 |
  |
| Should the streaming-to-sales rate be reduced?, Right now it's 100 streams = 1 sale |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 20th May 2016, 08:19 AM
Post
#21
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 11 October 2013
Posts: 31,028 User: 19,931 
     |
QUOTE(JCM20 @ May 20 2016, 09:17 AM)  99p is unreasonable? I definitely think 99p is too much now for one song. If standard price for songs were reduced to 59/69/79p, I think we'd see a significant boost in download sales, it goes to show how many songs have huge boosts from having 40p off every week. |
 |
 
|
|
20th May 2016, 08:28 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 10 November 2010
Posts: 4,017 User: 12,273
  |
Definitely not
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 08:28 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,813 User: 9,885
  |
As time goes on streaming will be come the norm (if it hasn't already) and it will keep increasing - do we keep changing the ratio every few years just so that it matches the old sales level?
This post has been edited by Colm: 20th May 2016, 08:29 AM |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 08:39 AM
Post
#24
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,572 User: 11,746
            |
99p for a single song does seem a bit much now compared to what streaming services offer (just about every song you want for £10 a month). 79p should be the standard price really for current hits and 59p for old songs.
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 09:35 AM
Post
#25
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Bjork @ May 20 2016, 08:57 AM) I don't think the problem is Spotify, the problem is that itunes keeps abusing people with their unjustifiable high prices and thats why itunes is becoming obsolete, low down the prices to something reasonable and people will download again I can't disagree with that! QUOTE(Colm @ May 20 2016, 09:28 AM) As time goes on streaming will be come the norm (if it hasn't already) and it will keep increasing - do we keep changing the ratio every few years just so that it matches the old sales level? I'd have to say yes - what if streaming increases to, say, 50m/week? How many songs have ever sold >500k - not many, that's for sure! |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 09:44 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
BuzzJack Idol
Joined: 8 December 2010
Posts: 50,977 User: 12,472
 |
QUOTE(777666jason @ May 13 2016, 07:48 PM) I don't think it should be lowered but i do think you should have to listen to the whole song not just 30 seconds But many people will listen to all but the last few seconds of a song and skip to another song - it would be unfair to deem their listen ineligible even though they've practically listened to the full song. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 11:02 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,255 User: 22,665
  |
someone mentioned that in Russia itunes has dropped the prices to something like 20p!
think its the only thing/solution that itunes can do to fight Spotify |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 11:16 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
You don't have to be fabulous to be good
Joined: 10 March 2008
Posts: 9,915 User: 5,591
  |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 20 2016, 11:35 AM) But IMO the charts should be about how *many* people like a song, not how *much* they do. This is why I'd consider another option: raise the ratio to 20-25:1 BUT only count 1 stream per user per week. That'd be genuinely how many *people* like the song in a week. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 11:31 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 1 January 2016
Posts: 907 User: 22,819
 |
Back in the 80s you'd be paying a tenner for a vinyl, and in the 90s a CD would set you back a fiver. 99p is too much? Really?
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 11:35 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
You don't have to be fabulous to be good
Joined: 10 March 2008
Posts: 9,915 User: 5,591
|
QUOTE(Bjork @ May 20 2016, 03:02 PM) someone mentioned that in Russia itunes has dropped the prices to something like 20p! think its the only thing/solution that itunes can do to fight Spotify Oh and btw they didn't "drop" the price to 20p, they started to sell it for ~15p/10p and then RAISED the price to 19p. But at the same time the monthly subscription also costs only £1.7, so the ratio is more or less the same. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 11:39 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Yes, it's me.
Joined: 4 November 2009
Posts: 19,813 User: 9,885
|
QUOTE(JCM20 @ May 20 2016, 12:31 PM) Back in the 80s you'd be paying a tenner for a vinyl, and in the 90s a CD would set you back a fiver. 99p is too much? Really? There were fewer alternatives then. Now someone doesn't even have to buy a track to listen to it. It's not that I agree that 99p is too much but supply, demand and competition dictates prices. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 03:52 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,572 User: 11,746
|
QUOTE(liamk97 @ May 20 2016, 10:44 AM) But many people will listen to all but the last few seconds of a song and skip to another song - it would be unfair to deem their listen ineligible even though they've practically listened to the full song. They should do what last.fm does and only count a stream if the user played at least half of the song rather than just 30 seconds [or at least 3 minutes of the song for a song with a long running time] |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 04:40 PM
Post
#33
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
   |
QUOTE(danG @ May 20 2016, 11:52 PM) They should do what last.fm does and only count a stream if the user played at least half of the song rather than just 30 seconds [or at least 3 minutes of the song for a song with a long running time] I seem to recall in the articles when streaming was introduced to the charts, they noted that most people who do skip a song, will do so within 30 seconds, it wouldn't surprise me at least. I always thought songs like "Firestone" got a sneaky advantage out of this because it basically takes 30 seconds to start and couldn't offend anyone before then, and lo and behold the song was a streaming monster compared to its sales (though that's since become a trend for Kygo) 
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:28 PM
Post
#34
|
|
 #38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,171 User: 7,561
 |
Songs that do well purely on streaming but have fewer paid-for sales are just appealing to a different demographic (usually younger), just like how physical sales remained popular with fan base buys so it follows for digital purchases, whilst the ‘mainstream’ have moved on.
QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 20 2016, 08:09 AM) But I don't regard streaming as an good means of assessing the true popularity of a song. e.g. 100 people could listen to a song just to check it out, and even if they hate it, that would count as 1 sale. OTOH, someone might stream a song hundreds of times, generating the equivalent of several chart sales, whereas in the past they'd have just bought it once, and the number of times they then listened to it would be irrelevant for chart purposes. It removes anomalies like charity records which aren't truly popular - and are bought for sentiment or to support the charity it represents (in most cases). Would you also agree that the physical and digital sales environment allowed manipulation by fan base acts, such as Bon Jovi (5-32 with Who Says You Can't Go Home?) and Wet Wet Wet (10-96 with Weightless) using text downloads to artificially inflate demand? Famously Bros got to #1 in 1988 with something like 20 different formats of their single on sale with slightly different picture discs. Popularity is difficult to measure but streaming does it reasonably well IMO. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:33 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 15 November 2007
Posts: 5,272 User: 4,817
 |
It's ridiculous that Shawn Mendes' Stitches is now considered a million seller when it's only sold less than 400K downloads.
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:49 PM
Post
#36
|
|
 Chart Chat Slave
Joined: 19 March 2006
Posts: 64,344 User: 275
    |
QUOTE(Bjork @ May 20 2016, 09:57 AM) I don't think the problem is Spotify, the problem is that itunes keeps abusing people with their unjustifiable high prices and thats why itunes is becoming obsolete, low down the prices to something reasonable and people will download again Artists almost hasn't got anything from streaming, now you would like to "steal" the majority of the royalties from the paid-for-sales by universally reduced prices?  BTW I don't think a price reduction would turn people back to downloading. 99p isn't a very high price but those who already stream songs and like streaming wouldn't buy songs just because they would be reduced to 59p or under that. In the last couple of months there are several new releases reduced to 59p and paid-for-sales hasn't gone up. QUOTE(JCM20 @ May 12 2016, 10:23 PM) Right now, 100 streams equals 1 sale, but as streaming has increased by almost 500% in less than two years, 100/1 seems way to low for today's market. In my opinion it should be changed to 1 sale for every 500 streams, otherwise "sales" will become out of control What do you mean by out of control?  On another note the ratio could be changed but on a plummeting sales climate where sales dropped like a stone (by 25-30% last year and again 20% this year in comparison to previous year) what would it help? in two years where we will have paid-for-sales like in 2006 (so half or even less than now) the ratio should be increased again? QUOTE(Bjork @ May 20 2016, 01:02 PM) someone mentioned that in Russia itunes has dropped the prices to something like 20p! think its the only thing/solution that itunes can do to fight Spotify I don't think it's a very good comparison. In the eastern european countries, also in Russia paid-for-sales are minuscules (because of strong illegal downloading and not because of streaming!), it doesn't make a difference if it's 59p or 20p. |
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:00 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,171 User: 7,561
|
Maybe we should double count paid-for sales? Would that stop the CONSTANT moaning I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:06 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Chart Chat Slave
Joined: 19 March 2006
Posts: 64,344 User: 275
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ May 20 2016, 09:00 PM) Maybe we should double count paid-for sales? Would that stop the CONSTANT moaning I wonder? I have a better idea, everyone in the UK should just do their weekly personal chart, send to the OCC and the OCC would compile the countries favourites.  But of course there would be moaning too because some people would not like why the neighbour's chart - who's got the worst taste EVER - counts as much as theirs. The ratio should be changed for those people who's got bad taste. 
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:10 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,171 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(*Ben* @ May 20 2016, 08:06 PM) But of course there would be moaning too because some people would not like why the neighbour's chart - who's got the worst taste EVER - counts as much as theirs. The ratio should be changed for those people who's got bad taste. I like that idea. We could bribe the OCC to keep losing Hadji's chart. *Missing data* 
|
|
|
|
|
20th May 2016, 07:14 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Chart Chat Slave
Joined: 19 March 2006
Posts: 64,344 User: 275
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ May 20 2016, 09:10 PM) I like that idea. We could bribe the OCC to keep losing Hadji's chart. *Missing data* And what about those who only do a top 20 and not top 50 or 100? Well a top 20 only chart would count only 0.2 and a top 50 then 0.5
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 25th April 2024, 03:31 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
