BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
> -
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Should the streaming-to-sales rate be reduced?, Right now it's 100 streams = 1 sale
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
JCM20
post May 12 2016, 08:23 PM
Post #1
BuzzJack Enthusiast
****
Group: Members
Posts: 688
Member No.: 22,819
Joined: 1-January 16
   No Gallery Pics
 


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dancember
post May 12 2016, 08:35 PM
Post #2
DANTA CLAUS 🤶
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 44,117
Member No.: 11,746
Joined: 30-August 10
   No Gallery Pics
 


I think it's fine as it is.

We seem to have this discussion every other month anyway laugh.gif it's never going to please everyone but it's the fairest method imo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ethan
post May 12 2016, 09:34 PM
Post #3
3:23
******
Group: Members
Posts: 10,781
Member No.: 5,269
Joined: 18-January 08
   No Gallery Pics
 


blink.gif the 100:1 ratio was set by the OCC because 100 audio streams generate the same revenue as a single 99p download

it'd make no sense at all to change it to some random fraction~ unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dobservance
post May 12 2016, 09:47 PM
Post #4
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 15,653
Member No.: 20,053
Joined: 4-November 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


Double-edged sword. If the ratio is increased people will start complaining at how low sales figures will look...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post May 12 2016, 09:53 PM
Post #5
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 10,954
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


and I'll keep rattling on and commenting against the rubbish ratio till I turn blue in the face having tantrums and get my own way or until the chart show is down to a top 10 only cos the rest of the chart is made up Justin Timberlake/Drake/Ed Sheeran and Beyonce tracks and songs that stay in the chart for 9 and half years. tongue.gif makes total sense. the revenue is irrelevant, cd's used to cost different prices and itunes frequently chart cheap singles to try and push them up the combined chart. The point of the chart is to show absolute popularity of all music, including the 1.8 million tracks that were downloaded last week tongue.gif i like the American ratio system, that caters for everyone cheer.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ethan
post May 12 2016, 10:02 PM
Post #6
3:23
******
Group: Members
Posts: 10,781
Member No.: 5,269
Joined: 18-January 08
   No Gallery Pics
 


streaming is an absolute show of popularity wink.gif ~ if someone downloads a track you donít even know if they actually listened to it laugh.gif

we might as well go the whole hog then and scale down download sales to cater for the 37 people who bought cassettes last week~ tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post May 13 2016, 02:46 PM
Post #7
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,251
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(JCM20 @ May 12 2016, 09:23 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


I'd say perhaps 120-1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Joe ho ho!
post May 13 2016, 02:49 PM
Post #8
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Chart Mod
Posts: 23,437
Member No.: 19,931
Joined: 11-October 13
 


I actually do agree that it should be moved to around 300 - 500, even if sales are falling, I do believe streaming should make up for less of the chart.

But I also think iTunes should reduce all their prices to 79p/69p per song, I genuinely believe this would create a boost in sales and stop them from falling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dircandydircane
post May 13 2016, 03:07 PM
Post #9
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 2,156
Member No.: 19,614
Joined: 28-July 13
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Ethan @ May 13 2016, 05:34 AM) *
blink.gif the 100:1 ratio was set by the OCC because 100 audio streams generate the same revenue as a single 99p download

it'd make no sense at all to change it to some random fraction~ unsure.gif

I was under the impression that 100 was just chosen as it was a nice round number? I don't think the streaming revenue quite matches up to that. The ratio in Australia was said to be devised with the intention of matching the respective revenue, and that's around 175:1.

I wouldn't mind the ratio being reduced but it's a bit pointless as the trend is just going to continue to lean towards streaming and within 6 months it'll either 'need' to be reduced again or it'll just end up the same way we are now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post May 13 2016, 06:28 PM
Post #10
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 10,954
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Ethan @ May 12 2016, 11:02 PM) *
streaming is an absolute show of popularity wink.gif ~ if someone downloads a track you donít even know if they actually listened to it laugh.gif

we might as well go the whole hog then and scale down download sales to cater for the 37 people who bought cassettes last week~ tongue.gif


well, streaming is an absolute show of popularity among the 30million users aged 12 to 25 who don't buy music tongue.gif (30 million users worldwide that is, possibly as many as 38 or 39 users in the UK, so on a par with cassingle purchases laugh.gif My math may need checking though teresa.gif )


