 |
  |
| Should million-sellers include streaming? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 8th January 2015, 10:26 PM
Post
#41
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,673 User: 3,272 
         |
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jan 8 2015, 10:21 PM)  In the 1940s it was sheet music, people buying sheets with the music printed on it. Times change, you move on. Get over it! But the difference is that people were still paying a sum of money for a specific song. That has remained the case with vinyl, cassette, CD and downloads. It doesn't apply to streaming. |
 |
 
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:33 PM
Post
#42
|
|
 #38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
   |
Oh I completely accept that, but the point I was trying to make was that the way we measure popularity of music will change almost continually through time to be the most representative of what is truly popular, and that HAS to change with how music is consumed or we end up with something that is meaningless.
The same countless boring 'let's keep the chart a physical sales only' chart arguments were peddled as pointed out by Jay in 2004 when digital sales were suggested to be included. |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:39 PM
Post
#43
|
|
 Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me
Joined: 5 March 2006
Posts: 129,134 User: 2
   |
The thing is, we had the same problem when downloads were first introduced nobody was keen on them, now technology is more bang up to date, so streaming was bound to happen at some point, personally I don't like it but I'm embracing it, its the sign of the times you have to accept it, the same thing with downloads we have accepted it, streaming is here to stay no point in going backwards to the stone age.
OCC will just have to start combining million sellers, to get a better perspective of what is selling. |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:44 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
My counter-argument will be charity records. The Gareth Malone "Wake Me Up" cover was purchased by over 100,000 people, but how many people actually LISTENED to the song by choice. Streaming is arguably a lot more representative of a songs popularity IMO, and lo-and-behold the track didn't make the Top 100 streaming chart.
|
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:48 PM
Post
#45
|
|
 BuzzJack Idol
Joined: 8 December 2010
Posts: 50,952 User: 12,472
    |
QUOTE(Jay ジ @ Jan 8 2015, 04:01 AM) Ella's 'Ghost' is on course to achieve a million units this week, but it probably won't pass a million purely on sales for a very long time to come. (I actually have no idea how much it's purely sold, but I assume it could have well over 100,000 of its total come from streams). The OCC revealed recently that 'Ghost' has "only" sold 744k to date so quite a difference! http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/2...art-smash-3384/ |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:48 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,673 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jan 8 2015, 10:33 PM) Oh I completely accept that, but the point I was trying to make was that the way we measure popularity of music will change almost continually through time to be the most representative of what is truly popular, and that HAS to change with how music is consumed or we end up with something that is meaningless. The same countless boring 'let's keep the chart a physical sales only' chart arguments were peddled as pointed out by Jay in 2004 when digital sales were suggested to be included. QUOTE(Mart!n @ Jan 8 2015, 10:39 PM) The thing is, we had the same problem when downloads were first introduced nobody was keen on them, now technology is more bang up to date, so streaming was bound to happen at some point, personally I don't like it but I'm embracing it, its the sign of the times you have to accept it, the same thing with downloads we have accepted it, streaming is here to stay no point in going backwards to the stone age. OCC will just have to start combining million sellers, to get a better perspective of what is selling. I never had a problem with including downloads. It's still a sale. Just because you can't pick it up and throw it across the room doesn't change that. However, a stream is not a sale. |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:49 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me
Joined: 5 March 2006
Posts: 129,134 User: 2
|
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jan 8 2015, 10:44 PM) My counter-argument will be charity records. The Gareth Malone "Wake Me Up" cover was purchased by over 100,000 people, but how many people actually LISTENED to the song by choice. Streaming is arguably a lot more representative of a songs popularity IMO, and lo-and-behold the track didn't make the Top 100 streaming chart. Probably the older generation don't know how to stream  |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 10:55 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
BuzzJack Idol
Joined: 8 December 2010
Posts: 50,952 User: 12,472
|
I'd like to think people's views may be more favorable towards streams in the charts in a few years time when they become more popular and overall sales decrease more and more. I can understand the current queries and attitudes that are against streams but it's something that will just have to be accepted and hopefully the benefits will start to shine through more.
