BuzzJack

Welcome, guest! Log in or register. (click here for help)

Latest Site News
> 
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Post reply to this threadCreate a new thread
> Should million-sellers include streaming?
Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum
Should million-sellers include streaming?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 114
Guests cannot vote 
Gambo
post 9th January 2015, 04:43 PM
Post #61
Group icon
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 29 July 2014
Posts: 202
User: 21,106

QUOTE(ML Hammer95 @ Jan 9 2015, 01:46 PM) *
For those who remember the inclusion of download sales circa 2004-05, what effect did it have on the charts?? Did it cause the charts to become slower-moving for example?

Sales haven't dipped to 2004 levels, so perhaps the inclusion of streaming wasn't as NECESSARY as the inclusion of downloads or perhaps its pre-emptive as streaming will be more dominant in a few years time.


It had to be a pre-emptive strike, after the embarrassment of dismissing illegal downloads for so long and then when they woke up a belated rush to try and monetise the format, and then work out how to introduce any emergent legal market into the mainstream singles chart. They didn't want to be caught pants-down again, and so having reached a consensus that streaming was showing exponential growth and was likely the 'next big thing' with consuming digital music, if anything they were a little too quick-off-the mark in integrating audio streaming with the sales chart.

The problem with the integration of the download market into the physical was that the OCC had to phase it in in three steps which in the end took 20 months, and in the process made far more of a mockery of the main singles chart than was necessary. Initially, from 23 April 2005 only download sales for titles available physically in the last 52 weeks could be counted. Then, from 18 March 2006 download sales for titles available physically in a week's time could be counted, but this was offset by a woeful decision to exclude them again from two weeks after any deletion of the physical release. All these moves were designed to try and appease competing voices within the industry, and as it is they who have influence on the way the charts are run that was understandable, but the chart was very partial and failed to reflect the rapidly-rising digital market properly until 13 January 2007 when sales of both formats at any stage could be counted regardless. Looking back at that mess, even those of us who felt that combining streaming and sales in the mainstream tabulation was pushed through somewhat prematurely given the still-resilient state of the downloads sector, we should at least be thankful that once they'd decided to integrate them, they did so cleanly and on a complete basis, with no daft exemptions or sops. Okay the ratio of 100 streams to 1 sale is arbitrary and for many two just don't compute on any basis, but it was a clear and easy measure.

Despite these teething problems, from 23 Apr '05 one can see some slow-down in the chart as regards the length of time many singles would remain on the Top 75. Whilst climbs to a peak were yet to return en masse, with most entries still being at peak, decline could be every much more graceful thanks to the ongoing trickle-sell of the download format. From 18 Mar '06 climbs, at least on week 2, inevitably became more common where still-significant first-week physical sales kicked-in on a title already available at least a week before to download, and from 13 Jan '07 climbs became as common as instant peaks as download sales steadily built towards a physically-driven peak and then quite likely a very steady withdrawal, in the case of some of the big-hitters. As CD sales dissipated and effectively left the equation for most releases, all forms of chart behaviour and movement could be seen based on download performance alone, and so it's hard to characterise the charts since the late '00s. But I think most would agree, downloads did and still do slow down what had become in the late physical era a dizzying turnover of singles. Many welcomed this, as one can more-readily follow and get familiar with the bona fide established hits, yet it's not boring at the top - still plenty of No 1/Top 10 entries etc as well as long-runners and slow-burners. Although I see on some sites that some are now starting to bemoan this trend and are yearning for the constant 30-new-entry Top 75 weeks, numerous high debuts and rapid declines that typified the mid '90s to mid '00s! They are likely to become even more disconsolate with the official combined chart, because the more it takes precedence, audio streaming can only slow movement down even more. It's already showing outside the Top 20 in particular, with numerous huge commercial hits and radio-favourites perennially bobbing back up and down the rungs. An instant sales hit may take several weeks to blossom as an equivalent streaming success, if ever it does so.

Apologies - a bit off-topic now.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Graham A
post 9th January 2015, 08:25 PM
Post #62
Group icon
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 22 December 2013
Posts: 177
User: 20,299

QUOTE(AcerBen @ Jan 9 2015, 12:07 AM) *
You haven't explained really why mixing streams and sales is such an issue. Why does it have to be one or the other when both are popular?

