 |
  |
| Should the streaming-to-sales rate be reduced?, Right now it's 100 streams = 1 sale |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 12th May 2016, 08:23 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 1 January 2016
Posts: 907 User: 22,819 
  |
Right now, 100 streams equals 1 sale, but as streaming has increased by almost 500% in less than two years, 100/1 seems way to low for today's market. In my opinion it should be changed to 1 sale for every 500 streams, otherwise "sales" will become out of control
|
 |
 
|
|
12th May 2016, 08:35 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,584 User: 11,746
              |
I think it's fine as it is.
We seem to have this discussion every other month anyway  it's never going to please everyone but it's the fairest method imo.
|
|
|
|
|
12th May 2016, 09:34 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
3:23
Joined: 18 January 2008
Posts: 10,781 User: 5,269
 |
 the 100:1 ratio was set by the OCC because 100 audio streams generate the same revenue as a single 99p downloadit'd make no sense at all to change it to some random fraction~ 
|
|
|
|
|
12th May 2016, 09:47 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 4 November 2013
Posts: 30,551 User: 20,053
   |
Double-edged sword. If the ratio is increased people will start complaining at how low sales figures will look...
|
|
|
|
|
12th May 2016, 09:53 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
  |
and I'll keep rattling on and commenting against the rubbish ratio till I turn blue in the face having tantrums and get my own way or until the chart show is down to a top 10 only cos the rest of the chart is made up Justin Timberlake/Drake/Ed Sheeran and Beyonce tracks and songs that stay in the chart for 9 and half years.
 makes total sense. the revenue is irrelevant, cd's used to cost different prices and itunes frequently chart cheap singles to try and push them up the combined chart. The point of the chart is to show absolute popularity of all music, including the 1.8 million tracks that were downloaded last week i like the American ratio system, that caters for everyone 
|
|
|
|
|
12th May 2016, 10:02 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
3:23
Joined: 18 January 2008
Posts: 10,781 User: 5,269
|
streaming is an absolute show of popularity
 ~ if someone downloads a track you don’t even know if they actually listened to it we might as well go the whole hog then and scale down download sales to cater for the 37 people who bought cassettes last week~
|
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 02:46 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(JCM20 @ May 12 2016, 09:23 PM)  Right now, 100 streams equals 1 sale, but as streaming has increased by almost 500% in less than two years, 100/1 seems way to low for today's market. In my opinion it should be changed to 1 sale for every 500 streams, otherwise "sales" will become out of control I'd say perhaps 120-1 |
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 02:49 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 11 October 2013
Posts: 31,028 User: 19,931
   |
I actually do agree that it should be moved to around 300 - 500, even if sales are falling, I do believe streaming should make up for less of the chart.
But I also think iTunes should reduce all their prices to 79p/69p per song, I genuinely believe this would create a boost in sales and stop them from falling. |
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 03:07 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
  |
QUOTE(Ethan @ May 13 2016, 05:34 AM) the 100:1 ratio was set by the OCC because 100 audio streams generate the same revenue as a single 99p downloadit'd make no sense at all to change it to some random fraction~ I was under the impression that 100 was just chosen as it was a nice round number? I don't think the streaming revenue quite matches up to that. The ratio in Australia was said to be devised with the intention of matching the respective revenue, and that's around 175:1. I wouldn't mind the ratio being reduced but it's a bit pointless as the trend is just going to continue to lean towards streaming and within 6 months it'll either 'need' to be reduced again or it'll just end up the same way we are now. |
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 06:28 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(Ethan @ May 12 2016, 11:02 PM) streaming is an absolute show of popularity ~ if someone downloads a track you don’t even know if they actually listened to it we might as well go the whole hog then and scale down download sales to cater for the 37 people who bought cassettes last week~ well, streaming is an absolute show of popularity among the 30million users aged 12 to 25 who don't buy music (30 million users worldwide that is, possibly as many as 38 or 39 users in the UK, so on a par with cassingle purchases My math may need checking though  )On another related chart fact new comment: Bieber has dominated album streaming for 6 months, he has finally been toppled from the top of the streaming album charts - he's not had the most-popular album of the last 6 months, though, not even close. He just happens to appeal to a large core group of fans in the streaming age group (who obviously love having their music tastes mirrored in the singles chart - but not in the album chart which caters for all ages 5 to 95, and where JB is one of a number of big acts who have done well and including streaming "sales"  )
|
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 06:48 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 21 November 2015
Posts: 4,473 User: 22,687
|
I don't think it should be lowered but i do think you should have to listen to the whole song not just 30 seconds
|
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 06:55 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Pronouns: she/her
Joined: 19 December 2015 Posts: 185 User: 22,774 
|
In order for the chart to be less stale, I think it would be a good idea to start with the 100:1 ratio when a song is first released, then reduce (or should that be increase?) the ratio after it's been in the top 40 for a certain number of weeks. At least we might get rid of the Justin Bieber-type songs faster then!