On another related chart fact new comment:
Bieber has dominated album streaming for 6 months, he has finally been toppled from the top of the streaming album charts - he's not had the most-popular album of the last 6 months, though, not even close. He just happens to appeal to a large core group of fans in the streaming age group (who obviously love having their music tastes mirrored in the singles chart - but not in the album chart which caters for all ages 5 to 95, and where JB is one of a number of big acts who have done well and including streaming "sales" ohmy.gif )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
777666jason
post May 13 2016, 06:48 PM
Post #11
BuzzJack Enthusiast
****
Group: Members
Posts: 1,184
Member No.: 22,687
Joined: 21-November 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Catherine91
post May 13 2016, 06:55 PM
Post #12
BuzzJack Climber
**
Group: Members
Posts: 55
Member No.: 22,774
Joined: 19-December 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


In order for the chart to be less stale, I think it would be a good idea to start with the 100:1 ratio when a song is first released, then reduce (or should that be increase?) the ratio after it's been in the top 40 for a certain number of weeks. At least we might get rid of the Justin Bieber-type songs faster then! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FleetSeb
post May 13 2016, 07:32 PM
Post #13
BuzzJack Enthusiast
****
Group: Members
Posts: 654
Member No.: 17,989
Joined: 13-December 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


But you still can't have as big an impact in a single week on a single song with streaming than you can buying. Let's say I love Justin Timberlake's new song, and let's say I had the time to stream it 10 times a day for 7 days of the week, that still only makes 0.7 of a sale. I doubt many people, if any, have the time to listen to a song 10 times a day for a week (apart from maybe the super fans who play it for 30 seconds or whatever it is). I reckon for a song I like I probably end up listening to it 60-80 times during a 3 month chart run so still less impact than a sale, and I reckon that is probably true of your average 20-40 something who is busy at work. So I would say the streaming ratio works - it's just that a lot more people that listen to music regularly stream but that is merely reflective of today's world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post May 20 2016, 06:18 AM
Post #14
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,251
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


Maybe it's just my age, but IMO streaming is little different to listening to a song on the radio. To me it shows a lack of commitment to a song - very different from actually purchasing it. That's partly why I consider the 100-1 ratio far too generous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doctor Blind
post May 20 2016, 06:20 AM
Post #15
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
******
Group: Members
Posts: 10,165
Member No.: 7,561
Joined: 27-October 08
   No Gallery Pics
 


No, the ratio was developed and based on revenue and it works reasonably well. To tinker with the chart to account for the increasing popularity of a particular format is ludicrous and would effectively take out the part of the chart that is most representative of popularity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post May 20 2016, 07:09 AM
Post #16
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,251
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ May 20 2016, 07:20 AM) *
No, the ratio was developed and based on revenue and it works reasonably well. To tinker with the chart to account for the increasing popularity of a particular format is ludicrous and would effectively take out the part of the chart that is most representative of popularity.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hayzayy
post May 20 2016, 07:15 AM
Post #17
Who's Daniel btw ?
******
Group: Members
Posts: 15,210
Member No.: 1,804
Joined: 28-October 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ May 20 2016, 07:09 AM) *
But I don't regard streaming as an good means of assessing the true popularity of a song.


That's a bit silly to say... Streaming = popularity, and I don't see how anyone could deny it. And that comes from someone who would have liked to keep a sale only chart.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidsanta
post May 20 2016, 07:35 AM
Post #18
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 20,251
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(Hayzayy @ May 20 2016, 08:15 AM) *
That's a bit silly to say... Streaming = popularity, and I don't see how anyone could deny it. And that comes from someone who would have liked to keep a sale only chart.


But IMO the charts should be about how *many* people like a song, not how *much* they do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjork
post May 20 2016, 07:57 AM
Post #19
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 4,158
Member No.: 22,665
Joined: 13-November 15
   No Gallery Pics
 


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

its sad to see that a song like Justin's is #1 on itunes with such a lead and cannot get #1 overall, or Reggie & Bollie #5 on itunes but not even top 20 overall... but thats itunes fault for being too greedy with their prices


This post has been edited by Bjork: May 20 2016, 08:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JCM20
post May 20 2016, 08:17 AM
Post #20
BuzzJack Enthusiast
****
Group: Members
Posts: 688
Member No.: 22,819
Joined: 1-January 16
   No Gallery Pics
 


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

its sad to see that a song like Justin's is #1 on itunes with such a lead and cannot get #1 overall, or Reggie & Bollie #5 on itunes but not even top 20 overall... but thats itunes fault for being too greedy with their prices


99p is unreasonable?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 12th December 2017 - 02:45 AM