BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
> -
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Survey - Streams to Sales ratio?
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
Streams to Sales ratio
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 54
Guests cannot vote 
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 10:07 AM
Post #1
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Back in 2014 when streams were first added to the charts, perhaps 100-1 was an appropriate level, but with the exponential growth in the streaming market they're starting to overwhelm, and thus slow down to a glacial pace, the singles chart.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mateja
post Jan 18 2016, 10:51 AM
Post #2
BuzzJack Climber
**
Group: Members
Posts: 101
Member No.: 15,071
Joined: 18-October 11
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think 100-1 ratio is good and easy to apply.

No matter what, digital downloads are in decline and changing the ratio in favor of downloads won't change that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 10:58 AM
Post #3
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Mateja @ Jan 18 2016, 10:51 AM) *
I think 100-1 ratio is good and easy to apply.

No matter what, digital downloads are in decline and changing the ratio in favor of downloads won't change that.


It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though.

Or maybe it's just my age... thinking.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Colm
post Jan 18 2016, 12:21 PM
Post #4
Yes, it's me.
******
Group: Members
Posts: 16,995
Member No.: 9,885
Joined: 4-November 09
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 18 2016, 10:58 AM) *
It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though.

Or maybe it's just my age... thinking.gif



1 stream per user! If you stream it twice it only counts once. Ever.


Then have a ratio of 100-1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Joe ho ho!
post Jan 18 2016, 12:24 PM
Post #5
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 23,451
Member No.: 19,931
Joined: 11-October 13
 


I think it SHOULD be more like 200 - 1, but 100 seems like such an easy number, for everyone.

In a couple of years they could maybe make it 1000 though.

I really think iTunes should reduce their standard price to 79p/69p. Considering 59p songs get such a boost, I think iTunes would have a sales surge,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Graham A
post Jan 18 2016, 12:43 PM
Post #6
BuzzJack Climber
**
Group: Members
Posts: 177
Member No.: 20,299
Joined: 22-December 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think the streaming ratio should entirely depending on how much each site pays to the artists for each stream. The more closer to the amount a digital download the more streams you can have. Some sites do pay something close to that, but the vast majority do not. It should NOT be the same ratio for each streaming site as I believe it is now. It's very unfair.
There should also be a difference between those who actually subscribe and those who simply listen for free. It is not on to let advertises pay for the payments to record company and artists. Adverts shove up the cost of everyday products and services for EVERYONE, not just those who listen to streaming sites. Somebody is getting a free ride and the expense of others. It's like this if you move people away from buying a record, then the money that was made from that, seeing that music is still being consumed, has to come out of someone's pocket. I don't see people in the Music Industry being made redundant! So someone is paying for it, if the kids are streaming records for peanuts!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dasher
post Jan 18 2016, 01:23 PM
Post #7
Ciao, 911? E 'Quagmire. S, preso nella finestra di questo
******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 13,193
Member No.: 13,341
Joined: 25-March 11
   No Gallery Pics
 


The rate at which they were introduced was always fictitious as basing sales proportionate to the revenue they produce has never been applied when any new format was introduced into the charts historically speaking. I don't object to the notion of representing the true popularity of a track as pre 2015 I could buy a CD and play it once or play it 500 times, which is the better way of measuring that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrJules
post Jan 18 2016, 01:42 PM
Post #8
BuzzJack Enthusiast
****
Group: Members
Posts: 527
Member No.: 8,705
Joined: 20-April 09
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever. Obviously individuals might have more than one account etc so it wouldn't be a perfect control but good enough. Also get rid of the 10 per day limit, so you can exhaust your 100 streams as fast as you like. This would hopefully help the singles chart to move at a slightly more reasonable speed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowdown73
post Jan 18 2016, 01:48 PM
Post #9
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Members
Posts: 5,906
Member No.: 1,031
Joined: 3-August 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


I still don't think streams should be included in a sales chart. Its not a "sale" as you don't own the product. You are merely listening to it. What about things like jukeboxes in pubs and clubs? The charts company don't include sales of theses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dircandydircane
post Jan 18 2016, 02:11 PM
Post #10
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 2,158
Member No.: 19,614
Joined: 28-July 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(MrJules @ Jan 18 2016, 09:42 PM) *
I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever. Obviously individuals might have more than one account etc so it wouldn't be a perfect control but good enough. Also get rid of the 10 per day limit, so you can exhaust your 100 streams as fast as you like. This would hopefully help the singles chart to move at a slightly more reasonable speed.

