How many copies did "Stoned Love" sell by the Supremes in 1971

[Strange]

In the 80's at the Hard Rock Cafe at Universal Studios in Orlando, I was looking at all the memorabelia on the walls & came across a framed RIAA Gold Record of the Motown Yesteryear Series Label 45 of "My Guy" by Mary Wells..this is the Yesteryear Series Not Motown#1056.Needless to say Mary Wells was quite upset because she did not get the gold record NOR the royalties for it. So if that reissue sold a million I wonder what the total would be for Motown#1056.

Two explanations motony, either or both are the answer.

1) You or I can pay for an RIAA certification if we want and they'll provide it, but it has to have been certified to come from them and it never was [[so you probably know where this is going...).

2) There is a very good market for, shall we say, 'falsified' RIAA plaques. A bit like the dodgy antiques and art works there are ways to tell but you need to be an expert and have the plaque in your sweaty palms to tell for sure. Basically though, the like the dollar bills in your pocket have an identifying line you would have a unique hologram included on a genuine RIAA award. It is changed from time-to-time and again the experts would know the difference - like a hallmark - to identify the era of production.

You'll have seen a combination of the two I'd say. A bit like old pubs and restaurants have 'genuine' reproductions of old photos and memorabilia to woe/amust the patrons, Hard Rock franchises go the same way.

That again isn't to say 'My Guy' didn't top the million as #1056 - although as I've said before it would be touch-and-go in 1964 - and there would be no doubt it has as a track in its own right over the years. The subject matter, like 'My Girl' too, made it a nice steady seller for young lovers for many years of vinyl reissues. No, I'm not going there!

[florence]

[QUOTE=Strange;80339]That is correct Florence, and well known in industry and other [[here!) circles. The question has always been why? Clearly it did them no good to declare or else they'd have done it - they didn't need to be members as is often mistakenly thought to be the case.

I don't know exactly how the RIAA verify a claim but I always thought the company submitted the paperwork with "proof". Maybe someone could explain?

The RIAA need to be approached that a single or album has achieved a certification level. They then [[at least prior to the digital age) sent the independent auditors a telex/fax/phone call to get their asses down to the relevant label's place of accounting or whatever and told them to report back. Based on whatever they saw, the rules in force at the time and [[hopefully) with no brown envelopes exchanging hands [[alledgedly), they'd tell the RIAA whether the particular record had indeed shipped what the label said. RIAA would then announce the award, or tell the company it had failed.



Indeed, it is conveniently claimed that their accounting was a bit of a shambles. That is one way of looking at it if you have a vested interest in continuing a myth, which after all is what the marketing department was all about in the first place so why destroy your own handywork? I've no doubt that there isn't sufficient paperwork left to certify everything retrospectively, but as usual we have more than enough evidence from the hundreds of other companies who did get involved in the scheme to figure out that what Universal could present the auditors with was complete enough. So yep, they have only seen enough data to support 500k, but not 1m. That is perfectly in tune with the times. Like I said the probability is 950k.



Of course neither you or I could make certain claims about the million sellers of the Supremes. It is however perfectly possible to reach some reasoned and logical conclusions which until the proverbial goalposts get moved again with more paperwork found, or something equally unlikely, is all we can do.

It would be a big surprise of any of their No. 1’s didn’t ship out one million copies at the time, so why no awards? You see therein is the clue that tells us again what jobeterob and I have been chewing over – returns. The auditors are charged – as the RIAA website clearly states – with assessing the validity of a certification based on net shipments. Not gross; no exports or cut-outs but net shipments. In 1964 there were just seven RIAA awards for this achievement Florence, and that included four from the Beatles. I’ll say it again, it was a tough order to make it to a gold disc, just like it should be and why the RIAA was founded in 1958 to stop all the crap claims that bedevilled the industry.

So blame Mr. Gordy and his advisors, but frankly it is apparent he knew the awards wouldn’t be forthcoming and so kept the prying eyes at bay. Maybe you think the Beach Boys were also shafted? Plenty of big charting singles but only one – at the time – able to get past one million, while all the while their albums made it. I’d recommend everyone who is really interested in all this stuff to get hold of a copy of ‘The Billboard Book of Gold & Platinum Records’ which was published in 1990 with all the then awards listed. The explanations and rule changes alone should open a few eyes – should if you’re looking without rose-tinted glasses that is!

So yep, the odd lie was told to the trade and media publications and as always it gets perpetuated in biogs and books of hit lists etc. Nothing was really qualified when they said anything, it was left vague and so there could be little come back from stroppy artists or even songwriters wondering where their royalty checks were for these missing millions. They’d be told what was happening then if they raised it.

And that’s how it will stay – it isn’t in Motown’s interest to claim awards that contradict history, is it? I look forward to the JRT figures when you can.

Fascinating stuff and great information.

So am I understanding you right that you believe only the four singles certified by the RIAA in 1997 reached the required level for certification?

I certainly wouldn't argue with total conviction on any singles which reached 1m [[except of course Someday) but - and I admit I cannot offer hard information - I simply cannot believe that some of the other singles did not even sell 500k. Unless the charts were completely screwed up Love Child must be near 1m let alone 500k.

On the face of it if what you say if true there are a lot of music commentators etc who have been mislaid by claims made and obviously don't know as much about the business as they claim to.

However, there is something funny about the certification claims made in 1997. I don't know why Universal would choose those particular singles for certification and not others [[unless documentation was missing which you seem not to think was the case) but why then would they not claim for singles by other artists?

On this basis none if Diana's solo singles before Upside Down sold as many as 500k.

Diana seemed to have a lot of highs and lows but it is beyond belief that her really big hits Ain't No Mountain High Enough, Touch Me In The Morning or Love Hangover didn't even reach the lower certification.

[florence]

Thanks for the replies.

I have the JRT figures at home; but what is interesting about them is that in his updated, complete, new biography of DR, he dropped all of the figures; they were all deleted.

And that has always made me suspicious of them; I read that as he found out the initial figures may be suspect, so he deleted them.

I think they said something like about 6 singles sold one or two million........You Can't Hurry Love, Ain't No Mountain High Enough, maybe Touch Me in the Morning, Where Did Our Love Go, Someday We'll be Together. But not Baby Love, Stop in the Name of Love and quite a few of the other #1's.

Yes, I wondered about that too but we don't know the reason for this. Could it have been legal?

I tried to contact Mr Taborrelli about this but was unable to elicit a response.

[Strange]

That is correct Florence, and well known in industry and other [[here!) circles. The question has always been why? Clearly it did them no good to declare or else they'd have done it - they didn't need to be members as is often mistakenly thought to be the case.

Fascinating stuff and great information.

So am I understanding you right that you believe only the four singles certified by the RIAA in 1997 reached the required level for certification?

I certainly wouldn't argue with total conviction on any singles which reached 1m [[except of course Someday) but - and I admit I cannot offer hard information - I simply cannot believe that some of the other singles did not even sell 500k. Unless the charts were completely screwed up Love Child must be near 1m let alone 500k.

On the face of it if what you say if true there are a lot of music commentators etc who have been mislaid by claims made and obviously don't know as much about the business as they claim to.

However, there is something funny about the certification claims made in 1997. I don't know why Universal would choose those particular singles for certification and not others [[unless documentation was missing which you seem not to think was the case) but why then would they not claim for singles by other artists?

On this basis none if Diana's solo singles before Upside Down sold as many as 500k.

Diana seemed to have a lot of highs and lows but it is beyond belief that her really big hits Ain't No Mountain High Enough, Touch Me In The Morning or Love Hangover didn't even reach the lower certification.

Mmmm… it is hard to sometimes explain reasonably complex points using the written word – for my feeble writing skills anyway – and so maybe from the tone of your reply I haven’t quite made myself clear. This bit was, I hope, straightforward enough?

It would be a big surprise if any of their No. 1’s didn’t ship out one million copies at the time, so why no awards? You see therein is the clue that tells us again what jobeterob and I have been chewing over – returns. The auditors are charged – as the RIAA website clearly states – with assessing the validity of a certification based on net shipments. Not gross; no exports or cut-outs but net shipments.

The seventh word originally being ‘of’ and not ‘if’ might have thrown the sense somewhat and I apologise, but for clarity I’m with you that there were likely more million sellers – at the time - among the No. 1’s. But I reiterate ‘at the time’ Florence and refer back to what the RIAA auditors need to see – net shipments – and the very heavy returns culture that prevailed in the States, especially for singles. That is the clue here, or again perhaps I should say ‘key’ as to why so many awards are missing.

