Streaming | General Discussion, FAQs, debates, etc. |
Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
Jan 23 2017, 10:27 AM
Post
#241
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 |
Even if I have downloaded it to my iPhone? A also I tend to listen to full albums on the way to work in the bus so would that be represented as an album sale for the OCC album chart? (Sorry for all the questions) That might depend on whether your bus ride was long enough to listen to a whole album... |
|
|
Jan 24 2017, 09:09 PM
Post
#242
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,126 User: 5,138 |
Well yeh so it does then, so how do they know if I've added it to my phone I'm listening too it? Sorry if it's a stupid question but I don't get how it works as I'm new to it!
|
|
|
Jan 28 2017, 10:23 AM
Post
#243
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 12 September 2010
Posts: 448 User: 11,831 |
At the risk of dragging up a further heated discussion on streaming I've been looking into the royalty rates the past few years and trying to understand the whole streaming thing.
As many said the ratio last year was far too high and I agree. When looking at the typical payout rate from Spotify last year, from what I can see it was around 0.004/5, Apple is higher at 0.007. But for some bizarre reason they decided to keep with the 0.01 revenue (1:100) which is completely inaccurate and explains partly why sales were so stupidly inflated last year. (I wont go into the playlists and other issues surrounding it) I did some very rough calculations basing last year on the 0.007 rate and if that had been the case for last years charts, Drake's total sales would have been around 1.6 million compared to the almost 2 million that chart credited him with having and Cheap Thrills on around 1.1 million with Lukas Graham probably being the only other million seller. This seems a more accurate reflection of sales imo when you compare to the 2010-2013 period given downloads were still contributing a relatively decent amount of sales last year. If i knew how to get an accurate amount of streams from every song during 2016 then I'd try and compile a proper list. From what I can tell this years royalty rates haven't really changed very much and even though the OCC have finally dropped it based on a 0.0075 rate I think its still a little too high and 0.006 or 0.0055 would be better placed (ratio of 1:200), which would mean a song that is streamed 100 million times would generate revenue or sales of around 550-600k and with downloads added would probably push totals up to around 800-1000k or so (obviously depending on how much its downloaded). As streaming continues to grow I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing most typical hits having this sort of level of streams with the big hits having around 200-300 million in the UK alone. I may have go some of the revenue figures mixed up so apologies if they are but it was just to give a rough idea. |
|
|
Feb 1 2017, 10:34 AM
Post
#244
|
|
New Entry
Joined: 30 December 2016
Posts: 4 User: 23,919 |
Interesting Subject....
|
|
|
Feb 12 2017, 10:21 AM
Post
#245
|
|
New Entry
Joined: 12 February 2017
Posts: 4 User: 25,771 |
I think the acts you mention haven't benefitted from streaming because they haven't produced a good enough song to merit huge success, obv that's my opinion but none of heir songs have been huge and generated interest with people outside their core fan base.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2017, 12:40 PM
Post
#246
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,811 User: 17,376 |
of course, streaming could collapse when Spotify (finally) tries to go public. They dominate the world singles scene and still continue to lose money, and at an increased rate thanks to poor borrowing habits. The 3 major music companies will do their best to keep those huge cheques coming in (which is why they love it so) but the question still needs to be asked:
would you buy shares in a business that still loses money after years of trading, and has never turned a profit? They are banking that streaming will continue to increase so that by 2019 they can sell as a profit-making enterprise, but who knows it may be left to the likes of Apple and Amazon who have other media interests to carry on as they go bust big-time...? |
|
|
Feb 13 2017, 10:29 PM
Post
#247
|
|
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me
Joined: 5 March 2006
Posts: 129,134 User: 2 |
|
|
|
Feb 13 2017, 11:43 PM
Post
#248
|
|
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,519 User: 11,746 |
Spotify is such a big brand now that there's no way it'll collapse. I don't understand the business side of things but if it's losing money they could just stop the free version; make the free users try 3 months of Premium and if they like it - £9.99 a month.
