 |
  |
| Streaming | General Discussion, FAQs, debates, etc. |
| Track this thread | Email this thread | Print this thread | Download this thread | Subscribe to this forum |
  10th January 2016, 03:24 PM
Post
#61
|
|
 BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 31 December 2007
Posts: 1,197 User: 5,152 
  |
It's worse in America.
If you stream a track it counts towards album sales (SEA) If you download a track it counts towards album sales (TEA) The Beatles 1 had 17,000 pure album sales yet ended up with 36,000 equivalent album sales on the Billboard Top 200 Christmas chart. I call that triple counting. I have heard of grade inflation at GCSE but this is ridiculous ... 
|
 |
 
|
|
10th January 2016, 03:53 PM
Post
#62
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
 |
QUOTE(edward @ Jan 9 2016, 09:02 PM)  I read that physical and digital sales still account for twice as much revenue as streaming but yet streaming seems to account for more than twice as much of the singles charts as sales. It seems to me the weighting for streaming is about 4-5 times too high currently. Streaming forms the greatest proportion of sales only outside the charts, though. Streaming forms only about 30% of sales of the top 5 - and BB (before Bieber)  , it was more like 25%. |
|
|
|
|
10th January 2016, 04:08 PM
Post
#63
|
|
 🔥🚀🔥
Joined: 30 August 2010
Posts: 74,863 User: 11,746
              |
Also for albums sales it's still massively dominated by physicals and to a lesser extent downloads.
I'm still confused with streaming being included in the album chart myself anyway, I think they should just keep that as a sales only chart but I can accept that isn't going to happen (well at least it doesn't dramatically change the albums chart). Even if that means album sales figures look crap. I'm 100% for streaming being included in the singles and streams of album tracks counting toward the singles chart though. |
|
|
|
|
10th January 2016, 05:48 PM
Post
#64
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,685 User: 10,275
   |
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jan 9 2016, 10:44 PM) Well it doesn't, it counts to all the albums from that artist it appears on plus the Greatest Hits. Crazy but true. I just think streaming shouldn't be incorporated into the album chart whatsoever - on the whole it isn't used to listen to albums and the only reason it is used is to artificially inflate figures. This is total bs. I use Spotify mainly to listen to albums. Currently listening to the latest album by Father John Misty. And quite a lot of people are listening to albums by Ed Sheeran and Justin Bieber for example. This post has been edited by SKOB: 10th January 2016, 05:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
10th January 2016, 06:48 PM
Post
#65
|
|
 #38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,199 User: 7,561
  |
QUOTE(SKOB @ Jan 10 2016, 05:48 PM) This is total bs. I use Spotify mainly to listen to albums. Currently listening to the latest album by Father John Misty. And quite a lot of people are listening to albums by Ed Sheeran and Justin Bieber for example. You're quite atypical then - most people listen to playlists. |
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 11:27 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Do you listen to music via streaming now, rather than via an iPod (or suchlike), simply because you know it'll count towards the charts?
|
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 11:41 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 18 October 2011
Posts: 152 User: 15,071 
  |
I only stream music on my desktop computer. It's either streaming (Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer) or my own iTunes library. I have an iPod Touch and I can stream at home where I have wifi. But otherwise I use iPod to listen to my own music.
I wouldn't stream from my cell phone even if I could. I wouldn't want to waste my phone battery on music. |
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 12:14 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 11 October 2013
Posts: 31,031 User: 19,931
  |
QUOTE(Doctor Blind @ Jan 10 2016, 06:48 PM) You're quite atypical then - most people listen to playlists. I always use it listen to albums too, I rarely click on the playlists. |
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 12:53 PM
Post
#69
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 31 December 2007
Posts: 1,197 User: 5,152
|
In the Billboard Top 200 albums chart this week,
33 The Beatles – 1 16,565 Equivalent Album Sales, 6,769 sales, 21,055 digital song sales, 11,536,866 streams track equivalent albums TEA 2,105 = 21,055/10 streaming equivalent albums SEA 7,691 = 11,536,866/1,500 EAS 16,565 = 6,769 + 2,105 + 7,691 Streaming songs and downloading tracks certainly boosts "sales" in the US. But it is the same for every album. BTW. The Beatles reached a quarter of a billion streams in 12 days worldwide in 9 streaming services. 
|
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 01:21 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 23,015 User: 17,376
 |
as Ive said before the HUGE difference between streaming charts and sales charts is the issue of repeat plays. A sale is a sale is a sale, it counts only once to the chart and thats the way it has always been. It kept the charts fresh (and the UK sales chart - which I still view as the REAL chart) is a damn sight fresher and kinder to both older established acts and newer acts. Streaming is essentially weighting the "charts" artifically towards (75%) what is still a minority interest (amongst the 15-25 year olds). The ratio of streaming is all wrong, it has swamped the sales chart out of the equation even though sales are not historically disastrous (yet).
