OCC: "We will look into the way charts are compiled"

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ Music Charts _ UK Charts

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

12 Pages

« < 8 9 10 11 12 >

OCC: "We will look into the way charts are compiled"

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Doctor Blind View member profile	28th March 2017, 09:39 AM Post #181
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	QUOTE(gooddelta @ Mar 28 2017, 10:12 AM) It could throw up some bizarre anomalies though. Take Ed's What Do I Know for example...I don't know what percentage breakdown it had on sales/streams last week but assuming it was 9%/91% and then suddenly its Comic Relief promo pushed its sales total back up above 10%, you'd keep getting weird high re-entries for album tracks every time they were played as a soundbed on TV or whatever (as going by your model I'm assuming the stream sales would be counted officially for that week's chart too as soon as a song went back over 10% paid-for sales). I do think the Scandinavian model is the most effective personally, I don't know exactly how they divide the data between 'single track' streams and album play streams, but it seems to work. Zara Larsson's entire album was top 50 on Sweden's Spotify for most of the week last week yet if you look at the official chart she has album track new entries at 7, 19, 26, 31, 36 and 46. These tracks have made it in I presume through single track listens rather than as part of an album play, and is therefore way more representative of what people are actually connecting with and going back to listen to. To prevent constant re-entries tracks that were previously charting and then got excluded would have to go to >15% paid-for contribution to re-enter. “What Do I Know” would have been excluded every week it has charted so far, but may (going on Monday's mids) be able to chart this week under that rule.


sammy01 View member profile	28th March 2017, 10:21 AM Post #182
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 16 November 2009 Posts: 7,600 User: 9,988	Horrible idea about the min 10% sales thing to chart. You would be excluding songs that may well be selling more than others because they are also streaming much more too. For example - 1,000 sales 8,000 stream sales would make the charts but a song doing 5,000 sales and 55,000 stream sales wouldn't.


Mixxer View member profile	28th March 2017, 10:27 AM Post #183
#SaveLoveGame Joined: 15 April 2016 Posts: 1,373 User: 23,178	The should allow only up to 3 album tracks to chart on the Top 40. This post has been edited by BigMixer: 28th March 2017, 10:27 AM


Rush View member profile	28th March 2017, 12:03 PM Post #184
wayback machine gif rescuer Joined: 3 April 2013 Posts: 3,771 User: 18,564	QUOTE(gooddelta @ Mar 28 2017, 08:12 PM) It could throw up some bizarre anomalies though. Take Ed's What Do I Know for example...I don't know what percentage breakdown it had on sales/streams last week but assuming it was 9%/91% and then suddenly its Comic Relief promo pushed its sales total back up above 10%, you'd keep getting weird high re-entries for album tracks every time they were played as a soundbed on TV or whatever (as going by your model I'm assuming the stream sales would be counted officially for that week's chart too as soon as a song went back over 10% paid-for sales). I do think the Scandinavian model is the most effective personally, I don't know exactly how they divide the data between 'single track' streams and album play streams, but it seems to work. Zara Larsson's entire album was top 50 on Sweden's Spotify for most of the week last week yet if you look at the official chart she has album track new entries at 7, 19, 26, 31, 36 and 46. These tracks have made it in I presume through single track listens rather than as part of an album play, and is therefore way more representative of what people are actually connecting with and going back to listen to. I've seen the 'Scandinavian model' mentioned a lot here, but I'm not convinced it's actually in place, or has any significant effect if it is (at least in Sweden). These are Zara's positions on the weekly Spotify chart: 1. Symphony 6. Only You 19. TG4M 25. One Mississippi 30. I Can't Fall In Love Without You 32. What They Say 34. Don't Let Me Be Yours 37. I Would Like 39. So Good 45. Ain't My Fault 46. Funeral 48. Lush Life 52. Sundown 53. Never Forget You 57. Make That Money Girl Compared to the official chart: 2. Symphony 7. Only You 19. TG4M 26. One Mississippi 29. I Can't Fall In Love Without You 31. What They Say 33. I Would Like 36. Don't Let Me Be Yours 40. So Good 41. Ain't My Fault 46. Funeral 47. Lush Life 51. Sundown 54. Never Forget You 57. Make That Money Girl None of the album tracks are more than 2 spots apart. Similarly, Ed Sheeran's songs on the latest Spotify weekly chart: 2. Shape Of You 8. Galway Girl 11. Happier 17. Castle On The Hill 27. Perfect 47. What Do I Know? 60. Dive 61. New Man 74. How Would You Feel (Paean) 75. Supermarket Flowers 81. Barcelona 84. Nancy Mulligan 90. Eraser 96. Hearts Don't Break Around Here (118. Save Myself) (125. Bibia Be Ye Ye) And on the official chart: 1. Shape Of You 8. Galway Girl 11. Happier 17. Castle On The Hill 27. Perfect 48. What Do I Know? 61. Dive 62. New Man 76. How Would You Feel (Paean) 78. Supermarket Flowers 82. Barcelona 83. Nancy Mulligan 89. Eraser 96. Hearts Don't Break Around Here Again, not much difference. I think the lack of album takeovers on the Swedish official chart is just because it doesn't happen on the Spotify chart in the first place - at least, I can't recall seeing anything close to that of Ed Sheeran/Drake in the UK this month. For that matter, most countries are like that; it's only the UK and Ireland where Ed Sheeran's whole album was still top 20 on Spotify a week after release, and to my knowledge, only the UK that had all of Ed Sheeran and Drake's albums top 50 at once. So personally, if I wanted the so-called Scandinavian model to be implemented in the UK, I wouldn't get my hopes up about it. Spotify do differentiate the source of plays to some extent as is - for example, the lists of top playlists an artist was discovered from (on Spotify desktop, on an artist's 'About' page) - but doing it for charts would be a much greater task, and one with a very tight deadline (so tight that the missing Thursday data problem already exists). This post has been edited by Rush: 28th March 2017, 12:04 PM


