Printable version of thread

Posted by: JosephCarey 12th December 2015, 02:37 PM

Welcome

Welcome to the general streaming thread. In post 1 here, there's a FAQ section to give you answers about streaming and its inclusion in the chart. You can also use this thread to ask your own questions, and someone will kindly answer for you. Please post any streaming debates in here too, because we know many of you feel very passionately about streaming's inclusion in the chart. It's started to take over particular threads and us moderators have decided to confine it to one thread!

Rules

As this is a debate thread also, I'd like to lay down some guidelines just to ensure we all play nicely.

- Please respect other people's opinions. It's fine to disagree, but be constructive with your reply rather than rude.
- Linking to the point above, don't feel offended if someone disagrees with you, it's a debate thread.
- Don't feel afraid to share your view or ask a question, everyone here is nice really

FAQ

What is audio streaming?
Audio streaming is essentially the transmission of sound through a web network. It can refer to simple audio clips on websites for example, but in the context of this thread, it means playing a song or album through a web service such as Spotify.

Where can I stream songs?
There are numerous different places to stream music. YouTube is one, but that is not an "audio streaming" service as recognised by the Official Charts Company (OCC) - it's video streaming. The main service used for streaming is Spotify, which takes up the vast majority of the market. Other services are Apple Music, Deezer, Tidal, Napster, O2 Tracks, Xbox Music, Google Play, Sony's Music Unlimited and rara.

How does it count to the singles chart?
Since July 2014, streaming has been combined with download and physical sales to make up the Official Singles Chart. It is weighted so that one stream is the same as a 150th of a sale, so a download or a CD/vinyl single will take priority. In other words, this means that 150 streams equal one sale. This is then combined with the sales figures to create "chart sales", and these then help order the official chart.

Why are some songs getting different streaming ratios?
Since July 2017, the chart rules concerning streaming have changed so that newer songs have an advantage in the Singles Chart. A new release has the standard streaming to sales ratio of 150:1. This is now referred to as the standard chart ratio (SCR). After 3 consecutive weeks of decline the accelerated chart ratio (ACR) of 300:1 will apply, but only for songs that have spent 10 or more weeks in the top 100. Decline is defined as negative week on week variance of combined sales and streams and negative variance lower than the market rate of change week on week.

A song on ACR will automatically return to SCR if it experiences an increase of 50% in combined chart sales, and in exceptional circumstances a label may elect to manually reset a track to SCR. This manual reset is limited to two tracks per artist album, only where the track in question is outside the Top 100 and subject to one week’s notice being given from the releasing label that they wish to implement a manual reset. Manual reset shall be strictly subject to Official Charts and CSC approval

What difference does this make to the official chart?
Streaming has made a huge impact on the official chart so far, and that's why it's so divisive. Typically speaking, it favours big hits over new songs, which take longer to build up. This means that new songs may be at a disadvantage to enter at #1, or the top 10, and therefore end up with a lower peak. Union J's You Got It All was #1 on sales at the end of 2014, but got knocked down to #2 due to far superior streaming from Ed Sheeran's Thinking Out Loud. This made it the first song to miss #1 despite being the biggest seller of the week. Other songs to have lost out on the top spot due to streaming include Nick Jonas' Jealous, Sigma's Glitterball and Deorro's Five More Hours.

On the other hand, only one song has been #1 officially without ever topping the sales chart at the time of writing. This song is Justin Bieber's Sorry, which spent two weeks at #1 in November 2015 but was at #2 behind Adele's Hello on sales both weeks.

But wait, can't I just put a song on repeat and help it climb the chart?
No, only 10 streams count per user per day on any streaming service. For example, I could listen to Justin Bieber's Love Yourself 20 times on Spotify and 20 times on Apple Music today, but only the first 10 from Spotify and the first 10 from Apple Music will count.

On a similar note, you must listen to at least 30 seconds of the song for it to count. You cannot just press play and then skip it 9 further times to total 10 plays!

OK, so how does it work for albums then?
It's slightly different for albums. Streaming has been included amongst physical and digital sales since February 2015. Firstly, each stream is 0.001 sales this time, meaning that 1 sale is equal to 1000 streams (not 100). This means that sales have even more precedence in the album chart.



The top 12 most streamed tracks are taken from the standard edition of an album. The top 2 songs will be downweighted, to the average of the other 10 songs. This is to combat an album being artificially boosted by one or two hit singles. The total of these songs is then added together and divided by 1000 to give a streaming total for the album.

The OCC said of this method: "The reason for the down-weighting is to ensure that if an album features up to two runaway hit singles, streams of these tracks do not skew the performance of their parent album in the Official Albums Chart. Extreme examples of this include huge hits such as Blurred Lines on the Robin Thicke album of the same name, Get Lucky on Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories, All Of Me on John Legend’s album Love In The Future, or Uptown Funk on Mark Ronson’s Uptown Special - but this is also a broader issue affecting many more albums."



Otherwise, the same rules apply. Only 10 plays per user per day, and 30 seconds of each track must be heard.

Does streaming have a big effect on the album chart?
Definitely not. It boosts some albums but not noticeably at the top end of the chart. To date, every official #1 album has been the biggest selling. Some albums have however been denied a top 10 position due to streaming, such as Kacey Musgraves' Pageant Material in 2015, which debuted at #11 officially.

If you have any more questions, please post them in the thread here, we will do our best to answer them!

Helpful Buzzjack Threads

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=183075
http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=179608

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=178179
http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=169653
Changes in top 40 weeks due to streaming (http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=167957 | http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173414)
Changes in peak position in the top 40 due to streaming (http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=167974 | http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173388)

http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=168351

Posted by: vidcapper 12th December 2015, 03:22 PM

Streaming seems rather fanbase-dependent, with younger artists gaining significantly more benefit than those who established themselves during the physical sales, or even dowload era.

Posted by: JosephCarey 12th December 2015, 03:26 PM

Interesting point but I'm not sure I agree actually. The likes of The Vamps, 5SOS, Nathan Sykes, etc. rely on younger fanbases to sell records and these acts have not benefited at all from streaming. Justin Bieber used to rely on this but his recent streaming success has been down to gaining a much broader, more casual listener base.

Posted by: Bjork 12th December 2015, 07:11 PM

I personally don't like how album streams are counted in the UK. If I understand it well, if you stream a song it counts for both the single and album charts = double counting. E.g. if you stream Bieber´s album you also contribute to his songs charting in the single charts...

Wouldn't the Scandinavian model be better? If you stream more than 6 songs off an album, then it counts to the album charts only as 1 sale, and not to the singles charts.

Posted by: Dasher 12th December 2015, 08:21 PM

Seems like an appropriate place to voice my continual bewilderment at the fact that streaming counts to the weekly totals and chart positions but not to the YTD ones. As sales continue to dwindle the disparity between these two lists will become more and more noticeable, hopefully the OCC will see the pointlessness of this exercise and include them in all calculations and one "total". I don't like Streaming per se but now that the decision has been made the OCC need to jump fully on board as it's the only logical solution to this issue.

Posted by: Christmaseve201 12th December 2015, 09:58 PM

I think the acts you mention haven't benefitted from streaming because they haven't produced a good enough song to merit huge success, obv that's my opinion but none of heir songs have been huge and generated interest with people outside their core fan base.

Posted by: diamondtooth 13th December 2015, 07:39 PM

I also wonder, if I listen to one song does it count to both the singles chart AND (to a lesser extent) the album chart?

Posted by: JosephCarey 13th December 2015, 07:41 PM

It does indeed!

Posted by: girl_from_oz 14th December 2015, 12:45 AM

Streaming is dominated by playlists, probably playlists created by spotify and the labels. There's probably less of people playing random songs like I do.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th December 2015, 05:23 PM

AFAICS, album streams *do* count towards the YTD/overall totals, as when I reworked my album YTD figures on that basis, all the anomalies that had me resolved themselves.

Posted by: Bjork 14th December 2015, 05:28 PM

and shouldn't they fix it so that a song can count for one or the other chart but not both??

Posted by: btljs 15th December 2015, 08:51 AM

On the double counting of songs towards both singles and albums charts: the main issue here is inconsistency - if you download an album (as I understand it) each track doesn't count towards the singles chart (?) and that kept digital sales in line with physical sales. But that presents a problem for streaming as there is no obvious way of counting one continuous album stream (would there be a time limit between tracks? would the tracks have to be in the right order? etc.) so they plumped for this weird calculation based on individual track streams. They could have turned this round onto the singles chart and only allowed the excess sales of the top 2 tracks above the average (which aren't counted in the album chart); this would have prevented the Bieber effect where a big new album release swamps the singles chart, but it goes against their ethos of counting every song download and stream in the singles chart.

It is worth remembering that the main purpose of the charts is to promote the market. When sales fall, the market looks bad, so the inclusion of streaming keeps the market looking buoyant and healthy while downloads nosedive. I think they've missed a crucial factor though, which is that the chart must also be dynamic, with new songs coming in and old ones falling out. While streaming is growing, new songs have a built in advantage so it has held up OK, but the cracks are starting to show: fewer and fewer new entries, songs lingering in the chart for over a year. If artists can't get their new songs into the chart because of a backlog of album tracks by a handful of Sheerans or Biebers, then the chart loses its relevance to them, their fans and promoters.

Posted by: Christmaseve201 15th December 2015, 08:57 AM

Theyve obviously learned their lessons from letting Orson go to No1 with 17k sales in 2006 lol

Posted by: Bjork 15th December 2015, 09:05 AM

but I think (not 100% sure though) that in Scandinavian countries there is no double counting and it's an easy solution: if you stream more than x% of an album, then that's 1 album sale, and that goes to the album charts, not the singles charts... if you just stream <x songs (i.e. 2 or 3) then it does not count for the albums but the singles charts. That seems like a very easy solution to me...

Posted by: btljs 15th December 2015, 06:51 PM

What's the time limit? Does it count if you stream something else in between the tracks or log off for a while and come back?

Posted by: girl_from_oz 15th December 2015, 07:57 PM

Yes I wanna know about this

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd December 2015, 07:18 AM

One of the most significant effects of streaming is how it has slowed down the singles chart.

In the last year before streaming counted : 2013, there were 144 new T10 hits in 52 weeks, averaging 3.6 weeks residence

This year, there have been only 104 new T10 hits in 51 weeks, averaging 4.9 weeks residence.

That's a 36% slowdown in turnover in just 2 years.

In comparison, in 2004 there were 240 T10 hits, averaging just 2.2 weeks each.

Posted by: diamondtooth 23rd December 2015, 08:38 AM

Also if I listen to Spotify 'offline' how are those streams counted?
Are the added when I put my phone/devise back online?

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd December 2015, 09:23 AM

Interesting point.

I listen to a lot of music on my iPod - is it fair that those do not count towards the chart, yet streamed listens do?

Posted by: ___∆___ 23rd December 2015, 09:25 AM

^^ They don't count when listened too offline as I believe they can be manipulated too much - Streams are counted when online as the IP address restricts 10 listens/sales, When offline it can't do this so you could listen to a song 1,000 on repeat then if these counted when you connected they would all count as sales.

Posted by: diamondtooth 23rd December 2015, 09:42 AM

That's a bit crazy. If I am a premium Spotify user I thought whatever I listen to would count, whether that's online or offline.
I just thought my offline streams might count when I go back online and maybe then apply the 10 listens per day rule, or whatever!

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd December 2015, 04:02 PM

Another thought - streaming makes it harder to judge fanbase size.

e.g. If you're JB with 5,000,000 streams a week, there's no way of telling if that's 71,500 fans downloading 70 times a week, or 500,000 fans listening 10 times.

Posted by: diamondtooth 24th December 2015, 07:12 PM

^ that's very true about fanbase sizes

Also if an album builds up streaming point of 0.9 (for example) by the end of a week are those points carried forward to the next week when it reaches a sale of 1 copy. Or would the points of 0.9 cancel back to zero at the start of a new week?

I hope that question makes sense!

Posted by: JosephCarey 24th December 2015, 07:14 PM

I *think* I understand it but correct me if I'm wrong! So if an album has 0.9 sales in one week, it doesn't get carried forward, it counts to the week it was streamed in. The sales figures given out by Music Week are rounded chart sales - they actually go into decimals, particularly in the streaming era, it's how most ties are broken if they occur. It then resets to zero for the next week!

Posted by: diamondtooth 24th December 2015, 10:02 PM

That does answer my question! Thank you!
But it's might be a little unfair. Just say an (unpopular) album is getting a sale of 0.5 EVERY week, it's streaming sales would always remain at zero becaus it might never reach a sale of '1' within a particular week.

Obviously my scenario about is just an example. Of course bringing sales to the level of decimal places is not very important.

Posted by: liamk97 25th December 2015, 03:27 PM

Seems like the best place to ask - I'm currently listening to the continuous mix of Madonna's Confessions on a Dancefloor on Spotify, but it's more like an hour-long full song than an album, so does this have a streaming total that is separate to the streams of the actual album, and do you still only need to listen to 30 seconds worth of it for it to count as a stream, despite being an hour long?

Posted by: sammy01 25th December 2015, 03:35 PM

Ok let's say an albums stream sales are 35.7 one week then 20.6 the next, is that 55 'sales' or 56 'sales' after the 2 weeks? Do they add the decimal sales together week after week?

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th December 2015, 10:46 PM

Yes, the decimal sales will count towards the overall total. The OCC always report whole numbers, probably because reporting sales of, for example, 145,683.2 would confuse people.

Posted by: ben08 4th January 2016, 12:02 AM

Are the totals displayed in Spotify for tracks streamed more than 30 seconds or do they include tracks played for less than 30 seconds in their totals? Then OCC filters them out.

From OCC this week.
Official albums streaming chart Top 200
Pos LW Title Peak WOC
5 New THE BEATLES (WHITE) 5 1 (2,825 streams)
6 New 1 6 1
13 New 1967-1970 13 1
15 New YELLOW SUBMARINE - SONGTRACK 15 1
16 New THE BEATLES BOOTLEG RECORDINGS 1963 16 1
20 New THE BEATLES IN MONO 20 1
23 New ABBEY ROAD 23 1
26 New ON AIR - LIVE AT THE BBC - VOL 2 26 1
30 New THE BEATLES IN STEREO 30 1
32 New SGT PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND 32 1
37 New MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR 37 1
43 New 1962-1966 43 1
46 New HEY JUDE 46 1
48 New REVOLVER 48 1
51 New YESTERDAY AND TODAY 51 1
61 New RUBBER SOUL 61 1 (559 streams)
63 New REVOLVER - U.S VERSION 63 1
68 New LET IT BE 68 1
75 New THE CAPITOL ALBUMS - VOL 2 75 1
81 New HELP 81 1
82 New TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS 82 1
87 New LET IT BE - NAKED 87 1

But 11 of these albums are not available on any official streaming service. Where do the streams come from?
Beatles in Mono and Beatles in Stereo are not even in iTunes.

Where are the Beatles US albums found for streaming?

Do they come from 30sec previews in iTunes?

