TuneCore Has a Great Story to Tell. So Why the Misinformation? - Digital Music News

read on...

interesting article.

35 million bucks is NOTHING. that's insane.

as always MFG always with good links.

but

"most musicians can't make a living at it"

this is absolutely true, and has always been the case. that shouldn't be new to anyone here.

Glad this is picking up steam... Below is a post I made on tuncore back in January.

For The Record I like the service Tunecore provides . This issue is more about realities of making money in music.

How people use Nielsen to hurt musicians. (TuneCorner)


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

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

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

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

Titles published in 2008
90,000

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


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

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

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

i think the figure that would be most important, are the number of artists who sell an album worth or less. that would be the gross majority, and then exponentially climbing to your top 14.

good stats yes. but what about stuff that falls off neilson radar? for instance, your run of the mill php/paypal private storefront?

i agree with the team effort.

sidebar:

the problem with stuff off the nielson/soundscan/reporting radar is that it is outside the professional industry and has no credibility. Anyone one can claim anything - so there needs to be some objective verification.

if one's goal is to remain outside of the professional "Industry" (with a capital "I") that's great - but it is what it is.

Hip-Hop had a period of "trunk sales superstars" but alas, very few of them ever translated to legitimate sales within the conventional outlets...

I don't care how anyone makes their money in the business - if suddenly indie artists are driving porsches and neilson is out of business than that's just the way it goes - but I don't see it happening.

my advice too all artists is to work towards verified sales if you want to get a record deal. work towards all kinds of easily verified stats (youtube play counts, myspace friends, views, songplays, facebook "likes", etc).

There were some people here on this forum who were promoting all kinds of web positivity - but when googled every site they were on had under 2,500 "units" of any kind of metric measurement.

Standards of measurement are important for credibility.

you misunderstood me.

i appreciate the neilson system and agree it is beneficial and necessary.

i brought up the question just to bring that idea to the discussion, as those DIY'ers are doing things that a Gaga would never do. It's a portion of the metric that no one really knows.

Just a note here. A couple years ago I did a direct lift of a somewhat obscure song by a popular artist for a big opening ceremony show. Anyway, I said, hey I'm just gonna make this a minus, get the CL, and put this out there as a karaoke cut. Since I had a couple other things on Tunecore, I went that route. Long story short, that tune brings in $30-$50 every month. I think if a person is smart, and has the talent there's a good amount of money to be made... if that's what you're trying to do. I sometimes think, what would happen if I did 20 popular tunes? Wouldn't you like to be one of those 14 artists splitting 6M?

Hey GearSlutz. I took a few moments to talk things over with fellow TuneCore founder Jeff Price. Here’s what he had to say:

“I find these postings to be bizarre—I’m not sure I understand the controversy. Some TuneCore Artists sold a lot of music last year. Many sold millions of songs, others sold hundreds of thousands, more sold tens of thousands, other sold thousands, others sold hundreds, and some made less than a hundred. Artists made money from a variety of sources, via music sales, music streams, public performance royalties, mechanical royalties, gig income, merch sales, ringtones, advertising revenue, lyrics reproduction, sponsorships, work-for-hire jobs, synchronization licenses and/or a lot more.

“I view it as TuneCore's job to legitimize all artists that are doing well, so the world will turn to them—not just "major label" artists—to provide additional opportunities. An artist should not require Nielsen, or a "music news" blog to validate them. As one example: Nevershoutnever sold over one million songs over three four-song EPs. Via Nielsen, you would not be aware of this due to the way Nielsen reports data. Therefore, Nevershoutnever has been delegitimized despite outselling 99% of the "major" releases.

“To suggest there is some secret agenda of "tricking" the world with "lies" to get people to use TuneCore is, well, as nuts as it sounds. Our only “agenda” is to legitimize artists that are operating outside the traditional "music industry" to be provided more opportunity, and we do it by reporting accurate sales statistics. We could say nothing, but then, once again no one would know.

“No one has the right to tell artists they do no matter as Nielsen doesn’t track or report their sales. No one has the right to say an artist is not succeeding based on their, not the artists, subjective criteria. No one has the right to discount or reject other income or success they have. And no one has the right to strip artists of opportunity by wanting to drive web traffic to their blog—be it a pseudo-news blog, paid advertising for editorial coverage blog or any other website.

“I do understand there’s a history of people getting screwed in the music industry, but on the other hand, sometimes things are done for honest goals and good reasons. Not everyone is out to take advantage of an artist. We wanted to publish the sales stats because, to be blunt, I just thought they were damn cool, I was excited to share them and I want the more artists to get more opportunities.