Paramore View member profile	28th March 2017, 12:20 PM Post #185
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 27 November 2011 Posts: 809 User: 15,464	I hope the record companies exert more pressure. Radio is probably screaming about now. They can't play 10 Drake songs or 10 Ed Sheeran songs on a loop. The chart determines popularity which in turn determines radio play. It would be OK if it made radio, especially commercial radio become more experimental in its track selection but its not happening. How are new artists meant to get a solid footing when Drake and Ed push their debut singles 5-10 spots lower? How are record companies meant to sell that? Time was if you didn't debut in the top 10 you never had a hit, this led to first week peaks and steep drops. I like the chart moving around, up and down but there needs to be a good influx of new stuff. I also like that old tracks can re-peak spontaneously. And no I don't think streaming is necessarily the problem. That is the way music consumption is going and it needs to be reflected but the OCC need to figure out how and where the limits are. This has been a problem in the rock chart ever since the inception of downloads. Its a nostalgia chart mostly. Bring me to Life by Evanescence probably has 500 weeks tallied on it.


Mack. View member profile	28th March 2017, 12:24 PM Post #186
It's still will be the return of the Mack 4eva Joined: 1 February 2011 Posts: 53,728 User: 12,915	Surely something needs to happen sooner rather than later regarding album tracks?


Dark Horse View member profile	28th March 2017, 01:20 PM Post #187
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 21 February 2008 Posts: 3,051 User: 5,457	QUOTE(Mack @ Mar 28 2017, 02:24 PM) Surely something needs to happen sooner rather than later regarding album tracks? Exactly, the new rule should be that only singles are allowed to chart plus the top 2 most popular album tracks, that will keep the chart from being flooded with one artist's tracks , and also popular album tracks would still be allowed to chart allowing music fans to have a say in their artists' future single releases....


The Hit Parade View member profile	28th March 2017, 11:07 PM Post #188
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 24 March 2013 Posts: 2,134 User: 18,521	If radio stations wanted to be experimental they already could, couldn't they? Indeed they could have played lots of the more unusual stuff that made the Top 10 in the past and most of them didn't.


Doctor Blind View member profile	28th March 2017, 11:18 PM Post #189
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	QUOTE(sammy01 @ Mar 28 2017, 11:21 AM) For example - 1,000 sales 8,000 stream sales would make the charts but a song doing 5,000 sales and 55,000 stream sales wouldn't. Well that's a moot point because no song has got anywhere near to falling foul of that - in fact the nearest I can find is Drake's “One Dance” when it was on its fourteenth week at number 1; when it had 22.24% (12,171) of its sales from paid-for purchases and was at No.14 on paid-for sales - still a massive margin above the 10% threshold. I don't think expecting a song to sell >5K in a week to be #1, >3K in a week to be Top 10 and >1K in a week to be Top 40 is too high a bar. Should that bar become too high just readjust the stream:sales ratio again. This post has been edited by Doctor Blind: 28th March 2017, 11:32 PM


Suedehead2 View member profile	29th March 2017, 07:59 AM Post #190
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,672 User: 3,272	QUOTE(Mirai @ Mar 28 2017, 12:07 AM) I find it hard to believe too but so far this is what has been replied each time someone's been asking this question on another forum (in French, called Charts In France). I wanted to add a link to an article that was posted on a serious website dealing with the music business but it's not working since I am under 20 messages posted here so far. While this article doesn't provide any clear solution to the singles chart issue, it seems to hint that it is not impossible to determine whether a song gets played as part of an album or individually... I'm getting confused now! (the article can be found on the musically.com website, in the news section, it was posted on March 13th) If they have the album track-listing (which they do) and a time stamp for when each track is streamed by an individual (which I'm sure they do), they can determine whether a user has streamed the whole (or most) of the album.