Her Majesty on Abbey Road only lasts 26 seconds but yet Spotify says it has been streamed over 5,000 times. How can this be?

Posted by: JosephMendes 4th January 2016, 12:10 AM

I'd assume the stream total only includes those which lasted 30 seconds or more! I doubt there'd be a huge amount of less than 30 second plays anyway, at least in your typical chart hit.

Are those Beatles albums definitely not on Spotify? Maybe they're on other services? I'm not sure if I'm totally honest! Sorry I can't be more help.

Posted by: The Hit Parade 4th January 2016, 12:19 AM

Beatles In Stereo has the same content as The Beatles Box Set available on iTunes, which possibly accounts for one thing.
But there seems to be some sort of anomaly with Apple Music - I've never used it but I noticed the week they started (helpfully also the week Spotify data was AWOL) there were some very odd entries in the album streaming chart (ancient Elvis compilations, Oasis singles boxes etc) so I sort of imagine they report things differently from the others.

Posted by: The Hit Parade 4th January 2016, 12:27 AM

Spotify only has the studio albums, Past Masters [which is a collection of non-album tracks] and some best-of sets. https://play.spotify.com/artist/3WrFJ7ztbogyGnTHbHJFl2
Everywhere else I've looked has the same but as I said in the other post, I don't have Apple Music. That selection also matches what's available to download from sites other than iTunes, BTW.


Re short plays, the OCC said the limit was set at 30 seconds precisely because gave people time to skip if something they didn't like came up in a playlist, or they were just listening to a bit to see if they recognised the song, or they hit the play button my mistake or something. Or I suppose if they had to stop listening entirely but wanted to let the previous song finish. It's a pure guess but maybe Spotify might account differently for tracks that last less than 30 seconds so they aren't stuck on 0 forever.

Posted by: ben08 4th January 2016, 01:07 PM

Thanks for these replies.
If Beatles In Stereo is not even a digital download on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play how can it be streamed if only the studio albums plus 4 compilations are available on the 9 streaming services?
TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS was an iTunes exclusive but is not on Apple Music. How does it appear on the OCC chart? Alan Jones did not explain this. Does iTunes reports 30 second previews as streams to Apple Music?
Any theories how Beatles Her Majesty (26 seconds) appears on Spotify as 7,297 plays?
I am really baffled.

Posted by: ben08 4th January 2016, 01:42 PM

But there are separate entries for Beatles In Stereo (no. 30) and Beatles In Mono (no. 20). If you can't buy Beatles in Mono on iTunes how could you possibly stream it? How could they confuse Beatles Box Set with Beatles in Stereo in the chart listing as Beatles in Stereo can't be digitally downloaded anywhere?
Beatles in Mono only has 10 albums as opposed to 14 for Beatles in Stereo.

Posted by: Bjork 4th January 2016, 05:43 PM

I think the OCC does the capping not Spotify

those Beatles albums must be on Apple, think they have things in there to listen that are not on itunes for sale

Posted by: ben08 4th January 2016, 07:11 PM

^ That's what I originally thought but a poster on UKMix states,

Any other ideas how you can stream an album that does not exist?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2016, 03:11 PM

Am I alone in thinking that the streaming component of the chart needs tweaking a bit?

The current rules allow 70 streams a week, but the counter is reset each week. ISTM that there should be a 100 stream total limit per track, thus being a direct equivalent of buying it once.

Of course, that wouldn't stop people listening via more than one streaming service, or streaming different mixes of the same song, but that would just be the same as downloading different versions once.

Posted by: ben08 8th January 2016, 07:10 PM

And the Albums chart is also affected by streaming. Beatles 1 is no. 46 on downloads, no. 32 on physical but no. 6 on audio streams to give an overall chart position of no. 21.

Posted by: PumpedUpKicks 8th January 2016, 07:13 PM

To quote myself from elsewhere on Buzzjack:

Posted by: JosephMendes 8th January 2016, 07:17 PM

I think that's a good way of looking at things PumpedUpKicks. We just have to alter our expectations. Newer songs will climb in later on, rather than being a flop in week 1. This is why the shift to OA/OS is important too, because with held-back releases, their peak tends to be considerably lower.

Posted by: btljs 8th January 2016, 11:18 PM

It doesn't make any difference if it's 0.5 or 1, it counts towards its weekly total and its cumulative total. You could get 0.5 sales per week all year long and have 25 sales at the end of the year. As it's track streams/1000, it could actually get 0.001 of a sale in a week. It means we are unlikely to ever get exact ties in the charts.

Posted by: btljs 8th January 2016, 11:32 PM

But look how the number of new songs is falling: http://www.polyhex.me.uk/uksingles/new-entries-in-chart-uks.cfm

2015 was down to 1975 levels (when there was only a top 50) and this was while streaming was going up throughout the year (enabling new songs to get higher streaming peaks). The warning bells should be ringing about chart stagnation: Bieber monopolising the top 5 with album tracks for three months, two Ed Sheeran album tracks in the top 50 after 80 weeks on the chart. There are only so many spaces for new songs to slot into. I think some tweaks are going to be needed.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th January 2016, 10:16 AM

It's more to do with UK radio (dominated by Global Media) playing a smaller and smaller range of music which in turn leads to a less diverse range of songs being bought - which in turn leads to the radio playlisters deciding against listing new music. A negative feedback loop which stifles and stagnates the singles chart.

Streaming is an easy target, but we had EXACTLY the same points raised with downloads when they first emerged (OMG!! an unlimited run of a single which never is not on sale).

Posted by: girl_from_oz 9th January 2016, 12:36 PM

I blame the playlists, especially if some people are just listening to the chart playlists

Posted by: Jack Murs 9th January 2016, 05:00 PM

I know that only 10 streams from the same user per day count towards a songs' sales total but If for example I listened to Justin Biebers' "Sorry" 10 times from his album "Purpose" and 10 times from a compilation album does those 20 plays count?

Posted by: Jack Murs 9th January 2016, 05:02 PM

Is Heart FM owned by Global Media by any chance?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th January 2016, 05:07 PM

No - but if you streamed a track by the Beatles which appeared on many different albums in the bizarre made-up crazy world of the album streaming chart it would count for two different albums (the two highest in the chart).




Yes. They own Capital, Heart Classic FM, Smooth Radio, LBC, Radio X (formerly XFM), and loads of others. Basically its a monopoly and everyone just quietly ignores it.

Posted by: fchd 9th January 2016, 05:30 PM

So, let me see if I'm understanding this. If I were to stream, say "Fight Song" by Rachel Platten, that would count for "Now 92"'s streaming figures and here own "Wildfire" album, plus the singles chart?


(only used this as an example as it was the last song that played from my mp3 collection)

Posted by: fchd 9th January 2016, 05:30 PM

So, let me see if I'm understanding this. If I were to stream, say "Fight Song" by Rachel Platten, that would count for "Now 92"'s streaming figures and her own "Wildfire" album, plus the singles chart?


(only used this as an example as it was the last song that played from my mp3 collection)

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th January 2016, 05:33 PM

I don't think it works with compilation albums - or they'd always be in the album streaming chart.

But given the amount of Beatles entries in the chart on 1 January, I'd imagine this rule isn't being that strictly applied and basically it is being made-up as they go along.

Posted by: Bjork 9th January 2016, 06:48 PM

you sure? cos when you listen to an album track, you choose the album you wanna hear it from, i.e. if I wanna listen to Everything I Do I can chose from Waking Up the Neighbours or from So Far SO Good... so it should count for the album I chose to listen from

Posted by: Yorkie3 9th January 2016, 07:16 PM

I think the system would make more sense if it wasn't made up of a total of points of specific tracks - sure it's been suggested before, haven't been following any discussions recently, but say a streaming sale of an album is only attributed if the same person listens to a certain number of tracks from it. The current system seems strange because for every stream of a song, you're contributing to both the singles and albums chart. (Unless you're streaming one of the two most popular tracks from the album, I know)

Posted by: Catherine91 9th January 2016, 08:24 PM

I wonder how much the streaming proportion of the chart would decrease if only whole-song streams were counted? It seems odd that listening to a song for 30 seconds 100 times is worth as much as buying it once.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th January 2016, 08:44 PM

Well it doesn't, it counts to all the albums from that artist it appears on plus the Greatest Hits. Crazy but true.

I just think streaming shouldn't be incorporated into the album chart whatsoever - on the whole it isn't used to listen to albums and the only reason it is used is to artificially inflate figures.

Posted by: JosephMendes 9th January 2016, 08:52 PM

Welcome to the forum

How would you define a "whole-song" though? Because many songs have a couple of seconds of silence at the end, people may pause there and play the next song without even getting to the actual end. I think 30 seconds is a good compromise, it's not often that people would only hear 30 seconds each time and switch I'm sure.

Posted by: edward 9th January 2016, 09:02 PM

I read that physical and digital sales still account for twice as much revenue as streaming but yet streaming seems to account for more than twice as much of the singles charts as sales. It seems to me the weighting for streaming is about 4-5 times too high currently.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th January 2016, 09:22 PM

Well in 2015 the total market was up 3.5% year-on-year to a total retail value of £1.059 billion with £251m (23.7% of total revenue) contributed by streaming with a 22.1% share of the total market.

Therefore it looks a pretty good weighting to me.

Posted by: The Hit Parade 9th January 2016, 10:16 PM

Commercial radio is really more of a duopoly between Global and Bauer (who own Absolute, Kiss, Magic and a lot of local stations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North of England). But Global do have most of the hitmaking stations.

Posted by: Catherine91 10th January 2016, 10:01 AM

Thanks for the welcome!

Good point about the silence at the end. Another thought to add to my original post, though - if 100 people per day listen to a particular song for 30 seconds and then skip, it would add up to 7 'sales' by the end of the week, despite the fact that those people barely listened to the song.

Posted by: Bjork 10th January 2016, 10:15 AM

Crazy indeed and nonsensical imho
I do think streaming should go into the album charts but calculated in a different way like they do in Scandinavia... if you listen to an album on Spotify and you go and listen to > x% of the songs, then you got an album sale, and that counts for the album charts only and not for the singles charts. That makes sense to me and doesn't allow double counting... if you just listen to 2-3 songs, then you don't contribute to the album charts but the singles charts...

Posted by: ben08 10th January 2016, 03:24 PM

It's worse in America.
If you stream a track it counts towards album sales (SEA)
If you download a track it counts towards album sales (TEA)

The Beatles 1 had 17,000 pure album sales yet ended up with 36,000 equivalent album sales on the Billboard Top 200 Christmas chart. I call that triple counting.

I have heard of grade inflation at GCSE but this is ridiculous ...

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2016, 03:53 PM

Streaming forms the greatest proportion of sales only outside the charts, though. Streaming forms only about 30% of sales of the top 5 - and BB (before Bieber) , it was more like 25%.

Posted by: Dan_ 10th January 2016, 04:08 PM

Also for albums sales it's still massively dominated by physicals and to a lesser extent downloads.

I'm still confused with streaming being included in the album chart myself anyway, I think they should just keep that as a sales only chart but I can accept that isn't going to happen (well at least it doesn't dramatically change the albums chart). Even if that means album sales figures look crap.

I'm 100% for streaming being included in the singles and streams of album tracks counting toward the singles chart though.

Posted by: SKOB 10th January 2016, 05:48 PM

This is total bs. I use Spotify mainly to listen to albums. Currently listening to the latest album by Father John Misty. And quite a lot of people are listening to albums by Ed Sheeran and Justin Bieber for example.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th January 2016, 06:48 PM

You're quite atypical then - most people listen to playlists.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th January 2016, 11:27 AM

Do you listen to music via streaming now, rather than via an iPod (or suchlike), simply because you know it'll count towards the charts?

Posted by: Mateja 15th January 2016, 11:41 AM

I only stream music on my desktop computer. It's either streaming (Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer) or my own iTunes library. I have an iPod Touch and I can stream at home where I have wifi. But otherwise I use iPod to listen to my own music.

I wouldn't stream from my cell phone even if I could. I wouldn't want to waste my phone battery on music.

Posted by: Joe. 15th January 2016, 12:14 PM

I always use it listen to albums too, I rarely click on the playlists.

Posted by: ben08 15th January 2016, 12:53 PM

In the Billboard Top 200 albums chart this week,

33 The Beatles – 1 16,565 Equivalent Album Sales, 6,769 sales, 21,055 digital song sales, 11,536,866 streams

track equivalent albums TEA 2,105 = 21,055/10

streaming equivalent albums SEA 7,691 = 11,536,866/1,500

EAS 16,565 = 6,769 + 2,105 + 7,691

Streaming songs and downloading tracks certainly boosts "sales" in the US. But it is the same for every album.
BTW. The Beatles reached a quarter of a billion streams in 12 days worldwide in 9 streaming services.

Posted by: popchartfreak 15th January 2016, 01:21 PM

as Ive said before the HUGE difference between streaming charts and sales charts is the issue of repeat plays. A sale is a sale is a sale, it counts only once to the chart and thats the way it has always been. It kept the charts fresh (and the UK sales chart - which I still view as the REAL chart) is a damn sight fresher and kinder to both older established acts and newer acts. Streaming is essentially weighting the "charts" artifically towards (75%) what is still a minority interest (amongst the 15-25 year olds). The ratio of streaming is all wrong, it has swamped the sales chart out of the equation even though sales are not historically disastrous (yet).

The most negative aspect is the repeat plays for tracks months and years onward which keep them in the charts, for example the awful Cheerleader is listed as second best "selling" single of the year. No it isn't, it's the second-most STREAMED track of the year, not even close on real sales, and this is now reflected in Year-End charts where records from the first half of the year dominate because of all the streaming time they have had to accumulate "sales". Records released late in the year, which may have outsold them on downloads, just don't get the same opportunity to compete (though obviously they will pop up in the first half of 2016's charts long after they have peaked on downloads in 2015).

I have very minor interest in how many times somebody listens to a track (not even The Beatles my all-time faves), sorry, old fashioned that way!

Posted by: Zárate 15th January 2016, 02:59 PM

So yeah, the biggest streaming issue is that when it's brought we don't add like-a-like figures. We add initial buys with constant plays. It should be initial + initial or constant + constant. We should either:
a) somehow take into account the listens by bought songs throughout all the time being
b) or only supply the first streams made by people.
I’m actually for an (a) option, as the charts should genuinely show what people are listening to the most, which is the definition of most popular tracks. But I don’t know about the methodology which could calculate/estimate those listens by bought songs. I mean I have my iTunes plays by bought songs but how could they be submitted? Should pirate copies listens be submitted in that case?
While to keep the charts fresher we could invent (as I said in some other thread) a “Breaking Chart” which takes into account sales as well as first streams by authorized users. But this should only be a side (not main) chart, as it loses a lot of data, so it’s a less accurate representation of what people are actually listening to.
Ultimately it’s not a problem of streaming or how is it calculated. The main problem of actual chart is that it got uninteresting because it got stale. But it could be changed even if we only take streaming into account. For that the Radio 1 show should be changed to top-100 with only new entries / high climbers being played, plus the countdown of 11-40 region, plus the top-10. In current climate it is more or less of the same difficulty to enter the top-100 as it used to enter the top-40 before. Likewise, current top-20-25 should be treated as like a former top-10, top-40 – as a top-20 etc. And the chart show would be much more fresh and exciting to listen to. Times have changed – but the chart wasn’t adapted to them, in fact it got only worse with only top-25 now being played.

