Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ UK Charts _ Automatic Reset chart rule change?
Posted by: Robbie 20th July 2019, 07:40 PM
According to James Masterton in his weekly Chart Watch UK column a chart rule change happened last week.
The rules governing the singles chart are in a constant state of evolution, a necessity of adapting to the similarly fast-paced evolution of the streaming market and as the industry learns just how best to track online plays as a measure of popularity. The new July 2019 chart rules appeared last week with little pre-fanfare, containing nothing as revolutionary as the ACR rule of 2017 and the addition of YouTube streams in 2018. But there was one subtle change which may well have a far-reaching impact in weeks to come.
As originally codified, it was possible for an ACR relegated single to have its streaming conversion reset, simply by dint of its streams increasing by more than 50% of the market. This rule was originally designed to make it possible for tracks enjoying spontaneous surges of interest to take their place on the charts, but this was rendered more or less obsolete by a subsequent tweak which made this only applicable to tracks less than three years from release. It had become clear that the bar for a reset was simply too high. So the Official Charts Company last week lowered it by half, meaning it now only takes a 25% + market increase in streams for a single to jump out of the relegation zone.
So we may well be about to see chart jumps similar to that experienced this week by Dave with Location. Originally a cut from the rapper's Psychodrama album, the track has already enjoyed an extended chart run, peaking at Number 6 back in April during what turned out to be a six week run inside the Top 10. Five weeks ago that run began to draw to a close, the single dropping 12-36 following an ACR relegation, since when it has hovered around the bottom end of the Top 40. As if out of nowhere, however, this week the track is back. Location rockets 38-13 to effectively rebound to exactly where it was before ACR kicked in. All this in the same week the track finally gained an official video to make it "officially" a single release. As to what qualified it for the reset, I confess I'm not entirely sure. It seems unlikely to have been at the request of the label, by rule such "manual resets" are still only permitted for tracks outside the Top 100. Yet without being able to see the numbers, I cannot discern any surge on last week's streaming chart that would have theoretically qualified Ladbroke Grove for the 25% rule. So for the moment, we are into the realms of guesswork here.
https://chart-watch.uk/index.php/week-ending-july-25th-2019
If this rule change has happened the chart rule would now look something like:
I guess this means that 'I Don't care' will be back on SCR next week and possibly back to number 1 or 2...
Posted by: Nick Jonas 20th July 2019, 07:44 PM
So could Shallow be reset this week?
Posted by: coi 20th July 2019, 07:46 PM
If it increased by 25% then probably, but I don't think it did.
Posted by: Feel_The_Fever 20th July 2019, 07:46 PM
I don't think they have a full grip on how to calculate sales for the charts,
Posted by: Sailor Steve 20th July 2019, 07:47 PM
Location was almost definitely a manual reset with the promise of the video dropping that week (and it did), because it definitely did not get a 25% increase! I Don't Care won't qualify because it wasn't in the chart - if it's starred out, it doesn't count, basically.
Not really sure how I feel about this, but even 25% boosts are pretty rare - the Bieber remix of bad guy may have only just pushed it to a reset (it was just over 25% on Thursday's midweeks, no idea what it finished on) so it seems fair but equally don't think it should be so easy for a reset, we're going to see loads of resets next January after the Christmas songs drop and the new year effect begins 
Posted by: coi 20th July 2019, 07:50 PM
Oh wow, Bad Guy might have reached 25% and could return into the top ten thanks to Justin Bieber? 
Posted by: Robbie 20th July 2019, 07:58 PM
Not really sure how I feel about this, but even 25% boosts are pretty rare - the Bieber remix of bad guy may have only just pushed it to a reset (it was just over 25% on Thursday's midweeks, no idea what it finished on) so it seems fair but equally don't think it should be so easy for a reset, we're going to see loads of resets next January after the Christmas songs drop and the new year effect begins
Posted by: coi 20th July 2019, 08:00 PM
New versions or remixes have the potential to cause all sorts then!
Posted by: ___∆___ 20th July 2019, 08:58 PM
I’m so confused by the charts, ever changing rules, resets, double counting, ACR, track rules etc.,
Totally confusing and has ruined the fun of the charts and being a chart geek.
Posted by: No Sleeep 20th July 2019, 09:16 PM
This is impossible to keep up with and it’s just reached the point where a “sale” is an abstract concept with little basis on reality!
Posted by: Robbie 20th July 2019, 09:20 PM
Posted by: mic1812 20th July 2019, 09:34 PM
Go back to normal sales and nothing else even if it is low sales its more of a true reflection.