Indeed, it is conveniently claimed that their accounting was a bit of a shambles. That is one way of looking at it if you have a vested interest in continuing a myth, which after all is what the marketing department was all about in the first place so why destroy your own handywork? I've no doubt that there isn't sufficient paperwork left to certify everything retrospectively, but as usual we have more than enough evidence from the hundreds of other companies who did get involved in the scheme to figure out that what Universal could present the auditors with was complete enough. So yep, they have only seen enough data to support 500k, but not 1m. That is perfectly in tune with the times. Like I said the probability is 950k.

As I then went on to say in relation to ‘Baby Love’, but which equally applies to all the other releases whether belatedly awarded or not, the final totals beneath one million would not be worth reporting if the world and its brother thinks all the great hits of the sixties [[not just Motown ones don’t forget) were gold at the time and, as we have seen, felt to be far higher in many instances.

There is undoubtedly missing paperwork for many of the releases as I’ve said above [[at least sufficiently reliable for the auditors to accept), but it isn’t in anyone’s interests to rock the boat now either. What little has emerged is probably about all they had and, again, it fits in with the prevailing difficulty to make gold at all in the years 61-68.

So what Universal did was respond to the other labels who were continuously upgrading the certifications of their major acts. They had no historical background to all of this which possibly explains why they went ahead on the very simple premise of claiming what they could without any ‘baggage’ or inkling as to what they were actually revealing to those who watch these things. What they could get audited they did so; if they were told they needed to show more evidence they went away and found more if they could in 1999 and 2000. We can go with the idea that sales dockets went missing for all sorts of reasons, of course we can, but until we get more upgrades the reality has to be we accept the RIAA auditors did their job and for the records they certified they had a full amount of information.

It’s a shame there isn’t an intermediary award at 750k as that would really help make sense of it all for good, but apart from the special case of ‘My Girl’ the Temptations were all gold until early 1969 with a string of big hits. If one had been platinum it would tell us plenty more that we have almost certain million-sellers for the Supremes’ No. 1’s [[or if ‘Reach Out I’ll Be There’ was certified a belated million-seller), but they weren’t.

So there we are Florence. It looks as if the documentation is mostly ‘missing’ but where it wasn’t they went ahead and requested certifications in all honesty and completeness. As with JRT, something might have happened after the first batch of certs in 1997 to bring the project to a halt…but that’s as far as I’d go with conspiracy theories…

[florence]

So there we are Florence. It looks as if the documentation is mostly ‘missing’ but where it wasn’t they went ahead and requested certifications in all honesty and completeness. As with JRT, something might have happened after the first batch of certs in 1997 to bring the project to a halt…but that’s as far as I’d go with conspiracy theories…

Ah so you do think that there is missing documentation and sales are higher than the four certifications suggest.

Basically we're back at square one - we haven't really a clue exactly how many records The Supremes sold!

I'll just continue to eagerly lap up any info. on The Supremes's sales which comes to light and take all of it with a pinch of salt.

I'll have my own idea of what feels right - and it may or not be!!!!!

[jillfoster]

Mmmm, when I see the word agenda I immediately know I'm in the wrong place for any sensible discussion.



I mean, it don't add up man! Gordy wasn't gonna downplay his acts, that ain't showbiz, but if you ever took time out to really study the industry and its hype across all genres, styles and eras, then you'd grasp that basic fact. Unless you're saying the RIAA were the ones with the problem...?

He could very well down downplay sales in the books in order to get out of paying as much royalties, and he might not have given a damn about official certification, considering the money that had to be paid, and the hoops he would have had to jump through, when all he needed to do was make his own gold record and present it in some media outlet... like what happened when Jean, Mary, and Cindy were presented with gold records for "Nathan Jones" on the Merv Griffin show in January of 1972.

[smark21]

Ah so you do think that there is missing documentation and sales are higher than the four certifications suggest.

Basically we're back at square one - we haven't really a clue exactly how many records The Supremes sold!

I'll just continue to eagerly lap up any info. on The Supremes's sales which comes to light and take all of it with a pinch of salt.

I'll have my own idea of what feels right - and it may or not be!!!!!

I think taking it with a pinch of salt is the best idea. Just enjoy the songs and be glad the Supremes and Motown in general sold enough and made music that created a die hard fan base to warrant re-issues, deluxe editions and the mining of the vaults. In the end, does it really matter [[unless you're the artist or songwriter) if Stoned Love sold 5million or 321,659 copies? No.

[Jimi LaLumia]

let's just say that if "Nathan Jones" warranted a Gold Record award from Motown on television,then "Stoned Love" was most likely platinum as it was a much,MUCH bigger hit than "Nathan" was..

[jobeterob]

And Smark..........the purpose of this thread, as stated by someone up above somewhere, was to ensure [[ I mean ENSURE) that some Supremes record outsold all the records Diana Ross was on!

Flo's analysis is good..........no one has a clue what got sold; and Smark is right..........it might be interesting and even vital to some, but it's a pinch of salt. I think it's very interesting, lots of fun and we are fortunate Flo and Strange showed up on SD. They are great.

What is a shame is the stories from an endless list of singers..........about the money gone, the crowds gone, the loans needed, the facebook pages flogging gigs anywhere and what I have found most disturbing is the pleas for money from family and friends for funerals and memorials. I still feel the artist was more responsible for that than Motown. But it's very sad when it comes to that.

[Penny]

I just can't sleep until we have an answer to these sales questions!

Penny

[Jimi LaLumia]

can't sleep?; listen to "Reach Out and Touch"....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[captainjames]

Just one question~~~ Wouldn't Mr. Gordy had to report this income of sales to the IRS ? or are we thinking he lied on his income taxes as well ? Just a thought.

[jobeterob]

Yes, but Motown Record Corporation and Jobete and other entities would pay Berry Gordy and others wages and dividends............and he would report those. It wouldn't have shown that certain records sold certain amounts.

Motown Record Corporation would have filed a corporate tax return showing income less expenses but there would be no reference to sales of individual records.

[florence]

I just can't sleep until we have an answer to these sales questions!

Penny

Penny, prepare to never have another minute's sleep!

[florence]

Yes, but Motown Record Corporation and Jobete and other entities would pay Berry Gordy and others wages and dividends............and he would report those. It wouldn't have shown that certain records sold certain amounts.

Motown Record Corporation would have filed a corporate tax return showing income less expenses but there would be no reference to sales of individual records.

Wasn't there a volume of something like 10,000 pages produced which detailed a lot of Motown sales which was used in some business case involving Michael Jackson in Detroit around 1990 which was brought into Court?

I wonder would this be a matter of public interest and be available to view if requested?

If I thought so I would even take a holiday in Detroit!!

[captainjames]

Hey
Rob thanks for that bit of info I am sure that somewhere it is itemized by number [[not necessarily the title) for each one of those recordings. It is apparent that he probably recorded it under the girls names but, we all know how that turned out.

Yes, but Motown Record Corporation and Jobete and other entities would pay Berry Gordy and others wages and dividends............and he would report those. It wouldn't have shown that certain records sold certain amounts.

Motown Record Corporation would have filed a corporate tax return showing income less expenses but there would be no reference to sales of individual records.

[jobeterob]

I'm sure one of the authors of some Motown book did use some of the documentation submitted in Court for the HDH suit...........maybe it was Peter Benajminson; maybe it was Posner; maybe Randy. I'm not sure how available any of it is after all these years and there are generally costs to search it. I don't believe any of it is available on line. Some of it might be sealed and unavailable.

Who lives in Detroit? Wayne County? They could call and ask. I know one of those books printed a copy of the Statement of Claim or the Writ.

And perhaps some of these other suits might reveal something; from what I've heard and read, none of the suits go very far before there is some settlement.

[Jimi LaLumia]

Wayne County does NOT live in Detroit,and these days, she is Jayne County!!!

http://music.aol.com/artist/jayne-county?flv=1

[jillfoster]

let's just say that if "Nathan Jones" warranted a Gold Record award from Motown on television,then "Stoned Love" was most likely platinum as it was a much,MUCH bigger hit than "Nathan" was..

i'm assuming you know that platinum didn't exist until 1976.