I really don't see what you're getting at with your predictions for the future. Nobody knows for sure how we'll be listening to music in the future, but with it becoming easier and easier to get fast Internet on the go, there is no need to carry hard drives around with you and pay £1 for each song when you can get it easier and cheaper via streaming. Downloads aren't going to die completely for a long time, but the trend is irreversible. You can't compare it with vinyl because vinyl is a physical product and people buy them for the sound, the look and the coolness of them. People aren't going to have an emotional connection to downloads.


I'm not predicting anything for the future. It's you that's doing that. Even in that you say "there is no need to carry hard drives around with you and pay £1 for each song when you can get it easier and cheaper via streaming" but as I said this MIGHT not follow on. A new technology could interfere with the process or there could be a sociological change which has nothing to do with the music industry that changes how music is listened to or performed.
As an historian I can show you how the development of education for all as affected the world since many countries increased the school leaving age past 12. Indeed this process created the teenager who listens to popular music. However like many things the education of people aged between 12 and 16 and beyond has also increased some nasty side effects on the population. Most of these were present in the past, but never in large numbers and the process is still continuing. The recent increase of the school leaving age to 18 in the UK will play out in the years to come having more nasty side effects and a just few positive ones.
Unfortunately at the moment few people believe that education for people aged 12 to 18 is actually attacking the societies we live in. Quite the reverse actually with huge amounts of cash being thrown at the problem to make education solve the problems that it is actually creating.
One of these side-effects might be to make certain young people believe that the music they like is being damaged by the companies that offer streaming. This view can be right or wrong, as it simply doesn't matter if those that believe it to be true think that way. Streaming would then go out of the window like the 78 record. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying this will happen as you can't tell what movements education will create. But it has done in the past, from punk to mod to dance. It created the gay scene too and loads of other movements too. But makes no bones about it sending kids to school past the age of 12 is what started them all.

If you want to know more about the both positive and negative effects of the Education Culture just search Google for Reflected People by Graham Appleyard and you will find my blog.

As for you first question a sale is a sale - streaming is simply Radio airplay without the radio and presenter to choose the records. Radio Airplay is not allowed in the UK chart even though many millions are listening to the record. Of course they might not like the record they are listening to, but since a 30 seconds of play on streaming site counts to the chart then it's possible that someone listens to a record for even longer than that and still doesn't like the record. So it cancels it out any argument not to exclude Airplay. Not that I would want that in the chart either!
In any case the sales chart was never about what was popular it just had that effect. Small fan bases could push a record into the chart on sales of the record that wasn't seen as cool or popular. The streaming chart doesn't actually do this. It could if it wasn't restrained from doing so by the rules imposed by the OCC. In fact the rules themselves actually stop it from being popular. Streaming has also slowed down the records entering the charts. Though new ones that are being streamed only is simply down to the record companies in the UK not releasing the said records. Though downloads did slow down the charts too. That was largely down to the restrictive practices of the record companies and the monopoly of Apple that prevented lots of download sites appearing. For example it took ages to get shut of DRM management and the transition to MP3 by download sites. Yet even now the number of download sites is small and the pricing thus fixed at a price way above what it costs to pay for an album. If you download ten tracks individually for example, it costs a lot more to do so then if those tracks were on an album.


This post has been edited by Graham A: 9th January 2015, 08:28 PM
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
JosephBoone
post 9th January 2015, 09:19 PM
Post #63
Group icon
you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011
Posts: 123,612
User: 13,530

QUOTE(Graham A @ Jan 9 2015, 08:25 PM) *
As for you first question a sale is a sale - streaming is simply Radio airplay without the radio and presenter to choose the records. Radio Airplay is not allowed in the UK chart even though many millions are listening to the record. Of course they might not like the record they are listening to, but since a 30 seconds of play on streaming site counts to the chart then it's possible that someone listens to a record for even longer than that and still doesn't like the record. So it cancels it out any argument not to exclude Airplay. Not that I would want that in the chart either!