Give streaming its own chart but dont count it in the main chart as its totally false.
Nobody goes out and buy a copy of Ed Sheeran each week in order to get one sale do they
Posted by: Nick Jonas 20th July 2019, 09:40 PM
Give streaming its own chart but dont count it in the main chart as its totally false.
Nobody goes out and buy a copy of Ed Sheeran each week in order to get one sale do they
I think it’s a bit too late for that now.
Posted by: Robbie 20th July 2019, 10:02 PM
Posted by: Bjork 21st July 2019, 08:55 AM
the Uk can keep them but they are almost insignificant
Beautiful People did 5k on downloads last week, thats barely 700 copies a day
Posted by: T Boy 21st July 2019, 10:53 AM
The charts really don’t mean anything anymore. I remember the announcement in 2007 that said all download sales would count and loving it because it meant the silly rules that had been put in place wouldn’t be effecting anymore. Now we have rule changes on what feels like an almost monthly basis that have made the chart so superficial it doesn’t really mean anything. People wanted steaming to count because sales began to fall and then people wanted to change up ratios because the chart changed and then people wanted songs starred out because some artists were dominated and now that’s unfair because chart runs are weird.
People don’t know what they want. I knew adding streaming would make the chart a mess but it’s the fact that they’ve messed it all around constantly over the past five years that’s lead me to lose almost all interest in the charts.
Posted by: Bjork 21st July 2019, 11:58 AM
the one thing the US got right is that they stopped calling it sales the minute they added streams
Posted by: Sailor Steve 21st July 2019, 12:05 PM
Does it really matter what it's called? Sales, points, it's all the same thing really no matter what the title is.
Posted by: Grandwicky 21st July 2019, 02:58 PM
Despite dwindling numbers there will always be people that will prefer to buy music so sales will still always be a factor and Musicweek at the very least will keep the sales data within their reports.
I think the reason we have these constant changes and this is something which I didn't really think about before with my suggestions as to what the OCC should do is that the OCC can only work with the data they're given. As far as I know at the very least Spotify, Apple Music etc. just give them the data of 'This is how many streams each song got from premium subscribers and these are the streams from free members or from free trials' so they can only work with what they have to keep everything relevant while also making it interesting and streaming isn't like the a physical or a download where one person buy it = one sale and that's it. It looks like streaming is here to stay now and there is an extremely competitive market unlike those years where we could look at the iTunes chart and pretty know what the chart will look like most of the time so there will still be a need for an official chart to unify it all and see what the most popular songs and albums are across all platforms but I think OCC rule changes will be something we will probably have to get used to every summer if things keep going in this direction But you never I guess, would anyone here have said iTunes would be insignificant by now in 2012/13?
Posted by: danG 21st July 2019, 03:09 PM
I’d say 2012-13 is when it became clear to me streaming was soon going to be the dominant form of music consumption. ever since the spotify boom sales were only ever going to trend downwards.
it certainly makes the OCC’s job a lot harder anyway hence the constant changing of the rules but they have to adapt to modern times. I just don’t fully agree with the methods they’ve used to try and make the chart more interesting.
Posted by: TheJüpreme 21st July 2019, 03:48 PM
This is honestly getting rididuclous. What is it even tracking any more? They should be clear that it's a fictionalized show to showcase *some* of the popular songs and singles of the moment but which actually has no bearing on either what the highest sold by any metric or played by any metric track(s) is that week, or any week.
Posted by: BillyH 21st July 2019, 04:24 PM
I completely dismissed Spotify as a chart force until the restriction on song plays was lifted in March 2013, which from memory was also the exact point it began its ascendence above downloads.
Posted by: Houdini 21st July 2019, 04:40 PM
What I don't understand is, how in this day and age anyone can still follow the charts relentlessly week after week. The charts have been a broken mess for a long time!
Posted by: T Boy 21st July 2019, 04:43 PM
it certainly makes the OCC’s job a lot harder anyway hence the constant changing of the rules but they have to adapt to modern times. I just don’t fully agree with the methods they’ve used to try and make the chart more interesting.
I don’t think they are adapting to modern times though. They’re desperately clinging on to the idea of an ‘official’ chart which just doesn’t work in this day and age. If they were adapting, they’d have separate sales and streaming charts rather than forcing it all together into the mess it currently is.
Equating streams to sales has always been an issue.