Posted by: btljs 15th January 2016, 09:18 PM

Many really good points in your post. I find the new Friday chart show an abomination, but I'm guessing that the Beeb are contracted to play a complete run down of the top hits as far as possible within the time constraints. Any other way of selecting the tracks moves away from pure chart and back into radio playlist territory. One of the things which has traditionally been exciting about the charts is the idea that they have to play a song if it is in there (of course they squirm out of it when they want e.g. "Ding Dong"). The problem with playing new entries is that there are a variable number (fewer and fewer these days) so it would make scheduling difficult. Breaking charts face the same problems of who does the selecting and, increasingly, how you define a new song given that tracks can hang around for months or even years before breaking through.

As to your like-for-like point: I suppose that every good Belieber knows that what you do is download the album and then stream it every time you want to listen to it. Hell, you can even skip Sorry and Love Yourself because they won't count towards the album total. My point is that the chart only appears to be reflective of existing behaviour, what it actually does is change that behaviour. Streaming became popular because it's free essentially, but, like downloads a decade earlier, it was given legitimacy by its inclusion in the charts.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2016, 10:00 AM

The chart has had a fundamental shift in nature, thanks to streaming. Before, it was a once-off sale when a new song came out - if you wanted to listen to it endlessly after that, it was not a problem as it had no effect on the charts. Now though, it's more of a listen-to chart, than a measure of how many people like a song.

ISTM, at very least we need to adjust the ratio up from the current 100-1.

When streaming was first added, just 20% of sales from the top 20 were from streaming, now just 18 months later, that ratio has almost doubled! Perhaps the ratio needs to be adjusted up to 150 or even 200 streams=1 sale?

Posted by: Mateja 18th January 2016, 10:57 AM

Nah, the current, 100'-1 ratio is easy to use. Streaming is taking over, there is no point in changing the ratio to support the dying format.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2016, 02:50 PM

Maybe - but changes in chart rules have always been exploited, until the loopholes have been closed.

IMO an absolute limit of 100 streams per track to count would allow newer songs a better chance to break through.

Posted by: SKOB 18th January 2016, 03:28 PM

OCC should consider including streaming on Soundcloud as well. Kanye West for example has only release his new songs there so far.

Posted by: mdh 18th January 2016, 06:44 PM

yes!

This would give a variety of music the chance to make an impact in the charts. someone pls forward this to OCC

Posted by: house.martin 18th January 2016, 08:08 PM

I think a limit would be nice, like 100 or something, but perhaps over let's say 180 day period or something. That would help a song that's popular once again in the future have another chart run.

Posted by: burbe 18th January 2016, 08:16 PM

The problem of included streaming is that these charts are too slow compared with downloads. They need to come up with some sort of strategy to promote new songs on streaming to allow them to take off quicker.

Posted by: The Hit Parade 18th January 2016, 08:34 PM

Have Soundcloud started paying royalties yet? I presume that's why the OCC haven't included them previously, since they obviously know the site is there.

Posted by: SKOB 19th January 2016, 07:00 AM

Could be the case... but then again Youtube pays royalties and it's not included.

Posted by: JosephMendes 19th January 2016, 07:21 AM

That's different because it's video streaming rather than audio streaming though.

Posted by: Mart!n 23rd January 2016, 03:21 PM

Bump....

Any streaming debate can continue in here

Posted by: JCM20 23rd January 2016, 04:33 PM

Proper sales are only terrible here now because streaming was introduced, making it easier for free access - they were fine beforehand: Rather Be sold almost 163,000 in its first week, plus My Love, I Got U, Nobody to Love, Hideaway, Waves and Summer all sold over 100,000 in the first half of 2014.

Posted by: T Boy 23rd January 2016, 04:45 PM

I think the argument of 'but sales will be so low without streaming!!!!1!1!1!' is pretty rubbish. Sales are still low, whether we count streams or not. It's almost like people are afraid to face that reality so they'd rather inflate the figures. So what if sales are low? If a sales chart eventually becomes redundant, so be it. But streams aren't interchangeable with downloads like downloads were with the physical CD ten years ago. Even in 2008 the chart didn't look this boring.

Posted by: AcerBen 23rd January 2016, 05:43 PM

I'm pro-streaming being in the chart but I'm also tired of how slow it is and how long songs are staying in it. Can anyone come up with a system that gives more weight to newer songs but doesn't end up making the chart meaningless? I wouldn't want them to remove songs like What Do You Mean altogether, but there must be some formula they could use to reflect the fact that it's no longer gaining in popularity, and it's just the same people listening to it over and over. There's no doubt it's still a popular song and should be on the chart, but at the same time the chart is supposed to be a promotional tool for the record industry, and how can it be if one artist is hogging 3 of the top 5? I don't know what the answer is.

Posted by: mdh 23rd January 2016, 05:45 PM

like for example, after a certain amount of streams counted, the stream to sale ratio for that particular song is doubled? That would improve the situation.

Posted by: Griff 23rd January 2016, 05:48 PM

I was under the illusion it was 10 streams per week for every account.

Posted by: JosephMendes 23rd January 2016, 05:50 PM

Nope, definitely per day! So even if you streamed a song 10 times every day for a week, you'd only contribute 7/10ths of a sale.

Posted by: Griff 23rd January 2016, 05:55 PM

Where did you get that information from?

That's fucking shit though. Who would think that was a wise idea, when artists with a large amount of fans can easily get an advantage using their 'I <3 BIEBER' playlists, and I'll get sick of Lush Life if I do that.

Posted by: JosephMendes 23rd January 2016, 06:21 PM

From the OCC when it was first announced

I very much doubt many people will spam listen a song to the maximum - it would take something on a huge scale to effect the chart because each person can only add 0.7 sales a week. Actually buying the song would count for more. So it's not really much of an advantage ~

Posted by: Doctor Blind 23rd January 2016, 06:24 PM

The 'large amount of fans can easily get an advantage' argument doesn't wash.

In the physical era you had 10 fans buying 5 formats of a single each = 50 sales.

In the streaming era you have 10 fans streaming a song all day and all night for a week = 0.7*10 = 7 sales.

Posted by: Zárate 23rd January 2016, 06:28 PM

Well here the difference is that if you stream it you don't pay for it (you pay for a monthly subscription), while with ever "actual" sale you pay every time. So it's much easier to get someone to the top using streaming - this way you "pay" the same for one stream as for 70 streams per week.

Posted by: girl_from_oz 23rd January 2016, 06:28 PM

Spotify needs a fresh playlist, just take stuff off the playlist when it's been out a few weeks

Posted by: T Boy 23rd January 2016, 06:39 PM

People will listen to a song all day though. I recall Eric Blob stating that he'd spent the entire day listening to Right There by Nicole Sherzinger.

Posted by: JosephMendes 23rd January 2016, 06:41 PM

Is it really easier though? When you can only contribute no more than 0.7 sales per person a week. It'd be *cheaper* but not easier.

People may well listen to a song all day but it caps at 10 plays per day so beyond that it means nothing.

Posted by: Zárate 23rd January 2016, 06:53 PM

As I can imagine it's easier (i.e. cheaper) for the people who don't have their own income, who are mainly school people.
I'd like to see a chart where the limit would be reduced to 10 times per week. How much would it change? Only OCC knows.

Posted by: Griff 23rd January 2016, 09:48 PM

Oh please. I would imagine these people probably stream Bieber multiple times each day. Therefore they have seven sales every week instead of one.

Posted by: JosephMendes 23rd January 2016, 09:55 PM

No need to be so aggressive with your language about it please! As I said, they can only contribute 0.7 sales a week per person, because there's a cap of 10 streams a day. I'm not sure anyone's actually paying attention to that part

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2016, 10:01 PM

And they would drop out of the chart immediately after charting if it was just a fanbase track - I would say it's fair enough if a fan is prepared to pay for 5 formats (and help both the artist and the music industry by buying them - you did after all get bonus tracks that these days get stuck on "deluxe" albums to try and get you to buy the same product twice). Not paying for anything at all, and having your listening habits dominate the chart (which they clearly do to at least an extent) would be like giving away free singles in the cd era and have them count towards the chart. I'm not in favour of advert-paid-for listening having ANY contribution to the charts for that reason. If you don't pay, you don't get it counted as chart....

The sooner that happens the better.

Posted by: btljs 23rd January 2016, 10:38 PM

I think they will have to do something because a static streaming levels chart is going to be very sluggish. You could introduce a formula of sales equivalent = streams / (100 X number of weeks since first chart entry) or similar.

The other thing that occurs to me is that sooner or later they will have to include video streaming because some people consume their music with videos and some without. If you are trying to represent consumption accurately, then you can't arbitrarily ignore people who like videos with their music. In order to remain competitive Spotify & Apple and co are going to offer videos at some point - it's going to be bizarre to differentiate between those watching them and those not.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2016, 07:42 AM

They can stream it as often as they want, but only the first 70 streams each week count towards the chart.

Then there's always the question - are people streaming a song because they genuinely like it, or simply to manipulate the chart?

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2016, 07:51 AM

Why do people stream songs, anyway?

For me, it's only a once-off to check out new songs.

If I discover one I like, I'll buy it, and therefore have it permanently available on my iPod. For me, that's far more convenient than having to stream it every time I want to hear it.

Posted by: *Ben* 24th January 2016, 08:57 AM

I don't think it will happen, but I must be honest that's a very valid point. I was a bit surprised when I read at that time that also streaming from free subscriptions wil lbe counted if the royalties are paid (by adverts for example).

If I could change the rules somehow I would change two things:

1. streaming would count only from paid subscriptions, and nothing from free subscriptions. It would surely change the chart somehow as I'm pretty sure the bigger share of the Spotify users use the srvice for free.
2. I would change the 30 sec rule. Now if you listen to a song 30 seconds long it will count. I would change it to 1 min 30 sec, that's almost half a song and if someone want to multilisten to a song, that is a length that maybe won't worth doing it.


Casual music listeners/buyers are not even aware how the chart works. Maybe they've heard about the introduction of streaming into the charts but I can't imagine a casual music buyer started streaming just because of that (only the chart fans like us, who visit this forum for example). Sales were already dropping when streaming was introduced, plus streaming wasn't a new thing, it was already there for a couple of years when it was incorporated to the charts.

But as I said people don't buy or stream a song just because "oh I want it to chart so I stream it rather 70 times..."


Which playlist do you mean? There are a lot of playlists, even a "New Music Friday" playlist (I myself follow it actually)


Well not everyone is like you, younger people find it easier to do for example a playlist at home on Spotify and then just access it on their mobilphone and listen to it, also permanently. Streaming = listening to music but on an internet platform. And internet is nowadays almost everywhere available, so it's easy. In fact if you're a paid subscriber you can listen to it offline so it doesn't eat up your monthly internet availability.


Not the first 70 but the first 10 everyday

This manipulation thing is a bit exaggerated by us, chart nerds I think. There are surely some people who want to manipulate in favour their faves but casual music listeners don't give a sh*t imo

Posted by: BillyH 24th January 2016, 09:06 AM

The stuff about "streaming biases the chart to 15 year olds" was all being said a decade ago about downloads replacing CDs - maybe around the time Umbrella was #1 for about a year.

It was probably being said circa 1992 when vinyl sales were dying out in favour of tapes and CDs too.

Posted by: Dan_ 24th January 2016, 09:11 AM

the chart has always been biased to 15 year olds anyway, it's them that are most likely to buy and listen to current chart music.

Posted by: T Boy 24th January 2016, 09:33 AM

I think the issue is probably that streaming services are one of the only places 15 year olds are getting exposure to music these days. The chart remains static because it's easier to listen to chart playlists. We're also going through Winter where, once one of the busiest times for releases, it's now empty of artists releasing for some reason.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2016, 10:12 AM

Another question then - is streaming increasing or decreasing the variety of music you listen to?

If the former, how come it is not being reflected in acceleration of chart turnover?

Posted by: Colm 24th January 2016, 11:03 AM

It's cheaper (ie free). For home listening it's just as convenient as any other means - ie. iTunes, cd, other mp3 players.
There's thousands of albums that I might be interested in but not interested enough to purchase - ie, all of David Bowie's ones at the moment.

Posted by: mdh 24th January 2016, 11:04 AM

You can go on about the charts being biased to 15 year olds but in some cases 15 year olds are the ones keeping the chart alive

Posted by: Colm 24th January 2016, 11:09 AM

Because the answers two those two questions are not always related.
The first question relates to me and my listening habits - you can't infer the behavior of the population based on a sample of one.

The answer to the first question is yes.

From a statistical point of view because people who are into a wide variety of music will probably not stream a song they like enough to effect that charts, and all the other people who are also into a wide variety of music are probably listening to a variety of different songs for any of this to have any effect on the charts, this has no effect.

Where as teen age pop lovers will be hammering the latest pop songs and not much else.

Posted by: Zárate 24th January 2016, 11:56 AM

I don't really know about Spotify but my Apple account allows me to download all the songs and put them on ipod/iPhone.

Posted by: girl_from_oz 24th January 2016, 12:27 PM

Talking bout downloading songs and listening offline are those counted towards the charts?

Posted by: ML Hammer95 24th January 2016, 12:29 PM

Nobody illegally downloading MP3s anymore then?

Posted by: girl_from_oz 24th January 2016, 12:34 PM

you would think nobody would in the streaming age but I read that illegal downloads went up last year, maybe they were all Adele's 25

Posted by: ML Hammer95 24th January 2016, 12:40 PM

I still do, as I haven't got round to getting Spotify yet. Most of my circle of friends rely on Spotify now however.

Posted by: Colm 24th January 2016, 12:41 PM

Not everything is available on Spotify. There's plenty of stuff from 90s dance which seems to only be available in sub-standard version.

KLF stuff isn't there.

Also Voodoo Ray from A Guy Called Gerald is only available in some HAC09 version.

Posted by: Zárate 24th January 2016, 12:45 PM

I mean I have a paid streaming subscription and it allows me to download songs!

Posted by: SKOB 24th January 2016, 01:10 PM

The most popular songs are even more popular because of streaming but on the other hand, also variety increases via word of mouth, playlists and social media. If I share a song by Jeremih, 15 of my friends might listen to it on Spotify and it all affects the charts. Those people would NEVER buy it

Posted by: JCM20 24th January 2016, 02:24 PM

Right now albums are only having a tiny fraction of their sales dictated by streaming, in the UK anyway. Over in the States, however, it's out of control. A few weeks ago Adele's 25 "sold" more than 55,000 copies purely from people streaming "Hello". And last week BBTM by The Weekend sold around 39,000 copies, but only 13,114 were from actual purchases. Whilst streaming has now pretty much taken over the singles market, is the albums market next?