sammy01 View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:08 AM Post #191
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 16 November 2009 Posts: 7,600 User: 9,988	QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Mar 29 2017, 12:18 AM) Well that's a moot point because no song has got anywhere near to falling foul of that - in fact the nearest I can find is Drake's “One Dance” when it was on its fourteenth week at number 1; when it had 22.24% (12,171) of its sales from paid-for purchases and was at No.14 on paid-for sales - still a massive margin above the 10% threshold. I don't think expecting a song to sell >5K in a week to be #1, >3K in a week to be Top 10 and >1K in a week to be Top 40 is too high a bar. Should that bar become too high just readjust the stream:sales ratio again. I wasn't talking about #1 just that it can mean a song selling more than others that are charting under your system wouldn't be because it is doing a lot better than others via streaming. This is all a moot point anyway because this time next year download sales will be pretty much dead.


Doctor Blind View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:13 AM Post #192
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	QUOTE(sammy01 @ Mar 29 2017, 09:08 AM) I wasn't talking about #1 just that it can mean a song selling more than others that are charting under your system wouldn't be because it is doing a lot better than others via streaming. I wasn't talking about #1s either, I was looking at all records that have registered >50K chart sales in a week.


Bjork View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:15 AM Post #193
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 November 2015 Posts: 33,253 User: 22,665	does anyone have a link to how the Scandinavian album chart works in regards to stream and avoidance of double counting? Cos everybody keeps telling me that in Scandinavia you listen to 75% of the album and it punts for the album charts, a bunch of people have told me that, but cannot find a link or site online explaining it... and I experienced the same thing that a poster was mentioning above on the week that Ed released Divide, the singles chart in Denmark was all Ed, just like in the UK, a 100% mimic of the Spotify charts, so I'm a bit confused now...


Doctor Blind View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:26 AM Post #194
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	QUOTE(Bjork @ Mar 29 2017, 09:15 AM) does anyone have a link to how the Scandinavian album chart works in regards to stream and avoidance of double counting? Cos everybody keeps telling me that in Scandinavia you listen to 75% of the album and it punts for the album charts, a bunch of people have told me that, but cannot find a link or site online explaining it... and I experienced the same thing that a poster was mentioning above on the week that Ed released Divide, the singles chart in Denmark was all Ed, just like in the UK, a 100% mimic of the Spotify charts, so I'm a bit confused now... I can't either - only this QUOTE In Scandinavia, another slightly different method is used. In the likes of Sweden and Norway, no single track can account for more than 70% of the plays considered for inclusion as an ‘album’. However, this does mean that if an LP contains two hit singles, these can then drive the album into the chart. which is completely different... taken from http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/stre...hart-will-work/


sammy01 View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:48 AM Post #195
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 16 November 2009 Posts: 7,600 User: 9,988	QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Mar 29 2017, 09:13 AM) I wasn't talking about #1s either, I was looking at all records that have registered >50K chart sales in a week. You are ignoring that downloads are basically cd singles right now in the mid to late 00's. They are dying out. By the end of the year a lot of the chart, singles or album tracks, will be doing less than 10% of their sales total by downloads, especially the lower end of the top 40.


Doctor Blind View member profile	29th March 2017, 08:52 AM Post #196
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue' Joined: 27 October 2008 Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561	No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that you think my rule is ridiculous because it may exclude tracks which fulfil a certain criteria, but that this criteria has never even come close to happening, ever. I did say that once download sales fall (and they are falling at around 20% per year) you could simply adjust the ratio again - so I am not ignoring that fact. Obviously at some point you won't be able to do this, and the criteria then could be if the track makes <100, <10, or 0 sales then it is excluded.


soundman View member profile	29th March 2017, 11:57 AM Post #197
New Entry Joined: 8 March 2017 Posts: 42 User: 26,972	The OCC chart is corrupt. The chairman of the OCC, Kevin Talbot, is a key executive at Spotify. That would be like the manager of Arsenal also helping Man United! QUOTE At Spotify, he is responsible for developing and maintaining senior relationships with key major and indie label partners across Europe. Brown will assume his new role of OCC chairman as a representative of the Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) trade body, which owns the Official Charts Company with its joint venture partner, record labels body the BPI. "He has a huge amount of experience, across many sectors of the music business – including retail, labels, management and, of course, with Spotify," said OCC chief exec Martin Talbot, in a glowing testimony of Brown. Not to mention FREE Spotify streams count to the singles chart. Since when was the official singles chart comprised of free sales? - an oxymoron if ever there was! But now you can stream stuff for free - yes, you don't need to give those pesky singers any of your cash - and it counts to the singles chart. Absurd. Streaming is here to stay, we can't uninvent the internet nor should we bemoan technological process but chart fans want is a fair level-playing field chart. It's not trolling or criticism to suggest one track per artist/single for a certain period of time, it's not trolling or criticism to suggest album tracks be ineligible for the singles chart, it's not even that radical an idea to suggest a 20 weeks limit on all singles in the top 40. But all our comments fall on deaf ears. OCC CEO Martin Talbot (I assume relative of Kevin Talbot?) wants to keep the incestuous relationship between Spotify and the OCC chart so he'll never change the format. This post has been edited by soundman: 29th March 2017, 12:04 PM