[Jimi LaLumia]

correct, but then, in the Motown universe, does that matters?...lol

[Strange]

Ah so you do think that there is missing documentation and sales are higher than the four certifications suggest.

Basically we're back at square one - we haven't really a clue exactly how many records The Supremes sold!

I'll just continue to eagerly lap up any info. on The Supremes's sales which comes to light and take all of it with a pinch of salt.

I'll have my own idea of what feels right - and it may or not be!!!!!

Overlooked this post Florence, sorry.

Yep, there is obviously missing documentation, that is a no-brainer! It don't put as back at square one at all though as the certs that have been awarded are fully justifiable and fit perfectly with the numbers that were REALLY being sold/shipped in the sixties. The reality is one million copies was only achievable by anyone other than the Beatles [[and even they didn't manage it every time!) if freebies were included and before returns hit.

It would be perfectly acceptable to believe each of the Supremes No. 1 hits merited a gold disc [[or a modern platinum) in theory and had Mr. Gordy been willing to open the books to the auditors at the time I don't doubt that would have happened. All that has happened since is based on the paperwork that did survive for those releases Universal deemed it worthwhile presenting to the RIAA auditors in 97 and 99 etc, or had gotten around to. And clearly these releases - if we assume, as I do, that the original shipments were over one million gross - went back below the seven-figure level.

This applies to everyone, and isn't Supremes-centric. The sad thing is Motown didn't join the scheme until 1981 or so. I'm sure what you feel is or isn't right will actually be pretty shrewd in the end.

[Strange]

He could very well down downplay sales in the books in order to get out of paying as much royalties, and he might not have given a damn about official certification, considering the money that had to be paid, and the hoops he would have had to jump through, when all he needed to do was make his own gold record and present it in some media outlet... like what happened when Jean, Mary, and Cindy were presented with gold records for "Nathan Jones" on the Merv Griffin show in January of 1972.

I don't believe Gordy and his associates could hide the figures and not pay the contractual royalties. It all has to go through the books. The contracts were lousy, as they were for many other acts and professions. Look how boxers got ripped off!

No, it was obvious to all within the industry that Motown wanted to promote their own successes and not have any independent outfit like the RIAA come in and nit-pick about what they were claiming. Gold records and awards of that nature were good publicity and media events - as you point out about Nathan Jones for instance. It was why the RIAA scheme was set up because there were so many bogus claims in the 50s that the whole thing was devalued in the eyes of the public.

'In-house' awards, as they were called, were always a publicity tool, Motown, probably with good reason as they were just starting out, wanted to blow their own trumpet and in many cases they were probably fully justified. But we'll never know exactly which were 'genuine' million-sellers and which weren't now - except for those few Universal awards that slipped out before someone realised that it was running contrary to the 'story' that had been told originally.

[Strange]

And Smark..........the purpose of this thread, as stated by someone up above somewhere, was to ensure [[ I mean ENSURE) that some Supremes record outsold all the records Diana Ross was on!

Flo's analysis is good..........no one has a clue what got sold; and Smark is right..........it might be interesting and even vital to some, but it's a pinch of salt. I think it's very interesting, lots of fun and we are fortunate Flo and Strange showed up on SD. They are great.

What is a shame is the stories from an endless list of singers..........about the money gone, the crowds gone, the loans needed, the facebook pages flogging gigs anywhere and what I have found most disturbing is the pleas for money from family and friends for funerals and memorials. I still feel the artist was more responsible for that than Motown. But it's very sad when it comes to that.

Thanks for those kind words jobeterob. You and Flo are intrinsically right about it all being taken with a pinch of salt, but I do take issue with the idea that no-one has a clue what got sold. We have, as I've mentioned before, plenty of contemporary and subsequent evidence of shipments and sales awards from the RIAA across all acts to make very good judgements as to the likely sales ranges of the big hits. And then there are the various hit parades that were - for all their faults and foibles and radio airplay factors - pretty accurate on the whole at the top end where these million-sellers obviously inhabit.

As long as we way up everything equally and even-handedly, throw in some other bona-fide data that has come to light from record company leaks and the like [[that can be trusted!), then it is easy to arrive at a fair guestimate of the overall success of all the major singles acts in total, and reasonably so per release.

Some of us have a better advantage with access to more information than others [[Hotspurman is one it seems), but providing we are truthful and don't cheat by rationalising upwards for our own personal likes and downwards for our dislikes - not that easy mind you! - then it is possible.

[Strange]

Yes, but Motown Record Corporation and Jobete and other entities would pay Berry Gordy and others wages and dividends............and he would report those. It wouldn't have shown that certain records sold certain amounts.

Motown Record Corporation would have filed a corporate tax return showing income less expenses but there would be no reference to sales of individual records.

Exactly right jobeterob. The Corporation is entirely separate for tax purposes and no IRS official would care less what each record sold. They would only be interested in the earnings and how they are made up, and in a business like that it will be rather complex!

Where the facts and figures would be reported would be to the music publishers [[who represent the songwriters), and the artist management. As so much was kept within Motown there was plenty of room for crafty, some might say dodgy, dealings. But make no mistake everyone, the paper trail will always have been clear as to the number of records pressed and issued from the contracted factories and also all the returns and other side-deals for freebies will also have been carefully noted.

What has happened to the Motown artists is no different to many others in the preceeding decades. They were taken advantage of, in much the same way that big business always has and still does [[anyone joining the Wall Street camps?). All I'm saying is that no matter how sneaky Motown were at the time in the end they couldn't hide the bigger picture as painted by Billboard, RIAA or what has come out over the years concerning other acts of the era as to what they must've been selling.

And it seems in almost all cases the numbers - surprise, surprise - were hyped up to be bigger than they actually were presented or thought to have been.

[Strange]

I'm sure one of the authors of some Motown book did use some of the documentation submitted in Court for the HDH suit...........maybe it was Peter Benajminson; maybe it was Posner; maybe Randy. I'm not sure how available any of it is after all these years and there are generally costs to search it. I don't believe any of it is available on line. Some of it might be sealed and unavailable.

Who lives in Detroit? Wayne County? They could call and ask. I know one of those books printed a copy of the Statement of Claim or the Writ.

And perhaps some of these other suits might reveal something; from what I've heard and read, none of the suits go very far before there is some settlement.

Not sure of these particular suits jobeterob, but again many cases that have been fought over the years have been reported and numbers come out that in the round tell us again that the figures were lower than generally believed. The same will apply to Motown, and mostly the settlements are to perpetuate the myths as much as squabble over the pennies. The 'brand' is worth more.

For instance, take the Beatles many cases with Capitol. Information has come out about their sales as a result and - unless we're really in denial - we must accept they are the biggest band from the 60s and so everyone else must have sold fewer, no? Well much of what happened to them prior to 1966 involved the use of freebies to avoid royalties, and for sure Motown would've played that card bigtime. It is little known, but freebies were discounted by the RIAA until late 1965, so obviously Gordy would have had no intention of bringing in the auditors only to have them say, "ok, we found 1.2m shipments but 400k were free so no gold".

These freebie records were obviously to keep the acts from earning what they should've and also to attract the One Stop accounts Motown needed 'on-side' in the early days.

[Strange]

I actually misquoted the Hitsville Motown 1972 - 1992 booklet when I referred to 3 million copies of Stoned Love being sold.

And later: Diana's last great success in this period came in 1981 with Endless Love, a duet with Lionel Richie. Endless Love, written by Richie, topped the pop charts for 10 weeks and sold over 3 million copies.

Finally got back to this jobeterob, which should bring the curtain down on all those fanciful ideas on here about 'Stoned Love' selling three million. Here are some observations about the Ross/Richie smash.

Once more we can only go by what we know, and ‘Endless Love’ was not a triple platinum or anything in those Universal RIAA certifications in the late 90s of dozens of Motown hits, and surely it must have been tempting to upgrade it if it was a genuine claim? As it seems they could go back to 1962 – the Marvelettes and ‘Please Mr. Postman’ – with satisfactory shipment info for their retrospective award applications, it is hard to believe that the 1980s paperwork was lost for ‘Endless Love’. That is all down to how you view these things; I am somewhat cynical and confess to knowing that the labels like to keep the urban myth numbers out there, and so don’t want to mess with a good story. If three million is the accepted wisdom for ‘Endless Love’ [[kinda kicks that figure into a cocked hat for ‘Stoned Love’ again btw), let’s leave well alone was probably their thinking. After all, it already had a platinum award which at the time represented two million shipments if you recall.

