Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ UK Charts _ Confusion over midweek missing data
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 03:21 PM
Not Sure, If the Update is controlled by Sales only, than adding sales with audio streams together like Friday weeks charts, but im missing something here, Drake went down to #4 with one dance (feat Kyla & Wizkid) as roughly about 23K Copies On Monday with huge #1 Streams, which i Cant explain that either , so as Stone Roses should sell more than Drake on update as #3, and overall week it would sell way pass 23K (More like 30K Overall) but it dipped to 22K with the week final score to get #21 and drake stayed at #1.
Posted by: PaulM1983 18th June 2016, 03:39 PM
Not too sure where you're getting those numbers from. Drake and Stone Roses were on around 16k on Monday's update, but that didn't include Saturday and Sunday streaming figures, which obviously accounts for a few thousand sales for Drake.
On the next update Stone Roses had dipped to number 9 but no sales were given. They were obviously very frontloaded though, and only sold another 6k for the rest of the week, which makes sense if you look at how rapidly it dropped on iTunes.
Posted by: JosephOdell 18th June 2016, 03:47 PM
Yeah there was a large chunk of streaming missing on Monday's update, plus the fact it was extremely frontloaded, meaning it ended up at #21. Typically, only a day of streams is missing from each midweek update, but they are otherwise included.
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 04:12 PM
Guys thanks for the help, Does that mean that the update only allows Sales only than streams, Drake worked out 15K On Streams Alone on Friday - Sunday, plus sales in the top 10 of drake that be more than 16K, it be like 23K+, but dont explain why Stone roses was that lower. it should of been only #7 on update. unless only on sales then fair enough it done #3.
Posted by: JosephOdell 18th June 2016, 04:15 PM
Streams are included in the update! Sometimes data is missing, but at least some data is present so it won't just be sales only 
Monday's update last week included iTunes data for Friday, Saturday and Sunday, but only Friday's Spotify data, so it only had 1/3rd of the correct stream data, if that makes sense!
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 04:21 PM
Looking by the I Tunes Charts and Accuracy From over 98% Source from I Tunes, From Friday to Sunday it shows it matches up for the Single Chart update For Monday. So that would be correct for Download or Physical Copies, it seems like however the Streaming points isn't fully added until Friday is that Correct.
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 04:24 PM
Thanks ! I Get It Now, So does that mean all the data from Friday to Thursday on streaming Count that why there is a massive difference from update to the real charts for Friday.
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 04:26 PM
Chart Mod has just helped me a bit on this matter. So Some Streams has Included. only Friday only it seems
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 04:38 PM
I have only found out the reasons why Chart Update is so different to the actually Friday is, as it based on Sales + Friday Streams only so i understand it doesn't count for Saturday or Sunday Night Streams maybe cause of working hours, so then it makes a lot of shifting on Friday final chart as Streams count for "Fri - Thurs"
Posted by: JosephOdell 18th June 2016, 04:44 PM
I've merged these threads if that's OK cause they all seem to cover a smiliar topic! 
The midweeks normally lack the previous day's Spotify data. So the Monday midweeks normally lack Sunday's data. The Tuesday midweeks normally lack Monday's data, etc. Sometimes, as was the case last week, a bit more data is missing, but that's only rare Spotify are just bad at reporting data on time it would appear!
Posted by: Suedehead2 18th June 2016, 04:45 PM
Thursday's streaming data is often missing from the Official Chart data. When that happens the OCC estimate what the figures would be in order to compile the final chart. Nobody has been able to explain why the streaming companies cannot provide the data on time.
Posted by: Mart!n 18th June 2016, 06:36 PM
Maybe Drake had something to do with it for the past 10 weeks
Posted by: Doctor Blind 18th June 2016, 06:40 PM
If this really cannot be resolved, why not run the chart Thursday to Wednesday midnight and broadcast the fully accurate chart on the Friday?
The added bonus is that held back releases are denied and penalised for 1 missing day of sales. 
Posted by: JosephOdell 18th June 2016, 06:48 PM
9 times out of 10 it won't make a huge difference anyway so there wouldn't be much point I'd say, it's just occasionally like Mariah likely being denied top 10 due to Christmas Eve streams missing last year when a difference is actually made.
Posted by: torbaybrenton 18th June 2016, 06:50 PM
Thank You so much for the help guys and now i know, so i kinda knew that something was not right, i love the charts im so passionate about it, i always look at the Top 100 Charts and interval charts, Digital, Sales, Record Store on the official charts company pages
Posted by: paulgilb 18th June 2016, 10:31 PM
There was a post on UKMix a couple of weeks ago suggesting that Justin Timberlake would have been #1 a couple of weeks ago if the correct streaming data had been included.
