 |
  |
| Survey - Streams to Sales ratio? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 18th January 2016, 10:07 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
  |
Back in 2014 when streams were first added to the charts, perhaps 100-1 was an appropriate level, but with the exponential growth in the streaming market they're starting to overwhelm, and thus slow down to a glacial pace, the singles chart.
|
 |
 
|
|
18th January 2016, 10:51 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 18 October 2011
Posts: 152 User: 15,071 
  |
I think 100-1 ratio is good and easy to apply.
No matter what, digital downloads are in decline and changing the ratio in favor of downloads won't change that. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 10:58 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Mateja @ Jan 18 2016, 10:51 AM)  I think 100-1 ratio is good and easy to apply. No matter what, digital downloads are in decline and changing the ratio in favor of downloads won't change that. It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though. Or maybe it's just my age... 
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 12:21 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,813 User: 9,885
  |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 18 2016, 10:58 AM) It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though. Or maybe it's just my age... 1 stream per user! If you stream it twice it only counts once. Ever. Then have a ratio of 100-1. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 12:24 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 11 October 2013
Posts: 31,026 User: 19,931
    |
I think it SHOULD be more like 200 - 1, but 100 seems like such an easy number, for everyone.
In a couple of years they could maybe make it 1000 though. I really think iTunes should reduce their standard price to 79p/69p. Considering 59p songs get such a boost, I think iTunes would have a sales surge, |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 12:43 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 22 December 2013
Posts: 177 User: 20,299
|
I think the streaming ratio should entirely depending on how much each site pays to the artists for each stream. The more closer to the amount a digital download the more streams you can have. Some sites do pay something close to that, but the vast majority do not. It should NOT be the same ratio for each streaming site as I believe it is now. It's very unfair.
There should also be a difference between those who actually subscribe and those who simply listen for free. It is not on to let advertises pay for the payments to record company and artists. Adverts shove up the cost of everyday products and services for EVERYONE, not just those who listen to streaming sites. Somebody is getting a free ride and the expense of others. It's like this if you move people away from buying a record, then the money that was made from that, seeing that music is still being consumed, has to come out of someone's pocket. I don't see people in the Music Industry being made redundant! So someone is paying for it, if the kids are streaming records for peanuts! |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 01:23 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. Sì, è preso nella finestra di questo
Joined: 25 March 2011
Posts: 17,953 User: 13,341
   |
The rate at which they were introduced was always fictitious as basing sales proportionate to the revenue they produce has never been applied when any new format was introduced into the charts historically speaking. I don't object to the notion of representing the true popularity of a track as pre 2015 I could buy a CD and play it once or play it 500 times, which is the better way of measuring that?
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 01:42 PM
Post
#8
|
|
 BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 20 April 2009
Posts: 8,540 User: 8,705
  |
I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever. Obviously individuals might have more than one account etc so it wouldn't be a perfect control but good enough. Also get rid of the 10 per day limit, so you can exhaust your 100 streams as fast as you like. This would hopefully help the singles chart to move at a slightly more reasonable speed.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 01:48 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 3 August 2006
Posts: 8,209 User: 1,031
|
I still don't think streams should be included in a sales chart. Its not a "sale" as you don't own the product. You are merely listening to it. What about things like jukeboxes in pubs and clubs? The charts company don't include sales of theses.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:11 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
   |
QUOTE(MrJules @ Jan 18 2016, 09:42 PM) I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever. Obviously individuals might have more than one account etc so it wouldn't be a perfect control but good enough. Also get rid of the 10 per day limit, so you can exhaust your 100 streams as fast as you like. This would hopefully help the singles chart to move at a slightly more reasonable speed. You probably wouldn't even notice a difference because hardly anyone streams songs that many times (at least during their chart life). For example, on last.fm which is so heavily dictated by Spotify plays nowadays, the most played song ever on Spotify, "Lean On", only averages 5 plays per listener. Even for a more fanbase oriented act like One Direction, their most recent hits only average 3 plays per listener. I really think it's the casual majority lagging the charts and not the zealous minority. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:37 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Am I right in thinking that if you have a premium a/c you can listen to songs offline/put them on an iPod?