Posted by: Bristolmans 21st July 2019, 07:24 PM
RIP Singles Chart 1952-2014
Posted by: lewistgreen 21st July 2019, 07:28 PM
Equating streams to sales has always been an issue.
They do have separate charts for https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/singles-sales-chart/ and https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/audio-streaming-chart/ so I think they're sort of aware that there is still a demand for the individual data just like it was when the Download chart emerged.
Posted by: T Boy 21st July 2019, 07:37 PM
But it’s not like it was then. A download and a CD are both sales. Streaming is not. Like I said, instead of moving with the times they’re actually pandering to a bunch of people who don’t wish to progress. Hence messy chart.
Posted by: Hadji 21st July 2019, 08:01 PM
If they’ve changed the reset from 50% to 25%, then they’re making a mistake. It’s gonna make the chart more stale
Posted by: danG 21st July 2019, 08:05 PM
I dread to think what january is going to look like next year with loads of stale songs being reset too
Posted by: Bré 21st July 2019, 08:34 PM
What exactly would your suggestion be for how they should 'move with the times'?
Posted by: T Boy 21st July 2019, 10:19 PM
I don’t have a suggestion for how to compile one ‘official’ chart. No one really does and that’s why it’s become a mess. I’ve already said that they should just publish the sales chart and streaming charts separately. The only reason we add it all together is because people can’t let go of having an ‘official’ chart. I didn’t want streaming added to the chart but was told I had to move with the times. Perhaps we’ve reached a point where the ‘official’ chart serves no purpose. We can reflect on a chart based on what people are buying and one based on what they’re listening to the most. I really don’t see the point of persisting with a combined chart when it’s as superficial as it is now.
Posted by: No Sleeep 21st July 2019, 10:39 PM
I think the idea of making it a points-based chart like the Hot 100 is good. Paid-for sales should be worth the most points (as rare as they are) so people like Kylie who still do well on sales would be better represented on the charts. That could be the ‘official’ chart and then still have separate sales and streaming charts. Never gonna happen! 
Posted by: Dark Horse 21st July 2019, 11:48 PM
as long as they’re changing all these rules, why not add airplay, at least it helps other genres reach the chart, rock and alternative have been absent from the chart since downloads became dominant in the mid 2000’s, and also this would help older artists who get plays on radio stations like Radio 2...
Posted by: Dark Horse 21st July 2019, 11:52 PM
the 3 song cap is also ridiciulous, instead of this silly rule why not seperate album streams and playlist streams from song streams, that way you wouldn’t have albums by Ed Sheeran or Drake or ready made playlists flooding the charts... and the only songs that chart would be the ones streamed by music fans...
Posted by: coi 22nd July 2019, 05:42 AM
omg please don’t include airplay, that would be the worst move possible.
Posted by: danG 22nd July 2019, 06:09 AM
because it’s not possible for them to do so? the occ can only work with the data they are given.
it would be ideal to stop double counting in the singles and albums chart but I don’t think they can tell apart streams of tracks and streams of albums and playlists at this point.
airplay would totally kill the chart too, it would only benefit the Ed Sheerans of the world even more and any other tracks that are on commercial hit radio playlists. there aren’t enough radio stations playing indie/rock in comparison for it to give those acts a boost.
Posted by: Bjork 22nd July 2019, 07:16 AM
of course Spotify can tell apart if you stream from a playlist or the album and could provide that data to the occ, it's 2019, anything can be done analysis-wise, they just need to ask
Posted by: Dark Horse 22nd July 2019, 09:45 AM
its still way better than adding endless ready made playlists, at least with airplay you have a variety of genres which are never included in spotify playlists...
Posted by: Bjork 22nd July 2019, 09:57 AM
But with spotify playlists you can skip songs
Unlike radio
Posted by: Bristolmans 22nd July 2019, 10:02 AM
I don't care if there are 10 sales a week, I want streaming removed from the sales chart. It is the worst thing that's ever happened to the charts and have made then redundant and insignificant
Posted by: Sailor Steve 22nd July 2019, 10:04 AM
It's not going to happen
Posted by: Bjork 22nd July 2019, 10:09 AM
Im amazed at the comment, for me thats the most retrograde attitude
rule #1 of the charts is that they have to reflect how people consume music, if the majority of people stream, this has to be reflected in the charts... the worst thing would be a chart based on 10 asales
thats like saying, in the next elections, lets not base who's president on the 60 million people that live here, let's base it on a subsample of 10 people... makes no sense... the most popular song in the Uk cannot be based on 10 people but on how people are consuming music
I think it's a retrograde attitude tbh
Posted by: coi 22nd July 2019, 10:09 AM
Most of the airplay chart is just overplayed pop though, I don't see how that would help bring more variety in.