So why didn’t they take the opportunity to upgrade to double platinum, especially as the retrospective awards were being allowed on the new levels in force since Jan 1 1989? Again we have clues if we look for them hard enough. The single originally hit gold [[don’t forget this was for a million shipments then, and definitely not retail sales) on 21^st August 1981, a week or so after it was first on top of the Hot 100 on 15/8/81. As I say this is no science, but quite obviously the shipments are always way ahead of the demand, while at the same time the chart is reflecting an earlier period than the published date. It is hard to get one’s head around, but realistically the record had been the nation’s top selling single since about August 3, and if you then understand that similarly the shipment passing a million likely covered the same length of foreward demand period, then the chart that truly reflects when it went through the one million shipment barrier isn’t until the Hot 100 published 5th September – by which time it had been No. 1 for a month and realistically for longer.

If you’ve followed this in the badly-phrased way I’ve worded it you’ve done amazingly! If you have then basically you should see that we have a good idea that it needed about half of the time ‘Endless Love’ was No. 1 for it to really be bought by one million people. But as we know it was [[sickeningly?) popular and remained on top for as long again, finally being dethroned on 17^th October 1981, after nine long weeks at the summit [[not ten as the Hitsville booklet wrongly stated), by the equally sacharine ‘Arthur’s Theme’ by Christopher Cross. Now the interesting part is the RIAA platinum award for two million shipments was announced just a day before on 16^th October, which as before really takes us up to the end of the month in chart representation terms, by which time it was getting ready to slip down to No. 5 and its last week in the Top Ten.

Now another fact that isn’t readily appreciated is how once a record starts to slip down the charts it in fact generally becomes a net loser for the label. In other words the returns outweigh the remaining demand as dealers and public alike move on to the next smasheroo. So all the evidence indicates that Motown were keen to achieve the platinum feat – and indeed why not? – but it really was a case of stumbling over the line. The returns over the following weeks didn’t mean the award wasn’t won genuinely but it completely explains why there was no attempt to increase to triple platinum by Universal in the late 90s, nor even to re-confirm the double platinum that it looked on the face of it could have been granted.

By way of a contemporary note, it should be noted the charts and single sales had slowed and stagnated after the late seventies madness. There were a fair number of long residencies at the top of the Hot 100 and yet only one other managed platinum for two million, the media-frenzy inducing ‘Physical’ by ONJ. Now that DID stick around for ten weeks on top of the Hot 100, and did so throughout the aforementioned Xmas period for peak consumer buying. This monster still only shipped its two millionth copy on 5^th January 1982, having been at No. 1 since November 21, so as I’ve said before two million is in itself a really big deal in US singles history. Oh, and that Chris Cross ‘Arthur’s Theme’ didn’t ship a million for gold until 7^th January 1982!

All of which underscores the logical conclusion that ‘Endless Love’ never sold three million in the US, and therefore the only valid conclusion jobeterob is yours that the figure can only be global.

[Jimi LaLumia]

well, if all these records sold only 100,000 each, how did Mr. Gordy manage to build his castles everywhere and pay off all those radio guys to not play the Florence Ballard singles?.......from live performances/shows revenue?..where was the empire building money coming from?

[tomato tom]

Very interesting..Thanks for the very interesting comments..Paulo xxx

[Penny]

Would someone please, please, please give us answer to these question. I need to sleep.

I also need to get out on my route and make some deliveries.

Penny

[Roberta75]

well, if all these records sold only 100,000 each, how did Mr. Gordy manage to build his castles everywhere and pay off all those radio guys to not play the Florence Ballard singles?.......from live performances/shows revenue?..where was the empire building money coming from?

I highly doubt that Berry Gordy payed radio stations not to play Florence Ballard records. Your statement is paranoid, false and probably libelous.

Roberta

[Jimi LaLumia]

I didn't say that I believe these things, these are things that I've read...young lady!...lol
but I'm still curious, where was the money coming from if record sales were so meager...

[Strange]

Well Roberta75, I guess JimiLaLumia isn't a great stats guy either as no-one is saying 100,000 each! I reckon [[hope?) it's all tongue-in-cheek...

Basically the US record industry is full of bull*hit and we have been misled by labels, managers and media [[and still are of course) with all manner of record sales hype and dollars earnt crap. It makes for good copy, and let's face it only saddos like me bother with the detail, and then we expect to get shouted down for our troubles.

I feel sorry for that Galileo who kept telling them Europeans 400-odd years ago that the world wasn't flat but round...not sure if he got set light to for his troubles or not. Gulp.

So whether its Elvis' or the Beatles' fans who are adamant that 'It's Now Or Never' or 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' both shifted five million in the States, or Motown admirers with their daydreams, the truth is that all are in cloud cuckoo land.

But hey, it don't ultimately matter much, and that big old [[round) world of ours will keep on turning whatever you choose to believe. But you'd be better of in this instance to believe me. Lol.

[Roberta75]

I didn't say that I believe these things, these are things that I've read...young lady!...lol
but I'm still curious, where was the money coming from if record sales were so meager...

Well you certainly seem to have more than a bit of an obsession with Berry Gordy's "castles" as you call them.

[Strange]

Anyway, I'll get JRT's book out and post what figurres he gives. Many agree with these, then again just as many don't!

Hi again Florence, over here now! It seems you did have the book and intended to put the numbers up. Is it still possible if not too much trouble - or maybe a link to where else they might be checked out...?

[florence]

Hi again Florence, over here now! It seems you did have the book and intended to put the numbers up. Is it still possible if not too much trouble - or maybe a link to where else they might be checked out...?

Since you ask I will get the figures for you, Strange although it may be a few days as I'm particularly busy at the minute.

I had decided not to bother because in the long run it's not going to throw any light on the matter.

The whole Supremes' sales controversy is even more in the quagmire now.

I found your information on the 60s sales very enlightening and it looks probable that their sales are not as big as many think - Joseph Murrell's seems to have been quite gullible!!! I always knew about returns but wouldn't have thought they would have been to such an extent.

Certainly the list that was posted on Answerbag with Baby Love at 3.5m, My World Is Empty at 1m+ etc looks utter rubbish but then.......................

I did wonder if my information that when the certification levels were lowered even records released before that date could be certified under the new criteria was wrong but then you would have picked that up and I have re-confirmed it.

It would have explained why despite some claims that Where Did Our Love Go outsold Baby Love it eventually got certified. If WDOLG shipped 1m+ but then had enormous returns dealers would not have taken as many copies of BL so it didn't ship as many but then didn't have big returns and so actually sold more. However, I digress, this is hypothetical.

It would seem that Universal started first with the Diana Supremes and either there was a lot of documentation missing or the records just didn't sell the required numbers but there were only a handful of certifications.

Then when they moved on to The Temptations a large slice of their catalogue did receive awards. But why would they have the documentation for the Temptations and not The Supremes?

It would seem then that they decided not to go any further with claiming back certifications which would affect Stoned Love or Diana's solo biggies if they sold the required amount. One million is debatable but it would be hard to believe for example Touch Me In The Morning didn't do at least 500k.

The Supremes' singles raced to the top of the charts but then dropped quickly too which can be deceptive, records which rise and fall slowly and linger in the upper regions of the chart without going right to the top can be bigger sellers. So maybe a lot of their singles didn't do 1m net but it is hard ro believe that many of them would not have done 500k. I always go back to Love Child.

Anyway, I don't think it will make anything clearer but I will get the figures shortly.


Still looking at Stoned Love and I see your logic but there is something amiss there. A couple of UK chart watchers I have contacted so far are with the higher figure.

[jillfoster]

Florence, I agree... many times there is no correlation between peak chart positions and sales. Take a non-Supremes example: Ted Nugent's album "Scream Dream" peaked at number 13 on the billboard album chart, and has been certified gold..... the album "Cat Scratch Fever" only topped out at number 17... 4 positions lower, but has been certified TRIPLE PLATINUM. Just some food for thought, and a random comparison.

[Strange]

Florence, I agree... many times there is no correlation between peak chart positions and sales. Take a non-Supremes example: Ted Nugent's album "Scream Dream" peaked at number 13 on the billboard album chart, and has been certified gold..... the album "Cat Scratch Fever" only topped out at number 17... 4 positions lower, but has been certified TRIPLE PLATINUM. Just some food for thought, and a random comparison.