True, 2014/5 songs will show up higher in all-time lists than they "deserve" due to sales still being reasonably high along with streams being popular but it's similar to how 2004/5 songs show lower totals than they "deserve". For instance, the likes of 'Crazy in Love' and 'Hung Up' with sales of 600k when their popularity at the time and now would suggest that they should be million sellers. It's just one of those things, the charts have never shown equality when you compare different years but that's really not something that can be helped. |
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 11:04 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Former iconic poster with no consistent posting style
Pronouns: Don't take em seriously tbh
Joined: 20 June 2014 Posts: 20,582 User: 21,005 
 |
QUOTE(Mart!n @ Jan 8 2015, 10:49 PM) Probably the older generation don't know how to stream If you look on Spotify there's a lot of 50-70 year olds streaming Blame
|
|
|
|
|
8th January 2015, 11:49 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,673 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Mart!n @ Jan 8 2015, 10:49 PM) Probably the older generation don't know how to stream How dare you 
|
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 12:07 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 3,628 User: 3,429
|
QUOTE(Graham A @ Jan 8 2015, 10:19 PM) I don't think I made my point clear enough. If the streaming is the future you make the main chart the - entire chart - streaming. You leave the sales chart as a sales chart. People once said the vinyl record sales were dead, but we know they are now picking up sales. So don't fall for the hype that sales charts are dying. They might be being murdered, but they are not dead yet. There are lots of things that could affect the future of streaming. You saying it is the future is not a given thing. All it shows that you along with lots of other people have a bad view of history and therefore the future. You only have to look at movie predictions of the future to see how wrong things can get if you follow your line of thinking. For example the airwaves should be full of private aircraft, or cars powered by fusion flying around the sky. Oh and in 2005 if you said that the download will be the future and it's how people will consume music for years to come. You can see your argument about streaming being the future as insane too. More young people watch YouTube than stream records. That's not included in the UK chart, because YouTube is competition to the BBC services and the BBC (who fund the chart) won't allow it. It's another example how something can be stopped by something completely alien to it. You haven't explained really why mixing streams and sales is such an issue. Why does it have to be one or the other when both are popular? I really don't see what you're getting at with your predictions for the future. Nobody knows for sure how we'll be listening to music in the future, but with it becoming easier and easier to get fast Internet on the go, there is no need to carry hard drives around with you and pay £1 for each song when you can get it easier and cheaper via streaming. Downloads aren't going to die completely for a long time, but the trend is irreversible. You can't compare it with vinyl because vinyl is a physical product and people buy them for the sound, the look and the coolness of them. People aren't going to have an emotional connection to downloads. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 06:22 AM
Post
#52
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Jay ジ @ Jan 8 2015, 04:01 AM) Ella's 'Ghost' is on course to achieve a million units this week, but it probably won't pass a million purely on sales for a very long time to come. (I actually have no idea how much it's purely sold, but I assume it could have well over 100,000 of its total come from streams). One issue that doesn't seem to have been raised is that : if streaming had not been a possibility, how many extra downloads would have been bought? IRO Taylor Swift, this is a more realistic consideration - if her songs were streamable, would she lose more in downloads than she'd pick up in streams? |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 07:09 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
          |
I'm totally in favour of streaming being included in the chart, given it's important to recognise how music is consumed these days - not everybody buys anymore. But I do nonetheless think a million seller shouldn't include streaming - combining a cumulative measure (it's not as if many people would go out and buy the same track every week) with a one-off one muddies exactly what the point of a million selling list is supposed to show in my view.