And of course, it means some songs that very few people actually like enough to buy or stream will be put in the chart simply because they're played heavily by radio stations. One of the best things about the chart for me is that it's not decided by radio. Sure, songs can get promoted a lot on radio or playlists but ultimately they won't do that well without the public's approval.
Posted by: aidan755 22nd July 2019, 10:29 AM
How can anyone think that streams should be removed from the chart? Streaming is easily the best thing to happen to the industry. It's never been easier to discover new music legally. I have over 5,000 songs in my music library and there's no way I could afford to buy every single one of them - the only other option would've been illegal downloading. I still buy my absolute favourite music but that's just a personal preference, I doubt the majority of people do this.
It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).
Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.
The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. If they have to implement it at all, they should extend it to 20 weeks at the minimum. ACR is the only thing ruining the Singles Chart, not streams themselves. And it's such a shame because I believe the OCC have got streams perfectly in the albums chart.
Posted by: Bjork 22nd July 2019, 10:45 AM
in regards to your last sentence, Im the opposite, I think the occ has it ok-ish in singles but totally wrong in albums
right now they allow playlist tracks to count for the album charts and that doesn't make sense, if you have an album with 5-6 big hits placed in gazillions of playlists, you can easily get 2-3K per week from streams... but nobody is streaming the album, it's just cos of the songs on playlists... and that's the 2-3K per week that people like Clean Bandit or Rita Ora are getting every week, and thats fake album streams and fake album sales in the end...
also think they ratio is too low, they should count only when people stream the album proper, not singles or playlists, and also then these album streams only count for the album charts, not both like now... as I said I also think the ratio is too low, right now you have to listen to an album 85 times to give it 1 streaming sale... it's ok for big pop names like Ed or Lewis or Ariana, but for instance for indie albums... it's impossible to get good streaming figures, I've streamed the new National album 2/3 times a week since it's out so I'd probably given it 0.1 sales maximum, and sure it's the same for many other fans, nobody streams a new album 10 times a day... back in the day you were buying it on CD and giving it 1 sale straight away, now you barely gonna give it 0.1 or 0.2 sales...
Posted by: Dark Horse 22nd July 2019, 10:58 AM
And of course, it means some songs that very few people actually like enough to buy or stream will be put in the chart simply because they're played heavily by radio stations. One of the best things about the chart for me is that it's not decided by radio. Sure, songs can get promoted a lot on radio or playlists but ultimately they won't do that well without the public's approval.
but also streaming playlists are manipulated by record labels same thing with radio playlists, so i dont see why you should count one and discount the other...
Posted by: danG 22nd July 2019, 11:02 AM
I think it's a retrograde attitude tbh
off topic but change president to PM and 10 to 160,000 and that is the current situation in the UK
Posted by: danG 22nd July 2019, 11:04 AM
as has been said, you cannot choose or skip songs on the radio.
if you don’t like a song on hot hits uk you don’t have to listen to it.
Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 22nd July 2019, 11:19 AM
Unlike radio
What purpose does that serve though, if a lot of people don't skip within 30 seconds?
Posted by: aidan755 22nd July 2019, 11:30 AM
right now they allow playlist tracks to count for the album charts and that doesn't make sense, if you have an album with 5-6 big hits placed in gazillions of playlists, you can easily get 2-3K per week from streams... but nobody is streaming the album, it's just cos of the songs on playlists... and that's the 2-3K per week that people like Clean Bandit or Rita Ora are getting every week, and thats fake album streams and fake album sales in the end...
also think they ratio is too low, they should count only when people stream the album proper, not singles or playlists, and also then these album streams only count for the album charts, not both like now... as I said I also think the ratio is too low, right now you have to listen to an album 85 times to give it 1 streaming sale... it's ok for big pop names like Ed or Lewis or Ariana, but for instance for indie albums... it's impossible to get good streaming figures, I've streamed the new National album 2/3 times a week since it's out so I'd probably given it 0.1 sales maximum, and sure it's the same for many other fans, nobody streams a new album 10 times a day... back in the day you were buying it on CD and giving it 1 sale straight away, now you barely gonna give it 0.1 or 0.2 sales...