Just singling out this part - the KEY DIFFERENCE is what you said, the fact that the user changes it! I'd personally be *strongly* against airplay being included, because it's the executives/presenters that choose that, not the public, but the public choose what they buy or stream (with the help of radio of course but that's not the be-all and end-all). They may not like the record they're listening to, but so what? It's 0.01 of a sale, that will make NO difference to a song's chart position. Surely the VAST majority of the time, people listen to the songs they like on Spotify. If they don't like it, they won't go back to it.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Popchartfreak
post 9th January 2015, 10:51 PM
Post #64
Group icon
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,118
User: 17,376

QUOTE(Gambo @ Jan 9 2015, 04:11 PM) *
Fiesta - I think you're probably correct on that. Maybe it's just old school nostalgia for the concept of buying singles, but it is hard to envisage people giving up almost entirely on purchasing digital tracks, at least in the way that they rapidly lost heart with physical between 2000 and 2010. Part of that is because a large portion of consumers have always bought their music and are happy to do so, albeit at today's rock-bottom prices, and probably see a little more certainty in owning the file rather than just streaming it. People do like to own, and not everyone will listen to enough on streaming sites to justify the subs, or wnat to put up with the free option with all the tiresome ads. It's not like the clear distinctions between a CD and a download, where the former, while tangible and more traditional, could not realistically compete with the latter which was so cheap and so convenient to obtain in comparison. Having to go to a store and pay a possible £2.99 or even higher for a single track, with perhaps one or two others which you may or may not want, was never going to compete. People may consider that more worthwhile for an album featuring perhaps 12 tracks for a tenner, hence the CD's 60% share of the albums market even today, but with singles, downloads were king and that isn't going to change overnight. Download sales will creep down as the rest of the 2010s unfold, but I don't think it will look like such a dated method of procuring single tracks in 2020 as buying a CD single did in 2010. Just look at the sales figures for the No 1s of the last year; still pretty healthy on average with frequent six-figure amounts shifted in a week. It's the market overall that is shrinking, as the total singles sold each week compared to a year ago consistently show. But it's not a collapse.

Hopefully we might see a market where sales are only modestly-depleted per release, coupled with a healthy streaming sector to complement it. Best of both worlds. As long as they don't introduce video streaming to the chart though - to my mind that isn't even the same product as an audio single as someone could just as easily be streaming it on YouTube because they like the video clip but actually wouldn't listen to or buy the song on its own. A single is an audio song first with any video as a back-up to it, and the minute video streams are allowed to encroach, that really is it for me and the official chart!



I will never get on with streaming because I can make my own albums for the car and elsewhere of my current faves with downloads. The long-term advantage of downloads, which no-one is mentioning, is you get to continue to play old music years later - that might not sound vital if you're 18, but trust me 20 or 30 years on if you are reliant on such and such a company having a particular track available to listen to that's a big assumption. That's also true with downloads - there are hundreds and thousands of tracks predating download era which are still not available to buy or stream - you either have to rely on youtube or second-hand vinyl and cd if you failed to buy them first time round (and want to hear them).

Another point regarding downloads declining slightly, and albums quite a bit - the annoying deluxe packages after youve already bought an album do nothing for artist loyalty and hit the sales of follow-up albums as there's no point buying something that will have extra tracks a year later, while dare I suggest 2014 hasn't been a great year for hit singles - though when one comes along with a bang (as opposed to hype) like Mark Ronson it can sell fast and pretty furious... cool.gif
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
JosephBoone
post 10th January 2015, 12:38 AM
Post #65
Group icon
you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011
Posts: 123,612
User: 13,530

I doubt re-issues are particularly denting sales right now, they aren't any more frequent than they used to be are they?
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Spinning Adam
post 10th January 2015, 11:08 AM
Post #66
Group icon
Former iconic poster with no consistent posting style
Pronouns: Don't take em seriously tbh
Joined: 20 June 2014
Posts: 20,582
User: 21,005

Is it easy or cheap to put a song on streaming? Because if not, the less wealthy companies or artists will suffer if they only have sales to achieve success.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Popchartfreak
post 10th January 2015, 03:28 PM
Post #67
Group icon
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,118
User: 17,376

QUOTE(SPINNING ADAM @ Jan 10 2015, 11:08 AM) *
Is it easy or cheap to put a song on streaming? Because if not, the less wealthy companies or artists will suffer if they only have sales to achieve success.


easy? very. The problem is the streaming companies view themselves as deigned to be under the same royalty rules as radio rather than sales - except when it suits them to want it to be "sales" for chart and publicity purposes.