|
|
|
|
|
13th May 2016, 07:32 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 13 December 2012
Posts: 756 User: 17,989
|
But you still can't have as big an impact in a single week on a single song with streaming than you can buying. Let's say I love Justin Timberlake's new song, and let's say I had the time to stream it 10 times a day for 7 days of the week, that still only makes 0.7 of a sale. I doubt many people, if any, have the time to listen to a song 10 times a day for a week (apart from maybe the super fans who play it for 30 seconds or whatever it is). I reckon for a song I like I probably end up listening to it 60-80 times during a 3 month chart run so still less impact than a sale, and I reckon that is probably true of your average 20-40 something who is busy at work. So I would say the streaming ratio works - it's just that a lot more people that listen to music regularly stream but that is merely reflective of today's world.
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:18 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Maybe it's just my age, but IMO streaming is little different to listening to a song on the radio. To me it shows a lack of commitment to a song - very different from actually purchasing it. That's partly why I consider the 100-1 ratio far too generous.
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:20 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,173 User: 7,561
 |
No, the ratio was developed and based on revenue and it works reasonably well. To tinker with the chart to account for the increasing popularity of a particular format is ludicrous and would effectively take out the part of the chart that is most representative of popularity.
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:09 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ May 20 2016, 07:20 AM) No, the ratio was developed and based on revenue and it works reasonably well. To tinker with the chart to account for the increasing popularity of a particular format is ludicrous and would effectively take out the part of the chart that is most representative of popularity. But I don't regard streaming as an good means of assessing the true popularity of a song. e.g. 100 people could listen to a song just to check it out, and even if they hate it, that would count as 1 sale. OTOH, someone might stream a song hundreds of times, generating the equivalent of several chart sales, whereas in the past they'd have just bought it once, and the number of times they then listened to it would be irrelevant for chart purposes. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:15 AM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Who's Daniel btw ?
Joined: 28 October 2006
Posts: 15,594 User: 1,804
 |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 20 2016, 07:09 AM) But I don't regard streaming as an good means of assessing the true popularity of a song. That's a bit silly to say... Streaming = popularity, and I don't see how anyone could deny it. And that comes from someone who would have liked to keep a sale only chart. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:35 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Hayzayy @ May 20 2016, 08:15 AM) That's a bit silly to say... Streaming = popularity, and I don't see how anyone could deny it. And that comes from someone who would have liked to keep a sale only chart. But IMO the charts should be about how *many* people like a song, not how *much* they do. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:57 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,291 User: 22,665
  |
I don't think the problem is Spotify, the problem is that itunes keeps abusing people with their unjustifiable high prices and thats why itunes is becoming obsolete, low down the prices to something reasonable and people will download again
its sad to see that a song like Justin's is #1 on itunes with such a lead and cannot get #1 overall, or Reggie & Bollie #5 on itunes but not even top 20 overall... but thats itunes fault for being too greedy with their prices This post has been edited by Bjork: 20th May 2016, 08:05 AM |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 08:17 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 1 January 2016
Posts: 907 User: 22,819
|
QUOTE(Bjork @ May 20 2016, 08:57 AM) I don't think the problem is Spotify, the problem is that itunes keeps abusing people with their unjustifiable high prices and thats why itunes is becoming obsolete, low down the prices to something reasonable and people will download again its sad to see that a song like Justin's is #1 on itunes with such a lead and cannot get #1 overall, or Reggie & Bollie #5 on itunes but not even top 20 overall... but thats itunes fault for being too greedy with their prices 99p is unreasonable? |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 26th April 2024, 04:55 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