Yes, this is why they bring down the weighting of the 2 most streamed songs in line with the rest of the album (and they have it capped at the next 10 I think so albums like Chris Brown's can't get a big debut due to having 30+ tracks). This isn't the case in America where 1 stream from a single is equal to an album track and albums linger for months and years due to having 2 big hits. In the U.K. the album can't rely on 1 or 2 big hits to keep the album afloat, due to them streams being weighed down. An example of this is how Billie Eilish's new album "WWAFAWDWG" is currently having a lot more longevity on the album chart than Ariana Grande's "thank u, next" even although the latter produced 3 #1 hits. And the album chart clearly favours pure sales as a result of this, given that A Star Is Born OST and Jess Glynne's album are serving more longevity in the Top 10 than "thank u, next" too and the big hip-hop albums like Drake's Scorpion and Post Malone's BB&B (although they comfortably hang around the 30s for a long time which I suspect will be the same for thank u, next).
Posted by: Stewie 22nd July 2019, 11:50 AM
"The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. "
That's not really true though is it? I wonder how many 'mega' songs get streamed millions of times a week for 10 weeks plus, purely because they're in a very popular Spotify made playlist that is just played by the consumer just because it's the track directly after the newest Ed single etc. and the user hasn't cared to skip the track.
In an ideal world, there would be a way to only include streamed tracks when you've actually clicked on a track and actually played/listen to said track?
I've lost count on the amount of times I've listened to a song on Spotify which I've hated but because I've been busy, I haven't skipped said song.
Posted by: Houdini 22nd July 2019, 01:40 PM
ACR is certainly not the only thing ruining the charts at the moment, if anything the charts would be even more boring to follow without it. 2015 was the year when the chart really began to die and it's getting to the point where it could become extinct eventually.
There must be a small proportion of the UK who actually follows the official chart these days and I can bet that if you were to ask 20 random people what the current official number one is almost none of them would give the correct answer.
Posted by: Bristolmans 22nd July 2019, 01:50 PM
There must be a small proportion of the UK who actually follows the official chart these days and I can bet that if you were to ask 20 random people what the current official number one is almost none of them would give the correct answer.
Totally agree. The charts are just like a book, works of fiction, they should put it in the category next to Harry Potter
Posted by: No Sleeep 22nd July 2019, 02:11 PM
Streaming gives an extremely biased view of popularity. Kylie does great on sales and airplay but considering 26% of Spotify users are under 24 it’s not hard to see why she struggles there. That doesn’t mean she’s not popular, Dancing is a well known song that I think most people would be shocked only peaked at #38. Streaming is extremely flawed and the official chart shouldn’t be based so heavily on it. So yes, if people go out of their way to buy a song in this day and age because they love it so much, I think it should be rewarded for that. Why is that so offensive to some people? Do you think Into the Blue’s #12 peak means it’s a much more we’ll known song than Dancing?
Posted by: SKOB 22nd July 2019, 02:27 PM
Uhm young people have always been deciding what does well on charts in a large scale, haven't they?
They are the most interested in new music and that will never change.
Posted by: No Sleeep 22nd July 2019, 02:31 PM
They are the most interested in new music and that will never change.
I didn’t know young people were such big Peter Kay fans or Cliff Richard and Diana Ross fans in 1999?
Posted by: Dircadirca 22nd July 2019, 02:45 PM
Thank you aidan for saying so much I wanted to but couldn't work up the energy to say, I agree with just about everything you've said in this thread.
Ironically most of these popular Spotify playlists do generally highlight songs when they're new and on SCR, it's when songs are old and on ACR that a higher proportion of their streams are driven by user made playlists and active seeking out. The chart rules inadvertedly emphasize these playlists even more than reality.
Posted by: SKOB 22nd July 2019, 02:59 PM
Everyone has a possibility to stream or buy a song though, young people just use that possibility.
Posted by: T Boy 22nd July 2019, 05:29 PM
Young people have always heavily influenced the chart but there always was room for the older artists before streaming. I’m over it anyway as I don’t stream much and even if I did, most people wouldn’t be streaming the artists I like anyway. It’s not a problem at all.
The problem is when you come on to sites like this one who still treat the chart the same way they always did. Kylie is struggling to get hits in the streaming era so she’s deemed past it when actually she’s probably still quite popular amongst demographics who don’t stream. The fact she get talked about as much as she does proves there’s still interest in her so why should she be deemed a flop because she struggles to make the top 40?