Bette Midler 2014:

Billboard magazine:


Add Bette Midler to the growing list of musicians publicly expressing their displeasure with the amounts Pandora, Spotify and other digital radio and music streaming services pay artists. On Friday, the Divine Miss. M tweeted that Pandora paid her slightly more than $114 for more than four million song spins over a three month period. That would mean for each digital radio airplay she earned a rather microscopic micropayment of .00002733076 cents per track.


"We love Bette’s music and certainly respect her advocacy for fair compensation for artists," a Pandora spokesperson said in response to this story. "But we must clarify an important fact: Pandora paid more than $6,400 for those 4+ million plays, based on our 2014 rates which are published publicly. In terms of compensation to the creative community Pandora remains by far the highest paying form of radio. Pandora pays songwriters a greater percentage of revenue than terrestrial radio. And Pandora paid 48% of our revenue in performance royalties to rights-holders in 2013 – more than $300 million – while terrestrial radio was required to pay nothing."


Related Articles
Why Publishers Lost Big Against Pandora (Analysis)
Spotify Responds to Thom Yorke, Nigel Godrich Critiques
Business Matters: If I Were Thom Yorke's Communications Director
Over the last year, however, a rising chorus of musicians have spoken out against what they see as music streaming services' inadequate royalty payments, which includes Radiohead's Thom Yorke, Atoms for Peace's Nigel Godrich, David Byrne and, most recently, Steven Tyler.

Tyler was in Washington D.C. on March 25 for the National Music Publishers Association's "Celebration of the American Songwriter" event which also honored Senator Chuck Grassley. According to National Journal, the Aerosmith frontman expressed his disdain for current digital royalty rates: "If the laws continue going the way they are," he said, "[songwriters] will never be paid fairly for [their] own participation. So people, forgive me for being a little jaded about the state of copyright."

Last week, too, Grammys president and CEO Neil Portnow wrote an op-ed in Roll Call calling for legislation to address copyright issues which was timed to the organization's annual Grammys on the Hill event. Here he outlined the MusicBus initiative which he summed up as a “Fair market pay to all music creators across all platforms.” The music industry organization plans this year to extend its political outreach with a “Grammys in my district” day in which 22,000 members of The Recording Academy will be encouraged to "bring music to their legislators’ local offices and make the case for fairness for music creators."


All this comes in the wake of a recent court battle between Pandora and ASCAP in which a federal rate court essentially maintained the status quo upholding the amount the digital radio service pays the performance rights organization. Sony/ATV Publishing CEO Martin Bandier called the decision "a clear defeat for songwriters" and "woefully inadequate."

Pandora has actively complained about and sought to change what it sees as onerous royalty payments—especially in comparison to what terrestrial radio pays out. There are signs, however, that the digital radio service's business model is starting to scale. For the fiscal year, Pandora posted revenues of $638.9 million, up 56% from 2012 and paid out $342.9 million in music licensing royalties, roughly 53.8% of its total revenue. That ratio is an improvement over 2012, when Pandora spent 60.6% of its revenue on licensing costs. The company, however, also posted a larger annual loss due to higher costs. Pandora lost $40.7 million in the 12 months ended Dec. 31, compared with a $35.6 million loss in 2012.

None of which has helped assuage the financial difficulties many musicians face. In late March an artist named Armen Chakmakian posted his quarterly earnings statement online igniting a discussion on the fairness of digital streaming rates. Chakmakian received $4.20 in total royalties from twelve digital music companies (including .33 cents from Pandora and .76 cents from Spotify). Finally, the paltry amounts led the musician to conclude: "Business practices like this are one of the reasons I jumped ship and only write for television now."