Or just sell themselves to Google or Amazon seeing as their own streaming services aren't very popular. |
|
|
Mar 8 2017, 07:48 AM
Post
#249
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 6 July 2015
Posts: 90 User: 22,084 |
Can someone confirm what BPI are doing? They posted an article in December 2016 saying they would be using 150:1 for their awards but this has disappeared and Shape of You has just been awarded double platinum which surely must be at 100:1. Has there been any information published?
|
|
|
Mar 8 2017, 05:09 PM
Post
#250
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561 |
Can someone confirm what BPI are doing? They posted an article in December 2016 saying they would be using 150:1 for their awards but this has disappeared and Shape of You has just been awarded double platinum which surely must be at 100:1. Has there been any information published? In short: 150:1 is being used to calculate the sales for the published weekly chart and YTD chart. 100:1 is being used for all-time sales and BPI certifications. |
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 11:46 AM
Post
#251
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 18 June 2013
Posts: 68 User: 19,390 |
I'm sure this may prove contentious, but I don't recognise many of the chart achievements from Sunday, March 1 2015, when streaming was counted within the supposed 'Official' UK Singles Chart. The methodology is flawed, and now the rules of what constitues a single are flawed and of course the OCC is fatally flawed.
Why? Let's take Drake for example. Last week he added 23 supposed hit singles to his tally in just one week - 23! Overtaking in one silly move, hundreds of artists whom have spent decades getting to that number of hit singles - hit singles that really were hit singles. Drake's supposed 'hit singles' were of course NOT singles. The goalposts have been moved unfairly, this isn't a level playing field any more so you cannot compare nor count most chart achievements after 2015 onwards to those that happened before. Just imagine how many 'hits' Madonna, Elvis, Beatles and Jackson would have had if these rules had been allowed then? Thousands....(of course one couldn't count album streams etc when they were at their peaks but still) it's a farce, and by allowing these non-singles to chart it kinda cancels out the many chart achievements of those who went before. And worse of all, Drake and Sheeran are not as big as those aforementioned artists were. In 1985 Madonna placed a record EIGHT Top 10 singles in the UK charts in a calendar year, testamount to the fact that she was THE major singles artist of the 1980's - all proper singles. She would likely have been able to place treble that if these current stupid rules applied then. It's like someone being the 100 metre sprint world record holder, and then the next day, it's decided athletes can compete in the same event, but in a sports car - you can't compare the result nor the record!!!! :-) In the scheme of life's rich tapestry this isn't a big deal, but it is if you're a chart-watcher, and if you care about the UK charts then you despair at how stupid things have now become. |
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 12:19 PM
Post
#252
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 16 February 2010
Posts: 646 User: 10,655 |
You can't make achievements null and void but it sadly does devalue any achievements from artists in pretty much the whole history of the chart.
|
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 01:15 PM
Post
#253
|
|
you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 121,480 User: 13,530 |
Streaming began counting to the singles chart in June 2014
I agree with the post above, it may devalue some past achievements but you can't say they're null and void because you don't like the way the charts are compiled right now. Also: merged with the streaming discussion topic. |
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 01:19 PM
Post
#254
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 18 June 2013
Posts: 68 User: 19,390 |
Streaming began counting to the singles chart in June 2014 I agree with the post above, it may devalue some past achievements but you can't say they're null and void because you don't like the way the charts are compiled right now. Also: merged with the streaming discussion topic. Um, I think I just did.... |
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 01:22 PM
Post
#255
|
|
you never forget your first time...
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 19 April 2011 Posts: 121,480 User: 13,530 |
|
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 05:19 PM
Post
#256
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 12 September 2010
Posts: 448 User: 11,831 |
I can kind agree with that sentiment of artists scooping several top 10s in one go ect, although I personally don't count album tracks charting as an official hit/single unless its announced as an official single later on and i'd like to think the OCC follow a similar procedure. So out of Ed's divide onslaught I'd only count Galway Girl as its been announced as the third single but in recent years there's always one song that gets heavily cherry picked and it ends up becoming the single anyway.