And honestly I think the debate is totally different to the one on downloads. That was just tech snobbery from chart followers or fear from physical retailers as they knew their business model was so inefficient as to be doomed in the face of downloads (as we've seen over the last decade), but it didn't take away from the central point that a sale is a sale, regardless of what format it's in. I do think there will always be a market for music purchases - I don't see streaming becoming universal for a very, very long time, at least until universal access Wi-Fi becomes a thing - so having the central measure of a million seller would still be relevant. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 07:54 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376
 |
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 9 2015, 06:22 AM) One issue that doesn't seem to have been raised is that : if streaming had not been a possibility, how many extra downloads would have been bought? IRO Taylor Swift, this is a more realistic consideration - if her songs were streamable, would she lose more in downloads than she'd pick up in streams? Yes, Taylor Swift's subsequent sales following the decision to remove her streaming catalogue suggest that streaming very much does eat in download sales, and the cash the artist makes is greater than the income from streaming (to them). Other comments: The record companies annual income is more or less static (and very high) thanks to the extra 12% cash streaming has generated, so that suggests to me that the main ones to benefit from streaming are the record companies, not the artists. So of course they love streaming. As i've said before, download singles sales are NOT in crisis, they are still very high (just look at how many million sellers from downloads there are compared to previous decades). Album sales are declining because of that, for the most part people cherry pick tracks now - I know I do. streaming is a useful reflection of a songs ONGOING popularity, but that doesn't mean it's not just being played to death over and over by the same people month after month and therefore contributing more than a single sale to the overall sales totals over a long period of time. So the arbitrary choice of 100 plays = 1 sale is just a made-up number, it's meaningless. Half of those "sales" could be comprised of people replaying the same track, or just using streaming as a radio format and not actively choosing what to listen to, just passively listening to whatever pops up (and I know people who do that). A less annoying combined chart sytem would be weighting streaming and downloads according to the market income ratio. 12%, maximum, for very popular tracks weighted downwards from there for less popular tracks. And stop calling them sales when they ain't. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 09:10 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Jan 9 2015, 07:54 AM) A less annoying combined chart sytem would be weighting streaming and downloads according to the market income ratio. 12%, maximum, for very popular tracks weighted downwards from there for less popular tracks. And stop calling them sales when they ain't. To be fair, it is called 'The Singles Chart' with no mention of either sales or streaming. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 01:41 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 29 July 2014
Posts: 198 User: 21,106
|
Some very worthy points made from both sides of the argument, and also some who clearly are in two minds as to the advantages and disadvantages of this development.
I don't want to rehearse all the aspects of this difficult debate over again, but all I will say is that it's all very well us saying we want to continue the million-selling singles table based only on actual paid-for purchases, but it is already apparent that official sources are no longer disclosing those tallies. The only time we receive a full breakdown of sales and streams contributing to an overall chart 'sale' is in respect of the week's Number One. Almost without exception all other titles' weekly returns, or to-date totals, are given as a single figure inclusive of streaming-equivalent 'sales' and actual paid-for ones. Sadly, that includes the so-called million-sellers list. So, even if as I personally would prefer, we elect to maintain a sales-only tabulation for th purposes of this thread, where do we propose to obtain the necessary information from (unless one of you has a link to someone who can supply it off-the-record)?! Those of us who ideally want to keep tabs on 'true' sales of a million or more without the arbitrary addition of streamed listens as if they can somehow be converted meaningfully to an individual purchase likely feel that this is important because (i) it allows a direct like-for-like comparison with earlier sales-only feats, and (ii) the concept of a true sale is fundamentally distinct from an audio stream, which is an entirely different way of consuming the product. I accept that streaming is important enough to take account of now, and the picture can't remain sales-only forever if we're to assess a broader capture of songs' level of appreciation amongst the public. But the two should not be continually conflated, especially as I suspect most punters don't know that 'sales' include audio streams now, and so to call something a million-seller is plainly misleading. As mentioned earlier, terminology at least needs to be amended, even if the result is something that is less-well understood by the majority of observers. When it comes to all-time achievement lists, surely we should allow for more than just one. Sales should remain as per tradition, while audio streaming impact can always be measured separately and as it grows, the list of tracks streamed more than 100million times etc will burgeon, while the tracks selling 1 million or more will tail off as sales lose their dominance. I don't think that is such a poor solution, and accept that one will eventually rise to supplant the other in terms of relative interest and importance over the coming years. However, these two different activities already seem to be permanently conflated in all reports and analysis we read about singles performance, just because they deal with the same product. A meaningful distinction should be retained between the two types of consumption, albeit that we now have a combined mainstream chart like it or not, and that a singular table reflecting wider popularity across the two platforms obviously makes sense as a more convenient 'single source of truth' from the industry's perspective. I soon reconciled the sense behind digital sales being integrated into the physical sales chart a decade ago, because despite one being tangible and the other virtual, they were essentially still the same product - a singular audio recording of a song - being procured via a paid-for purchase, thereby denoting that person's declaration of interest in that product. We were still dealing with measuring performance by sales, not quite like-for-like of course but it still boils down to a copy of a recording bought to own. Yet I still wanted to see how the physical-only and digital-only markets were performing away from the combined rankings. Sadly the former was only made available for a few years after 2005 as the physical market continued to decline rapidly, but it proved that sooner or later, the old ways will be dropped from public view, which is a shame for the small number of us still interested in knowing about it, however niche the sector has become. I have found it far-harder to reconcile the chart taking in audio streams, not because I am against reflecting broader popularity per se, but because they're simply not like-for-like ways of consuming the same product and felt that two rival charts would serve it better, with the streaming one probably becoming the table of importance by the end of the decade. I did learn to live with the main chart no longer being sales based as I realise the industry won't go for two rival official singles charts, but that was sweetened by the continuationof the separate sales and streams tabulations on the OCC site. Preferably far-more detail on breakdowns of true sales and streaming units would be given too, enabling us to make sense of the contribution each makes to a single's overall chart figure, but it seems we're out of luck on that already. I would favour Buzzjack chart enthusiasts trying - if it were possible - to maintain three tallies in respect of all-time official singles performance: most-sold, most-streamed, and a combined unit figure as per the 100:1 ratio agreed for the weekly singles chart formula (i.e. the 'official' million-sellers list we get now). That way, even if they were only updated/published once at the end of each chart year, those who do care for the distinctions can be happy. My worry is they will gradually cease bothering to mention the 'true' sales of titles, and reduce the sales chart until they drop it altogether, leaving us entirely unaware of what is happening in sales, however small. By 2020, we may have very little to go on at all. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 01:46 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 4 October 2014
Posts: 5,610 User: 21,265
|
For those who remember the inclusion of download sales circa 2004-05, what effect did it have on the charts?? Did it cause the charts to become slower-moving for example?