*This story was correction appended following its initial publication: Neil Portnow is president/CEO of the Grammys not the RIAA; and Steven Tyler spoke at the National Music Publishers Association's event not a Grammys on the Hill event.


and people wonder why Taylor Swift, who owns her own label and has the power, pulled her stuff from streaming sites.....

and given they are still losing money year on year (streaming companies) why do people keep saying they are the future? 12% of the market (cashwise) yet every week they claim to have 50% of the UK singles "sales". No they don't. They have an arbitrarily chosen ratio of 50%, but pull in nowhere near the amount of cash that downloads do for artists (I don't care too much about the few remaining massive monopoly record companies profits)


This post has been edited by popchartfreak: 10th January 2015, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
danG
post 10th January 2015, 04:02 PM
Post #68
Group icon
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 75,049
User: 11,746

Streaming is really not as bad as some make it out to be, it should definitely be included in the chart and therefore included in songs unit totals (to save confusion I think the name should be changed to million unit sellers or something like that).

And let's not pretend Spotify don't pay much royalties, 70% of their income goes towards it!



If artists don't get paid well it's not necessarily Spotify's fault but the record label's, Spotify don't have the rights to give all the royalties directly to the artist.

This is the royalty formula used



QUOTE
Recently, these variables have led to an average “per stream” payout to rights holders of between $0.006 and $0.0084. This combines activity across our tiers of service. The effective average “per stream” payout generated by our Premium subscribers is considerably higher


So that's $1 per 119 - 167 streams, $1 = £0.66. Not exactly the 1:100 ratio the OCC would have us believe, but there you go. And of course when you buy a song for £1, some of the money goes to Apple/Google/w/e. Plus for paying customers the payout is slightly higher.

and their paying customers spend more on music than the average music buyer:



Read here http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Popchartfreak
post 10th January 2015, 05:41 PM
Post #69
Group icon
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,118
User: 17,376

It's still a flawed business model, though - losing money is not a way forward.

70% of income paid out? Given their entire universe is based on around the product of others I'd say that was still not enough, what exactly do they DO for that 30% share in terms of job creation, artist development....anything really?

Of course artists are getting stiffed - streaming didn't exist when their contracts were signed. Morally, though, I'm with the artists, the people who make the music that the entire business depends on. Record Companies need pop stars, and I'm just not going to support any business that fails to recognise that.

Personally I'd suggest any wannabee popstar to model themselves on Adele and Taylor Swift, independent and in control, and making sh-loads of cash and sales of records on their own terms.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Spinning Adam
post 10th January 2015, 07:02 PM
Post #70
Group icon
Former iconic poster with no consistent posting style
Pronouns: Don't take em seriously tbh
Joined: 20 June 2014
Posts: 20,582
User: 21,005

So basically, if an artist wants to do well they should put up their track on sales and streaming or they're going to be put down 10-40 odd places depending on where on the chart you are. Union J, what was your excuse exactly? thinking.gif
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
DanChartFan
post 11th January 2015, 06:40 PM
Post #71
Group icon
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 8 July 2007
Posts: 1,089
User: 3,866

I don't think streaming even comes close to a comparable format to purchases (either virtual or physical), and I don't see how they make any money. I now have a free account on deezer, and almost never see or hear any adverts, so I'm paying nothing to stream dozens of tracks a week, and neither really are the advertisers who supposedly fund the service. I'm not complaining in the short run, if the music industry wants to give me totally free and legal access to the majority of all the recorded music that's ever existed then that's their look out, but in the long run they will end up not having the financial means to contract new artists or retain existing ones etc. IMHO streaming will eventually be pay only and the subscription fees will increase considerably over time to allow a viable income, which in turn will cause people to go back to downloading (legal or illegal) and listening to the radio rather than streaming, so it's definitely not a certainty that streaming will become the main format in the future.
To answer the original question, keep million sellers as sales only, and have a separate list for say billion-streamers or something. As far as overall sales tallies are concerned mixing two totally different concepts makes no sense to me and is totally different to when download sales were considered the same as physical sales.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Blondini
post 11th January 2015, 06:52 PM
Post #72
Group icon
New Entry
Joined: 26 July 2014
Posts: 44
User: 21,102

Agree with first two posts. No issue with including them but the terminology should be changed. We keep having to say "sales" now when referring to UK and US charts!
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
vidcapper
post 13th February 2015, 03:06 PM
Post #73
Group icon
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346
User: 364

