just us avid pop forum types who do. U2 have proved that just because hundreds of millions have listened to your album doesn't mean that it'll go on to be liked or even remembered. Beyonce's surprise release cost money and sold over 4 million worldwide and yet, more people remember that as opposed to the hundreds of millions who listened to U2's album for free. Rihanna's situation could be no different.

Bless you for this post!

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

How is the RIAA even acknowledging this? The album is literally the anti of anything platinum. But we'll see how the public reacts to the album in the next few weeks. 

[Bebe 17,094]

On 1/30/2016 at 3:06 AM, SISTERV said:

It's wrong ethically and you are delusional for standing by this. It's unfair. Your point is invalid and corrupt.

But you can't explain how or why? Samsung partnered with Rihanna and paid her so that she could provide free downloads for her fans. This alleviates the cost of piracy, is beneficial to Rihanna/Roc Nation and is great for consumers who receive an album for free. It benefits everyone.

If anything new artists for Roc Nation should be kissing Rihanna's shoe. Now instead of the label shifting (absolute best case scenario) 500,000 units in the first day, they have shifted more than double that because Samsung has PAID for those downloads and covered the costs. That means more money in Roc Nation's pockets, they have had their blockbuster hit/s and they have more money in their pockets to invest in new artists and can afford to test the market with more 'experimental' or 'different' artists.

 

On 1/30/2016 at 3:10 AM, RBNLM said:

People trying to defend this are the reason why music industry is dying

No the people who are attacking the music business for finding ways to make money from albums are the reason the music industry is dying. This is the future of the music industry and if you want to blame something, blame piracy. This is an example of an innovative way that an artist/record label can actually make money while providing fans with something beneficial.

It's not even that different to Doritos partnering with an artist for SXSW or Intel partnering with an artist for The Grammy awards. In that case the company pays the costs for the performance and the artist is able to perform and provide a unique experience for their fans. In this case Samsung pays the costs for free downloads and allows fans to get their an album for free. In both cases major artists are either reaching out or being approached by a major corporation and creating an experience for the fans.

How exactly is this destroying the music industry? Rihanna's record label is making more money from this record because Samsung has effectively bought 1 million copies of the album and allowed for free downloads. Record labels don't have any money. In this case they basically just shifted +1 million records when otherwise it would probably be around 200,000 due to piracy. Fans get to download the album for free, instead of pirating people download from an official place and Rihanna/Roc Nation make money. Where is the problem?

 

You sound like those people who Gaga was talking about during her SXSW speech. The music industry doesn't have any money, people are downloading everything for free rather than paying. Roc Nation/Rihanna found a way to make money from an album while providing free downloads of that album to consumers. I mean **** her right? How dare she make a business move that benefits her, the industry and consumers.

[Bebe 17,094]

The problem y'all have are with RIAA, Billboard and other charts and frankly **** them. Their system of how to calculate the most popular albums is outdated and good riddance if they become irrelevant.

This is good for the music industry. Unless you're Adele, you're not selling a million records in the first day. Piracy is at an all time high and it isn't slowing down. People want their music for free (hence the rise of streaming) and the music industry needs to adapt.

If your a record label, you can do your usual roll out and a large percentage of people will illegally download your album for free. Alternatively you can make a deal like Roc Nation did that benefits both them and consumers. Now Rihanna has effectively shifted a million copies of her album and her fans get to legitimately download her album for free. Samsung has received promo and have covered the cost of the free downloads, Roc Nation has made more money by alleviating the cost of piracy and the consumers get an album from a major artist for free.

Roc Nation has more than doubled what they would have expected for their first week sales in one day. Now Roc Nation has more money and can invest more into smaller artists. All you complainers are completely ignoring how this benefits the music industry and would rather focus on outdated charts and certifications. 

 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

On 1/30/2016 at 6:11 AM, Paper Gangsta said:

ashamed for giving fans album for free?

OMG that's hilarious you really think giving the album away for free was for Rihanna's fans? Simply put, it was Samsung paying Tidal to (A) make the album go "Platinum" and create the illusion that album is not a flop, and (B) to promote Tidal, which Rihanna co-owns. Anti has ZERO to do with Rihanna OR HER FANS. It's all corporate. Rihanna is a fraud and embodies everything wrong with the music business, and now everyone can see it. People aren't stupid you know.

