Singles/Albums landmarks '09-'12 - Now see website! - Page 2 - UK Charts

February 23, 201213 yr

Maybe I'm misunderstanding these figures. Are you listing the number of singles that sold over 100k, 200k etc... each week throughout the year?

Only reason for being unsure if because Coldplay 'Paradise' sold over 100k when it was #1 yet for Week 1 and 2 for 2012 you have 100k down as 0? Coldplay was no. 1 on 1st January so don't know which week that would come under (are you using w/b dates or w/e dates?)

What do the numbers represent if it isn't total number of singles selling over 100k and so on?

>100k

Week : '12 - '11 - '10 - '09
1 : 0 - 0 - 1 - 1
2 : 0 - 1 - 2 - 2

That week is counted as the last of 2011 in vidcapper's (and the OCC's) figures.

February 23, 201213 yr

Ah right, that explains everything.

45 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7

46 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7

47 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7

48 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 7

49 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 8

50 : ?? - 18 - 16 - 8

51 : ?? - 18 - 18 - 9

52 : ?? - 23 - 18 - 12

Singles sales really did increase last year. Seven consecutive years of 18 tracks selling over 500k, then we get 23 in 2012. Will be interesting to see how many singles in 2012 sell 500k+ :D

February 23, 201213 yr

Ah right, that explains everything.

45 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
46 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
47 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
48 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 7
49 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 8
50 : ?? - 18 - 16 - 8
51 : ?? - 18 - 18 - 9
52 : ?? - 23 - 18 - 12

Singles sales really did increase last year. Seven consecutive years of 18 tracks selling over 500k, then we get 23 in 2012. Will be interesting to see how many singles in 2012 sell 500k+ :D

You're still reading it wrong :kink: That's 7 consecutive weeks in 2011 that 18 were over 500k, then in the last week 5 more passed it. There were a total of 18 in 2010 and 12 in 2009.

Edited February 23, 201213 yr by Bré

February 23, 201213 yr

~~I DONT UNDERSTAND~~

I understand. Interesting! Looks like we're up on last year already!

Edited February 23, 201213 yr by jkac

February 23, 201213 yr

You're still reading it wrong :kink: That's 7 consecutive weeks in 2011 that 18 were over 500k, then in the last week 5 more passed it. There were a total of 18 in 2010 and 12 in 2009.

Maths never was my strongest subject. :drama:

February 24, 201213 yr

Author

Maybe I'm misunderstanding these figures. Are you listing the number of singles that sold over 100k, 200k etc... each week throughout the year?

Yes

Only reason for being unsure if because Coldplay 'Paradise' sold over 100k when it was #1 yet for Week 1 and 2 for 2012 you have 100k down as 0? Coldplay was no. 1 on 1st January so don't know which week that would come under (are you using w/b dates or w/e dates?)

In chart terms, the week that Coldplay were #1 counted towards 2011 sales, as the sales of that week covered 25th-31st December.

Ah right, that explains everything.

45 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
46 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
47 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
48 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 7
49 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 8
50 : ?? - 18 - 16 - 8
51 : ?? - 18 - 18 - 9
52 : ?? - 23 - 18 - 12

Singles sales really did increase last year. Seven consecutive years of 18 tracks selling over 500k, then we get 23 in 2012. Will be interesting to see how many singles in 2012 sell 500k+ :D

7 consecutive *weeks* of 18 songs over 500k, then 5 more passed it thanks to the post-Xmas rush.

February 24, 201213 yr

Author

I've now completed the same exercise for albums.

Rather than snow you under with data like last time, I'll just post the pre-Xmas rush totals, and the Y/E ones :

2011

Week >100k >200k >300k >400k >500k

Wk44 - 71 - 30 - 16 - 9 - 6

Wk52 - 123 - 56 - 35 - 21 - 13

*****

2010

Week >100k >200k >300k >400k >500k

Wk44 - 88 - 34 - 16 - 10 - 8

Wk52 - 134 - 64 - 35 - 23 - 16

*****

2009

Week >100k >200k >300k >400k >500k

Wk44 - 97 - 37 - 21 - 10 - 6

Wk53 - 152 - 74 - 43 - 31 - 20

Edited February 24, 201213 yr by vidcapper

February 24, 201213 yr

Ah right, that explains everything.

45 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
46 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
47 : ?? - 18 - 14 - 7
48 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 7
49 : ?? - 18 - 15 - 8
50 : ?? - 18 - 16 - 8
51 : ?? - 18 - 18 - 9
52 : ?? - 23 - 18 - 12

Singles sales really did increase last year. Seven consecutive years of 18 tracks selling over 500k, then we get 23 in 2012. Will be interesting to see how many singles in 2012 sell 500k+ :D

that's wrong on another level - in 2005 there's no way 18 singles sold over 500,000.... :lol:

February 24, 201213 yr

Author

Finally added to my website, complete with graphs! :cheer:

http://www.vidcapper.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/...velsSummary.mht

The effect of the Xmas run-up is especially noticeable on the higher sales levels for albums.

Edited February 24, 201213 yr by vidcapper

February 24, 201213 yr

This is what I get when I click on that link, vidcapper.....