You probably wouldn't even notice a difference because hardly anyone streams songs that many times (at least during their chart life). For example, on last.fm which is so heavily dictated by Spotify plays nowadays, the most played song ever on Spotify, "Lean On", only averages 5 plays per listener. Even for a more fanbase oriented act like One Direction, their most recent hits only average 3 plays per listener. I really think it's the casual majority lagging the charts and not the zealous minority.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 02:37 PM
Post #11
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Am I right in thinking that if you have a premium a/c you can listen to songs offline/put them on an iPod?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 02:38 PM
Post #12
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(MrJules @ Jan 18 2016, 01:42 PM) *
I think 100-1 as now but once someone has streamed 100 times and given a track a full 'sale', no further streams will count ever.


I suggested this on the streaming thread, IIRC. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 02:39 PM
Post #13
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Joe. @ Jan 18 2016, 12:24 PM) *
I think it SHOULD be more like 200 - 1, but 100 seems like such an easy number, for everyone.

In a couple of years they could maybe make it 1000 though.

I really think iTunes should reduce their standard price to 79p/69p. Considering 59p songs get such a boost, I think iTunes would have a sales surge,


They certainly would - but the record companies would probably have an apoplectic fit! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 02:45 PM
Post #14
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


I wonder if it's just the Beliebers here who voted for the 'less than 100-1' option? teresa.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Envoirment
post Jan 18 2016, 04:26 PM
Post #15
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: AF Leader
Posts: 5,252
Member No.: 10,030
Joined: 21-November 09
   No Gallery Pics
 


The weighting should be based on revenue generated. 1 stream on spotify generates around $0.004 in revenue and the average price for a song on US iTunes is $1.29. So it would take ~320 streams to equal 1 paid download.

So a 300-1 ratio would be better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dancember
post Jan 18 2016, 04:54 PM
Post #16
DANTA CLAUS 🤶
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 44,139
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


The ratio is good as it is imo. I doubt the OCC will ever change it anyway, as then they'd either have to retroactively change songs' chart sales which would take too much time/effort for them or to be inconsistent which we would all hate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mdh
post Jan 18 2016, 05:09 PM
Post #17
it doesn't matter, we're all together
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 18,128
Member No.: 22,776
Joined: 19-December 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


200-1 for me. In order to truly represent the popularity of new songs in the chart, sales must count for an extremely large proportion, otherwise, as we have seen demonstrated in some scenarios in the chart (for example the longevity of What Do You Mean? in the top 7), it will become stale.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Juranamo
post Jan 18 2016, 05:27 PM
Post #18
"Everything seems different the second time around."
******
Group: Members
Posts: 8,232
Member No.: 5,830
Joined: 10-April 08
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Graham A @ Jan 18 2016, 12:43 PM) *
There should also be a difference between those who actually subscribe and those who simply listen for free. It is not on to let advertises pay for the payments to record company and artists. Adverts shove up the cost of everyday products and services for EVERYONE, not just those who listen to streaming sites. Somebody is getting a free ride and the expense of others. It's like this if you move people away from buying a record, then the money that was made from that, seeing that music is still being consumed, has to come out of someone's pocket. I don't see people in the Music Industry being made redundant! So someone is paying for it, if the kids are streaming records for peanuts!

I don't think listening to music for free should be treated any differently to paid for streaming. I personally pay for my Apple Music subscription, but if people want to stream for free and not get the rewards of a subscription (offline listening, no ads etc), the that's their prerogative! The songs are still being listened to and it is still helping to measure the popularity of each particular song!

On a side note; Your views on whether advertisers should pay record companies (or not) are completely irrelevant to this thread though. Where is the evidence that advertising increases the expense for others? Companies need to advertise in some form of another in order to generate sales (which in turn can help to reduce prices for consumers). The record industry even uses this through airplay, literal advertisements and promo slots on radio/tv.

I think that the streaming ratio should stay as it is, the ratio for physical singles didn't change just because downloads took off so why should streaming be any different? It leaves the chart as consistent as can be. Admittedly, the slower pace of the chart has caused my interest in it to take a huge nosedive, but me wanting a faster paced chart would need to be achieved more organically.


This post has been edited by Juranamo: Jan 18 2016, 05:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post Jan 18 2016, 06:02 PM
Post #19
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,278
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Juranamo @ Jan 18 2016, 05:27 PM) *
I think that the streaming ratio should stay as it is, the ratio for physical singles didn't change just because downloads took off so why should streaming be any different?


Because physical & download singles are an obvious 1-1 equivalent, whereas what a stream should count as is totally subjective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AcerBen
post Jan 18 2016, 06:32 PM
Post #20
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 2,431
Member No.: 3,429
Joined: 18-May 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 18 2016, 10:58 AM) *
It still *feels* wrong to me that fans should be able to have a continuing, rather than once-off, influence over chart positions, though.

Or maybe it's just my age... thinking.gif


Although it makes for a more boring chart, in a way a chart that reflects what people are listening to is more meaningful compared to what people are buying. Just because people have stopped buying a song, it doesn't mean it's less popular than it was before.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2017 - 10:09 AM