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:38 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(MrJules @ Jan 18 2016, 01:42 PM) I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever. I suggested this on the streaming thread, IIRC. 
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:39 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Joe. @ Jan 18 2016, 12:24 PM) I think it SHOULD be more like 200 - 1, but 100 seems like such an easy number, for everyone. In a couple of years they could maybe make it 1000 though. I really think iTunes should reduce their standard price to 79p/69p. Considering 59p songs get such a boost, I think iTunes would have a sales surge, They certainly would - but the record companies would probably have an apoplectic fit! 
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:45 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
I wonder if it's just the Beliebers here who voted for the 'less than 100-1' option?
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 04:26 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 21 November 2009
Posts: 8,554 User: 10,030
 |
The weighting should be based on revenue generated. 1 stream on spotify generates around $0.004 in revenue and the average price for a song on US iTunes is $1.29. So it would take ~320 streams to equal 1 paid download.
So a 300-1 ratio would be better. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 04:54 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,569 User: 11,746
           |
The ratio is good as it is imo. I doubt the OCC will ever change it anyway, as then they'd either have to retroactively change songs' chart sales which would take too much time/effort for them or to be inconsistent which we would all hate.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 05:09 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 19 December 2015
Posts: 20,102 User: 22,776
 |
200-1 for me. In order to truly represent the popularity of new songs in the chart, sales must count for an extremely large proportion, otherwise, as we have seen demonstrated in some scenarios in the chart (for example the longevity of What Do You Mean? in the top 7), it will become stale.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 05:27 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
"Everything seems different the second time around."
Joined: 10 April 2008
Posts: 8,682 User: 5,830
 |
QUOTE(Graham A @ Jan 18 2016, 12:43 PM) There should also be a difference between those who actually subscribe and those who simply listen for free. It is not on to let advertises pay for the payments to record company and artists. Adverts shove up the cost of everyday products and services for EVERYONE, not just those who listen to streaming sites. Somebody is getting a free ride and the expense of others. It's like this if you move people away from buying a record, then the money that was made from that, seeing that music is still being consumed, has to come out of someone's pocket. I don't see people in the Music Industry being made redundant! So someone is paying for it, if the kids are streaming records for peanuts! I don't think listening to music for free should be treated any differently to paid for streaming. I personally pay for my Apple Music subscription, but if people want to stream for free and not get the rewards of a subscription (offline listening, no ads etc), the that's their prerogative! The songs are still being listened to and it is still helping to measure the popularity of each particular song! On a side note; Your views on whether advertisers should pay record companies (or not) are completely irrelevant to this thread though. Where is the evidence that advertising increases the expense for others? Companies need to advertise in some form of another in order to generate sales (which in turn can help to reduce prices for consumers). The record industry even uses this through airplay, literal advertisements and promo slots on radio/tv. I think that the streaming ratio should stay as it is, the ratio for physical singles didn't change just because downloads took off so why should streaming be any different? It leaves the chart as consistent as can be. Admittedly, the slower pace of the chart has caused my interest in it to take a huge nosedive, but me wanting a faster paced chart would need to be achieved more organically. This post has been edited by Juranamo: 18th January 2016, 05:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 06:02 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Juranamo @ Jan 18 2016, 05:27 PM) I think that the streaming ratio should stay as it is, the ratio for physical singles didn't change just because downloads took off so why should streaming be any different? Because physical & download singles are an obvious 1-1 equivalent, whereas what a stream should count as is totally subjective. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 06:32 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 18 2016, 10:58 AM) It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though. Or maybe it's just my age... Although it makes for a more boring chart, in a way a chart that reflects what people are listening to is more meaningful compared to what people are buying. Just because people have stopped buying a song, it doesn't mean it's less popular than it was before. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 24th April 2024, 08:08 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