“Happily and sadly, the Internet gives everyone a voice. In this specific example, it crosses the line when fact is disregarded for hyperbole and truth is replaced by false statements that hurt musicians. It sickens me that some use their sites to scare up money or attention at the expense of the artist.”

Thanks for giving us and gearheads a voice.

--Peter
[email protected]

Hi Peter -

Thanks for dropping in and posting Jeff Price's thoughts. It's nice to know you guys have your ears to the ground!

To be clear, I believe Tunecore offers a valuable service. I think pretty much everyone does! Congrats!

I also think the numbers, stats and facts speak for themselves. Any business is going to spin the data to their advantage - nothing wrong with that until it crosses the line.

kieran kelly's response and the brief paraphrased quote in the first post sum up the market reality - both of which don't have much to do with Tunecore's business or business practices as they are just the reality of the current state of the business.

The issue, if any, would be with Digital Music News' posting of the original article - which should probably be the focus of a more specific resoponse:

TuneCore Has a Great Story to Tell. So Why the Misinformation? - Digital Music News
a good friend of mine in the MI business once told me the mistake is thinking Guitar Center is selling Guitars... they're not... they're selling "the dream" it just comes packaged as a guitar. Tunecore is selling the dream too... it just comes packaged as flat rate access to digital distribution and there's nothing any more wrong with that, than Guitar Center selling Guitars. Neither a new guitar nor access to digital distribution in and of it self will make a sustainable career - but each might be part of the equation.

*sound of furious backpeddling*

Look at the quote in the post above about reported streaming stats... That's not me poking holes in it, it's DMN...

To be clear I didn't make this up - it was reported by DMN... If you want to go on the offensive - maybe read that article and respond to it.

DMN is a respected industry news source and as best I can tell has been very favorable (but objective) in it's reporting of Tunecore, Spotify and the like... that's their gig, it's called "Digital Music News". It says what it is, it is what it says.

it's also possible for me to believe they offer a great service while being in disagreement about their PR spin... they are not mutually exclusive

I am also curious however how Tunecore would expect anyone to believe these numbers without any third party objective verification? Just because they say so?

that would be a huge story but no one is really writing about it... why?

If tunecore allowed or would have someone credible like Big Champagne verify the info (if they don't like Soundscan) than I think it's all good. It's always suspect when someone says, but no really - trust me - those are real numbers. It's not like reporting to Soundscan is difficult. Bands on the road can do it selling merch at shows...

TweetStream - BigChampagne Media Measurement

Soundscan has allowed the industry to remove hype and work on a consistent sales reporting basis that treats everyone equally.

How does it benefit this artist to sell a million song downloads and be completely off the radar? Stats help build artists careers. Bigger labels, better deals, larger venues to play, invites to festival performances, music, film & tv licensing... As a person who licenses music based on those stats, it is a benefit to the artists.

I fail to see how NOT being noticed and not being Legitimized is a good thing when all the talk is about "getting exposure from the internet" ... So it's all about exposure until it needs to be objectively verified?

If Tunecore truly wants to "legitimize all artists that are doing well" than report to Soundscan and have open transparency. Why is it The Orchard, CDBaby and other aggregators are not coming under the same fire? Why is that The Orchard and CDBaby don't have the need to make claims that are not objectively verified?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate

le·git·i·mate

   /adj., n. lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. lɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled [adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, verb,-mat·ed, -mat·ing, noun
–adjective1.according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.
6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.

I've been with Tunecore for over a year now. I wish I'd signed up sooner when there was more hype about the soundtrack I'd done. I was a year late but this served me a lesson on timing in the future.

Some months sales from Tunecore pay my rent. However, it really is just a tool. I see lots of posts from people (especially on the Tunecore discussion board) saying Tunecore is screwing them as they've had no sales, when really, their music just isn't selling. Either because it's poor or because they've done nothing to promote it.

I think a lot of people expect Tunecore to be their ticket to the dream since they're sticking it to the record labels when really it's just another tool to help them get there.

i agree with MFG, not on his insistence to have a sales track record to use a track on one of his soundtracks, but rather that if you are trying to legitimize something, then bring the stats.

peter tunecore, here is your opportunity to explain what you mean that a indie is outselling a major and it's all in how neilson reports it. give us something that we can see as valid, and i can tell you i will be passing it on to the 70 some artists i represent (even if i still use songcast

Peter - just to be clear - it's not about me using stats to justify putting artists in major feature films or soundtrack albums - it's about me using the stats to build an argument on the artists behalf to convince filmmakers (directors and producers) and studio execs that the artists brings something to the project.