Posted by: vidcapper 24th January 2016, 02:54 PM

Of course not - that's why I worded my question to try and avoid the implication I was referring just to my own listening habits (alas I seem to have failed in that attempt).

Posted by: *Ben* 24th January 2016, 03:01 PM

At the moment I don't really see a big taking over because the methodology for album streams are much more complicated:

Check the very first post of this thread: http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=184830&view=findpost&p=5255990
"The top 12 most streamed tracks are taken from the standard edition of an album. The top 2 songs will be downweighted, to the average of the other 10 songs. This is to combat an album being artificially boosted by one or two hit singles. The total of these songs is then added together and divided by 1000 to give a streaming total for the album."

Adele's 25 has no streams because only Hello is available to stream and that's by far not enough to add anything to the album's sales.

PS: The only thing I don't know, what if an album has only 8 tracks? How come this 12 tracks rule?

Posted by: The Hit Parade 24th January 2016, 05:38 PM

I think the counterargument about free streams though is that in either case the marginal cost is the same either way. If you're paying a subscription it's costing you the same per month whether you have it running 24-7 or don't touch it for the whole month. So effectively each stream costs you nothing. That's probably the thing that convinced the OCC, although there are also practical considerations like what if somebody takes a free trail and then cancels before they have to pay?
As regards the effect on the chart, I think the relevant question is not how many accounts are free vs paid, but how many streams come from each type of account: it may very well be that paid users stream more than free ones.

I don't really think increasing the length would make much difference. Even if you had to listen to a song in full the really determined hypers could still do it, and that would just disadvantage legitimate listeners who got called away a few seconds from the end of the song. Also there are a lot more songs under 90 seconds long than under 30.

Posted by: SKOB 24th January 2016, 07:18 PM

In the US the album chart includes also the downloads of individual tracks of the album.

Posted by: Bjork 24th January 2016, 07:59 PM

We were now discussing album streams with some friends

If you stream an album in full once? How much does it represent in terms of sales?
How many times one has to listen to
An album in full to generate one sale
For the album charts?

A friend said 1000 but that sounds like a lot

Posted by: JosephMendes 24th January 2016, 08:03 PM

See this from the FAQ in post 1:



So really, you don't have to listen to an album in full even once. I could play Drag Me Down from One Direction's Made In the A.M. album 10 times every day for a week (the maximum) and it would contribute 0.07 sales to the album. I hope that answers your question!

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2016, 08:51 PM

Your friend is almost right. Subject to the rules in Joseph's post, you need to listen to 1,000 tracks to generate one sale. That could be one track 1,000 times, two tracks 500 times each or whatever. Note that it isn't possible to generate one sale in a week because of the restrictions.

Posted by: Bjork 24th January 2016, 08:57 PM

Thanks thats what i was trying to figure out
I always stream albums in full and this week i may have listened 25 times to
Daughter's new album in full
So was wondering if i had made an album sale
But not even close

Posted by: popchartfreak 24th January 2016, 09:43 PM

Re: 15-year-olds dominating the singles chart, yes they always have, they have more leisure time and enthusiasm than older music fans, which is great - but they have never at any stage excluded any other age group from the chart, which is pretty much the case nowadays with a Logan's Run dead at 30 cut-off point, barring the odd download driven scraping in.

In terms of American Charts, theyve always been a mish mash of whatever the music industry wants them to be - and invariably they want to control them, much as the UK music industry now sees streaming as an opportunity to get loads of cash. The CD single didn't die in the USA due to lack of interest, they became adverts to force consumers to buy albums if they wanted a track. Downloading freed that and showed just how artificially high album sales had become. Chart rules change all the time, I'm not saying don't include streaming because obviously the music biz loves the extra cash and will be pushing hard for it, and streaming companies still hope to have captive paying users forever more once the idea of "free" music dies out (it's not a sustainable model for music artists to rely on advertising only to make a living). I am saying the ratios are all wrong though and they need correcting, the ratio may have been logical when it was adopted in order to give the charts some streaming presence, it's not logical now that sales have halved.

Posted by: Umi 24th January 2016, 10:35 PM

Forgive me, but how does the music industry in the UK benefit from the inclusion of streaming in the charts? I must be missing something big but to my mind I can't think of... anyone who profits from the official chart including streaming figures. People will stream (generating £££) whether it's a chart component or not.

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th January 2016, 07:13 PM

the Biz always gets behind new music technology because it forces consumers to buy all over again as older formats get scrapped - streaming is a bit different inasmuch as there's now nowhere else to go in terms of formats, only re-boot older (nostalgic) formats, but most of the product available to stream is pure cash for the big record companies (both of them ) as artists get little compensation for a format that wasn't invented when they signed their contracts. It's no coincidence that both Taylor Swift and Adele are on independent labels and can withhold their Art (and sell more albums and singles - once streaming "sales" are stripped out), the 2 biggest pop stars on the planet know streaming is going to take over but they are refusing to let the streaming companies walk over them the way they walk over many other acts who have no say in the matter.

Record companies and streaming companies want to make it seem like the only format that matters is streaming and all else is dead and doomed, obviously pushing their own pop stars at the expense of the indie sector competitors. There's a lot of talk about streaming "saving" the music biz, when in fact all it's done is substitute money from downloads for money from streaming - bearing in mind cash and sales had been at an all-time high (for singles) this decade.

Posted by: AcerBen 29th January 2016, 10:10 PM

Mint Royale has had a go at recalculating the chart "using a bespoke formula which used week on week streaming change as a multiplier to give a new total."

This would be this week's chart



Personally I'd tweak it a bit so that it was based slightly more on actual sales/streams but I do like the idea of basing it on "behaviour changes" like the sales chart does.

Posted by: paulgilb 29th January 2016, 10:37 PM

1975 falling 15-38 on both the official chart and this one

Posted by: Dan_ 29th January 2016, 10:54 PM

that chart makes absolutely no sense, in what world is Ex's & Oh's and Army amongst others that high? I'll stick with the official chart.

Posted by: Graham A 30th January 2016, 01:17 AM

It doesn't. But the BBC and Spotify do.
The BBC benefits because the charts no longer look like the iTunes chart for the week. The BBC doesn't like the idea of supporting commercial companies. So by mixing the charts up the public can't go to the iTunes chart and see what will be number one or top ten next week. Thus it no longer looks like a commercial company's chart for the week.
Since the BBC put up a great deal of the money for the charts they have a great say in how they look. Spotify benefit's over it's rival company iTunes. The two have been insulting one another for ages.

An element of the Music Industry does benefit from the long term use of streaming. Since a record or download is only purchased once. One amount of money. But since streaming a track is unlimited, then the public will pay for the record over and over again.
Of course there is a flaw to that. Since it's like renting a record. And the public on the whole doesn't really like renting anything. So the streaming bubble will burst eventually.

Posted by: btljs 30th January 2016, 07:48 AM

I don't think the BBC is that invested in the charts really, otherwise it wouldn't have crammed them into a Friday drive time show that only plays the top 25 and a show on the children's channel. They recognise that most people don't care and those that do have already worked it out from what's available online. Back in the day, it didn't matter that the chart was released on Tuesday and was on telly on TOTP on Thursday, everybody still tuned in on Sunday. Now OCC are doing updates on an almost daily basis and anything older than a few days is chip wrappers.

I don't see a bubble that will burst - I see the new online consumerism. If people are connected on a plethora of devices more or less all the time, then streaming is the only method which makes sense. Even when you buy stuff it still sits on the cloud so that it follows you around, so you're really just renting space to keep stuff - more efficient just to access it from a central database whenever you need it. People have record collections which define part of who they are - if you want that then you still buy physical. I can't see anyone getting excited about their download collection.

Posted by: Red. 17th July 2016, 07:27 PM

This is a good article on the BBC News website:

Posted by: JosephStyles 17th July 2016, 08:34 PM

Moved that post to the streaming thread! Thanks for posting, it's a really interesting read. It's crazy how things have slowed down this year

Posted by: Jack Murs 18th July 2016, 04:36 PM

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/feature/a801321/drake-and-streaming-have-ruined-the-charts-forever-heres-why/

I hope he does surpass 16 weeks now just to put the final nail in the coffin.

Posted by: Mountain Marquis 18th July 2016, 04:56 PM

Its unfair to blame Drake, its a great song actually those Indian influences in the song and the Kyla sample is used well too. It's my favourite one by him so far by quite a bit.

Posted by: meme 18th July 2016, 04:57 PM

He really hasn't ruined the charts. It was bound to happen anyway - they weren't saying Bryan Adams had ruined the charts when he spent 16 weeks at the top, were they?

The charts are a fair and accurate representation of the most popular songs in the country.

Posted by: JosephStyles 18th July 2016, 04:59 PM

Merged with the appropriate streaming thread!

Posted by: No Sleeep 18th July 2016, 05:00 PM

I think they should make it that only paying members streaming counts towards the charts. I like that the charts are slower but it is getting a little ridiculous.

Posted by: SevenSeize 18th July 2016, 05:03 PM

Digital Spy

the salty tears of the chart traditionalists getting all mad about 'One Dance' <3 oh how I love the taste

Posted by: JosephStyles 18th July 2016, 05:04 PM

I disagree with this, if you're gonna include streaming, you can't pick and choose who counts and who doesn't. Free users' streams count just as much as paid for users' streams do.

Posted by: No Sleeep 18th July 2016, 05:28 PM

Well it would cut out most of the people who just play the playlists (the reason why the charts are so slow!)

Posted by: JosephStyles 18th July 2016, 05:31 PM

I don't see any correlation here, paid subscribers can just as easily play the playlists?

Posted by: danG 18th July 2016, 05:58 PM

People are never going to let this go are they?

At least Major Lazer/Justin Bieber will take the #1 next week so at least people can't moan about Drake overtaking Bryan Adams' record.

Posted by: Catherine91 19th July 2016, 07:50 PM

They need to get their facts right: "Rihanna's 'Umbrella' hung on at number one for eight weeks in 2008" - oh dear!

Posted by: Mart!n 19th July 2016, 09:23 PM

Just read that, a very interesting article.

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th July 2016, 04:42 PM

Head of Radio One Chris Price now says the OCC Singles Chart no longer represents popular music taste.



About time. Sorry all you streaming fans, but it DOESN'T in any way represent general taste and general popularity of tracks. As Music Week's Editorial points out, Drake has been outsold by several singles this summer, it's not been an airplay hit, and general awareness of the track (outside of streaming-pushed sites) is very low. If it weren't for unpaid-for repeat editorial listens on Spotify and co it would have had max 3 or 4 weeks on top, and made way for the real summer hits (Justin/Kungs). They point out genuine crossover appeal hits, which have been huge worldwide (like Ex's and Oh's and You Don't Own me) get short shrift on streaming sites, and subsequently the OCC.

It has reached the stage where radio play is of more significance, in terms of reflecting a record's popularity, than streaming. Radio One is pushing for free-plays to be excluded from the charts. This has to happen because the charts are being streamed to a lifeless tiresome death. If you don't pay for your music, you shouldn't get to have it reflected in the chart any more than home-tapers did in the past (which was me!).

Time to bring the passion back into music charts

Posted by: danG 25th July 2016, 05:25 PM

Streaming is the best way of representing general popularity of tracks. I seem to hear all this talk of "streaming ruining the charts" but how is it ruining the chart any more than frontloaded fanbase singles going 5-24-OUT or 'fake' cover versions charting? (yes I think the rise of streaming was responsible for everything being OA/OS these days which totally killed the trend of 'fake' songs in the chart). Besides, paid-for-sales only count for 20% of the singles chart. It would be wrong to exclude the 80%.

Now that we have the technology to know just what and how much songs are being played by music consumers that should definitely be taken into account in the charts, instead of using just paid-for-sales (which are currently at 2006-7 levels and in terminal decline).

Of course the Radio 1 heads aren't liking the takeover of streaming as it means less young people are listening to their radio station. The OCC shouldn't be persuaded by them to change the chart just to suit radio though, it should do its job in telling us the most popular songs of the week. Drake's song is incredibly popular and no-one should be denying that. Admittedly it getting 15 weeks at #1 is a bit flukey but that was mostly down to Justin and Calvin releasing while the song was at its peak - they would've been #1s otherwise.

If Radio 1 don't like the chart why don't they axe the chart show already? They're already making less than a half-arsed effort with it at the moment and it's come to the point where Capital or something would do a better job of hosting it.

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th July 2016, 06:28 PM

I'm afraid, though, if Radio 1 don't sponsor the chart show (and get decent listening figures) then they won't bother running it, and if Music Week also feel it no longer represents overall popularity (which it doesn't - it represents listening habits of teens who don't pay for music) then it ceases to be needed anymore. Its no good for breaking new music, it's no good for recognising music tastes of non-streamers who still love music, and it's no good for radio programmers.

I really don't get why everyone is so obsessed with records having long runs because people keep playing hits. The charts have never been about what people are playing over and over obsessively, it's been about what's new and fresh and replacing the big hits of last week - while continuing to play last week's big hits that you bought but don't count to the new chart.

As Music Week points out, when Bryan Adams and Wet wet Wet ruled for months on end, they were events, everyone in the country seemed to be aware of them, they were on radio, TV, cinema, week after week, genuine mass hits. Drake just is NOT a mass hit, not in any way, not in sales, not on radio, not on TV - but he is big amongst a large fanbase streamers and passive chart-streamers.

End of the day, if Radio One don't support the chart it will die. If the chart compliers don't reduce the 80% weighting by removing advertorial streaming (which is just silly) then we all will lose out.

Posted by: JosephStyles 25th July 2016, 06:54 PM

If streaming's being included, it needs to be ALL streaming, you can't just exclude those who don't pay subscriptions. It's not like recording onto a tape or illegal downloading because Spotify and the artists get money through the adverts. A stream is a stream and I don't think it's fair to separate those who want/can afford a subscription from those who don't or can't.

Posted by: danG 25th July 2016, 08:23 PM

I don't believe any US radio station broadcasts the Billboard top 40 and that chart is still very much alive and relevant...

Besides, Joseph's point is very relevant. Ad supported streaming =/= illegal downloading.

Posted by: liamk97 25th July 2016, 08:37 PM

My argument is that the reason the charts have never before been about what people were playing/listening to over and over is because there just wasn't a reliable way of doing so. If we pretend that streaming was such a thing at the creation of the charts, then perhaps it would have been taken into consideration from the start.

Posted by: T Boy 25th July 2016, 08:50 PM

Well people can whine on about how amazing streaming is and how it represents what is popular and so on and you can laugh at Digitalspy for putting out this article but at the end of the day it states a clear truth: people don't care about the chart anymore. It's literally just a handful of people on this forum that do. Most of Drake's fans probably don't even know One Dance has been no.1 for so long and the knowledge of this would mean nothing to them.

Is popularity measured best on how many times people play the song? Or how many people the song can entice to part money for it?