Jill - we are not talking about albums. They have a completely different shelf-life and sales spectrum, not to mention their market simply grew and grew over the years under discussion.

For singles, if you really have a thorough knowledge of all the variations such as era, seasonality, popularity etc., and a good sprinkling of trustworthy sales reports, industry sales data and awards information, then it is very possible to set some realistic sales parameters based on chart achievements for the biggest hits. Certainly Top 10 and above, and probably Top 20 and below too. Even the RIAA have big gaps between awards and then will have us believe that tallying all those up can not only provide onlookers with an acts total sales but even rank them against others.

It's semi-serious fun; it isn't a science as I've said before, but then what is? [[Lol, apart from science! Anyone know what the God Particle is yet? Ha.)

[roger]

Still looking at Stoned Love and I see your logic but there is something amiss there. A couple of UK chart watchers I have contacted so far are with the higher figure.

Florence .. being a "UK Chart Watcher" of sorts I can easily believe the higher US figures because I can compare them with their UK sales. This is on one assumption and two known facts.

I "assume" that the UK sales figures that I have seen for the various Motown hits, such as those in your "30 biggest selling UK Motown singles" thread are reasonably correct, as the UK charts were always sales based and so "rough" sales figures would be known from the data used to compile the British charts.

I "know" that back in the mid-late '60s the population of the US was approximately four times that of the UK [[around 50 Million in the UK and 200 million in the US) and I also "know" that in the '60s wages etc. were significantly higher in the US than in the UK and so there was a lot more disposable income around in the US than in the UK.

The Top 30 selling UK Motown singles list has "Baby Love" selling 500000 copies in the UK .. though this may include some sales from the 1974 reissue. The 1964 UK chart run of "Baby Love" seems very similar to its US Billboard "Hot 100" run .. in the UK "Baby Love" spent fifteen weeks on the chart with two of those at number one, in the US "Baby Love spent thirteen weeks on the "Hot 100" with four of those at number one.

The UK figure of 500000 sales for "Baby Love" seem totally in line to me with reported sales of other UK #1 hits in that 1964/5 period, and even if it does include the 1974 reissue that would still indicate to me that the 1964 UK release sold 400000.

So .. I don't find it hard to believe that "Baby Love" might have sold 3 Million in the US in 1964 if, with a similar chart run in Britain, it managed to sell 400000 at the same time .. If I take the lower UK figure of 400000, multiply that by four [[to take in account the difference in US/UK population) and then add 50% to take into account differences in disposable income it comes out as 2.4 Million .. if I take the higher UK figure of 500000 and do the same it actually does come out as 3 Million.

Roger

[Strange]

Since you ask I will get the figures for you, Strange although it may be a few days as I'm particularly busy at the minute.

I had decided not to bother because in the long run it's not going to throw any light on the matter.

The whole Supremes' sales controversy is even more in the quagmire now.

I found your information on the 60s sales very enlightening and it looks probable that their sales are not as big as many think - Joseph Murrell's seems to have been quite gullible!!! I always knew about returns but wouldn't have thought they would have been to such an extent.

Please do bother Florence! Any and all figures should be given an airing, they are very often suspect and come with an 'agenda', but not always and in that regard I feel JRT's numbers can be considered. He does have some credentials/contacts, even though he is also a possible 'puppet' too. The comments about Joseph Murrels are a case in point. His work on the original 'Book of Golden Discs' is imho the chart and sales hobbyist's 'bible', and yet as you point out it is shown to be flawed in many respects.

It doesn't make him gullible I don't think, because when he worked and collated all this info [[the 40s, 50s and 60s mainly) he was no more than a journalist with contacts too - and there was no internet don't forget. What he put together was astonishing and held sway for years [[in some fan-centric quarters it still does/will), and only the likes of you and me can maybe spot the problems in what he reported. Don't forget also that all his material was gleaned from the trade papers and record company press releases; he could only do so much with what he had.

As for the Supremes quagmire, well that isn't the case at all providing a dose of realism is applied.

Certainly the list that was posted on Answerbag with Baby Love at 3.5m, My World Is Empty at 1m+ etc looks utter rubbish but then.......................

I did wonder if my information that when the certification levels were lowered even records released before that date could be certified under the new criteria was wrong but then you would have picked that up and I have re-confirmed it.

It would have explained why despite some claims that Where Did Our Love Go outsold Baby Love it eventually got certified. If WDOLG shipped 1m+ but then had enormous returns dealers would not have taken as many copies of BL so it didn't ship as many but then didn't have big returns and so actually sold more. However, I digress, this is hypothetical.

The Answerbag list is rubbish, no need to equivocate about it imho. Trust me, there is no other answer save a conspiracy theory concerning such malpractice and involving so many people that it would be right up there with the JFK and Moon-landing cover-ups!

And yes, the RIAA awards are now retrospective since that reduction in criteria at 1/1/89 to 500k shipment for gold and re-naming the million shipment as platinum. We had so many upgrades and re-certs from all the labels that it is again quite easy to work through them all and see what the original shipment patterns vis-a-vis the charts and different eras/seasons etc. must have been. Within reason. Some issues as you say could be 'hypothetical', but we aren't [[or shouldn't be) trying to tie things down to the 'nth degree, but we can make very good educated guesses about 'Baby Love' and WDOLG. It is a pain that Motown didn't want to have independent RIAA auditers look at their books - but plenty of companies/labels did and as I pointed out there were still only seven confirmed million-unit shipments in the whole of 1964 and four of those were the Beatles! It is pretty clear to me that 'Baby Love' has been correctly certified at over 500k and beneath 1m. Anyone else thinking otherwise needs to open the book of conspiracy theories again!

It would seem that Universal started first with the Diana Supremes and either there was a lot of documentation missing or the records just didn't sell the required numbers but there were only a handful of certifications.

Then when they moved on to The Temptations a large slice of their catalogue did receive awards. But why would they have the documentation for the Temptations and not The Supremes?

It would seem then that they decided not to go any further with claiming back certifications which would affect Stoned Love or Diana's solo biggies if they sold the required amount. One million is debatable but it would be hard to believe for example Touch Me In The Morning didn't do at least 500k.

The Supremes' singles raced to the top of the charts but then dropped quickly too which can be deceptive, records which rise and fall slowly and linger in the upper regions of the chart without going right to the top can be bigger sellers. So maybe a lot of their singles didn't do 1m net but it is hard ro believe that many of them would not have done 500k. I always go back to Love Child.

Anyway, I don't think it will make anything clearer but I will get the figures shortly.


Still looking at Stoned Love and I see your logic but there is something amiss there. A couple of UK chart watchers I have contacted so far are with the higher figure.

As for the order of the retrospective Universal certs, you may well be right that they went backwards. I'm less interested in that than the certs themselves that did make it and the level the reached; when compared with the Columbia re-cert programme on singles for instance, or those of other labels, we can easily see that the idea of incomplete or 'missing' paperwork isn't necessarily watertight. Anyway, as you say, there should have been plenty of golds for 500k for sure - including TMITM - and for whatever reason they pulled the plug on the whole shooting match.

If someone would like to pop in here and say why they believe Stoned Love is that higher 355k figure, it would maybe make it more interesting for everyone...

[Strange]

Florence .. being a "UK Chart Watcher" of sorts I can easily believe the higher US figures because I can compare them with their UK sales. This is on one assumption and two known facts.

I "assume" that the UK sales figures that I have seen for the various Motown hits, such as those in your "30 biggest selling UK Motown singles" thread are reasonably correct, as the UK charts were always sales based and so "rough" sales figures would be known from the data used to compile the British charts.

I "know" that back in the mid-late '60s the population of the US was approximately four times that of the UK [[around 50 Million in the UK and 200 million in the US) and I also "know" that in the '60s wages etc. were significantly higher in the US than in the UK and so there was a lot more disposable income around in the US than in the UK.

The Top 30 selling UK Motown singles list has "Baby Love" selling 500000 copies in the UK .. though this may include some sales from the 1974 reissue. The 1964 UK chart run of "Baby Love" seems very similar to its US Billboard "Hot 100" run .. in the UK "Baby Love" spent fifteen weeks on the chart with two of those at number one, in the US "Baby Love spent thirteen weeks on the "Hot 100" with four of those at number one.