Personally I enjoy finding and supporting new and developing artists and seek to create opportunities for them - but I also need to represent objective and standardized metrics and stats to make the argument to others as noted above.

For this reason and many others - consistent and recognized objective reporting it necessary.

Prior to 1992 (when Soundscan launched) music reporting was a mess. Soundscan leveled the playing field against bogus claims and allowed those who were truly succeeding to be recognized. Labels were no longer able to buy the Billboard charts through power, influence or bribes.

Many careers can be thanked for that change in business practices - including the rise of country music into the mainstream pop charts more than it had even been before.

That's the problem. What happens when SoundScan fails to report correctly, or has formulae or methods that are either incorrect or not able to stay in touch with the changing times?

Who made SoundScan, a creation barely 20 years old, the ultimate arbitrator of sales? That's one of the problems, and one of the reasons we thought our data might be fun to show.

Well, it was very nice of them to remove inflammatory words like those. Gearslutz is a class act.

--Peter
[email protected]

inflammatory?

yeah, MFG, just so you know, neilson doesn't have this information anywhere, but I sold 3.5 million singles over the last 5 years, so you should put me in your next soundtrack.

in fact, i won 2 gremmies as well. yeah, gremmies. you never heard of it, but it's a very prestigious music award.

sorry peter, this particular forum is the deep end of the musical talk community, with many pros lurking about. you may get the mods to change thread names, but your not going to gain any respect without answering the previous requests for some actual references to back up the earlier statement. i'm frankly amazed that request has gone unanswered, and as time passes, MFG's title seems more appropriate.

Our stats come right from our sales data, I don't know what else to say or do. We have no reason to pass on any stats beyond the money we've actually handed out to our clients--millions and millions of dollars.

That's it, that's all we have to report, pure, unadulterated information scoured form our database.

And one reason why I have an account and follow things here at GS is that you guys are pros, you're some of the best and brightest out there, and you're the ones being a "success" despite what anyone might say with their data. We're giving a small snapshot of our own data as food for thought. Silence would mean complicity in other peoples' reported data, and we all know (as you rightly pointed out about Nielsen) isn't accurate.

But this was never meant to be some kind of trumpet-blowing challenge to the industry, just some cool numbers.

--Peter
[email protected]

What we've got here is a bunch of nobody's pissing on people who are actually doing something.

Congrats to Tunecore, I applaud their efforts and success.

It's pretty obvious that the ankle-biters around here won't be satisfied, so if I was PeterTuneCore, I wouldn't even bother responding. I heard this recently: "A bulldog can beat a skunk any day of the week, but he knows it just isn't worth it."

i was just hoping to get some explanation. i have a track record around here of being solidly in the new model camp, and offered to help spread the good word if i could get some kind of explaination. apparently my usual handling an argument with humor is being misunderstood by some, so i'll try and rephrase, slowly and clearly.

i mean no disrespect to anyone here. just curious as to hearing several conflicting things and wanting to know what is what.

tunecore like songcast and others, as i understand, is primarily an intermediary between non-major music sources (usually indie artists), and big sales sites. primarily itunes, amazon, rhapsody, emusic, napster, lala (well maybe not for long on the lala), etc.

it is also my understanding that a service available to certain pros who can afford it, allows them access to the sales data of the various big sales sites. not tunecore's private database, or songcast's private database, but rather direct tracking of the itunes/ amazon, etc sales stats.

the article in question, which was just one of a great number of articles cited by the OP, stated clearly and plainly that tunecore had good news but was basically using politician grade statistical twisting to add to the story in a way that caused some to raise the BS flag. the article was merely asking why this would have happened.

i am glad peter came to visit here. i feel that here in a forum, even a nobody can raise questions and request answers, and further ask for some figures to back said answers up if they don't feel something sounds right. no one has questioned the value of the tunecore service, and i completely understand that individual sales data is a private matter that no one else has an inherent right to view, but i would just like to know - if neilson has some issue with their reporting, just tell me how that works. peter is the tunecore pro, i am not. skepticism is what the DMN article was about. skepticism is what i took from the OP's thread, and skepticism is what i still have after reading things in an official reply like this, i would be one of the primary trumpeters in here of such a statistic, but all i want to hear is how neilson is doing it wrong. remember i am not a big time exec with a soundscan account. i am just curious for more information, as i'm sure the neilson folks would be too. please educate me. i just seriously would like to know what the hell is going on. that's the reason i'm here in the first place.

