 |
  |
| OCC chart rule changes - artist cap and ACR, MW article / OCC chart rules in OP |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 26th June 2017, 10:25 AM
Post
#41
|
|
 BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429 
  |
QUOTE(Mart!n @ Jun 26 2017, 10:17 AM)  So... if a track was still #1 on its 10th week, and starts decreasing, does it mean the week after it will drop to for example #9, that feels so wrong as nothing will ever beat Bryan Adams record. When the track has potential to stay at #1 for a few weeks longer. If they're going to apply the cap to #1 singles, I don't think we'd see drops of 1-9 very often. Let's look at last week's sales for instance QUOTE Colour Code: OVERALL UNITS SALES STREAMING POINTS 1 Luis Fonsi & Daddy Yankee feat. Justin Bieber 101,761 42,690 59,071 2 Ariana Grande 80,306 61,145 19,161 3 DJ Khaled feat. Justin Bieber, Quavo, Chance the Rapper & Lil Wayne 38,341 This was the first week of Despasito's decline, but say it was the third.. It would have kept all of its 42,690 download sales, and had its streams cut to 29,536 so it would still be number 3. This post has been edited by AcerBen: 26th June 2017, 10:25 AM |
 |
 
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:28 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(danG @ Jun 26 2017, 10:21 AM) But potentially it would have to decrease its chart position for three weeks on the go (we still haven't had confirmation if it's decrease in sales or position) Looking at Shape of You, the percentage decrease would only take effect in the bolded period. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-3-4-5-7-9-10-11-17->24 I think it's more likely to be sales than chart position, but I'm still wondering if they're going to apply the rule to #1 singles. |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:31 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
   |
QUOTE(danG @ Jun 26 2017, 06:21 PM) But potentially it would have to decrease its chart position for three weeks on the go (we still haven't had confirmation if it's decrease in sales or position) This would definitely need clearing up, it feels odd that they're applying a restriction on streaming based on a song's sales performance though. I assume they'd like to do streaming but it has the problem in that some weeks the week-by-week streaming just goes up so even lingering hits get random boosts. The flipside that I'm imagining with this is a record company putting a song on iTunes discount every 3 weeks to prolong its chart run artificially.  Though in saying that, it has felt this year that every few weeks there's a new excuse for everyone to buy all the Sheeran songs/albums en masse (be it, tour announcement, carpool etc).
|
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:32 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Gareth T H
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 2,501 User: 10,597
 |
This all looks very messy. I don't think they should have various weightings regarding stream ratio. Should be one for all. It is bad enough now we have the chart weighting at 150:1, yet the total sales weighting is 100:1.
All they have to do is take out any singles streams that are actually just an album listen, rather than putting both in. I think it should also be based on official singles nominated by the label rather than the top 3 sellers at the time, otherwise there could end up with lots of flip flopping in terms of positions for tracks. |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:32 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me
Joined: 5 March 2006
Posts: 129,135 User: 2
     |
QUOTE(AcerBen @ Jun 26 2017, 11:25 AM) If they're going to apply the cap to #1 singles, I don't think we'd see drops of 1-9 very often. Let's look at last week's sales for instance This was the first week of Despasito's decline, but say it was the third.. It would have kept all of its 42,690 download sales, and had its streams cut to 29,536 so it would still be number 3. Aah I see, that doesn't look that bad, when you look at it that way. I just took #9 as an example, even though some tracks could fall quite a bit. Also it could stop tracks returning to #1 a week or 2 later. |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:33 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(Dircadirca @ Jun 26 2017, 10:31 AM) This would definitely need clearing up, it feels odd that they're applying a restriction on streaming based on a song's sales performance though. I assume they'd like to do streaming but it has the problem in that some weeks the week-by-week streaming just goes up so even lingering hits get random boosts. The flipside that I'm imagining with this is a record company putting a song on iTunes discount every 3 weeks to prolong its chart run artificially. Though in saying that, it has felt this year that every few weeks there's a new excuse for everyone to buy all the Sheeran songs/albums en masse (be it, tour announcement, carpool etc).By "sales" we're talking about downloads+streams |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:33 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(GTH @ Jun 26 2017, 10:32 AM) This all looks very messy. I don't think they should have various weightings regarding stream ratio. Should be one for all. It is bad enough now we have the chart weighting at 150:1, yet the total sales weighting is 100:1. All they have to do is take out any singles streams that are actually just an album listen, rather than putting both in. I think it should also be based on official singles nominated by the label rather than the top 3 sellers at the time, otherwise there could end up with lots of flip flopping in terms of positions for tracks. Again, what counts as an album listen? |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:34 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
|
QUOTE(AcerBen @ Jun 26 2017, 06:33 PM) By "sales" we're talking about downloads+streams Ah, that does make the most sense I suppose, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:34 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
rip in peace Dickston
Joined: 29 January 2017
Posts: 9,559 User: 25,045
     |
Going by how everyone on this thread is understanding it (or not understanding it) this seems like such a confusing and uneccessary rule
Would it/does it make sense for all singles from an album to chart, and then the first 3 album tracks to chart are ones that stick around? If that makes sense. So for Divide: Shape of You & Castle on the Hill chart as normally Galway Girl charts as the #1 album track in the charts, meaning the next two album tracks that garner up enough sales & streams also chart. Galway Girl released as single #3, meaning the #4 album track that would have charted upon album release now has a chance to chart if it's still high enough in sales. Does that make sense? I thought I was understanding until I typed it out... what a mess |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:37 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(Dircadirca @ Jun 26 2017, 10:11 AM) I don't know all the raw numbers so this isn't 100% accurate, but if the rule is that only an artist's 3 biggest songs count each week, and that the 150>300 rule is permanent, the Sheeran situation would have played out like this: Week 13: Shape/Castle having had 3 weeks of declines post-album release both are penalised. Shape drops from #1 to out of the top 10, while Castle disappears completely, to be replaced by Perfect which debuts just outside the top 10. Galway also reaches #1 this week This doesn't sound right to me. What are your workings? This post has been edited by AcerBen: 26th June 2017, 10:37 AM |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:50 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,255 User: 22,665
