yes, the OCC claim that they can't (or won't) separate the sales

I think it has to be a matter of will not rather than can not. They could easily allocate a separate reference code (or whatever they use) to sales of the separate track to distinguish them from pre-orders of teh album. For a brief moment I thought my prayers had been answered and some unexpected release was going to prevent brit.i.am from getting to number one :(

I think it has to be a matter of will not rather than can not. They could easily allocate a separate reference code (or whatever they use) to sales of the separate track to distinguish them from pre-orders of teh album. For a brief moment I thought my prayers had been answered and some unexpected release was going to prevent brit.i.am from getting to number one :(

 

Maybe its time for OCC to drop that silly rule. For a minute there I was expecting David Bowie at #1 this week, until I read all the kerfuffle behind it, that would really be the best #1 of the year.

Maybe its time for OCC to drop that silly rule. For a minute there I was expecting David Bowie at #1 this week, until I read all the kerfuffle behind it, that would really be the best #1 of the year.

I don't think it's a silly rule. Although you buy that song for example for 99p with the pre-order, BUT you can download the album with a price minus 99p, that would mean, you buy 2 things for one. That would be unfair to count twice although you bought it only once and it would be unfair to the regular singles, songs, albums that chart normally without an offer.

 

It's another thing that OCC shouldn't be lazy and should count the purchases that aren't part of the offer.

I don't think it's a silly rule. Although you buy that song for example for 99p with the pre-order, BUT you can download the album with a price minus 99p, that would mean, you buy 2 things for one. That would be unfair to count twice although you bought it only once and it would be unfair to the regular singles, songs, albums that chart normally without an offer.

 

It's another thing that OCC shouldn't be lazy and should count the purchases that aren't part of the offer.

 

This is true, no way is it fair to regular singles!

 

 

I don't have a problem with them discounting album pre-orders from it, that shouldn't count as a sale for the track after all. However, it's completely obvious that they could separate these from genuine downloads of the song in question and they just can't be bothered. Chances are that Bowie wouldn't sell more copies than "Scream and Shout" this week anyway but that's besides the point, the rule needs looking at.

Another good reason Big Top 40 will again get double the listeners of Radio One. A new shite presenter & a top 40, biased to stupid blown out rules.

 

Consider January 74 & 75. Christmas is well over, but shops cut the price of Christmas titles to clear. What happens? 2 false number ones into mid January. And that was a carve up. Mr Bowie a lesser fix than that one. 44 years in & still about as good as the day it started.

 

Sitting round the radio on Sunday 16th February 1969. Alan Freeman: "We've got brand new computerised chart for you, compiled by the British Market Research Bureau". Though they weren't propared to make an understandable explanation, why they have difficultities getting sales info on the Mrs Robinson E.P. Number 19 in the final BBC Top 30 & not even in the top 60, for BMRB (as apparently they couldn't track E.Ps). An event that lasted 6 years. Official? What's official about something that doesn't include certain paid for titles? It's like going to speak to a Policeman, that refuses to tell you what time it is, as he hasn't got a watch!

 

Then we shouldn't forget ageism rules ok in the singles chart. Like Doctpr Blind says, the charts mean nothing & I doubt Bowie had any say in how his release is handle. I give you, it's a gimmick, but what isn't? X Factor is a gimmick, but they let the talentless shite into the charts, increased by big physical sales, which should be stopped immediately & the download era, run on it's own, for then Gabrielle Aplin would not of falsely gone to #1, with her gimmick of being released in John Lewis, for commercial purposes. Argh!

Edited January 8, 201313 yr by davetaylor

Frankly, the rules are known and if Bowie was that arsed about having a Top 10 hit, he would have made the single available to download seperately. Chart positions mean little or nothing today really.

Another good reason Big Top 40 will again get double the listeners of Radio One. A new shite presenter & a top 40, biased to stupid blown out rules.

 

Consider January 74 & 75. Christmas is well over, but shops cut the price of Christmas titles to clear. What happens? 2 false number ones into mid January. And that was a carve up. Mr Bowie a lesser fix than that one. 44 years in & still about as good as the day it started.

 

Sitting round the radio on Sunday 16th February 1969. Alan Freeman: "We've got brand new computerised chart for you, compiled by the British Market Research Bureau". Though they weren't propared to make an understandable explanation, why they have difficultities getting sales info on the Mrs Robinson E.P. Number 19 in the final BBC Top 30 & not even in the top 60, for BMRB (as apparently they couldn't track E.Ps). An event that lasted 6 years. Official? What's official about something that doesn't include certain paid for titles? It's like going to speak to a Policeman, that refuses to tell you what time it is, as he hasn't got a watch!