Posted by: JosephOdell 18th June 2016, 10:34 PM
Unlikely, the gap has always been too big (at least ~6k) and Drake has always been ahead of JT on Spotify!
Posted by: Graham A 20th June 2016, 11:27 AM
James Masterton noted how regular missing data is these days. He said in the past chart insiders would get a list of those that failed to provide the data for the week on a separate sheet. He says now the OCC have stopped the practice. Though they might supply information to the big players in the Record Industry.
I understand it's the Thursday part of the chart that seems to be the main problem. Some acts like the Stone Roses have been bringing out records before the Friday date. Thus if data is missing on Thursday the data cannot be estimated, because you can set up a computer program to fill in blanks when you have no data for the sales pattern.
One way around this would be to allow missing data to be added the following week. But the chart companies never seem to have used that. Possibly because it could be used as way to hype a certain record. But of course the sales of the previous week really should be in the previous week, not in the current week. Instead the charts seem to have been revised. And missing data that has been found added to the chart. This practice has been found on the OCC website, where charts don't match those published at the time. Both singles and album charts.
It's ironic that despite the latest technology the chart companies still have problems with data suppliers not getting data in on time. Though in the past it was caused by the Post Office not delivering on time. But also the shops not sending out the data in time.
It just goes to prove that despite instant data transfer technology, a commercial company can screw the system up!
Posted by: richie 21st June 2016, 08:48 AM
I don't think the Stone Roses would give a toss about where the record entered the chart though? I don't think it'd lead to any more exposure. The album chart would be slightly more important perhaps.
Posted by: Graham A 21st June 2016, 11:06 AM
Many acts don't care about chart positions anyway and since streaming came along, they have little to care about anyway, because the singles chart doesn't relate to how much money they make. You could sell a million with streams and still get a check for less than a year's subscription to Spotify.
Record companies are always interested in the chart positions. Because they still make money out of them.
Posted by: Gambo 22nd June 2016, 01:08 PM
And with some acts, it does still form a significant part of the decision-making process for labels as to whether or not a certain artist should be retained on their books. Sales figures behind the positions are of course important too, as are tallies for albums, but the real 'impact' still comes with a higher peak on a weekly chart.
With a bona fide band like The Stone Roses however, I rather doubt peak chart positions for their singles are that relevant, at least not to whether they can get signed and stay with a label, as they'd always get picked up by somebody! They've secured their long-term musical and cultural importance, which was never that derived from their chart performances anyway; admittedly they had a string of instant Top 10 hits in 1989-'90 and another in '94, but it was a clear early example of an act having built up enough cult cred to have a very committed fanbase, who would always buy anything released by their idols upon release, probably on all available formats, as a complete archive of all related material. That was often enough, especially in periods of slacker overall sales, to give rise to high peaks on their first week, but precipitous declines thereafter, as beyond the core fans, few were interested in buying the singles. With the Roses, I imagine that more casual appreciaters of their output would always buy the parent albums. Yet there were still enough hardcore followers to still buy up a few thousand copies of songs that were two or three years old when they finally got issued as singles - "I Wanna Be Adored" and "Waterfall" made the Top 20 in '91 and 40 in '92 respectively, and surely most takers must've had a copy of the '89-issued "The Stone Roses" LP by then which contained those tracks?!
I presume the only reason a band like them would release singles at all is as a promotional tool to get their new content noticed, and hopefully translate into album sales, live gig ticket sales, and a generally good reception from critics that will ensure their reputation remains high among those who to them matter. And of course it is still a standard tool used by labels to get their acts 'out there'. Interestingly, it's probably roughly the same folk who bought "Fool's Gold", "One Love" etc who are buying "All For One" and "Beautiful Thing"now! They're still collecting, except they'll have a digital copy now as well as physical, as and when the recent singles are issued on CD or vinyl.
It's just that with the increasing part streaming plays in the charts, big first-week sales splashes aren't so likely to attain a Top 10 or even 20 placing nowadays, and I suspect companies have now taken that on board. Fans of older established acts who are older now themselves are still likely to buy, possibly on physical as a priority, but less-likely to have assimilated regular streaming, so streaming won't figure that much in any assessment that is made of such acts and their future commercial viability. Plus, as Graham rightly says, it makes so little dosh that it's not that relevant anyway, other than just as a useful barometer of overall popularity among the core youth listening market, whose preferred acts tend to return very healthy streaming tallies.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services