Posted by: danG 25th July 2016, 08:52 PM

Definitely the former in today's market at least, seeing as download sales are much lower than streaming equivalent sales, and purchasing a download is soon going to become very much a thing of the past anyway.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 25th July 2016, 08:53 PM

The chart hasn't been popular for years - I don't believe it has anything to do with the fact that streaming is now incorporated into the chart.

Posted by: T Boy 25th July 2016, 09:03 PM

The chart may not have been popular for years but there were at least some people interested. I work in a school and I used to hear kids talk about what was no.1 all the time and now that is no longer the case. The media used to make a big deal about the charts even when sales were at an all time low. That really hasn't been the case of late despite Drake's impressive feat.

I'm not saying streaming should be removed from the charts. That boat has long sailed and I could do without the lynch mob on here trying to make me feel ridiculous.

Just as we oldies (at 27 btw) have to face the fact of streaming in the charts and the death of sales, the rest will have to come to terms with the fact that people care less for the charts than they ever have. And no amount of posting in the YTD threads 'omg amazing! 12 million sellers this year!!!1!' Is going to change that.

Posted by: Kye 25th July 2016, 09:07 PM

I don't think they should differentiate between paid/non-paid but I think you should have to 'select' the track to stream somehow or just not include streams in Spotify created playlists.

I'm not sure if you can add songs to your library etc on Spotify (I'm an Apple Music user) but I think that they should only be counted if you have added the song to 'my music' or your library.
That's what you'd have to do with a paid download to show that you'd invested, so why not with streaming?
People would still be able to listen to the Spotify created playlists and, if they liked something in the playlist, they could add it to their library for the streams to be counted.

I can't tell you the amount of parties I've been to where a Spotify playlist has just been put on where nobody has selected each track we're listening to.. but all those streams counted.

Posted by: liamk97 25th July 2016, 09:16 PM

This sounds like a nice idea to the eye. You're right, you do have the option on Spotify to add to your own library and I agree it would be a good way of judging if people were invested in a song instead of just putting on a playlist and perhaps not being bothered to skip over a song that you're not particularly invested in. In a way, sticking on a playlist is pretty similar to turning on the radio - in both cases, you could just let the music play regardless of what's on or what you like, although of course you do know what music is to come on a playlist.

Posted by: popchartfreak 26th July 2016, 11:55 AM

That would be an improvement by getting rid of passive streamers, though I also take issue that the number of times someone plays a track is a measurement of its popularity. Just because one person plays a track 50 times in a week doesn't mean that they love music more than someone who plays it fives times, or downloads it and influences the chart just once. Not all of us have the time or capacity to replay music endlessly, much as we would love to, so that gives a very heavy weighting of the charts towards those who do have the time (ie those not working for a living without time-consuming repsonsibilities). I love the records in my personal chart this week as much as anyone who streams, yet even though I have bought the vast majority and contribute towards the music industry, my taste in music is irrelevant because I don't stream.

everyone I know got bored with the singles chart long ago cos nothing much happens over very long periods. They can still like tracks within the chart, but they really don't know or care who's on top or in it, which is a massive pop culture shift from previous music fans who grew up watching TOTP and the Sunday Chart Show and kept on going. Those of us moaning arent doing it out of hatred for music, we do it because we passionately love music, especially great new music, but frankly I get more out of the BJSC every month than I do the singles chart, better quality and more of it, with a fast turnover from new artists. That's what the singles chart used to be...

I'm sad!

Posted by: danG 26th July 2016, 12:57 PM

The general public just simply don't care for the music charts and it's been that way for a while. Removing streaming from the chart isn't magically going to make people interested again and get top of the pops back in the air.

I just feel passionate about streaming because I've had a premium Spotify subscription since late 2012 and I've never looked back. It's much better than downloading individual track but that's just my opinion.

Posted by: SKOB 31st July 2016, 07:11 AM

That's just because pop culture is everywhere, not just in your tv or radio or singles chart. It's in your cellphone, your iPad, your laptop, Youtube... You can watch the latest video by Beyonce almost everywhere whenever you like.

I don't understand how that can make someone sad? It's just called nostalgia.

Pop culture hasn't gone anywhere. Doesn't millions of teens going crazy when a new Bieber song appears prove that?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 31st July 2016, 12:27 PM

I still hear people talk about the chart, but they think that the iTunes chart is the ACTUAL chart (maybe true between 2009 and 2014) - so some at work thought that Justin Timberlake had been number 1 for 3 weeks for instance.

Radio 1's reaction is quite amusing when you consider they have been trying to get their target audience age-group down for nearly a decade now, yet they continue see the average age of their audience rise inexorably (it was 30 in 2011, and is now 32). The fact is streaming is replacing radio as a means of discovering and listening to new music for millennials (15 - 19 year-olds) and it is completely the future and the most accurate way of measuring true popularity. More so than we have ever had actually!

Yes it is not perfect; however neither was the physical world where many shops were not included in surveys and some artists achieved concentrated sales over many different formats by a rabid fanbase, nor was the digital era with its unbalanced mix of OA/OS and (mostly British high priority) held-back releases, lower retail price point making newer unsupported artists struggle, the unnecessarily punitive action on those who downloaded illegally (how about ACTUALLY PUTTING THE RECORD YOU ARE PROMOTING ON SALE THEN GUYS??) and a music industry that was very slow to react to the rise of Napster et al.

Posted by: popchartfreak 5th August 2016, 12:16 PM

all of the above comments are true. That doesn't though change the fact that streaming has wiped out non-streaming music fans from the singles chart. We haven't died, we haven't gone away, and we are NOT represented anywhere except the itunes charts and the albums chart. Despite the fact that in general we are high spend and streamers are very very low spend.

If the Uk singles chart continues to be based entirely on streamers playing habits, it will remain non-all-inclusive, and cease to have any influence (as it used to). Now maybe streamers don't care about charts at all (if they get their music elsewhere, as do I these days) but if that's the case why make so much fuss about having older peoples tastes featured (as they have always been from 1952 through to 2 or 3 years ago)....

you either do care about the charts or you don't, and Radio One does because theyve just lost half a million listeners now that flagship cornerstone of their schedule has died a death. Independant record companies also care because they are now at the mercy of the major-dominated streaming companies (who still don't make an annual profit) who can dictate what terms they get streaming on. The majors LOVE streaming, cos it's huge chunks of cash mostly for their own coffers, and they get to sell directly the latest Big Thing with promos.

The Big Acts dominate so completely minor acts are squeezed out. I don't care about huge stars, they are rich and get a huge slice of the media pie and money, I do care about up and coming stars though. 2016 has been very bad for breakthrough new acts, and I worry this will get worse year on year..

Good luck though with Bieber on top for the rest of the year though

Posted by: Mateja 14th August 2016, 10:58 PM

Downloads are losing the importance because more and more people that used to buy singles now stream. I mean, just looking at the "sales" numbers every week and looking at the breakdown between real sales and streaming tells the story. The number of people that still download is getting smaller and smaller. Making the downloads count more would be just an attempt to hide the fact that downloads are being phased out. Making the downloads count more wouldn't suddenly convince people to go back to buying singles on iTunes. Non-streaming music fans aren't being wiped out, they are being converted into streamers. Some people adopted streaming really fast and some are changing their habits slowly. And then there are some that want to continue buying and those sales still contribute to the charts.

I understand that you don't like your preferred method of music consumption becoming more and more irrelevant, but it's time to accept it.

Also, the streaming revolution did make the charts stale, but the charts simply reflect what people want to listen to - they like to listen to what is familiar to them.

Posted by: T Boy 14th August 2016, 11:10 PM

I still find it laughable that people think you can count sales and streams like for like.

Posted by: Mateja 15th August 2016, 12:38 AM

Oh I agree - but OOC had to find a solution that wouldn't be too complicated for a regular person to understand. Buying and streaming are two different ways of music consumption and I believe there is no perfect way to compare them. I would personally prefer if they kept the sales and streaming charts separate and simply declare the streaming chart to be the official UK singles chart and the sales chart only a side chart. But that would piss off the non streamers even more than the current solution.

Posted by: popchartfreak 15th August 2016, 12:11 PM

No, I would prefer them to be totally separate, that way the sales chart can stand alone and people will know exactly what the official streaming chart is.

Sales are now about the level they were at in 2006, and we weren't saying the charts were innaccurate at the time - the radio charts tended to reflect popularity of ongoing plays, and still do if you strip out the BBC and leave it as commercial/top 40.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th August 2016, 08:54 AM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1642425/as-us-artists-dominate-the-charts-is-streaming-killing-the-british-music-scene/

Posted by: Mart!n 20th August 2016, 08:56 AM

I was going to say we do have a pinned topic for all streaming discussion, instead of having endless topics regarding streaming

Posted by: Herbs 20th August 2016, 08:57 AM

Yes it is! Drakes run was blatant chart manipulation. Put the song on as many playlists as you can and just watch the 'sales' roll in.

As an aside, I think this article referring to Mike Posner is a little harsh and misinformed

Posted by: BeaverGotTrumped 20th August 2016, 08:58 AM

Actually British music is HUGE right now...

Streaming is a different question to how big UK music is.

Posted by: cqmerqn 20th August 2016, 08:59 AM

Yes

Posted by: Mart!n 20th August 2016, 09:01 AM

errr... really we only had 1 British #1 this year... go figure

Posted by: Herbs 20th August 2016, 09:01 AM

I find it horrendous that songs can spend the whole week in the iTunes top 40 but not even make the top 10 officially.

Posted by: mdh 20th August 2016, 09:02 AM

Something needs to change, that's evident. But what? I'm not sure. Answers on a postcard please.

Posted by: Herbs 20th August 2016, 09:04 AM

If they could id reduce the ratio to say 1 per 500 and if possible only count listens from paid for listeners

Posted by: BeaverGotTrumped 20th August 2016, 09:04 AM

Afele, Coldplay, Florence, Rita Ora comin back etc.

Posted by: SKOB 20th August 2016, 09:07 AM

What?

Posted by: vidcapper 20th August 2016, 09:08 AM

Sorry, didn't realise that.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th August 2016, 09:09 AM

I second that.

Posted by: SKOB 20th August 2016, 09:37 AM

Maybe the top 40 and top 10 should be vice versa, then it sort of makes sense

Posted by: danG 20th August 2016, 09:52 AM

Well it is true that the charts are becoming more Americanised, but this was a thing long before streaming existed too.

Anyway, we have over a quarter of the top 40 singles by British artists so it's not tragic. Likewise with the album chart which has even more British artists. The real problem is how hard it is for new acts to break through which needs to be addressed by the music industry soon. More Radio 1 airtime and Spotify exposure to new acts would be great.

03 03 21 Calum Scott ~ Dancing On My Own
12 10 16 Calvin Harris Feat. Rihanna ~ This Is What You Came For
15 16 12 Clean Bandit Feat. Louisa Johnson ~ Tears
19 35 06 Olly Murs ~ You Don't Know Love
20 18 09 Bastille ~ Good Grief
22 31 11 TIEKS Feat. Dan Harkna ~ Sunshine
24 22 13 Anne-Marie ~ Alarm
27 21 14 Adele ~ Send My Love (To Your New Lover)
29 26 11 M.O ~ Who Do You Think Of?
33 30 31 Coldplay ~ Hymn For The Weekend
35 33 15 Dua Lipa ~ Hotter Than Hell
36 38 05 Snakehips Feat. Zayn ~ Cruel

01 01 02 Blossoms ~ Blossoms
03 04 320 Electric Light Orchestra ~ All Over The World - The Very Best Of
06 07 39 Adele ~ 25
07 08 37 Coldplay ~ A Head Full Of Dreams
09 21 25 The 1975 ~ I Like It When You Sleep, For You Are So Beautiful Yet So Unaware Of It
12 15 52 Jess Glynne ~ I Cry When I Laugh
13 14 10 Rick Astley ~ 50
14 02 02 Giggs ~ Landlord
15 18 113 Ed Sheeran ~ x
17 05 03 Viola Beach ~ Viola Beach
18 20 06 Biffy Clyro ~ Ellipsis
19 22 74 James Bay ~ Chaos And The Calm
20 17 05 Michael Kiwanuka ~ Love & Hate
21 28 381 Amy Winehouse ~ Back To Black
22 32 117 Sam Smith ~ In The Lonely Hour
23 27 41 Little Mix ~ Get Weird
24 24 12 Catfish And The Bottlemen ~ The Ride
29 36 329 David Bowie ~ Best Of Bowie
34 50 126 Gregory Porter ~ Liquid Spirit
35 41 166 Bastille ~ Bad Blood
36 26 15 Radiohead ~ A Moon Shaped Pool
38 51 59 Years & Years ~ Communion
39 44 291 Adele ~ 21

Posted by: cqmerqn 20th August 2016, 09:52 AM

Posted by: TheSnake 20th August 2016, 10:03 AM

Because with sales, people buy singles only once, the chart will have a tendency to be much slower than a sales only chart.

However this year the charts have been so slow compared to any other year recently. Only one new entry this week is shocking, a summer week and not the week after Christmas when this would traditionally be the case.

In history we will have less chart records this year to look back on as our favourites and I think this is quite sad. Whereas years in the 2000s and early 2010s have loads of tracks to consider as our favourite top 40 tracks from those years.

(Sun article)

I disagree with this there were considerably more British acts in the UK chart in the early 2000s than now. There was UK Garage which was distinctly British, and other dance acts such as Jakatta and Flip and Fill were British.

Posted by: No Sleeep 20th August 2016, 10:11 AM

What? There's way too much exposure for new acts if you ask me. Radio 1 is terrible these days, older acts never get a look in because they're too busy trying to shove a new act down your throat Looking at the top 10, I see barely anything but new artists.

There's too many British acts as well tbh

Lol this is why I stopped caring about the charts

Posted by: cqmerqn 20th August 2016, 10:15 AM

You've stopped caring about the charts, yet here you are posting on the chart forum

Posted by: mdh 20th August 2016, 10:16 AM

Let's see the top 10, then. All bolded acts are established and not at all new - proving your point incorrect.

Major Lazer feat. Justin Bieber & MØ
DJ Snake feat. Justin Bieber
Calum Scott
The Chainsmokers feat. Halsey
Jonas Blue feat. JP Cooper
The Chainsmokers feat. Daya
twenty one pilots
Drake feat. Wizkid & Kyla
Shawn Mendes
Drake feat. Rihanna

Posted by: tommie 20th August 2016, 10:18 AM

I remember similar articles when digital sales were introduced to the charts...

Streaming is here to stay and digital sales will continue to shrink. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: TheSnake 20th August 2016, 10:19 AM

Radio 2 is for older acts mostly I thought.....Anyway Tiesto still gets some airplay on Radio 1 and he's been around for ages....I think its good that Radio 1 plays loads of new tracks but the problem is that the same, usually global hit artists (Beiber, Drake) or massive pan European tropical house artists (Kungs, Sigala) tend to be most successful and stay in the top 40 for weeks on end.

Rock bands can be played on A list for a few weeks and still not come near the top 40.