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Document-Type: Workbook

Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CCF30B.FAE4F300"

This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer.

------=_NextPart_01CCF30B.FAE4F300

Content-Location: file:///C:/B10812B9/Saleslevelssummary.htm

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"

xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel"

xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>

<o:DocumentProperties>

<o:Author>Paul Hyett</o:Author>

<o:LastAuthor>Paul Hyett</o:LastAuthor>

<o:Created>2012-02-16T09:30:41Z</o:Created>

<o:LastSaved>2012-02-24T15:50:06Z</o:LastSaved>

<o:Company>n/a</o:Company>

<o:Version>11.5606</o:Version>

</o:DocumentProperties>

</xml><![endif]--><![if !supportTabStrip]>

<!--

var c_lTabs=3D12;

var c_rgszSh=3Dnew Array(c_lTabs);

c_rgszSh[0] =3D "Singles";

c_rgszSh[1] =3D "Albums";

c_rgszSh[2] =3D "S >100k";

c_rgszSh[3] =3D "S >200k";

c_rgszSh[4] =3D "S >300k";

c_rgszSh[5] =3D "S >400k";

c_rgszSh[6] =3D "S >500k";

c_rgszSh[7] =3D "A >100k";

c_rgszSh[8] =3D "A >200k";

c_rgszSh[9] =3D "A >300k";

c_rgszSh[10] =3D "A >400k";

c_rgszSh[11] =3D "A >500k";

February 24, 201213 yr

That's what I got

This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer.

So I did that and it worked. :P

February 24, 201213 yr

Any browsers that support it that AREN'T horrendous?

February 24, 201213 yr

That's what I got
So I did that and it worked. :P

I dont read code!

February 24, 201213 yr

Author

This is what I get when I click on that link, vidcapper.....

<snip>

Sorry, I didn't realise it'd be a problem. It was either that, or upload 10 separate graphs...

Any browsers that support it that AREN'T horrendous?

I wouldn't know - I only ever use IE.

If anyone whose browser can't read it, would like to see it, PM me your email addy & I can send you the original Excel spreadsheet.

Edited February 24, 201213 yr by vidcapper

February 26, 201213 yr

vidcapper you might get more responses if you write a paragraph or two first explaining what the figures actually mean. Judging by the comments so far everyone is understanding them completely differently, and no-one's understanding seems to be without a contradiction or problem somewhere. I have a background in advanced mathematics and many years of interest in chartology but have to confess to being unsure what you've actually calculated. Sorry I'm not meaning to pee on your parade just trying to be constructive. Apologies if I'm just being really dense tonight though.

February 26, 201213 yr

PS internet explorer doesn't support the file type of your link, despite the error message's insistence that it does.

February 26, 201213 yr

Correction, using compatability mode on Internet Explorer solved it. You must be using an old version of IE.

February 26, 201213 yr

Sorry to reply yet again but I think I get it now. For each sales landmark (say 100k), you're counting how many singles have sold at least that many copies across the entire year up to the week number in the first column. And the 12, 11, 10, 09 are the years so you are comparing this year to the last three years to see how many singles passed each landmark by the same given chart week in each year? Finally the tallies all reset to zero in week one of each year with no wrap around between years for releases that bridge two years, hence the Coldplay example appeared not to affect the tallies as it was released in 2011 but the week ended in 2012 so the tallies had gone back to zero. I thought originally that it was done on individual weekly sales, so that if two singles both sold 100k in that particular week then that week would be down as 2, but couldn't see how the figures were going above 1 or 2 in any week till I suddenly realised it was cumulative.

February 26, 201213 yr

Sorry one more question. If a single has sold say 205k, does it count in both the 100k and 200k columns since it has passed both landmarks, or do all singles only count in the column for the highest landmark reached?

February 26, 201213 yr

Author

vidcapper you might get more responses if you write a paragraph or two first explaining what the figures actually mean. Judging by the comments so far everyone is understanding them completely differently, and no-one's understanding seems to be without a contradiction or problem somewhere.

Yes, with hindsight that might have been a good idea. :P

Correction, using compatability mode on Internet Explorer solved it. You must be using an old version of IE.

I'm using IE8.

Sorry to reply yet again but I think I get it now. For each sales landmark (say 100k), you're counting how many singles have sold at least that many copies across the entire year up to the week number in the first column. And the 12, 11, 10, 09 are the years so you are comparing this year to the last three years to see how many singles passed each landmark by the same given chart week in each year? Finally the tallies all reset to zero in week one of each year with no wrap around between years for releases that bridge two years, hence the Coldplay example appeared not to affect the tallies as it was released in 2011 but the week ended in 2012 so the tallies had gone back to zero. I thought originally that it was done on individual weekly sales, so that if two singles both sold 100k in that particular week then that week would be down as 2, but couldn't see how the figures were going above 1 or 2 in any week till I suddenly realised it was cumulative.

Yes, you've got it.

Sorry one more question. If a single has sold say 205k, does it count in both the 100k and 200k columns since it has passed both landmarks, or do all singles only count in the column for the highest landmark reached?

Such a single would count in both/all columns it qualified for.

Sign In

Singles/Albums landmarks '09-'12 - Now see website!

Featured Replies

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

Account

Navigation

Search