Peter Tunecore,

Wow. Seriously wow. For the record, once again I'll state that I think Tunecore provides a valuable service to musicians - but wow - seriously...

You guys really need to get a handle on your PR, stats and spin. One more time - while you're here at GS this is info presented from a respected industry trade source - so I would suggest if you think that the information your company is not misleading, take it up w/ Resnikoff over at Digital Music News.

And to be completely clear I (me personally) am not, and have not accused Tunecore of anything other than being unable to have it's claims verified by an objective third party. Seems in this day and age - across all sectors - there is a call for openess and transparency.

Exactly how do you know that? If you do know that than you've identified the problem. If you've identified the problem you can work towards a solution.

So is it formula's? Is it methods? Do you actually know? Why is it the changing times are not an issue for others? Just asking questions. Answers would be insightful and informative to all. I'm very happy to learn from what you guys are seeing.

But instead of answering the questions being asked of you - you respond with questions... again... not great for credibility... sounds like your repeating co. talking points without really having an actual understanding of what Soundscan is and how it works.

So tell me - how much do you, peter, actually know about Soundscan and music sales reporting? I was a day one subscriber in 1992 and prior to that I was on both sides of the reporting fence starting in retail (and getting label calls for reporting favors) and then later as a distribution rep, working to get better charting reports.

Bottom line : without third party objective verification there is no credibility or legitimacy. Just like the era of Hip-Hops "trunk sales superstars".

Can you explain to us how why it is exactly that Tunecore does not have the ability to collect or report soundscan data? It's a DISSERVICE to your customers to not have their sales legitimized by the industry standard sales tracking system for both physical and digital song and album sales.

Seriously. Really. What are these grand flaws in Soundscan that only apply to Tunecore? Why not have your data verified by Big Champagne then? Are you aware of Big Champagne?

How about you guys post all the checks and statements paid to Nevershoutnever - not a problem right? Full transparency. I'm sure we could all learn alot about what worked for them. It would be helpful to all of us to see the breakdown of song downloads, album downloads, streams etc - by account, over time, to see where a bands energy could really be focused. I think that would be a great service to the community.

It would probably look something like this:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...s-earn-online/

Artists on Spotify get a million plays and a hundred bucks... so what metric is more important, the million plays (transactions as Tunecore calls them, correct?) or the hundred bucks. I think most people reading are probably more interested in the hundred bucks part of that equation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...-money-spotify

Uhm... seriously? Everyone in the business did. There was a value in objective reporting that's why every label pays to see not only how they are doing - but to learn from what their competitors are doing.

I'm still not getting the feeling you truly understand what Soundscan is and how it works.

Why is Tunecore so threatened by third party objective verification of your sales data?

Ok - so it's a problem, and you thought it might be fun to show - why not report it to Soundscan? The Orchard does, CDBaby does... I can show you the reports. Somehow The Orchard and CDBaby have figured this out but you guys who want to brag about your numbers can't, or won't? I don't get it?

If you think you are being misrepresented by Digital Music News why not get a retraction to the story they ran?

Here's another in case you missed it:
TuneCore Artists Gross $35 Million In 2009... - Digital Music News

feel free to click the link to read it, here's a quote regarding Tunecore's stats reporting:
I think anyone is justified in asking for back-up, and third party objective verification to claims that are being made publicly and in the context of self promotion.

for those who don't want to read the link above it breaks down what we already know - alot of streaming activity that pays next to nothing - qouting streaming "transaction" stats without revenues is bonk. Also - the curious might want to read the reader responses to that story as well.

I have nothing against Tunecore, It's a great service - so why all the smoke & mirrors? Why not just fess up and report or get the data objectively verified. It's always fascinating to me when people say they're not hiding anything but won't show you what you're asking for...

(fyi - I feel a thread removal coming on so I'm printing what's here as a PDF before it goes by by...)

We all do? Really?

C'mon Peter what's the real rub with Soundscan? Please explain to me how Nielsen is isn't accurate as an object measure of music sales - specifically - what criteria is it that you're using that they are not?

I mean truly and sincerely - I'm glad you're here.

I have wondered what the rub is with Soundscan and Tunecore and now that you're here you can explain it in detail how the two systems are in conflict. Again - both of Tunecore's largest competitors - CDBaby and The Orchard both show up and report to Soundscan.