And older artists have been popular with young listeners in the past. Believe and Hung Up were not selling to the over 40s only. The key is hooking into what’s popular at the time which unfortunately right now seems to be music that doesn’t appeal to me.
Posted by: Euphorique 22nd July 2019, 06:59 PM
It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).
Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.
Such a flawed argument. Older people buy music, their "streaming" is listening to their CD/download many times throughout the day - those "streams" arent counted towards the official chart. So if a young person uses Spotify to stream Drake all day, why should that count more than a person who purchases a Kylie song, and listens to that download all day? Streaming is ageist and it shows, no wonder older artists cant get a hit.
Its just a mess because streaming will never mean a real sale anyway, so all of this "sale equivalent" is bullcaca.
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd July 2019, 07:23 PM
I think those of us who follow the charts closely over-estimate how many people could name the number one song of the day in the past. That said, I suspect the number of people who could do so has been in decline for some time. Perhaps that was best illustrated when One Dance was number one for about 83 years. Previous long-running number ones had entered the public consciousness and become the subject of jokes. Just a few years before, there had been a whole string of jokes about how much rain we had while Umbrella was number one.
The decline in interest in the number one single probably really got underway when one-week number ones (mostly going straight to the top) became the norm. That made it much harder for those with a casual interest to keep up.
Posted by: danG 22nd July 2019, 09:24 PM
I think most people would guess ed sheeran has the number one single in the country if you asked but many wouldn’t be able to name the song.
Posted by: Glenn 69 22nd July 2019, 10:25 PM
He is everywhere. Even on bottles of Heinz ketchup (Tomato Edchup anybody?)
But I agree Joe Public probably couldn't name many of his songs
Posted by: Sailor Steve 22nd July 2019, 10:39 PM
Have you seen Ed's album sales? I guarantee you Joe Public would be able to name several Ed songs. They might just not know which one is at #1.
Posted by: Dircadirca 23rd July 2019, 04:15 AM
Is it really Ed Sheeran or Shawn Mendes or whoever's fault if the general public are less likely to be aware that they were #1 than their equivalents of 30 years ago? It strikes me as a systematic situation of the culture around the world (and not just music), and even then I'm not even sure if it's true. I've been listening to and hearing music all my life but I *never* knew what was #1 in the charts. In our music class we had to sing Daphne & Celeste's "U.G.L.Y." which in addition to that was on our local "NOW!" equivalent which made me think it was one of the biggest songs of the year...it peaked at #40. I never found out where I could read the official charts until I stumbled on an archive in 2008 that I still use to this day. No matter how passionate I was about music, I would never have as much encyclopedic knowledge of the pantomime of the music charts if not for the internet, but at the same time, the internet is also responsible for making music perhaps seem like less of a big deal, simply because it fosters so many community interests. Something I think that goes overlooked as well is the fact that it's so much easier to discover music that's not in the charts/on the radio, and in turn, it means that the top 40 of now represents a lesser proportion of music consumption than it did before. If I had a hypothetical gothic metal phase as a teenager I couldn't do act on it at all because there was nowhere to hear it. If there were CDs available in stores I'd have to buy them blindly...except I couldn't do that because I had no money to spend frivolously like that. The best thing about the charts now is that it's no longer ruled by the bourgeois with way too much money to spend. We see songs get certified by the BPI all the time that have never even touched the charts, and it's not because the charts are broken, it just follows a less sharp focus. If #1 on the charts now is less significant than it was 20 years ago when 200,000 people were buying a particular single in a week (although I still think 4,000,000+ streams is extremely notable and not to be dismissed), #500 on the charts now is worth a heck of a lot more than the pittance it would take to get to that hypothetical chart position in 1999, because for so many of us, the 50-100 songs in current rotation around our lives are completely different as opposed to being all the same.
Much like the OCC needs to stop making up new rules to attempt to wrangle the charts back to how they were, it's important to perceive this entropy (or lack there-of in some cases) as a sign of the times, not something that needs to be fixed. The whole point of the charts is to highlight what's popular now after all.
Posted by: bifket 25th July 2019, 04:05 PM
just call it points instead of sales like how we do in the US. it's so obvious
Posted by: JosephAvery 25th July 2019, 04:41 PM
But does it matter that much to rename it? Of course we know that "sale" has become blurred but renaming it to points achieves absolutely nothing.
Posted by: ___∆___ 25th July 2019, 04:44 PM
Sale, point, unit, make believe figure? It doesn’t really matter tbh.