Posted by: No Sleeep 20th August 2016, 10:26 AM

I'm only here for the artists forums

Posted by: No Sleeep 20th August 2016, 10:27 AM

I think we have different definitions of established... I wouldn't call DJ Snake, The Chainsmokers, Shawn Mendes or Twenty One Pilots established

Posted by: Ðøßßø 20th August 2016, 10:27 AM

Nope not at all, British artists need to up their game.

Posted by: TheSnake 20th August 2016, 10:42 AM

But there is less old sounding music in the charts too, rock, disco and trance are rare or non-existent these days.

Posted by: TheSnake 20th August 2016, 10:44 AM

Vidcapper just out of interest are you named after a cap on a video camera lens to protect the lens from collecting dust when the video camera is not in use?

Posted by: danG 20th August 2016, 10:51 AM

Yes, radio should definitely still give established acts the time of day but what about up-and-coming artists like Christine and the Queens, Dua Lipa, Anne-Marie and M.O who had to face a bit of a struggle to get into the upper reaches of the charts and don't necessarily get lots of airplay on commercial radio, because they're still playing songs that were hits months ago more regularly.

The top 10 most played songs on Capital in the past month:

1
This Is What You Came For by Calvin Harris feat. Rihanna
261 plays
2
Too Good by Drake
260 plays
3
Don't Let Me Down by The Chainsmokers Feat. Daya
232 plays
4
Treat You Better by Shawn Mendes
221 plays
5
Tears by Louisa Johnson & Clean Bandit
220 plays
6
Girls Like by Tinie Tempah Feat. Zara Larsson
213 plays
7
Cheap Thrills by Sia Feat. Sean Paul
210 plays
8
Don't Mind by Kent Jones
204 plays
9
The Middle by Dj Snake Ft Bipolar Sunshine
203 plays
10
Light It Up by Major Lazer Feat. Fuse Odg & Nyla
200 plays

why is Light It Up, Cheap Thrills, Girls Like and Middle still getting so much airtime??? More focus should be given to NEW songs and breaking NEW artists.

Posted by: girl_from_oz 20th August 2016, 11:34 AM

Blossoms seem to be the only British act to really breakthrough so far this year on the album charts, I''ve noticed other new acts like Jack Garrett have had one week high in the album charts but then vanished from the charts. So it does seem acts are struggling but is it down to streaming? I don't know, apple music have a New Artist playlist, does Spotify have one dedicated to new artists?

Posted by: T Boy 20th August 2016, 11:35 AM

I'm gutted Jack Garratt has been a bit of a flop. I love his album.

Posted by: mdh 20th August 2016, 11:39 AM

Where have Blossoms come from? Like I know Radio 1 have ABUSED them for the last few weeks in terms of spins but I'd never heard of them this time last month and now they've got a #1 album...?

Posted by: JosephSpears 20th August 2016, 11:47 AM

Merged into the pinned topic.

Posted by: girl_from_oz 20th August 2016, 12:06 PM

I think partly because their songs are verty catchy on first listen, radio 2 also had them as album of the week which will have helped them

Posted by: vidcapper 20th August 2016, 01:20 PM

No, that's not why - the answer is lost in mists of time...

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd August 2016, 05:58 AM

I'm surprised no-one followed up on that.

I was from when I used to do lots of video captures from Friends for my then website.

Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd August 2016, 06:52 AM

Music Week, the Bible of the Biz, has expressed concerns that the streaming companies are dominated by the majors - so indies and new acts have no say over who gets pushed on them, so the old route for getting into the charts is now gone (witness MOS being sold). Majors can get huge sums essentially for nothing. They create and pay for the product (or else the artist creates and pays for the product under contract) and then sub contract to streaming companies to do all else, at least for singles, and dictate what they promote. ker-ching.

British Acts in terms of albums, which is where the bigger money is, and long-term careers are, have had a dire year for new acts. There have been no new big sellers to speak of, no Sam Smiths or the like, no UK-signed Lana Del Rays etc. Lots of older established big sellers, but new ones thin on the ground. Streaming seems to be oriented towards dance, pop or urban, so it may be having an effect...

or it may just be a poor year.

Posted by: liamk97 22nd August 2016, 11:55 AM

Olly Murs has his say on streaming, although I can't help feeling he's coming across as a bitter brat just because not enough people care about his song.

http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news/a805256/olly-murs-tells-us-why-its-harder-these-days-for-him-to-get-a-no1-single/

Posted by: girl_from_oz 22nd August 2016, 12:08 PM

I blame Spotify for a lot of this, Apple Music have playlists dedicated to all kinds of new music, for example they have the A List- Alternative, The A-List- Country, The A List- Hard Rock etc and also the A List- New Artists,

I notice they're charts also seems a lot more fast moving then the spotify charts. I wonder if the charts would be a bit different if you didn't count free streaming on spotify or if they promoted each genre as much as Apple does

Posted by: danG 22nd August 2016, 12:12 PM

yeah.. the song wouldn't have gone to #1 even without streaming so he has no point there. And it sounds like he wants radio airplay to be included just because he happens to be doing really well there. No thanks.

Posted by: girl_from_oz 22nd August 2016, 05:27 PM

Some chart positions which makes me think songs moved up much faster on apple music charts compared to spotify

65- Molly King- Back To You
53- Michael Buble- Nobody But Me
30- Ellie Goulding- Still Falling For You
24- Craig David- Ain't Giving up

Now taking into account there are 17 Frank Ocean songs in apple music's top 20 which ofcourse aren't on spotify, if you don't count those them the positions for those 4 songs would be 48, 36, 13 and 7

Posted by: ThePensmith 22nd August 2016, 07:24 PM

What exactly is bitter about this, pray? He's even said himself in the article 'it is what it is' and that he's had to be accepting of how things work now, but wanting your song to be number 1 and for it to do well in that sense doesn't mean an artist is bitter. I can almost guarantee that if this comment had come from an artist with their own forum on here it'd be a different kettle of fish.

'You Don't Know Love' has been top of the UK airplay chart for a whole month now. He still has a massive fanbase as well and his albums and tours always sell like lightning. Just because he may not have the streaming clout (which as a fan of his I'm probably to blame for given Spotify leaves me cold and I find it a clinical method of consuming music) of a Bieber or Drake doesn't mean he isn't entitled to feel a bit peed off with it all.

Posted by: liamk97 22nd August 2016, 07:55 PM

Of course every artist wants success and he's as entitled to an opinion on the matter of streaming and the state of the charts as anyone, but it just reads to me that he wants the charts to change just so he can have easy success. The fact the song has been #1 on radio for 4 weeks and still hasn't encouraged more people to invest in it to the level you'd expect of a big radio hit (and it's not just streaming, his sales chart run doesn't reflect that of a big radio hit either) surely suggests the song wasn't 'good enough' in the first place.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd September 2016, 06:42 AM

Only 7 songs have debuted in the T20 of the streaming chart all year!

Posted by: vidcapper 29th October 2016, 08:34 AM

'Lost' streams.

I wonder how many streams are ruled ineligible on an average week, because fans have exceeded their weekly quota?

Posted by: ben08 8th November 2016, 06:24 PM

For your information.

Posted by: Snake In The Sno 9th November 2016, 07:15 PM

I am just wondering why soundcloud and beatport listens are not included in the chart? It must have something to do with royalties for artists I assume....

Posted by: Snake In The Sno 10th November 2016, 01:07 AM

I am assuming because artists make money from spotify and not from soundcloud/beatport that is why.....

Posted by: ankietarrr 10th November 2016, 01:27 AM

Because their impact on chart is zero? All their artists are very little known comparing to charting ones?

Bigger issue is youtube displays are not included and it should be playing video is way more than streaming as it requires much more attention and dedication to find the song. Streams are somehow included but not youtube videos.

I guess streaming companies bribed OCC to include their streaming into chart as way more people will hear about streaming sites than before - just kind of product placement and advertisement

Posted by: Snake In The Sno 10th November 2016, 09:27 AM

No youtube views definitely shouldn't be included imo....because people watch that for the video as much as the song.

As I said it has everything to do with royalties for artists why spotify but not soundcloud or beatport is included I think.

But soundcloud and beatport inclusion would help many underground artists, in rock, hip hop and dance. It might even make a faster chart. Anyway there are well known artists, particularly on Beatport (which you have to be signed to be on anyway)

Spotify was going to buy soundcloud anyway, so that makes it more likely to happen.

Posted by: Ethan 10th November 2016, 09:14 PM

beatport scrapped their streaming service earlier this year~

Posted by: Danvember 10th November 2016, 09:30 PM

We have a discussion thread for these types of questions. Merged.

Posted by: Snake In The Sno 14th November 2016, 12:24 AM

Soundcloud and beatport should be included as they are though, it consists of people listening to tracks, the OCC could do the same rules with Soundcloud and Bratport listens to spotify streams (10 listens per person per day etc)

Posted by: JosephStyles 14th November 2016, 01:36 AM

But they don't give out royalties for people hearing the songs so it's not the same as Spotify etc....

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th November 2016, 06:06 PM

I think the typical amounts of streams from those services you mention pale into comparison with Apple and Spotify, and so their inclusion wouldn't really make much of a difference at all.

Posted by: popchartfreak 16th November 2016, 06:18 PM

youtube also dont pay royalties properly: "under discussion"

They argue it's a free advert, music owners argue they get nothing from it.

Plus, when the song is incidental to the video it can get artificial exposure

Posted by: Danvember 16th November 2016, 06:24 PM

YouTube do pay royalties, although their royalty rate is significantly less than "proper" streaming services, hence the artists complaining.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/spotify-apple-music-tidal-music-streaming-services-royalty-rates-compared/

Posted by: Pingu92 6th December 2016, 07:38 PM

Does anyone know how to view the YouTube streaming charts? I seen someone say that all I want for Christmas is you is #7 in the UK youtube streaming chart but don't know how to see it for myself

Posted by: Riser 12th December 2016, 06:38 AM

The one on Kworb seems to be accurate: http://kworb.net/youtube/insights/uk.html

Posted by: chartdj 12th December 2016, 10:59 AM

so, if I read the table right, you need a thousand plays to make a dollar on spotify? (equivalent of a digital sale)

Posted by: christmdhas 13th December 2016, 06:21 PM

100 streams = 1 play!

Posted by: Dancember 13th December 2016, 06:28 PM

approximately yes


no. the table relates to artist revenue per play. one digital sale gives the artist about $0.23 ($0.69 if the artist is unsigned)

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th December 2016, 02:46 PM

You may already know this but Mint Royale just tweeted that according to the OCC, the streams:sales ratio will change to 150:1 from January 2017.

Posted by: Hassaan 24th December 2016, 04:33 PM

I thought this was very interesting, although it was stuff a lot of us would know already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIkLMmh9KGc

Posted by: Steve201 24th December 2016, 04:38 PM

Yeh it is very interesting - first time I've heard Martin Talbot mentioning the new streaming ratio!

Posted by: *Xmas Ben* 24th December 2016, 04:39 PM

thread moved to the streaming discussion thread.

Posted by: dj_tim_e 24th December 2016, 05:41 PM

I think a campaign should be started to get Status Quo track Rollin Home to number 1 under the hash tag #rickrollin like the rick Astley thing.

Posted by: Steve201 19th January 2017, 12:09 AM

Not sure where to ask this but when you download an album from Apple Music to your phone is that only counted as one listen chart wise or does it count everything you listen?

Posted by: Liаm 19th January 2017, 12:15 AM

It counts as a stream for each track every time you listen!

Posted by: Steve201 19th January 2017, 09:09 PM

Even if I have downloaded it to my iPhone?

A also I tend to listen to full albums on the way to work in the bus so would that be represented as an album sale for the OCC album chart? (Sorry for all the questions)

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd January 2017, 10:27 AM

That might depend on whether your bus ride was long enough to listen to a whole album...

Posted by: Steve201 24th January 2017, 09:09 PM

Well yeh so it does then, so how do they know if I've added it to my phone I'm listening too it? Sorry if it's a stupid question but I don't get how it works as I'm new to it!

Posted by: Supercell 28th January 2017, 10:23 AM

At the risk of dragging up a further heated discussion on streaming I've been looking into the royalty rates the past few years and trying to understand the whole streaming thing.

As many said the ratio last year was far too high and I agree. When looking at the typical payout rate from Spotify last year, from what I can see it was around 0.004/5, Apple is higher at 0.007. But for some bizarre reason they decided to keep with the 0.01 revenue (1:100) which is completely inaccurate and explains partly why sales were so stupidly inflated last year. (I wont go into the playlists and other issues surrounding it)

I did some very rough calculations basing last year on the 0.007 rate and if that had been the case for last years charts, Drake's total sales would have been around 1.6 million compared to the almost 2 million that chart credited him with having and Cheap Thrills on around 1.1 million with Lukas Graham probably being the only other million seller. This seems a more accurate reflection of sales imo when you compare to the 2010-2013 period given downloads were still contributing a relatively decent amount of sales last year. If i knew how to get an accurate amount of streams from every song during 2016 then I'd try and compile a proper list.

From what I can tell this years royalty rates haven't really changed very much and even though the OCC have finally dropped it based on a 0.0075 rate I think its still a little too high and 0.006 or 0.0055 would be better placed (ratio of 1:200), which would mean a song that is streamed 100 million times would generate revenue or sales of around 550-600k and with downloads added would probably push totals up to around 800-1000k or so (obviously depending on how much its downloaded).

As streaming continues to grow I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing most typical hits having this sort of level of streams with the big hits having around 200-300 million in the UK alone. I may have go some of the revenue figures mixed up so apologies if they are but it was just to give a rough idea.

Posted by: Terminal Fear 1st February 2017, 10:34 AM

Interesting Subject....

Posted by: glarmada.com 12th February 2017, 10:21 AM

I think the acts you mention haven't benefitted from streaming because they haven't produced a good enough song to merit huge success, obv that's my opinion but none of heir songs have been huge and generated interest with people outside their core fan base.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th February 2017, 12:40 PM

of course, streaming could collapse when Spotify (finally) tries to go public. They dominate the world singles scene and still continue to lose money, and at an increased rate thanks to poor borrowing habits. The 3 major music companies will do their best to keep those huge cheques coming in (which is why they love it so) but the question still needs to be asked:

would you buy shares in a business that still loses money after years of trading, and has never turned a profit? They are banking that streaming will continue to increase so that by 2019 they can sell as a profit-making enterprise, but who knows it may be left to the likes of Apple and Amazon who have other media interests to carry on as they go bust big-time...?

Posted by: Mart!n 13th February 2017, 10:29 PM

Article on BBC news about Spotify

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38930699?ns_mchannel=email&ns_source=pan_solus&ns_campaign=PAN_SOT_07_Grammys_MUS_YTH&ns_linkname=BBCNews_HowSpotifyTookOverTheMusicIndustry_Music_HowSpotifyTookO
verTheMusicIndustry&ns_fee=0

Posted by: danG 13th February 2017, 11:43 PM

Spotify is such a big brand now that there's no way it'll collapse. I don't understand the business side of things but if it's losing money they could just stop the free version; make the free users try 3 months of Premium and if they like it - £9.99 a month.

