Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ UK Charts _ Chart Rule changes on ACR introduced this week
Posted by: Robbie Jan 2 2019, 04:15 PM
Everything you need to know about 2019 singles chart rule changes
by Andre Paine
The Official Charts Company has unveiled another modification to the singles chart calculations.
From the first chart week of 2019, only streaming data will be used to determine when ACR (Accelerated Chart Ratio) kicks in for an older track. Previously, ACR was also based on download sales but that has now been taken out of the equation.
It follows various OCC rule changes to enable the singles chart to evolve in the streaming era, including tracking video consumption, the definition of a million sales and the Ed Sheeran-inspired introduction of ACR and a three-track artist limit.
ACR penalises older tracks in decline and allows new hits to come through. George Ezra's smash Shotgun is currently outside the Top 30 as a result of ACR.
The refined ACR rules could now result in fewer iTunes sale offers on existing chart tracks, which has previously boosted the performance of flagging hits. While downloads remain a component of OCC singles sales (around 5%), the move is likely to lead to a further decline in the market for downloads.
There has been speculation that Apple is set to shutter its iTunes store to focus on the Apple Music subscription service.
ACR takes effect after more than nine weeks on the chart and three consecutive weeks of decline below the market streaming rate of change. The standard chart ratio to calculate chart ‘sales’ remains 100:1 for premium and 600:1 for ad-funded services. ACR is set at 200:1 (premium) and 1200:1 (ad-funded).
from musicweek.com
Posted by: Dappy New Year Jan 2 2019, 04:23 PM
so it'll be a lot harder for labels to actively avoid ACR then. I can definitely see why the OCC have done this.
I suppose it means songs like Lost Without You and Girls Like You would have been on ACR earlier which evens out the chart playing field (as most songs will hit ACR around the same time), so it sounds like a good idea (for now anyway).
(lol at them using Shotgun being outside the top 30 as an example when it's about to return to the top 10...)
Posted by: edneyguerra Jan 2 2019, 04:25 PM
i did not understand a single word
can anyone do a example?
Posted by: Mart!n Jan 2 2019, 04:29 PM
I just knew something was afoot coming from OCC on the back of the Xmas tracks slaughter, but not this early 
It makes sense to drop the ACR rule on downloads when sales are low, as Streaming sales is the biggest factor, in the end its going to end up as a streaming singles chart in the not too distant future.
But the report does sound a bit cagey in places, is it me or am I missing something.
Posted by: Dappy New Year Jan 2 2019, 04:32 PM
can anyone do a example?
Posted by: SweetButJonjo👻 Jan 2 2019, 04:33 PM
can anyone do a example?
I hope I've understood it correct. If not, I'm just as clueless lmao.
Edit: basically what dan just said, but it's from the get go and not just when a song is on ACR already lol
Posted by: TheGrinch Jan 2 2019, 04:35 PM
occ helping zara top 10 chances further *.*
Posted by: Mart!n Jan 2 2019, 04:39 PM
aha... now that makes more sense, I geddit now. I take it the 10 week rule does not apply no more
I see that now, it just took me a while for the article to sink in
Posted by: T Boy Jan 2 2019, 04:41 PM
1) this just feels like further needles chart manipulation.
2) I can’t see how this will affect Christmas songs. Unless I’m missing something.
Posted by: Dappy New Year Jan 2 2019, 04:45 PM
Posted by: Bré Jan 2 2019, 04:46 PM
This won't really change much, it's just preventing labels from gaming the system by slashing the price of downloads on the weeks ACR would hit their songs (which usually didn't work anyway). Makes sense to me. Not exactly the most pressing issue but ~
Posted by: Mart!n Jan 2 2019, 04:53 PM
I understand completely now, it just took me a while for it all to register, and the last paragraph just hit home with me.
Posted by: Bjork Jan 2 2019, 06:41 PM
Labels will have to find other ways
Sure they will
Posted by: 777666jason Jan 2 2019, 07:01 PM
Basically no matter what you do on itunes sales etc. Doesnt really count for anything, if ypur not a hit on streaming your not gonna be a hit ever
Posted by: deepinside Jan 2 2019, 07:48 PM
So this modification means label can't do the tricks to avoid ACR by putting tracks on 59p right?
Posted by: WhoOdyssey Jan 2 2019, 07:53 PM
But this wouldn't have affected LadBaby, who got to #1 pretty much just on sales.
Posted by: coi Jan 2 2019, 07:54 PM
Yes
Posted by: Bjork Jan 2 2019, 08:21 PM
labels will learn new tricks, do payola on week 10 and move up the song on HH and sure you'll climb on Spotify
Posted by: Bré Jan 2 2019, 08:36 PM
Sales-based hits wouldn't be affected so much by this by the nature of them being sales-based hits (so going to ACR doesn't affect them as much, because they don't have as many streaming equivalent sales to lose in the first place).
Posted by: Dircadirca Jan 3 2019, 05:22 AM
This is definitely a logical change. If ACR only affects streaming points, it should only be affected by streaming trajectory. I only wish that wasn't often so unnatural in its own way. If a song gets a major playlist add/removal in the middle of the week, it's pretty much locked into gains/losses for 2 consecutive weeks as that takes effect. Even without that though, ACR will always be a dumpster fire 
Posted by: Petivity Jan 3 2019, 11:33 AM
Neither for nor against this really as it's not really that much of a drastic change. It will only affect the Rita Ora style hits really, the Post Malone tracks that stick around forever will still stick around forever since no-one actually bought them
Posted by: dandy* Jan 3 2019, 11:53 AM
That’s my take on it too - which is bad I think as I liked getting a track for 59p and I suspect they’ll stop doing it as often now
Posted by: Popchartfreak Jan 3 2019, 11:56 AM
so in other words more pointless tinkering with the chart without grasping the actual real problem (which is passive playlisting).