Soundscan reports on POINT OF SALE. Which means once you've done your job to get the title into distribution, then the retailer (Itunes, Amazon, Etc) actually reports the sales. The only thing that would prevent that is a FREE UPC and/or ISRC Code - which CDBaby has on every release and hence, the sales are tracked by Soundscan.

I don't know why Tunecore would not provide the same service to it's customers.
but it looks like I could be aware of this due to the way Nielsen reports data...

To your credit (and my confusion) Nevershoutnever shows about 700,000 individual song downloads on Soundscan and about 12,000 album/EP sales - so they're shy of 1 million song downloads but the numbers are truly impressive enough - why the rub w/ Soundscan and why the need to inflate the stats by 30%?

Tunecore is an aggregator of DIGITAL sales, there shouldn't be a single sale missed... Maybe you guys should actually subscribe to Soundscan!?

I am genuinely fascinated.

thanks.

MFG, not sure why your panties are in such a bunch. You're getting really worked up about this as if Tunecore has done you wrong somehow. Anyway, for me, the relationship between myself and Tunecore is pretty personal. No weird contracts, no dividing the money up 1000 ways- when I get my statement each month I know exactly what I earn per sale- and so would everyone else if they had access to those numbers (not that I sell much). Not sure I'd want everyone knowing exactly how much money I earned on Tunecore in any given month.

simple as this. if someone is going to make claims, be prepared to have those claims verified. no big deal, unless they make it a big deal.

one more time.

Tunecore offer a great service - no one is arguing that - what's being discussed is their stance on reporting sales stats, and a lack of objective third party verification. The raw data suggest most artists are not having success on their own, but a very few are - neither (success or failure) is the cause or result of Tunecore.

statistical review by kieran kelly here:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5392106-post4.html

the irony for me is that they're claiming to be invalidated by Neilson on the example given - but it appears the opposite! 700k song downloads is in fact impressive and having that data available via Soundscan only benefits the Artist and Tunecore's legitimacy!

Fascinating.

and the ultimate bottom line from the OP and I invite you to read to link:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stor...1NP3cZZVBDSbaA
go back to post #4 in this thread and soak this in:

oh so you didnt make the original post in some way to criticise yet another aspect of .... the dreaded internet?



thats a good quote tho, just so you dont think i ONLY rag on you

and..... the whole topic is kinda why i support the idea of some sort of monitored and statisticaly compiled download p2p tax

so we can finaly see the reality of what is being listened to and sold.... well we cant even use the word 'sold' anymore, cos 'sales' doesn't in any way really mean anything now in terms of what's popular does it

charts used to mean hard sales - then it added download sales - now what? sales used to mean 'spread' or it was a way to total up 'access' - what sold the most was (in most cases) being listened to the most

not now by a long chalk tho

anyways u get my point maybe. charts are kinda dead now cos they in no way reflect anything of statistical value

BigChampagne actually provides these metrics.

Big Champagne Revamps Charts, Adds Two Free Music Industry News Services - hypebot

BigChampagne Media Measurement

So far it appears the most illegally downloaded titles are also the most popular and the charts are pretty similar.

I agree with you that a better measurement of all internet activity would be great especially if it combined things like tweet mentions, myspace & youtube plays, building popularity at facebook, etc.

Billboard is certainly trying to keep up with the times, see here:
Music Charts, Most Popular Music, Music by Genre & Top Music Charts | Billboard.com

Scroll down for iLIKE Profiles most added...
Music Charts, Most Popular Music, Music by Genre & Top Music Charts | Billboard.com

i rarely do this, but at this point I have to. It's one thing to debate, it's another to accuse people of being "liars" in an attempt to win an argument and it's enough.

What in the world happened in your past that causes you to believe everyone is lying?

Not only that, but why in the world would you believe the RIAA and Soundscan are the reference point for accuracy in regards to music sales?

Further, why would you want to support and/or defend an institution that is causing harm to artists and musicians?

With all due respect you believe an unauthorized third party - in this case Soundscan - is given all the information from TuneCore's proprietary and confidential accounting statements.

I don't know how else to say it, you are empirically and factually wrong . I don't think you are lying (and it appears that this is something you may want to be true) but it's simply not.

You are wrong. And even worse, you are doing damage. Oh I could care less about your attempts to discredit TuneCore, but I do have a huge problem with you going after musicians and artists, telling them they did not do what they did, stating they are liars, stating their success should not count unless Nielsen anoints them.

So, for the record, the only authoritative source of TuneCore Artist sales information is a TuneCore Artist and TuneCore. That's it. So yes, I have the benefit of seeing data and sales information that you do not.