The most negative aspect is the repeat plays for tracks months and years onward which keep them in the charts, for example the awful Cheerleader is listed as second best "selling" single of the year. No it isn't, it's the second-most STREAMED track of the year, not even close on real sales, and this is now reflected in Year-End charts where records from the first half of the year dominate because of all the streaming time they have had to accumulate "sales". Records released late in the year, which may have outsold them on downloads, just don't get the same opportunity to compete (though obviously they will pop up in the first half of 2016's charts long after they have peaked on downloads in 2015). I have very minor interest in how many times somebody listens to a track (not even The Beatles my all-time faves), sorry, old fashioned that way! 
|
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 02:59 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
You don't have to be fabulous to be good
Joined: 10 March 2008
Posts: 9,922 User: 5,591
  |
So yeah, the biggest streaming issue is that when it's brought we don't add like-a-like figures. We add initial buys with constant plays. It should be initial + initial or constant + constant. We should either:
a) somehow take into account the listens by bought songs throughout all the time being b) or only supply the first streams made by people. I’m actually for an (a) option, as the charts should genuinely show what people are listening to the most, which is the definition of most popular tracks. But I don’t know about the methodology which could calculate/estimate those listens by bought songs. I mean I have my iTunes plays by bought songs but how could they be submitted? Should pirate copies listens be submitted in that case? While to keep the charts fresher we could invent (as I said in some other thread) a “Breaking Chart” which takes into account sales as well as first streams by authorized users. But this should only be a side (not main) chart, as it loses a lot of data, so it’s a less accurate representation of what people are actually listening to. Ultimately it’s not a problem of streaming or how is it calculated. The main problem of actual chart is that it got uninteresting because it got stale. But it could be changed even if we only take streaming into account. For that the Radio 1 show should be changed to top-100 with only new entries / high climbers being played, plus the countdown of 11-40 region, plus the top-10. In current climate it is more or less of the same difficulty to enter the top-100 as it used to enter the top-40 before. Likewise, current top-20-25 should be treated as like a former top-10, top-40 – as a top-20 etc. And the chart show would be much more fresh and exciting to listen to. Times have changed – but the chart wasn’t adapted to them, in fact it got only worse with only top-25 now being played. |
|
|
|
|
15th January 2016, 09:18 PM
Post
#72
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 6 July 2015
Posts: 90 User: 22,084
|
QUOTE(Zárate @ Jan 15 2016, 02:59 PM) So yeah, the biggest streaming issue is that when it's brought we don't add like-a-like figures. We add initial buys with constant plays. It should be initial + initial or constant + constant. ... And the chart show would be much more fresh and exciting to listen to. Times have changed – but the chart wasn’t adapted to them, in fact it got only worse with only top-25 now being played. Many really good points in your post. I find the new Friday chart show an abomination, but I'm guessing that the Beeb are contracted to play a complete run down of the top hits as far as possible within the time constraints. Any other way of selecting the tracks moves away from pure chart and back into radio playlist territory. One of the things which has traditionally been exciting about the charts is the idea that they have to play a song if it is in there (of course they squirm out of it when they want e.g. "Ding Dong"). The problem with playing new entries is that there are a variable number (fewer and fewer these days) so it would make scheduling difficult. Breaking charts face the same problems of who does the selecting and, increasingly, how you define a new song given that tracks can hang around for months or even years before breaking through. As to your like-for-like point: I suppose that every good Belieber knows that what you do is download the album and then stream it every time you want to listen to it. Hell, you can even skip Sorry and Love Yourself because they won't count towards the album total. My point is that the chart only appears to be reflective of existing behaviour, what it actually does is change that behaviour. Streaming became popular because it's free essentially, but, like downloads a decade earlier, it was given legitimacy by its inclusion in the charts. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 10:00 AM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
The chart has had a fundamental shift in nature, thanks to streaming. Before, it was a once-off sale when a new song came out - if you wanted to listen to it endlessly after that, it was not a problem as it had no effect on the charts. Now though, it's more of a listen-to chart, than a measure of how many people like a song.
ISTM, at very least we need to adjust the ratio up from the current 100-1. When streaming was first added, just 20% of sales from the top 20 were from streaming, now just 18 months later, that ratio has almost doubled! Perhaps the ratio needs to be adjusted up to 150 or even 200 streams=1 sale? |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 10:57 AM
Post
#74
|
|
|
BuzzJack Climber
Joined: 18 October 2011
Posts: 152 User: 15,071
|
Nah, the current, 100'-1 ratio is easy to use. Streaming is taking over, there is no point in changing the ratio to support the dying format.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 02:50 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Mateja @ Jan 18 2016, 10:57 AM) Nah, the current, 100'-1 ratio is easy to use. Streaming is taking over, there is no point in changing the ratio to support the dying format. Maybe - but changes in chart rules have always been exploited, until the loopholes have been closed. IMO an absolute limit of 100 streams per track to count would allow newer songs a better chance to break through. |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 03:28 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 22 December 2009
Posts: 30,685 User: 10,275
|
OCC should consider including streaming on Soundcloud as well. Kanye West for example has only release his new songs there so far.
This post has been edited by SKOB: 18th January 2016, 03:28 PM |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 06:44 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 19 December 2015
Posts: 20,102 User: 22,776
 |
QUOTE(SKOB @ Jan 18 2016, 03:28 PM) OCC should consider including streaming on Soundcloud as well. Kanye West for example has only release his new songs there so far. yes! This would give a variety of music the chance to make an impact in the charts. someone pls forward this to OCC |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 08:08 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 529 User: 68
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 18 2016, 02:50 PM) Maybe - but changes in chart rules have always been exploited, until the loopholes have been closed. IMO an absolute limit of 100 streams per track to count would allow newer songs a better chance to break through. I think a limit would be nice, like 100 or something, but perhaps over let's say 180 day period or something. That would help a song that's popular once again in the future have another chart run. This post has been edited by house.martin: 18th January 2016, 09:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 08:16 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
I Drink Wine
Joined: 12 April 2015
Posts: 10,490 User: 21,753
  |
The problem of included streaming is that these charts are too slow compared with downloads. They need to come up with some sort of strategy to promote new songs on streaming to allow them to take off quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
18th January 2016, 08:34 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 24 March 2013
Posts: 2,134 User: 18,521
 |
Have Soundcloud started paying royalties yet? I presume that's why the OCC haven't included them previously, since they obviously know the site is there.
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 27th May 2024, 04:44 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