The UK figure of 500000 sales for "Baby Love" seem totally in line to me with reported sales of other UK #1 hits in that 1964/5 period, and even if it does include the 1974 reissue that would still indicate to me that the 1964 UK release sold 400000.

So .. I don't find it hard to believe that "Baby Love" might have sold 3 Million in the US in 1964 if, with a similar chart run in Britain, it managed to sell 400000 at the same time .. If I take the lower UK figure of 400000, multiply that by four [[to take in account the difference in US/UK population) and then add 50% to take into account differences in disposable income it comes out as 2.4 Million .. if I take the higher UK figure of 500000 and do the same it actually does come out as 3 Million.

Roger

It is interesting how easy it is for people to fall into the population ratios and proportionality traps when attempting to estimate sales around the world. I was that man once too, so I can perfectly understand how you've rationalised things here Roger.

On the face of it your basic numbers are correct and the arithmetic is faultless - but one key ingredient is missing that I gave particular attention to in an earlier post on the Top 30 Motown UK Singles thread - the actual shipment data of singles. This was what I said then - ironically in response to your own correct observation about British silver discs - in post number 76:

Thanks Roger, nothing like the actual stats to underline the realities! In the late sixties and on into 1972 – with the usual exception to prove the rule – single sales were indeed very flat compared with 63/4. But then again, most comparisons with the Beatles/Merseybeat explosion would look poor!

The actual 45-rpm record production figures for 1964 were 72,841,000 against 46,618,000 in 1969. But as always, an understanding of what the numbers mean and refer to is equally as important in all of this [[a bit like the Republicans or Democrats explaining the same sets of figures differently and the non-partisan commentators actually interpreting them for what they are!).

Now of course that is only half the story, and taking your population proportion/ratio theory we would actually expect US single unit shipments to be approaching 300m, but in fact the RIAA estimate for 1964 is just 99m!

As I say, your calculations on the face of things look fine to the layman, but the reality is that the market for singles in the States had been steadily declining since 1958, whereas the opposite was true in the UK. The Beatles/Merseybeat inspired boom was truly astonishing. Why, well apart from a traditional love of the single in Britain it is probably your observation about relative wealth of the two nations that explains it; the Brits simply couldn't afford an album whereas the more affluent Americans were able to spend more of their disposable income on the 33rpm.

This doesn't mean proportionality and ratios can work based on the unit production and shipment data of any given time, of course it doesn't [[and I explained part of the difficulties later in that post I refer to if you missed it or care to revisit it). But it is the most important detail when considering the various factors at play in the general overview of the relative market sizes.

As I say, I also fell for the population comparative argument for many years until studying statistical principles made me realise the error of my ways. Another way of looking at it for a country as vast as the States is to look at regional or local stats [[again, as I erroneously once did) and then extrapolate upwards for a national figure. So say a Billboard report said a single shipped 75k in Chicago, well in my youthful mind I checked the population of greater Chicago and worked up to a US-wide possible total.

Blimey, did I have some multi-platinum sellers by the time I was finished! And I believed it made perfect sense too...

[motony]

I still say that singles sales did not start declining in favor of LPS until 1968 not 1958 in the USA.Motown was the number 1 label in singles sales in the 60's.This was the word from Schwartz Bros. distributors[[one of the biggest in the NE) and Tone Distributors[[one of the biggest if not the biggest in the SE).

[Strange]

I still say that singles sales did not start declining in favor of LPS until 1968 not 1958 in the USA.Motown was the number 1 label in singles sales in the 60's.This was the word from Schwartz Bros. distributors[[one of the biggest in the NE) and Tone Distributors[[one of the biggest if not the biggest in the SE).

Well motony, you are quite right, that singles sales hadn't declined below album & tape sales until 1968. I confirmed this particular statistical breakthrough in another post the other day was in the last quarter of 1967 I recall.

But that is not at issue here. The 'declining' that is of note in this discussion is that of singles as a whole in the US compared with the UK, and as an aside the reason for the decrease in the singles/album sales ratio of the two countries was probably the greater wealth enjoyed in the States to be able to buy more LPs than the still relatively impoverished [[due to WWII) British.

As for the Motown label being the No. 1 singles label in the States, that isn't at issue either. Again I mentioned the other day that it wasn't so much the individual sales that caused this as the greater percentage of hits from the number of releases. On average a label is pleased with a ratio [[yes, it is good to use this here!) of one Top 100 success out of 13 or so releases. Motown at their peak were able - because of superb A&R, writing and production control to achieve a 1:4 home run conversion rate. Possibly even better at certain peak times!

The roster of star names and hit singles makes the distributor claims pretty obvious to me and you, if not to the layman. By comparison, take away Elvis from RCA and the Beatles from Capitol and what have you got? Not a lot really [[I know, Beach Boys and, err, the Guess Who...?! respectively). Let's be serious!

But that again isn't the issue - the issue is the multi-million sellers that just weren't.

[roger]

A very interesting post there Strange [[Your Post #190).

I'd be very interested to know where I can find the stated cumulative figure for U.S. singles sales in 1964 of just 99 Million.

To me this figure seems astonishingly low, especially set against the U.K. figure you state of just under 73 Million [[which is close to my guestimate of 80 Million).

I would have thought that U.S. singles sales in this period would have been much higher and I've been busy googling trying to find some clues.

The nearest I've come to any success is an article I've found about Japanese Sales in Billboard, dated 19th December 1970.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m...page&q&f=false

In this it states that in 1969 "singles sales in Japan were 0.7 units per capita, whereas in the U.S. and U.K. they were about 1.0.

So, if Billboard in 1970 is to believed the total sales of singles in the U.S. in 1969 were around the 200 Million figure and in the U.K. they were around the 50 Million mark.

This seems broadly speaking correct with the U.K. figures you quote of between 46 and 47 Million, so it seems logical to assume their U.S. estimate is correct as well.

However, something seems wrong here as this 1969 U.S. figure is double the amount you state as being the total for 1964, yet the consensus of opinion is that in 1960s America they were in steady decline! Are we all wrong?

I also found this interesting article on the breaking of THE BEATLES in the U.S. which occurred in 1964 ..

http://www.pophistorydig.com/?p=3421

An interesting comments in this is that ..

"They [[The Beatles) had 15 separate recordings in 1964 - nine singles and six albums - that each sold 1 million or more copies, representing total Beatle sales in the U.S. that one year of more than 25 million copies".

Which means that at the absolute minimum THE BEATLES sold 9 Million singles in 1964, and as the article states figures for "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as 3.4 Million by the end of March, with "Can't Buy Me Love" selling 2.1 Million at that time it looks like the cumulative total for Beatles singles sold in the U.S. in 1964 is much higher.

It doesn't leave much for everyone else does it, though the article does state that in the first quarter of 1964 THE BEATLES accounted for a staggering 60% of U.S. record sales.

One BEATLES record that could give a pointer to the sales of "Baby Love" is THE BEATLES last hit prior to "Baby Love" .. "A Hard Day's Night" which the article states was certified gold for exceeding sales of more than 1 million copies on 25th August 1964.

Now, in terms of Billboard Chart numbers "A Hard Day's Night" was a lesser hit than "Baby Love" .. here are the figures for their respective Billboard Hot 100 chart runs.

"Hard Days Night" .. 18th July 1964 .. 13 weeks on the charts, 2 at #1 .. 1st August and 8th August.

"Baby Love" .. 3rd October 1964 .. 13 weeks on the charts, 4 at #1 .. 31st Oct, 7th Nov, 14th Nov 21st Nov.

It seems to me incredibly unlikely that a record that was at #1 for two weeks in August of 1964 actually sold significantly more than one that was #1 for virtually all of November 1964, so on that basis alone I would be astounded if "Baby Love" hadn't reached the Million mark in the U.S. by the end of 1964.


Which brings me back to the original subject of this thread .. the U.S. sales of "Stoned Love" in 1971.

If the Billboard assertation that singles sales per Capita in the U.S. and the U.K. in 1969 were approximately the same then it seems likely that there was little divergence by early 1971 and maybe we could use my "proportioning" idea to interpolate U.S. sales.

Florence's list has U.K. sales of "Stoned Love" as 355000, and as it had only one U.K. chart run virtually all of that would have to be in 1971.