[Bebe 17,094]

1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

OMG that's hilarious you really think giving the album away for free was for Rihanna's fans? Simply put, it was Samsung paying Tidal to (A) make the album go "Platinum" and create the illusion that album is not a flop, and (B) to promote Tidal, which Rihanna co-owns. Anti has ZERO to do with Rihanna OR HER FANS. It's all corporate. Rihanna is a fraud and embodies everything wrong with the music business, and now everyone can see it. People aren't stupid you know.

I'm sorry, but it really just seems like you are looking for a reason to hate on Rihanna.

(A) This is about money more than some dumb certification and (B) of course the music business is making a business move that benefits them - Thankfully this also helps consumers too!

Let's imagine Roc Nation did a normal rollout, in absolute BEST case scenario they sell 500,000 units in one day. Roc Nation/Rihanna make less money and a large percentage of people decide to pirate the music. Unless you are Adele you are not selling a million records in a day and long term record sales are terrible.

Pirating is at an all time high and people want their music for free, hence the rise of streaming platforms. Record Labels need to adapt. In this rollout Roc Nation makes a deal with Samsung. Samsung essentially buys up 1 million copies and offers them as free downloads for her fans. Samsung gets promotion, Roc Nation/Rihanna essentially shift 1 million records and consumers get their music for free. They alleviate the cost of pirating, make money and can offer an album at no cost to consumers.

If you people stopped complaining about "flops" and pointless certifications and charts, maybe you would realise that this is beneficial to the music industry.  According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), approximately 90% of the records that are released by major recording labels fail to make a profit (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/31/news/mn-4713). 

Record labels rely on their major artists to make a profit. In this instance, even being super generous to Rihanna, she has made MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of money she would have made if they did a normal roll out. This means Roc Nation can give a bigger budget to the music videos and marketing campaign of *this new artist* or can take the risk to invest in *this young artist* who makes good music, but isn't making music that radio is playing atm.

This move is beneficial to Rihanna, Roc Nation and consumers of music.  **** RIAA, Billboard and any other charts or certification companies, looks like they are having a hard time adapting to the changing music industry.

[sipthistea 21,099]

Well, I guess Samsung really really loved the album to buy 1 million copies. Samsung Navy.

Oh, wait...

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

18 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I'm sorry, but it really just seems like you are looking for a reason to hate on Rihanna.

(A) This is about money more than some dumb certification and (B) of course the music business is making a business move that benefits them - Thankfully this also helps consumers too!

Let's imagine Roc Nation did a normal rollout, in absolute BEST case scenario they sell 500,000 units in one day. Roc Nation/Rihanna make less money and a large percentage of people decide to pirate the music. Unless you are Adele you are not selling a million records in a day and long term record sales are terrible.

Pirating is at an all time high and people want their music for free, hence the rise of streaming platforms. Record Labels need to adapt. In this rollout Roc Nation makes a deal with Samsung. Samsung essentially buys up 1 million copies and offers them as free downloads for her fans. Samsung gets promotion, Roc Nation/Rihanna essentially shift 1 million records and consumers get their music for free. They alleviate the cost of pirating, make money and can offer an album at no cost to consumers.

If you people stopped complaining about "flops" and pointless certifications and charts, maybe you would realise that this is beneficial to the music industry.  According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), approximately 90% of the records that are released by major recording labels fail to make a profit (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/31/news/mn-4713). 

Record labels rely on their major artists to make a profit. In this instance, even being super generous to Rihanna, she has made MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount of money she would have made if they did a normal roll out. This means Roc Nation can give a bigger budget to the music videos and marketing campaign of *this new artist* or can take the risk to invest in *this young artist* who makes good music, but isn't making music that radio is playing atm.

This move is beneficial to Rihanna, Roc Nation and consumers of music.  **** RIAA, Billboard and any other charts or certification companies, looks like they are having a hard time adapting to the changing music industry.

Money, money, money. Is that all you care about? 

[Bebe 17,094]

27 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

Money, money, money. Is that all you care about? 

I care about the music industry and artists more than pointless certifications if that's what you mean.

I'd rather the music industry and record labels survive than Billboard and certification companies. I'd rather record labels don't go bankrupt, I'd rather have record labels be able to support innovative, new artists and I'd rather the music business make changes that benefits consumers as well as themselves.

Would you rather record labels don't adapt to the changing climate of the music industry? How do you expect record labels to support new and established talent if they don't have any money?

I've outlined how this is beneficial to consumers, the record label/artist and new up-and-coming artists. The best you seem to be able to do is "But what about the integrity of this RIAA 'certification'?"

Take that up with RIAA, not with Rihanna/Roc Nation.