Posted by: bifket 25th July 2019, 05:29 PM
It at least will prevent another outrage like in this thread where people are freaking out about what a "sale" means anymore to the OCC lol. That's what i was responding to. Billboard has never ever called their chart points "sales" for a reason. Because of this stuff. Bjork gets it.
Posted by: bifket 25th July 2019, 05:54 PM
It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).
Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.
The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. If they have to implement it at all, they should extend it to 20 weeks at the minimum. ACR is the only thing ruining the Singles Chart, not streams themselves. And it's such a shame because I believe the OCC have got streams perfectly in the albums chart.
Yuuup. Streaming didn't ruin the chart. It's the OCC's bogging-down of the chart with rules like ACR that has resulted in weird situations like I Don't Care vanishing off of the chart because of the 3 song/artist rule and ACR. I understand that nobody wants a stagnant chart or songs lingering around for months, but if a song is top 10 for months because millions of people have decided to stream it for months, then so be it. It's time the OCC stop pretending that songs aren't popular just because they think they're "on their way out" or because they're "old" lol
this reminds me… does anybody know if they still have that 10 plays per person per day limit?
Posted by: Dircadirca 25th July 2019, 11:01 PM
I believe so yes. It's something Spotify does internally when they publish the data themselves before the OCC receives it. Not sure about other platforms but it's probably the same.
Posted by: AcerBen 26th July 2019, 11:33 AM
It also tracks the actual popularity of a song over time - with a digital download the person could listen to it once but streaming reflects how popular #1 and Top 10 hits stay over time and goes beyond the chart peak (i.e. songs peaking in the 20s that eventually go platinum vs top 10s which barely scrape silver or gold).
Barely anyone buys music anymore, it hardly reflects the popularity of a song. If the new Kylie song is #1 on iTunes and gets a couple of thousand sales but can't even chart in the Spotify Top 200 (and audio streaming accounts for 2/3 of UK music market alone, with downloads ever decreasing) then clearly that song shouldn't be high in the singles chart. Streaming is the future and desperately clinging onto digital downloads won't make the rest of the U.K. market go back to them.
The only thing the OCC have messed up is ACR. It's a ridiculous rule to implement after only 10 weeks. That's not long enough to start pushing a song out and it skews the popularity of the singles chart. So what if a song is still Top 10 on the chart after 20 weeks? That just displays how much of a mega hit it is. If they have to implement it at all, they should extend it to 20 weeks at the minimum. ACR is the only thing ruining the Singles Chart, not streams themselves. And it's such a shame because I believe the OCC have got streams perfectly in the albums chart.
I agree that removing streams from the chart is a ridiculous idea and sales are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
I get your point about how streams just show the popularity of a song and so what if songs stay in the charts for months on end - that would be fine if the chart was there purely to reflect consumption. But it isn't, and never has been. It is a promotional tool for the industry, so the struggle for certain artists to get on the chart makes it harder for them to break through. It also has a direct impact on media decisions on playlisting, who to book for TV shows etc. And the chart one way or another has an effect on what people listen to, so it becomes a vicious circle. The public need to be persuaded to listen to more new music. If the chart is slow and clogged up with the same old songs, it's bad for the industry.
In the sales era, the chart reflected momentum and shifts in popularity. And once they'd peaked in popularity, they'd move out of the way for new songs. In my view, that's what the official chart should still do. ACR is one way of doing that, though I don't think they've got it right yet. They should come up with a more complex formula to make the chart behave a little more like it used to, so more songs can make the top 40. You can still have a streaming chart that just reflects total streams, but the official chart should be about what's fresh and gaining in popularity.
With downloads continuing to fall, of course giving them more prominence in the chart formula is not the answer, but it is frustrating that legacy artists or new artists struggling to build a fanbase who'd in the old days would've sold 10,000 copies in a week and made the top 20, now can't get anywhere near the top 100. And whilst in a way streaming does reflect popularity better than sales, I don't like how being on curated playlists or not has such a big effect on the numbers, and that it seems like the streaming chart mainly reflects the popularity of songs with a certain demographic, rather than the country as a whole. I don't know what the solution to that is. We probably just have to live with it.
Posted by: danG 26th July 2019, 11:44 AM
well firstly the occ should have adapted the billboard style 20 week rule so at least more songs crack the top 100 and earn their place in history as minor chart hits.
a cap of ten streams per song per user in total may also be an idea, then we don’t have old songs lingering in the top 40 because people won’t stop banging then after fifty listens.