 

Then we shouldn't forget ageism rules ok in the singles chart. Like Doctpr Blind says, the charts mean nothing & I doubt Bowie had any say in how his release is handle. I give you, it's a gimmick, but what isn't? X Factor is a gimmick, but they let the talentless shite into the charts, increased by big physical sales, which should be stopped immediately & the download era, run on it's own, for then Gabrielle Aplin would not of falsely gone to #1, with her gimmick of being released in John Lewis, for commercial purposes. Argh!

How was Gabrielle Aplin a false number one? Her song sold more than any other that week so it was number one. The same applies to Christmas releases that continue to sell into January.

 

As for the first point, I doubt the majority of listeners to either chart show will be aware of the rules.

I think it has to be a matter of will not rather than can not. They could easily allocate a separate reference code (or whatever they use) to sales of the separate track to distinguish them from pre-orders of teh album.

 

 

It may not be an OCC thing, it could be that iTunes will not provide the data seperately

But we got seperate data for Coldplay's 'Paradise', I believe. But I don't think we got it until Coldplay hit number 1 with it...

Another good reason Big Top 40 will again get double the listeners of Radio One. A new shite presenter & a top 40, biased to stupid blown out rules.

 

Consider January 74 & 75. Christmas is well over, but shops cut the price of Christmas titles to clear. What happens? 2 false number ones into mid January. And that was a carve up. Mr Bowie a lesser fix than that one. 44 years in & still about as good as the day it started.

 

Sitting round the radio on Sunday 16th February 1969. Alan Freeman: "We've got brand new computerised chart for you, compiled by the British Market Research Bureau". Though they weren't propared to make an understandable explanation, why they have difficultities getting sales info on the Mrs Robinson E.P. Number 19 in the final BBC Top 30 & not even in the top 60, for BMRB (as apparently they couldn't track E.Ps). An event that lasted 6 years. Official? What's official about something that doesn't include certain paid for titles? It's like going to speak to a Policeman, that refuses to tell you what time it is, as he hasn't got a watch!

 

Then we shouldn't forget ageism rules ok in the singles chart. Like Doctpr Blind says, the charts mean nothing & I doubt Bowie had any say in how his release is handle. I give you, it's a gimmick, but what isn't? X Factor is a gimmick, but they let the talentless shite into the charts, increased by big physical sales, which should be stopped immediately & the download era, run on it's own, for then Gabrielle Aplin would not of falsely gone to #1, with her gimmick of being released in John Lewis, for commercial purposes. Argh!

Ageism? Sorry Dave that's crap. I think you don't understand this pre-order situation. I give you an example:

 

I offer you a package of donuts, 12 inside. If you order the package in my shop I will send you with express service one donut of the package and send you a week later the remaining 11.

As my application can't identify if it was a purchase of 1 donut or one from a package, it will be listed on the sales chart of my shop but also it will be shown as 1 sale of the package.

So is it 1 sale of an individual purchase or 1 sale of the package or in fact both?

Another good reason Big Top 40 will again get double the listeners of Radio One. A new shite presenter & a top 40, biased to stupid blown out rules.

 

Consider January 74 & 75. Christmas is well over, but shops cut the price of Christmas titles to clear. What happens? 2 false number ones into mid January. And that was a carve up. Mr Bowie a lesser fix than that one. 44 years in & still about as good as the day it started.

 

Sitting round the radio on Sunday 16th February 1969. Alan Freeman: "We've got brand new computerised chart for you, compiled by the British Market Research Bureau". Though they weren't propared to make an understandable explanation, why they have difficultities getting sales info on the Mrs Robinson E.P. Number 19 in the final BBC Top 30 & not even in the top 60, for BMRB (as apparently they couldn't track E.Ps). An event that lasted 6 years. Official? What's official about something that doesn't include certain paid for titles? It's like going to speak to a Policeman, that refuses to tell you what time it is, as he hasn't got a watch!

