Article in the Sunday Times about the charts

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

3 Pages

< 1 2 3

Article in the Sunday Times about the charts

Display modes

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

Gambo View member profile	5th January 2018, 05:59 PM Post #41
BuzzJack Climber Joined: 29 July 2014 Posts: 198 User: 21,106	The thrust of this article does chime a lot of chords with us, and will do with less-engaged casual chart followers. It's not entirely fair of course, and doesn't quite present as complete a solution to the OCC's half-arsed current approach as it thinks. But I can see why some will feel this way, and it's all because of the insistence on there being a singular source of truth when it comes to national 'official' chart positions. If there were two discrete charts operating with no 'combined' tabulation, sure, there'd be issues around which is the most relevant and which data to cite. But surely that'd be less-bothersome than all this mess with splicing sales and streams into one? There is no complete solution to this, as long as the official charts must combine two incompatible formats - one very simple, sales (albeit that they are not a total measure of 'popularity' in itself and never were); the other very complex, streaming (so many possible variables as to why someone might have listened to a track online etc). All I can say, rather unhelpfully, is that as an old fart who still prefers to just buy the songs I like (downloads for singles, and even occasionally the odd album on CD), I really really wish that streaming had never been invented!! Imagine how simple, if still manipulated and imperfect, the world of chart compilation would be without it! And of course we'd likely not have to be concerned with struggling download, or even physical sales, because there'd be no other way to consume music - well, legally at any rate!! Most youngsters will recoil at someone actually wishing something as embedded and 'quick-fix' as streaming would go away, as it's possibly all they've known, and they tend to see every technological labour-saving advance as a good thing. And don't get me wrong; on a more serious note, of course it certainly isn't all bad - it's so good for so many, and does no harm to consumers per se. But as a chart enthusiast, and purely in the realm of managing straightforward, meaningful, singular chart compilation, you've got to admit, it's a bitch!


diva thin muffin View member profile	8th January 2018, 12:39 PM Post #42
BuzzJack Platinum Member Pronouns: he/him Joined: 20 January 2011 Posts: 5,907 User: 12,837	I feel like the chart is OK as it is although those 10th+ week dips are horrendous to look at lol, but what I personally feel would make the chart better would be: * Only paying subscription plays count. * Only the first 10 plays you have on a new song count to its' sales. (This is just the first 10 plays ever, and does not reset every week - maybe resetting once per year to allow older songs to resurface Xmas etc but personally I don't think it's necessary) * Each play = 1/10th of a sale so if you listen to a song once out of curiosity it would only count as 0.10 sales while if you listen to it 10+ times it counts as one whole sale. Personally I think this would be the most accurate calculation especially given that AFAIK people who aren't even paying for spotify are getting their plays registered even though they can't search for individual songs and can only listen to playlists as well as they have a limited number of skips so that should be removed ASAP if it hasn't been already. This post has been edited by jafetsigfinns: 8th January 2018, 12:39 PM


JosephBoone View member profile	8th January 2018, 12:50 PM Post #43
you never forget your first time... Pronouns: he/him Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 121,738 User: 13,530	QUOTE(jafetsigfinns @ Jan 8 2018, 12:39 PM) I feel like the chart is OK as it is although those 10th+ week dips are horrendous to look at lol, but what I personally feel would make the chart better would be: * Only paying subscription plays count. * Only the first 10 plays you have on a new song count to its' sales. (This is just the first 10 plays ever, and does not reset every week - maybe resetting once per year to allow older songs to resurface Xmas etc but personally I don't think it's necessary) * Each play = 1/10th of a sale so if you listen to a song once out of curiosity it would only count as 0.10 sales while if you listen to it 10+ times it counts as one whole sale. Personally I think this would be the most accurate calculation especially given that AFAIK people who aren't even paying for spotify are getting their plays registered even though they can't search for individual songs and can only listen to playlists as well as they have a limited number of skips so that should be removed ASAP if it hasn't been already. This is only true for the mobile app, free Spotify users can play any songs they want on desktop Spotify, the only difference really is the adverts.


diva thin muffin View member profile	8th January 2018, 01:33 PM Post #44
BuzzJack Platinum Member Pronouns: he/him Joined: 20 January 2011 Posts: 5,907 User: 12,837	Well either way since this is registering sales of certain songs I don't think it should include those that aren't being paid for. If those are included then why not also include YouTube plays?


JosephBoone View member profile	8th January 2018, 01:37 PM Post #45
you never forget your first time... Pronouns: he/him Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 121,738 User: 13,530	QUOTE(jafetsigfinns @ Jan 8 2018, 01:33 PM) Well either way since this is registering sales of certain songs I don't think it should include those that aren't being paid for. If those are included then why not also include YouTube plays? There's quite a big difference there - YouTube plays count as video streaming, the official chart only measures audio streaming! I guess you could make an argument for audio videos, like this, but where do you draw the line between those who watch for the song and those who watch for the video?


Gambo View member profile	11th January 2018, 05:42 PM Post #46
BuzzJack Climber Joined: 29 July 2014 Posts: 198 User: 21,106	Quite right, which is why video streaming should in my view be resisted by the industry. Some people will watch almost entirely for the visual piece, while others simply want to listen to the audio track. The two products are linked, but can be mutually-exclusive. Needless to say, the US incorporated video streaming some while back, and where the Americans lead there is always the concern that the British may eventually follow, for better or worse, although it's been a few years and I've heard no recent rumblings suggesting that yet another variable be added to the chart compilation formula. I'm not writing-off the possibility of it eventually coming on board, especially when paid-for sales get to historically-low frictional levels and the chart is essentially almost all streaming anyway, but for now I think the OCC has all-on to try and tame the beast of audio streaming in a consistent and meaningful way (however poorly they seem to have done so far), and the introduction of another format is probably the last thing they need. Saying that, when the dust settles on the current transitional phase, as a forerunner, they might first introduce video streams to the streaming-only chart to test it. Once they're content, then they might unleash the 'combined' audio and video streaming formula on the main combined charts.


AcerBen View member profile	11th January 2018, 08:37 PM Post #47
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 18 May 2007 Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429	I've always been against YouTube being added, but I'd be interested to see what difference it makes. At least YouTube views are more "active" than "passive". And I notice for instance Calum Scott's new video has had over 6 million plays in just a few days (dunno how many are from UK but I would guess a fair few), so maybe it would give acts that don't get on Spotify's playlist a shot of charting.


Steve201 View member profile	11th January 2018, 11:12 PM Post #48
Shakin Stevens Joined: 29 December 2007 Posts: 46,157 User: 5,138	QUOTE(JosephCarey @ Jan 2 2018, 04:44 PM) Oh I would've loved to see how Girls Aloud would've done on Spotify if it existed back then, I think they'd have been way more popular than you're assuming.... Yeh they would have done similarly to LM probabaly as they got decent airplay, more likely McFly would have found it harder to peak at no1!


Steve201 View member profile	11th January 2018, 11:19 PM Post #49
Shakin Stevens Joined: 29 December 2007 Posts: 46,157 User: 5,138	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jan 3 2018, 02:57 PM) the article is largely correct, and the proposed solution makes much more sense up to a point: the point being we still need to show albums as albums, not as individual tracks, unless they are actually highlighted and promoted as singles. If 10 out of 14 tracks are downloaded or listened to by the same person, it's an album more or less. Sheeran clearly was album sales masquerading as singles. It's a good article but like most jurnos they leave out the facts that don't fit the story they are trying to say.