Posted by: Gambo 26th July 2019, 12:39 PM
I couldn't agree more with those who have commented that the charts are there to reflect what is going on in real markets - or at least should be. In which case, they should not be restricted to accommodate or iron-out perceived inconveniences or inconsistencies that the current sales or streaming sectors inherently entail, due to behaviour of consumers that is either organic or massaged by the record industry.
The OCC - or its predecessor CIN - did not seek to somehow amend the singles chart formula during the 1990s just because of the increased usage of 'front-loading' marketing norms that led to songs entering at their peak only to fall back thereafter, virtually eliminating sustained upward movement from the countdown and shortening the lifespan of many singles for ten years 1995 to 2005. Many commentators, both consumers and industry figures, disliked this as it was a seemingly skewed and unconventional behaviour for singles after three decades of consistent entry-climb-peak-decline, across 10-20 weeks for a bigger hit, and felt wrong. Indeed there was much talk in the early '90s, even before the entry-at-peak trend really became fully-embedded but during a period of declining sales, of altering the formula to align more with Billboard's, i.e. add an airplay factor to create what would have been a false impression of tracks building for longer towards a peak which would only be triggered once actually made available to buy. Happily, the idea was never fleshed-out or inaugurated. So the chart did become predictable in that everyone following music knew what would likely be the big new entries each week, with no real excitement beyond the debut week's position of a song due to the sheer turnover of around half the Top 40 every 7 days. Yes, I think that did do a lot of damage to the reputation and perceived relevance of the chart, with many older fans drifting away from it, even if they retained an ongoing interest in consuming current releases. Yet would that have been reason-enough to have justified CIN fiddling with the formula to complicate and arguably artificialise the rankings? I would say not, though others may disagree. For all its faults, the chart represented what the industry - and eventually the buying public - wanted of the pattern that singles were promoted, released and bought, which eventually gave way gradually from the mid-'00s as digital downloads shook-up the way we consumed tracks in general, and later the move from purchasing to renting music via online streaming sites. Chart behaviour moved along with those developments, with the reinstatement of more sustained ascendance and slower descendance to and from peaks, and a much lower turnover than anyone could've foreseen only a decade before.
So should the OCC, after awkwardly combining streams with sales in both singles and albums charts despite the inherent differences in the type of consumption, have subsequently started introducing restrictions in response to the some-say inevitable occasional mass-dominance of one very popular artist in one or two week's charts caused by en-masse immediate streaming? Or just let the chart reflect the new realities, however skewed they seem to some, and whatever the risk of some thinking that reality somehow reduces the relevance or worth of the tabulation as a whole? I have to say the latter, as despite some people finding it ridiculous that all of an Ed Sheeran's album tracks can block-out 20 out of 25 positions in the full Top 200 tracks listing, that is how the streaming sector operates, and surely it discredits and devalues the notion of having an official chart far-more to airbrush oddities out and artificially-manipulate published positions on it than to just let it evolve and reflect what is actually happening? If we look back at the 1990s/2000s era when many chart followers are thought to have deserted the concept often owing to the pace of turnover, it has become clear in the years since that there remains much nostalgia for the charts of those years among those who were young and caught-up in the culture of that period, and that they miss that frantic turnover and race for a different song to be at No 1 every week. And lest we forget, the late '90s in particular saw very strong physical sales, which showed that the interest in the format per se had not all-but-evaporated as many doomsayers predicted earlier in the decade. When it did die, for another decade, downloads filled the gap and again, with a little stuttering along the way, the chart was only adjusted so that it could properly-include that format alongside its physical counterparts. Very few restrictions were applied from January 2007 onwards.
As with all other prior trends, we've seen them all develop and eventually lose currency through time, however set and unassailable they appeared - from front-loaded CD singles, to all tracks being available immediately for download, via on-air/on-sale, through to playlisting and streaming replacing purchasing as the chief means of consumption in a matter of five years. It's fairly certain then that whatever happens in music in the coming years, the fearsome pace of technological change and willingness of consumers to move with that lead will ensure that the extremities of the present chart will likely not exist in another five or ten years' time. So its shape and behaviour may well settle into a different - or previously-familiar - pattern yet again. The chart administrators simply need to let that happen naturally and not interfere unduly with it in the neurotic way the OCC have been since 2015.
Posted by: Hadji 26th July 2019, 04:33 PM
This chart rule change is gonna make the chart more stale. Billie and Ed have both gone back to SCR because of this. And also, Shotgun can now easily go back to SCR and plague the top 40 even longer
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services