danG View member profile	29th March 2017, 12:05 PM Post #198
🔥🚀🔥 Joined: 30 August 2010 Posts: 74,572 User: 11,746	QUOTE(soundman @ Mar 29 2017, 12:57 PM) Not to mention FREE Spotify streams count to the singles chart. Since when was the official singles chart comprised of free sales? - an oxymoron if ever there was! But now you can stream stuff for free - yes, you don't need to give those pesky singers any of your cash - and it counts to the singles chart. Absurd. These are not "free sales". It is free to the user but the artists and record companies still get paid when you listen for free from ad revenue; they get paid more if you're a premium subscriber than if you're a free subscriber but that's another issue which could only be solved by making the chart a revenue chart, I'm not saying that's the way to go but it's an idea.


Suedehead2 View member profile	29th March 2017, 04:35 PM Post #199
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,672 User: 3,272	QUOTE(soundman @ Mar 29 2017, 12:57 PM) The OCC chart is corrupt. The chairman of the OCC, Kevin Talbot, is a key executive at Spotify. That would be like the manager of Arsenal also helping Man United! Not to mention FREE Spotify streams count to the singles chart. Since when was the official singles chart comprised of free sales? - an oxymoron if ever there was! But now you can stream stuff for free - yes, you don't need to give those pesky singers any of your cash - and it counts to the singles chart. Absurd. Streaming is here to stay, we can't uninvent the internet nor should we bemoan technological process but chart fans want is a fair level-playing field chart. It's not trolling or criticism to suggest one track per artist/single for a certain period of time, it's not trolling or criticism to suggest album tracks be ineligible for the singles chart, it's not even that radical an idea to suggest a 20 weeks limit on all singles in the top 40. But all our comments fall on deaf ears. OCC CEO Martin Talbot (I assume relative of Kevin Talbot?) wants to keep the incestuous relationship between Spotify and the OCC chart so he'll never change the format. The person with positions at Spotify and the OCC is the Brown chappie mention in the piece you quote, not Martin Talbot. The OCC is a joint venture between the Entertainment Retailers Association and the British Phonographic Industry. As they own it, it is not surprising that the people running the OCC are also involved with the music industry.


Popchartfreak View member profile	29th March 2017, 07:43 PM Post #200
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376	QUOTE(soundman @ Mar 29 2017, 12:57 PM) Not to mention FREE Spotify streams count to the singles chart. Since when was the official singles chart comprised of free sales? - an oxymoron if ever there was! But now you can stream stuff for free - yes, you don't need to give those pesky singers any of your cash - and it counts to the singles chart. Absurd. Streaming is here to stay, we can't uninvent the internet nor should we bemoan technological process but chart fans want is a fair level-playing field chart. It's not trolling or criticism to suggest one track per artist/single for a certain period of time, it's not trolling or criticism to suggest album tracks be ineligible for the singles chart, it's not even that radical an idea to suggest a 20 weeks limit on all singles in the top 40. But all our comments fall on deaf ears. OCC CEO Martin Talbot (I assume relative of Kevin Talbot?) wants to keep the incestuous relationship between Spotify and the OCC chart so he'll never change the format. ...and in fact the Official Chart rules have changed constantly - for example, records and downloads given away free didnt count towards the chart and free giveaways (bribes) with records were banned. An advert to "pay" for a track is a free giveaway, and to the consumer the track is free. There is no difference in going back to the old chart rules to make it represent what people are prepared to pay for. That means paying for Spotify. As I keep harping on, they still dont make a profit as a company and now have a virtual monopoly. Album tracks available on imported singles, sometimes did and sometimes didn't qualify for the singles chart. Has entire albums been available as individual singles on import, for free, I'm pretty sure the charts would NOT have included them. I really dont understand the obsession with defending Spotify. The sales charts (whatever the level of sales) still pretty much have Big Streaming Hits as big sales hits, but are fresher and more inclusive of all age ranges. So Drake and Ed Sheeran dont stay at number one for month after tedious month and they make do with 4 or 6 weeks (just like most popular records throughout chart history), so what? It's like everyone wants a boring dead chart that keeps out new acts, and is a massive promotional tool for Huge acts that dont need the publicity, for goodness sake. Not against streaming inclusion, myself, as long it's properly proportional, singles-based, and paid-for. problem solved.