Or just sell themselves to Google or Amazon seeing as their own streaming services aren't very popular.

Posted by: btljs 8th March 2017, 07:48 AM

Can someone confirm what BPI are doing? They posted an article in December 2016 saying they would be using 150:1 for their awards but this has disappeared and Shape of You has just been awarded double platinum which surely must be at 100:1. Has there been any information published?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th March 2017, 05:09 PM

In short:

150:1 is being used to calculate the sales for the published weekly chart and YTD chart.
100:1 is being used for all-time sales and BPI certifications.

Posted by: howiet1971 27th March 2017, 11:46 AM

I'm sure this may prove contentious, but I don't recognise many of the chart achievements from Sunday, March 1 2015, when streaming was counted within the supposed 'Official' UK Singles Chart. The methodology is flawed, and now the rules of what constitues a single are flawed and of course the OCC is fatally flawed.

Why? Let's take Drake for example. Last week he added 23 supposed hit singles to his tally in just one week - 23! Overtaking in one silly move, hundreds of artists whom have spent decades getting to that number of hit singles - hit singles that really were hit singles. Drake's supposed 'hit singles' were of course NOT singles.

The goalposts have been moved unfairly, this isn't a level playing field any more so you cannot compare nor count most chart achievements after 2015 onwards to those that happened before. Just imagine how many 'hits' Madonna, Elvis, Beatles and Jackson would have had if these rules had been allowed then? Thousands....(of course one couldn't count album streams etc when they were at their peaks but still) it's a farce, and by allowing these non-singles to chart it kinda cancels out the many chart achievements of those who went before. And worse of all, Drake and Sheeran are not as big as those aforementioned artists were.

In 1985 Madonna placed a record EIGHT Top 10 singles in the UK charts in a calendar year, testamount to the fact that she was THE major singles artist of the 1980's - all proper singles. She would likely have been able to place treble that if these current stupid rules applied then. It's like someone being the 100 metre sprint world record holder, and then the next day, it's decided athletes can compete in the same event, but in a sports car - you can't compare the result nor the record!!!! :-)

In the scheme of life's rich tapestry this isn't a big deal, but it is if you're a chart-watcher, and if you care about the UK charts then you despair at how stupid things have now become.

Posted by: dennispennis123 27th March 2017, 12:19 PM

You can't make achievements null and void but it sadly does devalue any achievements from artists in pretty much the whole history of the chart.

Posted by: JosephStyles 27th March 2017, 01:15 PM

Streaming began counting to the singles chart in June 2014

I agree with the post above, it may devalue some past achievements but you can't say they're null and void because you don't like the way the charts are compiled right now.

Also: merged with the streaming discussion topic.

Posted by: howiet1971 27th March 2017, 01:19 PM

Um, I think I just did....

Posted by: JosephStyles 27th March 2017, 01:22 PM

Posted by: Supercell 27th March 2017, 05:19 PM

I can kind agree with that sentiment of artists scooping several top 10s in one go ect, although I personally don't count album tracks charting as an official hit/single unless its announced as an official single later on and i'd like to think the OCC follow a similar procedure. So out of Ed's divide onslaught I'd only count Galway Girl as its been announced as the third single but in recent years there's always one song that gets heavily cherry picked and it ends up becoming the single anyway.

But I agree though that it is a mess that this sort of thing happens and in terms of streaming most, if not all of those streams from the past couple of weeks should have counted as album. Given how dire album sales are I would think the OCC would jump at the chance to revive them.

The other thing that annoys me about the charts is the total sales, they are an absolute mess. Without knowing how high streaming will peak its hard to actually find a way of formatting it the right way in terms of chart units. But I can see it getting to the stage though where every top 10 hit will garner around 100 million streams with the big hits managing around 200 million, which equals 1-2 million chart units which isn't very reflective at all of download sales. They should base it off revenue that streaming brings in or put a permanent cap in place for when a song reaches a certain amount of streams, or at the very least have the same ratio for weekly and total sales.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 27th March 2017, 06:24 PM

Streaming is already included in the album chart.

I think that the issue most people have is that it is double counted (for the singles chart also).



I don't know why this is such an issue.. with all-time charts it has always been impossible to accurately or fairly compare eras due to the hugely volatile singles market. E.g. sales in 2002-2004 were anomalously low because download sales were not yet being counted, 1992 was also a poor year for singles and yet 1997-1999 and 2010-2014 were both very healthy eras for sales.

I just wish the OCC were consistent (see my other post above)!

Posted by: Supercell 29th March 2017, 09:34 AM

Ah sorry but thats what I meant, its being counted but not accurately and that they need to come up with a better formula going forward so we don't have a top 10 of the same artist each time a big name releases an album.

But in regards to total sales, I doubt if downloads had been included during 2002-04 it would have made much difference as they were very small when they were finally included. The total sales from last year was barbaric though, having 20 odd million sellers was just ridiculous and it was hardly a ground breaking or massive year for music. I think as streaming grows they will have to keep altering the ratios but they should, as you say, be consistent. I think a perfect middle ground is having 1:150 for both weekly and total but backdating total sales to keep in line with this, moving forward should streaming numbers go through the roof adjust it accordingly.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th March 2017, 10:35 AM

The issue is the arbitrary ratio chosen when streaming was it's infancy which already looks ridiculous in terms of "sales". The ratio should approximately reflect the average sales of the previous 50 years once streaming reaches the levels that are predicted, that is very easy to work out.

To do otherwise is to devalue the real achievements of monster hits of the last century as they get overtaken by dime-a-dozen non-monster hits which get played over a long period of time by a large core fangroup or due to playlists.

Was Drake's 15-weeker really more widely popular in all-time popular music than Bohemian Rhapsody? On downloads it wasn't even the top seller of 2016, on radio it wasn't even close to most-played, on album sales, na-ah. Just big on one biased format that younger fans seem to regard as more accurate of overall popularity when it isn't. It's accurate in showing overall listening-habits amongst young people who don't buy music, which is not everybody who loves music. Arguably the track that most-appealed across the board was Justin Timberlake, and it's still outselling Drake on downloads and has done since the day it was released, pretty much.

Posted by: danG 29th March 2017, 11:06 AM

you can't compare One Dance to Bohemian Rhapsody though. If streaming was a thing in the 70s then 'Bohemian Rhapsody' probably would have had amazing streams and 15 weeks at number one.

In fact, even today it's had amazing streaming (245 million Spotify streams worldwide) and that's just as a result of its classic status.

Posted by: gooddelta 29th March 2017, 11:42 AM

I was thinking yesterday actually about how some songs regarded as 'classics' have incredibly low streaming totals on Spotify, yet others are expectedly huge, and some are unexpectedly huge.

Like Cher's Believe is on 55m on Spotify, yet Kiss Me by Sixpence None The Richer, which came out around the same time is on 85m? Without a doubt the latter is a classic of sorts too, but more played than Believe now?

Alright by Supergrass is on 45m, yet Common People by Pulp is on 29m. Both Britpop classic #2 hits from 1995, but you'd think the latter would be on way higher streams!

And some of the pure pop classics are nowhere in comparison, suggesting that people don't go back to the pop of their childhood as much as the indie/MOR. Tragedy by Steps is on 4m and Don't Stop Movin' by S Club 7 is 8.5m, you'd expect these to be significantly higher.

Posted by: danG 29th March 2017, 12:01 PM

It makes a lot of sense that the pure pop songs don't get as many streams as a lot of them are borderline novelty records (Steps, S Club 7, B*Witched) so people wouldn't feel comfortable playing them at parties. Also people move on from pop records very quickly especially the dated sounding ones, whereas most of the big indie songs are timeless and get remembered more fondly.

Also it depends largely on which classics get put in more Spotify curated playlists.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th April 2017, 06:43 AM

ISTM that streaming has created a fundamental shift in what the charts are measuring.

Before streaming, they used to measure how many people liked a song, but now it has changed into how often people listen to a song. This allows artists with large fanbases to dominate, to the detriment of artists who may have a wider appeal, but whose fans are less avid. Needless to say, I do not regard this as a change for the better.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th April 2017, 09:18 AM

The ability of fanbases to manipulate is much stronger in the physical/download chart(s) than the streaming one.

As a fan you could buy (up to) 3 formats of a single which would all count (there is no limit in number of remixes on the download chart). Whereas streaming the song non-stop all week will get you 0.46 of a sale (10*7 / 150- which is rounded down to zero for chart purposes).

Fanbases < General public - so the ability to influence the songs popularity is much weaker within a streaming environment.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th April 2017, 10:39 AM

Ah, but in the pre-streaming age fanbase effects were generally limited to one week, usually the first, not continuing for months...

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th April 2017, 11:42 AM

Yes, but in the pre-streaming age total sales of records were also limited by the time they were available on sale (usually 10-15 weeks). It's pretty clear that streaming hugely disadvantages records that usually rely on fanbase purchases - see the recent Take That single which limped to 13 and then disappeared.

Posted by: ankietarrr 10th April 2017, 02:37 AM

But I wonder why Ed Sheeran or any artists are on top for so long?

If I was a Sheeran fan I would most probably buy his record in the first week and would be absent on the market in the following ones.

So do his fan buy a new CD every week or what?

Posted by: Riser 10th April 2017, 03:57 AM

Ed has a large fanbase AND has massive appeal to the general public who don't necessarily buy music on its first week of release.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th April 2017, 06:26 AM

But if you download a single, then listen to it 50 times, those listens aren't counted towards the chart, whereas streaming ones are... that leads to under-representation of music by artists whose fans prefer paid-for music.

Posted by: d♀nG 10th April 2017, 01:30 PM

But if you download a single you are contributing three times MORE to its chart sales than if you play it fifty times

Posted by: vidcapper 10th April 2017, 02:33 PM

But that's still a once-off effect, but streaming carries on week after week after week after week...

Posted by: JosephStyles🐶 10th April 2017, 02:36 PM

At most you can contribute 0.06666... of a sale in a single day (10 plays), if you played it 10 times a day every single day for 2 weeks, it's still not a full sale. 140 of your plays is still not 1 full chart sale. I know I play songs quite a lot (albeit via iTunes) but it isn't very often a song will get over 140 plays, particularly within a 2 week period.

Posted by: Bjork 10th April 2017, 02:59 PM

how many times you have to listen to an album on Spotify to generate 1 sale?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th April 2017, 03:54 PM

Well it doesn't really work like that because the most popular 2 tracks are neutralised to the mean of the 3rd-12th most popular.

Theoretically if the album has 12 tracks, you'd have to listen to it 1000/12 times, i.e. 83 1/3 times to generate a single sales unit. That's the minimum, because no matter how long the album is - only the 3rd-12th most popular tracks that you listen to (wherever they may be on the album) will count for chart purposes and so you'd have to listen to the whole thing that many times to generate the sale.

Posted by: ___∆___ 10th April 2017, 04:04 PM

In that case everything should be counted then - YouTube, iTunes video downloads, radio plays etc.,

There is no difference from me playing a video on YT to streaming for free if we are going down that route.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th April 2017, 04:06 PM

The downside with including YouTube streams is that you cannot be sure whether the person listening/watching is there for the content in the video or the music played under it? I think “Harlem Shake” and to a certain extent “Black Beatles” illustrate that quite clearly.

Posted by: JosephStyles🐶 10th April 2017, 04:06 PM

They are totally different, and here's why:

- YouTube is video streaming, not audio streaming. Huge difference, on Spotify you're going to listen to the song itself, but on YouTube, you might be more interested in the music video. It's a songs chart really, and videos are separate entities.
- The above applies to iTunes video downloads too really, not the same because it's not a song on its own, it's a video.
- Radio plays are also separate because the listener is not choosing what they play.

Posted by: Bjork 10th April 2017, 04:15 PM

thanks, was trying to figure out if 1 person can generate an album sale from streaming and how long would it take? guess maybe only with an all-time favourite album that you've streamed for months, but I'm not even sure if I've listened to my big big favourites albums > 80 times

Posted by: ankietarrr 10th April 2017, 07:08 PM

youtube is even bigger coontribution as it usually gathers more customer /viewer focus than streaming play.

Besides youtube is not only about video, there arre loads of songs with audio or lyrics only.

How this can not be counted?

Posted by: PeteFromCats 11th April 2017, 10:01 AM

I don't think there's a definitive answer to the YouTube streaming debate, because I used to stream music videos on YouTube with that tab closed and others open, just to listen to the music. So, unless there's a way to tell if the user is actually watching the video or just listening to the music, there's no real solution.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th April 2017, 06:26 AM

My biggest peeve about streaming is not the changing ratio business, but that the musical merits of songs are becoming ever less important - nowadays it's whether your fans like to stream.

Posted by: websiteee 24th April 2017, 11:27 AM

Streaming seems rather fanbase-dependent, with younger artists gaining significantly more benefit than those who established themselves during the physical sales or even download era.

Posted by: ankietarrr 26th April 2017, 07:15 PM

Streaming is hugely manipulated by Spotify not allowing to skip the songs.

Only paid users streams should count therefore.

Otherwise people listen to songs they have been put artificially onto the playlist and they can do nothing about it

Posted by: JosephStyles🐶 26th April 2017, 07:17 PM

They could, you know, stop listening

Posted by: ankietarrr 26th April 2017, 07:22 PM

People interested in videos using rather porn websites

Ask anyone why does he lvisit Youtube - for sound or video

Check how 'popouar' are videos with no sound only - negative ratio of 97% and full of haters comments

People visiting youtube want toi listen to the sound without regostration hassle

They have song available straight away and simplicity is the reason they visit Tube

Posted by: *Ben* 26th April 2017, 08:26 PM

I know the answer, people visit Youtube for sound AND video.

Of course videos without sound are not popular because a lot of them are on purpose without sound, they were silenced because of legal reasons.

You forget that Youtube is also full of ads, annoying pop up messages (although you can switch them off but still), region blocking etc.

I don't get that after 1 -1,5 years you are still don't get over the fact that Youtube isn't counted towards the UK singles chart. Are you a spokesman, a promoter for Youtube or are you working there?

Posted by: ankietarrr 27th April 2017, 08:28 PM

So why songs from youtube when there is not video but audio only are not included?

Those are open for one reason only - AUDIO

There are numerous examples of those song - to be honest minority of songs have no music video or video is released much after song release

Youtube does not pay anyone they only accept the money

I rather smell Spotify pays to OCC and other parts of industry to keep youtube and others off the chart buzz

Posted by: ankietarrr 28th April 2017, 03:23 PM

This video contains content from UMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

All the best then The Vamps and their stupid recording company in 'conquering the charts'

Posted by: mdh 28th April 2017, 07:38 PM

Or maybe it's down to the fact that any song is copyrighted and posting a video with a copyrighted song gives more than enough reason to take it down...

EDIT - and how are the record company stupid in wanting their acts to chart highly? surely that's clever more than anything

Posted by: ankietarrr 29th April 2017, 10:37 PM

If they want song to chart highly they put it everywhere - as simple as that

Taking song down is a best way to kill the song before it charts as no one had opportunity to listen it

Who do they think they are Drake? LOL

Posted by: danG 1st July 2017, 02:35 PM

An update to the FAQs section regarding the new chart rules regarding streaming, but let me know if anything has been missed.