But I agree though that it is a mess that this sort of thing happens and in terms of streaming most, if not all of those streams from the past couple of weeks should have counted as album. Given how dire album sales are I would think the OCC would jump at the chance to revive them. The other thing that annoys me about the charts is the total sales, they are an absolute mess. Without knowing how high streaming will peak its hard to actually find a way of formatting it the right way in terms of chart units. But I can see it getting to the stage though where every top 10 hit will garner around 100 million streams with the big hits managing around 200 million, which equals 1-2 million chart units which isn't very reflective at all of download sales. They should base it off revenue that streaming brings in or put a permanent cap in place for when a song reaches a certain amount of streams, or at the very least have the same ratio for weekly and total sales. |
|
|
Mar 27 2017, 06:24 PM
Post
#257
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561 |
But I agree though that it is a mess that this sort of thing happens and in terms of streaming most, if not all of those streams from the past couple of weeks should have counted as album. Given how dire album sales are I would think the OCC would jump at the chance to revive them. Streaming is already included in the album chart. I think that the issue most people have is that it is double counted (for the singles chart also). The other thing that annoys me about the charts is the total sales, they are an absolute mess. Without knowing how high streaming will peak its hard to actually find a way of formatting it the right way in terms of chart units. But I can see it getting to the stage though where every top 10 hit will garner around 100 million streams with the big hits managing around 200 million, which equals 1-2 million chart units which isn't very reflective at all of download sales. They should base it off revenue that streaming brings in or put a permanent cap in place for when a song reaches a certain amount of streams, or at the very least have the same ratio for weekly and total sales. I don't know why this is such an issue.. with all-time charts it has always been impossible to accurately or fairly compare eras due to the hugely volatile singles market. E.g. sales in 2002-2004 were anomalously low because download sales were not yet being counted, 1992 was also a poor year for singles and yet 1997-1999 and 2010-2014 were both very healthy eras for sales. I just wish the OCC were consistent (see my other post above)! |
|
|
Mar 29 2017, 09:34 AM
Post
#258
|
|
BuzzJack Regular
Joined: 12 September 2010
Posts: 448 User: 11,831 |
Streaming is already included in the album chart. I think that the issue most people have is that it is double counted (for the singles chart also). Ah sorry but thats what I meant, its being counted but not accurately and that they need to come up with a better formula going forward so we don't have a top 10 of the same artist each time a big name releases an album. But in regards to total sales, I doubt if downloads had been included during 2002-04 it would have made much difference as they were very small when they were finally included. The total sales from last year was barbaric though, having 20 odd million sellers was just ridiculous and it was hardly a ground breaking or massive year for music. I think as streaming grows they will have to keep altering the ratios but they should, as you say, be consistent. I think a perfect middle ground is having 1:150 for both weekly and total but backdating total sales to keep in line with this, moving forward should streaming numbers go through the roof adjust it accordingly. |
|
|
Mar 29 2017, 10:35 AM
Post
#259
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,811 User: 17,376 |
I don't know why this is such an issue.. with all-time charts it has always been impossible to accurately or fairly compare eras due to the hugely volatile singles market. E.g. sales in 2002-2004 were anomalously low because download sales were not yet being counted, 1992 was also a poor year for singles and yet 1997-1999 and 2010-2014 were both very healthy eras for sales. The issue is the arbitrary ratio chosen when streaming was it's infancy which already looks ridiculous in terms of "sales". The ratio should approximately reflect the average sales of the previous 50 years once streaming reaches the levels that are predicted, that is very easy to work out. To do otherwise is to devalue the real achievements of monster hits of the last century as they get overtaken by dime-a-dozen non-monster hits which get played over a long period of time by a large core fangroup or due to playlists. Was Drake's 15-weeker really more widely popular in all-time popular music than Bohemian Rhapsody? On downloads it wasn't even the top seller of 2016, on radio it wasn't even close to most-played, on album sales, na-ah. Just big on one biased format that younger fans seem to regard as more accurate of overall popularity when it isn't. It's accurate in showing overall listening-habits amongst young people who don't buy music, which is not everybody who loves music. Arguably the track that most-appealed across the board was Justin Timberlake, and it's still outselling Drake on downloads and has done since the day it was released, pretty much. |
|
|
Mar 29 2017, 11:06 AM
Post
#260
|
|
🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,519 User: 11,746 |
you can't compare One Dance to Bohemian Rhapsody though. If streaming was a thing in the 70s then 'Bohemian Rhapsody' probably would have had amazing streams and 15 weeks at number one.
In fact, even today it's had amazing streaming (245 million Spotify streams worldwide) and that's just as a result of its classic status. |
|
|
Time is now: 17th April 2024 - 09:48 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service