 

Then we shouldn't forget ageism rules ok in the singles chart. Like Doctpr Blind says, the charts mean nothing & I doubt Bowie had any say in how his release is handle. I give you, it's a gimmick, but what isn't? X Factor is a gimmick, but they let the talentless shite into the charts, increased by big physical sales, which should be stopped immediately & the download era, run on it's own, for then Gabrielle Aplin would not of falsely gone to #1, with her gimmick of being released in John Lewis, for commercial purposes. Argh!

Absolute shite. Firstly, the '70s example is irrelevant given the way the chart is compiled now is completely different.

 

Secondly, it's not an ageist tactic - Coldplay have fallen foul of it twice, and as someone else said it's hilariously easy to avoid if you're that obsessed with chart positions.

 

Is the Big Top 40 not the chart that regularly has songs charting twice in the same countdown because it uses different systems for the top 10 and the rest of the chart? The Official Chart is as democratic as you're ever going to reasonably get, this pre-order rule is one of very few silly ones left in and it eliminates maybe half a dozen songs a year. Plus, as we've already said, it's entirely avoidable.

It seems EXTREMELY rich to accuse the OCC top 40 of being "biased to stupid blown out rules" as an argument in favour of the Big Top 40.

Another good reason Big Top 40 will again get double the listeners of Radio One. A new shite presenter & a top 40, biased to stupid blown out rules.

 

Consider January 74 & 75. Christmas is well over, but shops cut the price of Christmas titles to clear. What happens? 2 false number ones into mid January. And that was a carve up. Mr Bowie a lesser fix than that one. 44 years in & still about as good as the day it started.

 

Sitting round the radio on Sunday 16th February 1969. Alan Freeman: "We've got brand new computerised chart for you, compiled by the British Market Research Bureau". Though they weren't propared to make an understandable explanation, why they have difficultities getting sales info on the Mrs Robinson E.P. Number 19 in the final BBC Top 30 & not even in the top 60, for BMRB (as apparently they couldn't track E.Ps). An event that lasted 6 years. Official? What's official about something that doesn't include certain paid for titles? It's like going to speak to a Policeman, that refuses to tell you what time it is, as he hasn't got a watch!

 

Then we shouldn't forget ageism rules ok in the singles chart. Like Doctpr Blind says, the charts mean nothing & I doubt Bowie had any say in how his release is handle. I give you, it's a gimmick, but what isn't? X Factor is a gimmick, but they let the talentless shite into the charts, increased by big physical sales, which should be stopped immediately & the download era, run on it's own, for then Gabrielle Aplin would not of falsely gone to #1, with her gimmick of being released in John Lewis, for commercial purposes. Argh!

 

 

You say that as if the charts aren't a manipulated entity all 52 weeks of the year. It's all false because it's all based on marketing budgets and exposure.

Maybe if the David Bowie song continues selling then the OCC may have a rethink because at the end of the day the song is still being paid for as an individual download with the purchase price removed from the cost of the album once it's available something many of use do throughout the course of the year when we use the iTunes 'Complete My Album' option the only real difference is that the record company are manipulating which song you can instantly download but they have manipulated the charts since they began anyway :lol:

 

If this had of been made available as a single then I'm sure it would have had an horrific chart run and I'm sure the record company would rather flog thousands of Bowie album downloads for £11 rather than the same amount of a 99p single.

Yep. Same thing happened to Madonna 'Give Me Your Luvin'' I believe. It was available to download seperately at 99p, but it was also given away as soon as you pre-ordered 'MDNA'. It didn't chart (officially) until the album was made available.

 

It actually charted a month before the album came out! Her label ended that offer within a week, and made 'GMAYL' available separately to the album pre-order. So 'GMAYL' entered at #37 a week after being uneligible to chart.

:cheer: :dance:

I'm surprised you like a song featuring the R-word! :o Are you broadening your horizons?! :kink:

 

Pleasing to see "Scream & Shout" at #1, it's neither artist's best, but if it gets Britney another big hit, I'm fine with it :D

Scream & Shout is grating on me slightly but I need to see Britney be big again, and if this helps her then I am all for it!

It may not be an OCC thing, it could be that iTunes will not provide the data seperately

There are two separate entries in the iTunes chart so they are clearly collecting separate figures. It is then a question of whether the OCC allow for two different codes for the same song or only collect the data for eligible sales. The rule itself makes sense - some people are buying the album but paying for it in two instalmentds and receiving it in two parts - but ecxcluding all sales is daft.

@britneyspears: Hugs and kisses to all my fans in the UK and the rest of the world for supporting #ScreamAndShout.