Why are some songs getting different streaming ratios?
Since July 2017, the chart rules concerning streaming have changed so that newer songs have an advantage in the Singles Chart. A new release has the standard streaming to sales ratio of 150:1. This is now referred to as the standard chart ratio (SCR). After 3 consecutive weeks of decline the accelerated chart ratio (ACR) of 300:1 will apply, but only for songs that have spent 10 or more weeks in the top 100. Decline is defined as negative week on week variance of combined sales and streams and negative variance lower than the market rate of change week on week.

A song on ACR will automatically return to SCR if it experiences an increase of 50% in combined chart sales, and in exceptional circumstances a label may elect to manually reset a track to SCR. This manual reset is limited to two tracks per artist album, only where the track in question is outside the Top 100 and subject to one week’s notice being given from the releasing label that they wish to implement a manual reset. Manual reset shall be strictly subject to Official Charts and CSC approval.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st September 2017, 09:21 AM

For almost the whole of their existence, the charts have measured how *many* people like a given piece of music, but since streaming they've tended towards measuring how *often* it has been listened to, especially where singles are concerned.

Which do you think the charts should be measuring?

Posted by: King Rollo 19th May 2018, 12:49 PM

Peter Gabriel's albums are finally on Spotify now. I think he's the last major retro act that wasn't on there following Pink Floyd,The Beatles and Led Zeppelin being added in the last few years.

Posted by: Grandwicky 27th May 2018, 02:05 PM

It does worry me how dominate streaming has now become and how far actual sales in both singles and albums have declined and continue to. There have been so many misleading articles from the likes of the Guardian etc. about it 'saving the music industry' when in the long term it's doing the opposite! The way it works at the minute not a lot of money goes to the most important people: THE ARTISTS. They have to work out a lot before it's anywhere near as beneficial as actually buying music and Spotify hasn't ever even made a profit and is in massive debt!

I'm sad enough to have figured it would literally take 252 Spotify plays or 128 Apple Music plays to even pay someone a penny! This is the reason so many old bands are reforming, concert tickets are becoming more expensive and they seem to be tour all the time as their royalties are drying up as paying people are paying £10 to listen to anything they want rather than pay for their music! (remember some artists need to sell records before they can actually go on tour) If it becomes the norm probably more people will write a song try to get onto a playlist or start with your main hook to avoid skipping for even really small artists then it's just going to kill creativity make everything so bland and boring, also what about growers? (like the new Arctic Monkeys album which I'm now loving) Will that concept die out?

In general this it's completely devaluing music and making the chart very slow and boring, but it's probably too late to turn back now, I agree with some sentiments here that at the minute the chart now basically measures how much people listen to something rather than how many people like it so maybe free users should count less or the streaming ratio needs to be changed again to emphasise the importance of the sale and yes playlists should certainly count less! Look at the difference Bad Vibe being moved up in Hot Hits UK made! Surely the fact that one playlist makes such a difference means it's not a chart that represents what people actually LIKE! What gets me is that they allowed the 'listen offline' function so easily which I feel has contributed to people feeling they don't need to pay for music anymore.

It's annoying as streaming prevents small artists from making the chart due to someone listening to the same playlist for months and it gives power to generic music meanwhile a slightly more alternative song can be in the top 20 biggest sellers and not even make the chart (Alice Merton) To make a real life example of how unfair the current system is if you owned a pub and told me to pay £4 for a pint you wouldn't like if I said "Actually I'll pay £10 a month and drink as much as I like in not only your pub but every pub I go to and you'll receive around 0.9425595p per pint,ok?"

This article sums up most of my feelings:

"No, Streaming Services Are Not 'Saving The Music Industry'

Recent reports that streaming is now the 'biggest money-maker' for the music biz have prompted hyperbolic claims that Spotify and co have 'saved the music industry'. In reality, this could not be further from the truth

This week it was announced that streaming platforms generated $7.1 billion in revenue in 2017, outstripping physical and other digital sales to become "music’s biggest money-maker". Cue articles like this, in The Guardian, which herald the dawn of a glorious new era of musical democracy, a world where bedroom artists and megastars alike are given equal access to a platform with the potential to make them huge, and a world where for the first time in a decade the people at the top have proper financial clout. Streaming, we are told, has apparently "saved the music industry".

It is an attractive prospect to believe that the longstanding wars of grossly unfair artist revenues that have long-dogged Spotify and its ilk are now resolved, but this is wishful thinking. The amounts of money made at the top might be steadily increasing, but this means nothing lest it trickle down, and for many artists on the exciting fringes of music, the kind we cover here at The Quietus, that isn’t happening. Take the artists signed to one of tQ’s favourite labels, Rocket Recordings, for example – home to Goat, Gnod and Josefin Ohrn. For them the idea of streaming platforms as salvation is “A load of bloody nonsense. Yes, streaming income is going up for us,” says founder Chris Reeder, “but it is a minute amount.”

The estimated amount of money that a single stream earns an artist on Spotify is $0.00397. Even though one listener might stream their favourite track hundreds of times, and a stream does not necessarily represent a missed sale, this is a pitiful sum. It requires new listeners to find the music in the first place, and millions upon millions of plays for this to translate to anything approaching a decent revenue. This can be done, of course, by arena-fillers like Ed Sheeran, but those not as popular in the mainstream must almost always bend to the will of the platform and become stream-friendly. “We are told we have to feed the 'algorithms' to help us be able make more pennies from it, which we are trying to do, but I can see it being a lot of hard work for very little reward,” continues Reeder.

As The Guardian notes, the very nature of popular music is changing as a result of this pandering to fit the Spotify algorithm, getting rid of a long introduction from a song to make it less skippable, for example, or releasing alternate versions of tracks to appeal to curated playlists like ‘Perfect Concentration’ and ‘Peaceful Guitar’. But to submit to this system comes at the cost of artistic integrity. An alternate version of a track created entirely to earn a spot on ‘Infinite Acoustic’ in order to squeeze more streaming money might make commercial sense, but artistically this is pointless, empty and vapid in the extreme. Why should a musician have to compromise their work so drastically in order to make the money they need to survive?

Progressive music that goes against the aesthetics of whatever the mainstream might be at any given point by its very nature does not cater to the whims of a Spotify algorithm. Now that streaming is the industry's biggest money-maker it has become the overriding force in music consumption. This dominance will only increase as time goes on, and for artists to gain anything as a result requires them to conform or die. There are exceptions, most notably in zeitgeist-seizing movements like grime that are both artistically essential and buoyed by the kind of mass appeal that in effect bypasses the need for a leg-up from the algorithms, but such a lethal combination is rare indeed. Not everything that is great is as popular.

With more money in the music industry, it is hoped this will naturally find its way back into recruiting new artists, but if high streaming figures and a spot on the ‘Walk Like A Badass’ playlist (562,000 followers) of generic rock stompers or the torturously soggy acoustic wash that is ‘Your Coffee Break’ (400,000 followers) are of primary concern, then up-and-coming artists who naturally cater to this will be of primary importance; major labels already have analytics expert to scout the unsigned talent that’s making the most impact within the algorithms. As Sahil Varma of the 37 Adventures label told The Guardian: “If you walked into any major label meeting this week, the thing they’d be talking about is how ‘Spotify-friendly’ an artist is. By that, they mean: can they get on Spotify’s playlists, such as New Pop Revolution or Chilled Pop?”

This is of course, to some extent, how major labels have always worked; they have naturally always signed the acts who are the most marketable. The difference now, however, is that they are not selling directly to the public, but to the streaming platforms and their algorithms in the hope that the product is smooth enough around the edges to fit neatly alongside others of the same type. Both the industry’s direction and the consumer’s tastes are being shaped by playlists that aim for uniformity and bluntness, meaning that music itself will become increasingly uniform and blunt. This is the cost of Spotify ‘saving’ the music industry, and it’s a dear one.

It feels unusual that there is a need to point out that artists should want to rail against homogeneity, but this is an era where if you want to be successful you must do precisely the opposite. For artists on small labels that once would have got by on a few thousand sales, there will be no great new influx of dearly needed cash to pay for equipment, studio time, mastering, manufacture and so on. Cosey Fanni Tutti, who as part of Throbbing Gristle, Chris & Cosey and Carter Tutti was able to make groundbreaking music in a time when underground records did sell, says that she feels that "a lot of musicians are in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' position. Access and accessibility to music is crucial but creativity is being devalued by giving away the work as if it’s 'disposable' wallpaper." She adds that established artists like TG and Carter Tutti "have a small advantage. Through their fan base they can to some (lesser) extent mitigate the loss of revenue through some physical sales - vinyl mainly or by performing live gigs (if you’re fit enough and can get bookings). The younger musicians don’t have that. Just how do people expect new music to come through when the value of it's vital place in our lives is reduced to a 'giveaway'." And, of course, there is still one area in which people contribute far more than a tenner a month to listen to music on streaming services: "People seem happy to pay the big business players though - buying a device on which they can stream the music they pay nothing for," Cosey says.

Labels we speak to at tQ report selling only 10-20% of what they did before streaming, so where will the money come from to provide decent places to record, mastering, production and getting the music out there? The Spotify crumbs are never going to fill that gap. It might be easier than ever to get your music online, but for many artists it still costs a lot of money to make in the first place.

If streaming platforms keep growing more and more influence over how music is curated and marketed by those in charge, while the revenue for those not mundane enough to fit their algorithms remains so pitifully minute, it is not that impossible to envisage the blandest landscape the industry has ever seen. Great music will continue being made, of course, but getting that music out to people outside of the algorithms will be so much harder. “I hope I am wrong,” says Reeder. “I hope the revenue from streaming does improve, because if it doesn't, well, who knows how positive the future will be for the majority of music makers and labels out there?”"

Sorry for the wall of text!

Posted by: crazytitch 30th May 2018, 10:18 AM

I read somewhere that labels (not even the artist) only receive around £1000 per 1million streams?

Which leads to me ask, do 200,000 singles or 400,000 singles or 600,000 singles financially mean anything anymore???

Posted by: danG 30th May 2018, 10:27 AM

Found this in a few seconds on google..

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/16/streaming-music-services-pay-2018/

That's approximately $1 for every 250 streams. $1 is £0.75, so about £1 for every 333 streams.

Posted by: diamondtooth 30th May 2018, 10:46 AM

And if Spotify pay out $0.0038 per play, how much of this would an artist actually get?

I always imagine it would be 10% of this amount if they are just the performer and another 10% if they actually wrote the song.
The rest goes to record companies, agents, management etc.
Is that completely wrong?

Posted by: Dexton 30th May 2018, 10:48 AM

The amount an artist actually receives (from any source of income) varies greatly from label to label really.

Posted by: crazytitch 30th May 2018, 10:51 AM

Still seems rubbish. Around £3000 from 1million stream yet one million stream is equivalent to 7500 sales.

Posted by: Rush 31st May 2018, 07:16 AM

Apple take a 30% cut on downloads (to my knowledge), so 7,500 full-price sales would pay out about £5,200. In reality, it would be less due to discounts, and 1 million streams would likely be closer to £4,000 as, according to the article, Apple Music pay out almost twice as much as Spotify. It's not really that much of a difference.

Posted by: Grandwicky 31st May 2018, 09:24 PM

It's not much at all in the grand scheme of things when firstly 1 million streams can be a lot of people who would have otherwise bought the song and paid the artist A LOT more money and secondly a million streams could do a lot for someone chart wise meanwhile 7500 sales wouldn't get you a week in the chart. The trouble these services are having is the more people use them the more money they pay out but the fact that artists aren't paid enough is the main reason that the streaming model cannot work (at least in it's current form) in the long run.

Posted by: Medellíam 2nd December 2019, 06:22 PM

Don't think this has been mentioned before, but Music Week have confirmed that streams are now included in the compilation chart when the album is the repertoire source.

Posted by: ben08 2nd December 2019, 07:29 PM

From Music Week

Official Charts Company adds streaming 'sales' to compilations chart
There’s been a shake-up on the compilations chart.
The Official Charts Company has changed the rules so that streaming data will count towards sales for compilations featuring original material.

The rule change is set to have a significant impact on the chart and sales totals. The Frozen 2 soundtrack (UMC/Walt Disney) climbed 7-2 on the compilations chart on Friday (November 29). The album has weekly sales of 12,041 (38.6% from streams), according to the Official Charts Company.

“The scale of consumption will be fully reflected, as the Official Charts Company changed the rules governing the compilation chart to also include streams where tracks constitute new, previously unreleased material,” said an Official Charts Company spokesperson.

Other beneficiaries this week include the original Frozen soundtrack, the Children In Need Got It Covered album (Silva Screen) and the Top Boy (Warner Music) soundtrack. The compilation inspired by the Netflix series has made an impact with Dave’s track Professor X (228,969 sales), streams for which have been registered for the singles chart. But now streams for the digital-only album also count towards the compilation chart.

The previous rule depressed sales figures for albums that had heavy streaming consumption, such as The Greatest Showman Reimagined.

However, the change will not include compilations such as the Now series, which do not feature original songs. Now’s co-MD Peter Duckworth has previously spoken to Music Week about how the absence of streaming ‘sales’ has made a 100,000 weekly total more difficult.

Now That’s What I Call Music recently reported that revenues were down in what has become a challenging physical compilations market. Compilation album sales are down 35% year-on-year so far in 2019.

Posted by: Bré 2nd December 2019, 07:41 PM

^ looks like this change was actually made a couple of weeks ago? Looking at the compilations chart the 'Plug Talk' compilation entered the compilations chart two weeks ago, that will definitely have been based almost entirely on streams and it was released a while before that. The 'Charlie's Angels' soundtrack also shot up 62-41 in the same week.

I also notice that the soundtracks for 'Moana' and 'Trolls' are now in the compilations chart so the OCC must have quietly changed their mind about those counting to the main albums chart at some point (seems to have been in July last year)... I had been thinking if those count to the main album chart then 'Frozen' and 'Frozen 2' surely should as well.

Posted by: AcerBen 2nd December 2019, 07:43 PM

Don't forget VAT

Posted by: Steve201 2nd December 2019, 08:57 PM

Makes sense for them to make this change, hope it's raises sales for the Frozen soundtrack!

Posted by: Bré 2nd December 2019, 09:43 PM

Why would the OCC changing the rules on a chart that no one follows increase the sales of an album...

Posted by: Steve201 2nd December 2019, 10:09 PM

Well...I follow it lol

Posted by: Bjork 3rd December 2019, 11:35 AM

but isn't Frozen (1 & 2) a Cast Recording?

Posted by: ChristmaSteve201 3rd December 2019, 01:12 PM

I would describe it as being a cast recording but Panic! Are on it too so maybe not.

Posted by: Bjork 3rd December 2019, 01:36 PM

Maybe then they changed the rules again to make them more strict
Moana and Trolls werent 100% casts and were allowed