So .. if "Stoned Love" had been just as big a hit in the U.S. as it was in the U.K. then it would seem likely that U.S. sales were in the 1.4 to 1.5 Million range.

In pure chart terms "Stoned Love" was actually a slightly bigger hit in the U.K. [[13 weeks peaking at #3) than on the Billboard Hot 100 [[14 weeks peaking at #7) but even this to me indicate that U.S. sales in excess of a Million were very likely.

Interesting thread this isn't it!!

Roger ..

[florence]

Florence .. being a "UK Chart Watcher" of sorts I can easily believe the higher US figures because I can compare them with their UK sales. This is on one assumption and two known facts.

I "assume" that the UK sales figures that I have seen for the various Motown hits, such as those in your "30 biggest selling UK Motown singles" thread are reasonably correct, as the UK charts were always sales based and so "rough" sales figures would be known from the data used to compile the British charts.

I "know" that back in the mid-late '60s the population of the US was approximately four times that of the UK [[around 50 Million in the UK and 200 million in the US) and I also "know" that in the '60s wages etc. were significantly higher in the US than in the UK and so there was a lot more disposable income around in the US than in the UK.

The Top 30 selling UK Motown singles list has "Baby Love" selling 500000 copies in the UK .. though this may include some sales from the 1974 reissue. The 1964 UK chart run of "Baby Love" seems very similar to its US Billboard "Hot 100" run .. in the UK "Baby Love" spent fifteen weeks on the chart with two of those at number one, in the US "Baby Love spent thirteen weeks on the "Hot 100" with four of those at number one.

The UK figure of 500000 sales for "Baby Love" seem totally in line to me with reported sales of other UK #1 hits in that 1964/5 period, and even if it does include the 1974 reissue that would still indicate to me that the 1964 UK release sold 400000.

So .. I don't find it hard to believe that "Baby Love" might have sold 3 Million in the US in 1964 if, with a similar chart run in Britain, it managed to sell 400000 at the same time .. If I take the lower UK figure of 400000, multiply that by four [[to take in account the difference in US/UK population) and then add 50% to take into account differences in disposable income it comes out as 2.4 Million .. if I take the higher UK figure of 500000 and do the same it actually does come out as 3 Million.

Roger

Sorry, Roger I was referring to the UK when I mentioned the higher sales figure for Stoned Love.

The problem is whether the UK figure is right - Strange has a perfectly logical point when he says that a Silver Disc was never claimed but there's something odd here and I'm trying to follow a couple of different leads.

I think the UK figure of circa 500k for Baby Love is reasonably accurate - as you say it was a very big hit here in 1964 and would have sold in the high 300s/low 400s, then its 10-week run peaking at #12 could have been around 80k. It's one of the Supremes' singles which could have sold an additional few thousand copies over the years plus a few on Download.

The figure given includes sales from both chart runs - in the case of Baby Love it had the same B-side unlike others in the list so there can be no argument over that.

I'm not sure you can correlate the figures in the UK to the US but unless you discount everything Strange says it wouldn't look to have sold anywhere near 3m in the US.

Interestingly The Top 10 Of Music published in the UK in 1992 has Baby Love as the fifth biggest selling single of 1964 in the US [[behind four Beatles singles but ahead of A Hard Day's Night) - unfortunately there is no information given as to where they got this information but they do say their statistics are based primarily [[hmmm) on sales.

[Strange]

Ha guys, equally stimulating responses! I am impressed with the interest and understanding shown and maybe it is time we started a specific thread devoted to all these chart and sales topics that are - to me anyway - fascinating.

For instance, Florence says she's still following up a couple of angles for 'Stoned Love' and so maybe I should bring this post below over here as it might have been missed?

Any guesses about the other silver?

I'll attempt to explain my theories some more, and answer your latest observations Roger and Florence, in the fullness of time!

Fair enough Hotspurman, I totally agree that there is more than just Motown music - but maybe not much better!

There will be around a hundred silvers 70-73 from Disc, with the principal Motown one that I recall of the top of my head being 'I Want You Back' on 14th March 1970 and then 'Tears of a Clown' and Stevie's 'I Don't Know Why' announced on 19th September 1970.

Anyone want to guess the last one?

[Strange]

Sorry, Roger I was referring to the UK when I mentioned the higher sales figure for Stoned Love.

The problem is whether the UK figure is right - Strange has a perfectly logical point when he says that a Silver Disc was never claimed but there's something odd here and I'm trying to follow a couple of different leads.

I think the UK figure of circa 500k for Baby Love is reasonably accurate - as you say it was a very big hit here in 1964 and would have sold in the high 300s/low 400s, then its 10-week run peaking at #12 could have been around 80k. It's one of the Supremes' singles which could have sold an additional few thousand copies over the years plus a few on Download.

The figure given includes sales from both chart runs - in the case of Baby Love it had the same B-side unlike others in the list so there can be no argument over that.

I'm not sure you can correlate the figures in the UK to the US but unless you discount everything Strange says it wouldn't look to have sold anywhere near 3m in the US.

Interestingly The Top 10 Of Music published in the UK in 1992 has Baby Love as the fifth biggest selling single of 1964 in the US [[behind four Beatles singles but ahead of A Hard Day's Night) - unfortunately there is no information given as to where they got this information but they do say their statistics are based primarily [[hmmm) on sales.

Interceding a bit here, but I think Roger was aware that you were talking about the UK sales of 'Stoned Love', at least that was my understanding from where he went with his original post. Anyway, apart from what I'm hoping to show about the real [[at least as far as we know based on RIAA data) single sales of individual titles in the States, the same can be estimated within reason - never certainty! - based on the UK award schemes and chart comparisons. As Roger has rightly said, the UK has always had a very strong sales-based reliability in its hit parade results, even way back when in the 60s!

Hopefully the additional awards I posted above are of use in that regard?

I see that downloads are being included in your commentary now Florence regarding 'Baby Love'. I would be unable to add much about those and as I've hinted before to me they are whims or spur-of-the-moment purchases and just track based to boot, so let's not include them in the debate. It is confusing enough as it it! The physical format [[preferably only including the original release and its identical reissues) is what I care about; I'll be dead and gone by the time all these records are consigned to history by the instant gratification of digital sales so let's not go there - please?

That aside, the logic I would ask you to consider this time is the reality that the sales awards schemes were of sufficient worth and merit publicity-wise to the artist/management/label that they were keen to claim them as soon as they could? That is my opinion of these certifications anyway, be they the UK style of self-cert or the US audit-check variety. They were something to achieve, a recognition of success within the industry and beyond. If that wasn't the case then why would Motown or others before [[and after) bother with 'in-house' awards? Therefore I submit that they were both important and applied for as soon as possible after the appropriate level had been reached - 250,000 copies in Great Britain.

Ok, if that is where I'm coming from [[and with some conviction I might add...), I would ask you to now re-consider your "high 300s/low 400s" conclusion for the original chart performance of 'Baby Love' when set against the silver disc announcement date of 5th December, at which time the single had slipped from No. 1 to No. 3 in its seventh charted week, and then it went 8, 10, 15. I know you are aware that the chart is but a snapshot in time of an earlier sales period Florence, so all it leaves us to really consider is the position that 'Baby Love' was really at in shipment terms - no, not retail sales - as of December 5. I'd say that it was probably in-between Nos 8 & 10, but realistically it was finished as a major popular selling single as far as the EMI marketing folk were concerned, even if the public still picked up a further 10-20k into and thru Xmas.

We are all three [[you, me and Roger) agreed that the 'Baby Love' re-issue is the same pairing as the original and so the 1974 sales should be legitimately counted [[although it isn't for us to say, sadly!). If anyone follows the logic of what I'm saying it joins 'Stoned Love' as being another inaccurate entry in that Motown list - that is unless we up the 1974 version to nearer 200-plus thousand!

If anyone wants to have the chapter and verse on Ash/Crampton [[and Lazell) as per your Top Ten of Music observations then I'll be happy to bore you...

[smark21]

I can't believe I'm going to contribute to a sales and charts thread, but here it goes. Isn't the Billboard Singles chart standings a compilation of both sales and radio airplay? So Baby Love could have had its #1 because of radio spins, not due to #1 in sales. Also, even if it's based soley on sales from the reporting period, perhaps A Hard Day's Night sold, let's say 200k the first week at #1 and 175k the 2nd week at #1, but by the time Baby Love hit number one, it did not with less cumulative sales over its 4 week reign than A Hard Day's Night did in its 2 week run? Just speculation. In the end, both songs survived and are both iconic [[if overplayed) songs for each act.