So it's OK for people to keep streaming a song on playlists to determine it's chart position but it's not OK to include actual bonafide sales (regardless of whether they are 59p or 99p, it's people BUYING a track as opposed to listening to it in amongst other tracks someone else chose for them) - this is insane thinking, it's prioritising Spotify power over consumer choices. The old-fashioned way of dealing with singles being discounted was to introduce a minimum price point. It's a major duhhhhhhh moment, my brain hurts, too obvious. Of course if record companies all decide to charge 59p cos the profit margin is still better on one sale than 100 plays on Spotify, then that might oops take a small bit of control of the charts out of the streaming companies hands. The ones that are causing the problem in the first place along with the Official Charts Company backing. Yes, those ones.
Posted by: Eric_Blob Jan 3 2019, 12:56 PM
Sure they will
Off the top of my head, they can be strategic with when they add/remove songs to certain playlists, to make sure that they get an increase at the right time. You could even remove a song from a big playlist on week 8 and then re-add it on the very same playlist on week 9 for example to make it increase in streams over the previous week.
Posted by: The Hit Parade Jan 3 2019, 01:00 PM
There is a minimum dealer price for downloads though.
And of course the minimum dealer prices for physical singles didn't really stop people circumventing them.
Posted by: Supercell Jan 3 2019, 01:37 PM
I wish they'd just do away with ACR and cut the problem off at the legs and introduce some rules that actually tackle the problem with streaming instead of sweeping it under the rug. Having songs falling 20-30 places most weeks is just such a mess.
Posted by: Bjork Jan 3 2019, 01:41 PM
Agree, i wish they’d introduce caps instead of Acr
But doesnt seem likely
So at least they are being consequent
Always thought it was idiotic that itunes determined acr
Posted by: Gambo Jan 3 2019, 03:43 PM
Regarding the apparently very prompt decision to introduce the latest rule tweak to the car-crash marriage that is the streams-cum-sales combined singles chart, it seems to fit in with the pattern established in recent years, when OCC introduce changes once every six months, either taking effect the first week of January or of July. I don't know if this means they only review their rules at fixed half-yearly intervals, but it certainly implies this. Although should some kneejerk alteration suddenly be deemed necessary in between the Jan/Jul change cycle, I daresay they'd introduce it sooner without waiting until the next regular rule change point. They probably would've done so following the Sheeran debacle, but (ludicrously) it would've taken them by surprise and so they needed another three months to formulate what they and the industry agreed as a suitable solution, which essentially took them to the usual July mid-year change point anyway.
Posted by: Cqmerqn Jan 3 2019, 05:31 PM
The change should've been ACR taking place at 15 weeks as opposed to 10 weeks as Dan (?) already mentioned.
Posted by: Hadji Jan 9 2019, 07:10 PM
This also means that the NOW effect can no longer help songs avoid ACR?
Posted by: Steve201 Jan 12 2019, 12:22 AM
What's the best me that if time before ACR can come in? 10 or 15 weeks of another?
Posted by: Bré Jan 12 2019, 12:40 AM
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Posted by: Glenn 69 Jan 12 2019, 09:52 AM
If tracks don't go on ACR until streaming has declined for three weeks in a row with no regard to sales will that actually benefit slow burning sleeper hits because streaming takes longer to kick in for these songs meaning they could be on SCR for much longer before being affected by these rules?
Posted by: Steve201 Jan 12 2019, 10:21 AM
What if their streams fall three weeks in a row early on though or does it only count after 10 weeks?
Posted by: coi Jan 12 2019, 11:03 AM
The earliest a song can hit ACR is on its 10th week, which would only happen if its streams declined in its 7th, 8th and 9th weeks.
Posted by: sammy01 Jan 12 2019, 11:18 AM
God no! The opposite needs to happen, songs should hit ACR at 7 weeks. Right now we have such a slow chart and anything that gets to number 1 stays there for an eternity.
Posted by: Bjork Jan 12 2019, 11:45 AM
I think ACR should count 10 weeks in the top 40, not in the top 100
it's ok or songs that debut high like Drake or Calvin but too soon for slow climbers
Posted by: Steve201 Jan 12 2019, 02:36 PM
Just means a song will always be restricted by how long a run at no1 it can have.
Posted by: Yorkie3 Jan 12 2019, 02:42 PM
It would be interesting if some big artist decided to manipulate the chart by removing their song from, say, Apple Music every third week before replacing it the week after to get an increase in streams. Don't know how possible that would be but you could theoretically avoid ACR forever that way!
Posted by: danuary Jan 12 2019, 02:51 PM
I think they'd rather have the revenue of a week's streams than avoid ACR for as long as the song charts, besides the fans would be very annoyed that they can't stream the song every 3rd week.
Posted by: Yorkie3 Jan 12 2019, 03:50 PM
Agree with this, I doubt anybody cares enough about the chart to do it, it's just a thought!
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services