Sales haven't dipped to 2004 levels, so perhaps the inclusion of streaming wasn't as NECESSARY as the inclusion of downloads or perhaps its pre-emptive as streaming will be more dominant in a few years time. |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 01:49 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 15 March 2006
Posts: 1,630 User: 232
 |
Are people not maybe over stating the predicted decline in download sales, agreed they are falling and may continue to decline but will they really decline to such a level as say vinyl sales, I would have thought maybe down to maybe 70-80 million per annum minimum?
|
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 04:11 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 29 July 2014
Posts: 198 User: 21,106
|
Fiesta - I think you're probably correct on that. Maybe it's just old school nostalgia for the concept of buying singles, but it is hard to envisage people giving up almost entirely on purchasing digital tracks, at least in the way that they rapidly lost heart with physical between 2000 and 2010. Part of that is because a large portion of consumers have always bought their music and are happy to do so, albeit at today's rock-bottom prices, and probably see a little more certainty in owning the file rather than just streaming it. People do like to own, and not everyone will listen to enough on streaming sites to justify the subs, or wnat to put up with the free option with all the tiresome ads. It's not like the clear distinctions between a CD and a download, where the former, while tangible and more traditional, could not realistically compete with the latter which was so cheap and so convenient to obtain in comparison. Having to go to a store and pay a possible £2.99 or even higher for a single track, with perhaps one or two others which you may or may not want, was never going to compete. People may consider that more worthwhile for an album featuring perhaps 12 tracks for a tenner, hence the CD's 60% share of the albums market even today, but with singles, downloads were king and that isn't going to change overnight. Download sales will creep down as the rest of the 2010s unfold, but I don't think it will look like such a dated method of procuring single tracks in 2020 as buying a CD single did in 2010. Just look at the sales figures for the No 1s of the last year; still pretty healthy on average with frequent six-figure amounts shifted in a week. It's the market overall that is shrinking, as the total singles sold each week compared to a year ago consistently show. But it's not a collapse.
Hopefully we might see a market where sales are only modestly-depleted per release, coupled with a healthy streaming sector to complement it. Best of both worlds. As long as they don't introduce video streaming to the chart though - to my mind that isn't even the same product as an audio single as someone could just as easily be streaming it on YouTube because they like the video clip but actually wouldn't listen to or buy the song on its own. A single is an audio song first with any video as a back-up to it, and the minute video streams are allowed to encroach, that really is it for me and the official chart! |
|
|
|
|
9th January 2015, 04:32 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Gambo @ Jan 9 2015, 04:11 PM) Fiesta - I think you're probably correct on that. Maybe it's just old school nostalgia for the concept of buying singles, but it is hard to envisage people giving up almost entirely on purchasing digital tracks, at least in the way that they rapidly lost heart with physical between 2000 and 2010. Part of that is because a large portion of consumers have always bought their music and are happy to do so, albeit at today's rock-bottom prices, and probably see a little more certainty in owning the file rather than just streaming it. That's certainly true for me - I prefer listening to music on my iPod, and I can't stream from that. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 25th April 2024, 06:10 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