And unlike Soundscan, TuneCore does not get incomplete and partial data in regards to other artist and label's music sales and then sell it to other entities and keep all the money.

The information I disclose publicly is done with the approval and knowledge of the artist - I will not list all the money and sales on an individual basis as it is not my place to do so, it is the artists.

But of the ones I am able to reveal, it sickens me that you will try to tear them down and state factually incorrect things to win an argument.

So here you go - here's some sales info that it's OK for me to release. I just suggest you take a moment before you publicly post these artists are liars and/or don't count.

(Please note - all of the artists above and below sold this much music BEFORE signed to any label. Some have since chosen to do marketing deals with labels, others have not. Also note - these numbers are from DOWNLOAD SALES, these numbers do NOT include streams or public performance royalties from Soundexchange)

Boyce Avenue sold over 1.2 million songs
Nershoutnever sold over 1 million songs
Kelly sold over 2.2 million songs
Nickasaur has sold over 250,000 songs
Ron Pope sold over 250,000 songs
Chase Coy sold over 300,000 songs
William Fitzsimmons sold over 500,000 songs
Jesus Culture has sold over 750,000 songs
Lloyd Banks sold over 300,000 songs
Sam Adams sold over 300,000 songs
Colt Ford sold over 350,000 songs
Jon Lajoie sold over 325,000 songs
Secondhand Serenade sold over 300,000 songs

and frankly, there are a lot more...

ALL OF THE BELOW SOLD over 200,000 songs (and this list also goes on )
A Rocket to the Moon

Stephen Jerzak

Jaron and the Long Road to Love

Sky Eats Airplane
116 Clique
Jeffree Star
Trip Lee
DJ Laz Feat. Flo Rida & Casely
Secondhand Serenade
Jason Reeves
The Boxer Rebellion
Eric Hutchinson
Zac Brown Band
Meiko
Halloween Scream Themes
MGMT
3OH!3
Relaxing Piano Music
Ron Pope
Brett Dennen
Stereo Skyline
Millionaires
Hyper Crush
Ahanu Music for Spa
Lecrae
Katt Williams
Dr. Horrible's Sing along Blog
Josh Kelley

The list of those that sold between 75,000 - 100,000 units via paid download is large

and between 25,000 - 74,999 is huge and so on

Now mind you, this is just paid downloads, the majority from iTunes. This does not take into account paid streams, advertising revenue, sponsorships, merch sales, gig income, synch licensing, payments for sheet music (YUP! Check out MusicNotes.com), payments for lyric reproduction, work for hire, public performance royalties (SoundExchange to ASCAP)etc etc etc

Based on experience I do understand that some individuals when presented with fact will choose to side step them and/or claim they are false rather than change their opinion. I do hope you are not one of them.

In regards to you suggesting there is legitimacy to misstatements made from a not very well known random music blog run by a someone trying to compete with Tech Crunch, has the thought ever occurred to you that their goal is to be controversial to drive web traffic and use people like yourself to do it?

And with this posting, I am done responding....Peter may continue to do so, but your dislike and damage to musicians should not have the benefit of further recognition.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for stopping by and checking in.

First, let me apologize publicly for the title of the thread I chose - which only points to this news story - so I should have just copied their header (and I think this headline below is even more appropriate now in this thread):

TuneCore Has a Great Story to Tell. So Why the Misinformation? - Digital Music News

Second, let me say again for the fourth or fifth or whatever time in this thread that I believe Tunecore provides a valuable service and I don't think I've ever disputed that.

Third, it's a bit disappointing to me that given a forum to respond to the questions being asked of you, in a specific and straight forward way - and to address the criticisms about your stats reporting that you would instead avoid answering those questions and criticisms directly and specifically, and return to talking points that have already been repeated.

I get it - we should just trust whatever you say, just because you say so...

I just don't get it honestly. Neilson is not your enemy (see the above post re: Soundscan Nevershoutnever) and I'm not sure why your are making them so? The numbers are impressive in their own right.

If you take the time to read my posts and the links provided - Tunecore is in the most general way getting positive remarks - it's just this digging in against objective third party verification of your claims that seems odd.

You have an amazing opportunity to really address some of the questions and criticisms about your the way you report stats without going on the offensive and repeating talking points. Maybe you and Resnikoff should just have an open Q&A to get past this?

Here's an example of a user comment from another board:
http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/050610tunecore
I will respond to your post, specifically and directly, point by point - but I just wanted to get this out in the open.

I truly hope you'll take all this to heart and think about your next response in this context.

Thanks.