  |
I personally stream albums in full, search for an album and listen from start to finish
and listen to the whole thing or most of it... so that shouldn't count for the singles chart that should be 1 album stream doubt anyone just goes and listen to one interlude from the DJ Khaled album and thats it, nothing else |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:52 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Pronouns: He/Him
Joined: 28 July 2013 Posts: 5,076 User: 19,614
|
QUOTE(AcerBen @ Jun 26 2017, 06:37 PM) This doesn't sound right to me. What are your workings? In hindsight it's a bit slapdash, as I don't fully know the ratio of sales to streams that make up most hits in their twilight weeks. But in said week, if you were to halve Shape's Spotify numbers, it would fall out of the top 10 on streaming, and I imagine it was around a similar place on sales. Perhaps it would stay low top 10, though I will admit that Shape is probably dominant enough to remain as one of his 3 biggest tracks even with its points halved, so it doesn't really matter where it gets pushed down to. |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:57 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(Bjork @ Jun 26 2017, 10:50 AM) I personally stream albums in full, search for an album and listen from start to finish and listen to the whole thing or most of it... so that shouldn't count for the singles chart that should be 1 album stream doubt anyone just goes and listen to one interlude from the DJ Khaled album and thats it, nothing else What if you start listening to an album but stop after track 11? Or you just skip tracks 2 and 6 because you don't like them? |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 10:59 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 21 November 2015
Posts: 4,472 User: 22,687
|
Poor vidcapper this gonna be interesting
Hopefully the first chart with this rule will help clear it up every time I think I understand I read someone else comment and get confused again
This post has been edited by 777666jason: 26th June 2017, 10:59 AM |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:01 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 November 2015
Posts: 33,255 User: 22,665
|
streaming an album in full or most of it
not sure let's say 75%... >50%? that should be enough to count for the album charts |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:24 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
It's on MW site, can someone post full article please?
http://www.musicweek.com/talent/read/insid...t-revamp/068925 |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:28 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me
Joined: 5 March 2006
Posts: 129,135 User: 2
|
Inside the Official Chart Company's Singles Chart revamp
by Mark Sutherland June 26th 2017 at 11:37AM The Official Charts Company has unveiled a huge revamp of the Singles Chart aimed at speeding up the Top 40 and boosting opportunities for labels to break new artists. Following controversy over all 16 tracks from Ed Sheeran’s ÷ album charting in the Top 20, and multiple chart entries by the likes of Drake and Stormzy, there will now be a cap on the number of tracks by an artist that can feature in the Top 100. Only the three most popular tracks by a lead artist will now be eligible for the chart, although songs on which a star is a featured artist will not count towards that total. Meanwhile, after a record has racked up at least 10 weeks on the chart, any track which has declined for three consecutive weeks will see its streams:sales ratio change from 150:1 to 300:1, in an attempt to accelerate their disappearance from the chart. “This is all about supporting new music,” Official Charts Company chief executive Martin Talbot told Music Week. “We’re making sure the chart continues to be a place that reflects the consumption of new records in a fast-changing world.” Talbot said that Official Charts research showed the changes would mean “potentially 10% more hits will be generated on an annual basis”. The measures have been approved – after much debate over the detail – by major and independent record labels, retailers, digital music services and BBC Radio 1, which broadcasts the new chart every Friday. “This is not a chart for album tracks; we want to remain the Official Singles Chart, for singles,” said Talbot. “We’re not removing singles from the chart. The ratio change is designed to help unblock the top end of the charts from records that are well beyond their peak. They’re prohibiting new records from getting exposure. It’s tougher than ever for new music and developing artists to break through, and this is us doing our bit.” The changes will kick in this Friday (June 30), with the first chart under the new rules published on July 7. Streaming now regularly accounts for over 85% of singles ‘sales’, a change that has seen the number of Top 40 hits decline by 40% between 2013 and 2016. “This is about injecting energy back into the chart,” said Talbot, “While at the same time not taking away what it’s always been: a reflection of the consumers’ love for music.” |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:39 AM
Post
#58
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 4 June 2014
Posts: 1,432 User: 20,971
 |
QUOTE(777666jason @ Jun 26 2017, 03:59 PM) every time I think I understand I read someone else comment and get confused again oh, i'm not alone :') yeah, I guess next Friday chart will be quite interesting to watch as it's gonna resemble very chaotic mess, according to some comments let's just hope the OCC won't leave all the blind spots in new rules behind |
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:39 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 3 September 2009
Posts: 7,814 User: 9,543
 |
Omg I really don't like these changes, I prefer things the way that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
26th June 2017, 11:43 AM
Post
#60
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 13 December 2016
Posts: 5,689 User: 23,860
  |
They're doing the exact opposite to 'reflecting consumption' by pick and choosing songs to fall out faster to 'vary' up the chart, I get that we don't want songs clogging up th charts but by altering sales figures they're not reflecting the actual popularity of songs? Kinda defeating the point of the chart in the first place, they may as well just make it up?
This post has been edited by BridgeCow: 26th June 2017, 11:43 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 25th April 2024, 09:44 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