The thing with not counting streams towards million-sellers, is that it assumes they are *extra* 'sales'. ISTM though that they are more likely to be an *alternative* to downloads, so if streaming wasn't an option, download sales would be significantly higher. Therefore it seems unfair to totally disregard them when totting up million-sellers.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Colm
post 13th February 2015, 04:50 PM
Post #74
Group icon
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,866
User: 9,885

Logic says steaming should be included when it comes to calculating million sellers but I'm not comfortable with that at all.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Popchartfreak
post 14th February 2015, 10:37 PM
Post #75
Group icon
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,118
User: 17,376

It's not logical to count streaming in million sales any more than it is to count radio plays or jukebox plays or youtube plays. No matter what it's called, it ain't a sale.

A level playing field is the only way to cross the decades fairly. Otherwise, might as well start weighting it based on how much the sales actually cost way back when (4 or 5 times what they cost now) or add in million-plus sales for people who bought albums that included the tracks - that would have eaten into sales as much as any radio play, streaming, youtube does. A million seller in the 60's was an event as it was so expensive to buy a single, and rare. Now they are so cheap it's not such a landmark, but it's still important to me it stays pure.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Suedehead2
post 14th February 2015, 10:47 PM
Post #76
Group icon
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,874
User: 3,272

QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Feb 14 2015, 10:37 PM) *
It's not logical to count streaming in million sales any more than it is to count radio plays or jukebox plays or youtube plays. No matter what it's called, it ain't a sale.

A level playing field is the only way to cross the decades fairly. Otherwise, might as well start weighting it based on how much the sales actually cost way back when (4 or 5 times what they cost now) or add in million-plus sales for people who bought albums that included the tracks - that would have eaten into sales as much as any radio play, streaming, youtube does. A million seller in the 60's was an event as it was so expensive to buy a single, and rare. Now they are so cheap it's not such a landmark, but it's still important to me it stays pure.

It's not just the cost. Continuous availability has also made it easier. The number of old songs to have passed the mark in recent years is testament to that. To take an example, Julie Covington's definitive version of Don't Cry For Me Argentina was a few thousand short of a million for years before downloads finally got it across the line.

For me, one million sales is still a landmark worth celebrating. Yes, it took far less time to get from 100 to 150 than it took for the previous blocks of million-sellers but many of those fifty were fairly old. OTOH, one million "sales" with streams included is a far less impressive achievement.
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
Graham A
post 16th February 2015, 01:11 AM
Post #77
Group icon
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 22 December 2013
Posts: 177
User: 20,299

The reason many records have passed over the million mark since they were first released is that they were made available to purchase by the introduction of the download. Prior to that the record company had deleted the track as it was too expensive to keep it in circulation.
The problem with streaming is that some of the streaming costs are paid for by advertisements. People have to buy a download or a CD etc. They don't have to pay for a streamed record. Since some users of streaming sites don't pay a fee to the site to use it. Instead they have to listen to adverts. This means that a site might cater for advertisers over the artists they pay money too. It follows too that a link could develop between artists who makes records that suit certain large funders of advertisers on streaming sites. Many acts themselves have links with commercial companies. It wouldn't take much for a very commercial track, linked with a particular product, to soon became a big seller or should I say most listened to record.

Though I don't like streaming being included in charts at all. If it has to be done, plus while people still purchase records, then it should be done on the basis that a person pays for the streaming service and not by proxy through adverts. This should certainly apply to the million seller, plus a unit added should be at the cost of the average price of a download. Not on the royalty figure!
Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post
vidcapper
post 16th February 2015, 06:30 AM
Post #78
Group icon
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346
User: 364

QUOTE(Graham A @ Feb 16 2015, 01:11 AM) *
Though I don't like streaming being included in charts at all. If it has to be done, plus while people still purchase records, then it should be done on the basis that a person pays for the streaming service and not by proxy through adverts.


I only have a free Spotify account because I don't listen to anything like enough music to be worth my paying a monthly sub.

Go to the top of this page
 
+Quote this post


4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Post reply to this threadCreate a new thread

1 user(s) reading this thread
+ 1 guest(s) and 0 anonymous user(s)


 

Time is now: 25th June 2024, 12:30 PM