[florence]

I can't believe I'm going to contribute to a sales and charts thread, but here it goes. Isn't the Billboard Singles chart standings a compilation of both sales and radio airplay? So Baby Love could have had its #1 because of radio spins, not due to #1 in sales. Also, even if it's based soley on sales from the reporting period, perhaps A Hard Day's Night sold, let's say 200k the first week at #1 and 175k the 2nd week at #1, but by the time Baby Love hit number one, it did not with less cumulative sales over its 4 week reign than A Hard Day's Night did in its 2 week run? Just speculation. In the end, both songs survived and are both iconic [[if overplayed) songs for each act.

Fair enough point regarding Billboard but neither Cashbox [[at that stage) nor Record World included any airplay in its charts and Baby Love was #1 on both of them.

As you say though the chart position in any one week doesn't indicate the levels of sales - all it tells you is that a particular record was the best , second best etc selling record in that week.

[florence]

Interceding a bit here, but I think Roger was aware that you were talking about the UK sales of 'Stoned Love', at least that was my understanding from where he went with his original post. Anyway, apart from what I'm hoping to show about the real [[at least as far as we know based on RIAA data) single sales of individual titles in the States, the same can be estimated within reason - never certainty! - based on the UK award schemes and chart comparisons. As Roger has rightly said, the UK has always had a very strong sales-based reliability in its hit parade results, even way back when in the 60s!

Hopefully the additional awards I posted above are of use in that regard?

I see that downloads are being included in your commentary now Florence regarding 'Baby Love'. I would be unable to add much about those and as I've hinted before to me they are whims or spur-of-the-moment purchases and just track based to boot, so let's not include them in the debate. It is confusing enough as it it! The physical format [[preferably only including the original release and its identical reissues) is what I care about; I'll be dead and gone by the time all these records are consigned to history by the instant gratification of digital sales so let's not go there - please?

That aside, the logic I would ask you to consider this time is the reality that the sales awards schemes were of sufficient worth and merit publicity-wise to the artist/management/label that they were keen to claim them as soon as they could? That is my opinion of these certifications anyway, be they the UK style of self-cert or the US audit-check variety. They were something to achieve, a recognition of success within the industry and beyond. If that wasn't the case then why would Motown or others before [[and after) bother with 'in-house' awards? Therefore I submit that they were both important and applied for as soon as possible after the appropriate level had been reached - 250,000 copies in Great Britain.

Ok, if that is where I'm coming from [[and with some conviction I might add...), I would ask you to now re-consider your "high 300s/low 400s" conclusion for the original chart performance of 'Baby Love' when set against the silver disc announcement date of 5th December, at which time the single had slipped from No. 1 to No. 3 in its seventh charted week, and then it went 8, 10, 15. I know you are aware that the chart is but a snapshot in time of an earlier sales period Florence, so all it leaves us to really consider is the position that 'Baby Love' was really at in shipment terms - no, not retail sales - as of December 5. I'd say that it was probably in-between Nos 8 & 10, but realistically it was finished as a major popular selling single as far as the EMI marketing folk were concerned, even if the public still picked up a further 10-20k into and thru Xmas.

We are all three [[you, me and Roger) agreed that the 'Baby Love' re-issue is the same pairing as the original and so the 1974 sales should be legitimately counted [[although it isn't for us to say, sadly!). If anyone follows the logic of what I'm saying it joins 'Stoned Love' as being another inaccurate entry in that Motown list - that is unless we up the 1974 version to nearer 200-plus thousand!

If anyone wants to have the chapter and verse on Ash/Crampton [[and Lazell) as per your Top Ten of Music observations then I'll be happy to bore you...

The list includes all sales up to the end of 2008.

This obviously will include Downloads plus any singles sold from when the EPOS machines were introduced. It could very well be that because they were back catalogue many not have been recorded when the BMRB Diaries were written by hand.

The full Downoaod total for any single since 1994 can be obtained at the flick of a switch - unfortunately this is onlt available to those with connections to the Music Industry.

It's not impossible BL sold a reasonable number of copies between 1965 and 1974 and then afterwards without troubling the charts. I wonder was the record actually deleted after 1964 or available on ordewr and re-issued in 1974 as public demand was increasing?

The Supremes in the UK are defined by two records - to a lesser extent You Can't Hurry Love but mostly by BL. Ask any-one in the street and of anyone who does know of their records the vast majority of responses will be BL.

I would not be surprised this ran into five figures but I don't think it would be a significant proportion of the total sales.

There really is no exact hard evidence of exactly how many BL sold in 1964. Like Roger I am basing my estimate in relation to how other leading records in that year sold - many towards 500k.

It could be as low as 350k although I think higher but then this is based on the BMRB Motown list which you don't think is accurate. They say BL is #8 while The FourTops Reach Out is #15.

The Virgin Book Of Hit Singles confirmed that RO had sold c470k in Aptil 2010 which means BL is more than this. Do you accept or take it that Virgin is giving misinformation? Hmmmm

There would really be no other way for the OCC to have sales figures for a record from 1964 except from the record company- it's up to you whether you think they are supplying false information but it puts it towards the 500k mark.

A big hunk of BL's sales could relate to how many they sold when they were at #1. Shipments will obviously always run ahead of over-counter sales. I can see what you are saying if the shipment figure only passed the 250k mark on 5th December but that is the week end date when the record was certified. How long did it take Disc to give the award when it received the claim etc?

As the record accelerated towards #1 there may have been big shipments in mid November sold around the period the record was #1 and the Company then made a claim towards the end of the month.

The thing is we don't know. I'm taking something on trust from a reputable comapny and other facts which also may or may not be wrong tie in with this. You don't believe this and also think the Silver Disc claim was made the instant the record passed the 250k shipment mark.

There's no satisfactory answer!!

As for Ash/Crampton I personally don't really rate it. Some lists are wrong on the info. I have but then that comes from the OCC and panel sales over the years.

[Strange]

Fair enough point regarding Billboard but neither Cashbox [[at that stage) nor Record World included any airplay in its charts and Baby Love was #1 on both of them.

As you say though the chart position in any one week doesn't indicate the levels of sales - all it tells you is that a particular record was the best , second best etc selling record in that week.

Indeed that is true Florence, but as I keep pointing out, if the charts had any value [[and the whole industry used and followed them, so you kinda have to accept they were of some use!) then they do reveal more 'in aggregate' than just the snapshot ranking as to the bestselling hits of a given week.

As for the airplay component, there is a lot of misunderstanding about that too it seems. I've no doubt things are very different today, but back in the 60s the impact of radio plays on the Hot 100 was largely at the lower end of the spectrum. So, for instance, it was worthwhile getting the DJs some free copies and encouraging them to play your latest release because it could lead to a chart entry [[not to mention the blindingly obvious that a label needed its product to be heard for anyone to buy it!).

Once the record had 'broken' in radio land sales took over [[equally obviously), or didn't, and the further up the chart a hit climbed the airplay factor was less important. It was, in fact, a given! That is the nature of Top 40 radio...they play the Top 40 hits!

By the time you're into the reaches of the Top 10 and higher the records are all being played nationwide and the sales aspect is what dictates which climbs the highest and makes numero uno, and then for how long. If it isn't selling it'll soon be taken of rotation to make way for the next sounds.

So airplay is only a chart factor of importance in the breaking of these hits. I would not consider the US charts [[any of them) reliable from a sales point-of-view much below the Top 20; but then I wouldn't give much value to the UK ones that low down either as the margins are so small and the positions can be very interchangeable.

Anyway, what makes you think that Cash Box and Record World were not airplay-oriented too?

Smark wrote:

"Also, even if it's based soley on sales from the reporting period, perhaps A Hard Day's Night sold, let's say 200k the first week at #1 and 175k the 2nd week at #1, but by the time Baby Love hit number one, it did not with less cumulative sales over its 4 week reign than A Hard Day's Night did in its 2 week run? Just speculation. In the end, both songs survived and are both iconic [[if overplayed) songs for each act."

And I agree with all those points. You might have found it hard to believe you were contributing on a sales and chart thread Smark, but you've hit the nail on the head concerning the sales of the No. 1 so feel free to keep posting!