I was wondering if there ever be a 59p chart I know it sounds a bit stupid, but it would stop some of the old music clogging up the official chart, what are your views on this.

 

I would rather see new releases having more success some tracks tend to miss out on a top 40 hit.

The thing is, some new-ish releases are reduced to 59p, like Paramore's 'Still Into You' for example, so it wouldn't be fair for them to lose all chart success. Also, it's only a handful of the 59p songs that actually make the Top 100 - there's many which don't even make it to the Top 1000 on iTunes!

Doesn't America have a similar chart for the old releases, or do they just do it for the album chart?

 

I think we should do that.

How do you distinguish between a random price cut for an old song and a price cut for a new song to help it? I agree it can get annoying sometimes, but in these hard economic times, its natural that people would want something a bit cheaper.

Doesn't America have a similar chart for the old releases, or do they just do it for the album chart?

 

I think we should do that.

 

They exclude songs that have 20+ weeks on the Hot 100 and are outside the top 50 and decreasing. The recurrent album chart was abolished around the time of Michael Jackson's death IIRC and the US album chart now works exactly like the UK's.

 

I am against ever excluding anything short of free downloads from the chart. If songs happen to be in the top 40 biggest sellers purely due to a price discount then so be it. The same thing is seen in the album chart every January. I think they should get rid of the budget album chart personally, it's not like budget albums constantly dominate the album chart (in fact they're pretty much never selling enough to even be top 10).

Edited June 7, 201312 yr by Bré

I was wondering if there ever be a 59p chart I know it sounds a bit stupid, but it would stop some of the old music clogging up the official chart, what are your views on this.

 

I would rather see new releases having more success some tracks tend to miss out on a top 40 hit.

 

1. Not all download sites charge the same amount, so it would be unfair, and

2. Disallowing singles from the chart would discourage discounting.

 

Doesn't America have a similar chart for the old releases, or do they just do it for the album chart?

 

I think we should do that.

 

There already *is* such a chart : http://www.officialcharts.com/heritage-charts/

Can someone start doing a weekly 59p buzzjack chart Top 40 that tells us what the chart looks like in terms of the 59p songs? That would be cool. I would do it but I'd be very unreliable.

Edited June 7, 201312 yr by CallumTheSats4

59p songs are having a great effect on songs in the chart, random songs are appearing up to #50 etc because sales within that region are quite low and extremely close. If I was a record label, I would reduce some songs to 59p and take advantage of this...

 

I'm sure John Legend has been 59p for over a month and he's most likely gathered over 20,000+ sales.

I don't think a seperate chart would be good at all - for me, the top 40 should be made up of the top 40 songs that the public have bought. If you exclude certain songs, then you're distorting the truth. It's what I don't like about Billboard Hot 100 - what the actual public doesn't matter to some extent, so long as radios are hammering it. Charts should always be what the people are buying in my eyes.

I'm sure John Legend has been 59p for over a month and he's most likely gathered over 20,000+ sales.

 

33k, in fact.

I don't think a seperate chart would be good at all - for me, the top 40 should be made up of the top 40 songs that the public have bought. If you exclude certain songs, then you're distorting the truth. It's what I don't like about Billboard Hot 100 - what the actual public doesn't matter to some extent, so long as radios are hammering it. Charts should always be what the people are buying in my eyes.

 

I think it has to be based on sales, really, regardless of price. They talked about this in the 90's a lot when heavy discounting first week of release distorted the chart massively. Records virtually never climbed the charts at it's worst. I guess at least a quarter of Britney's "Baby One More Time" sales were 99p at a time when full price was 2.99 or 3.99. Compared to previous decades, and especially with inflation, music has never been cheaper, so really singles are all budget prices from a 1999 point of view....

 

That said, the way records hang about for 6 months or more is quite tedious, but then again at least you aren't forced to buy albums anymore to get one track after a single had been deleted deliberately to make you do that...

 

yay!

That said, the way records hang about for 6 months or more is quite tedious, but then again at least you aren't forced to buy albums anymore to get one track after a single had been deleted deliberately to make you do that...

 

yay!

 

Not that it *did*, anyway - people just pirated them... :P

A 59p chart would be a terrible idea. If a song is within the top 40 best-selling songs of the week, it should be in the official chart regardless.

 

Anyway, back when CDs were popular, I don't recall a £1.99/£2.99 singles chart being brought in.

Edited June 7, 201312 yr by SceneofSIXCrimes

There already *is* such a chart : http://www.officialcharts.com/heritage-charts/

 

How is 'Panic Cord' heritage already? Hasn't it been out less weeks than Paramore?

How is 'Panic Cord' heritage already? Hasn't it been out less weeks than Paramore?

 

It was available on one of her EPs that was released ages ago (though the EPs were taken down from iTunes ahead of the release of 'Panic Cord', hence why it wasn't charting until its single release).

It was available on one of her EPs that was released ages ago (though the EPs were taken down from iTunes ahead of the release of 'Panic Cord', hence why it wasn't charting until its single release).

Damn, was just about to say that! :P

It was available on one of her EPs that was released ages ago (though the EPs were taken down from iTunes ahead of the release of 'Panic Cord', hence why it wasn't charting until its single release).

 

Ah fair enough :lol: thank you

Well it could also be like a German chart where tha positions are based on revenue rather than on sales. It would hinder a bit the price discount effects BUT also on other hand could be less objective, as one sale is one sale, if 50,000 people bought a song then they bought it regardless of the price.

^ I'd be interested to see a chart based on revenue rather than sales, that would take out the 'unfair' advantage of discounting without excluding them.

Edited June 8, 201312 yr by RabbitFurCoat

I used to think, at the height of CD Singles sales, that sales should be weighted on how much is paid for them.

 

"Wannabe" was 99p in it's first week (debuted at #3 that week) & I think I bought Robbie Williams' "Freedom" for £1.99 for each CDS while other older hits were £2.99/£3.99 (I'd paid £4.49 for a CDS of a dance act & it had about 7 shit mixes on it).

So I thought you could set the standard price at £2.99 which would count for 1 sale and if a record company was heavily discounting to get an act into the charts then 99p would count as 1/3 of a sale, £1.99 2/3s although anything over £2.99 would still count for 1 sale.

 

In this day & age there'd be less impact if a 59p song counted as 0.6 of a sale, it might even the playing field though & stop older hits entering the Top 10 for 1 week & then disappearing until they're on X Factor/BGT/The voice again.

Hardly any new releases are 79p never mind 59p.

 

Does anyone know the reasons why record companies slash the price to 59p?

I presumed it was for artists who were about to come back with new material to remind people of their biggest hits & to generate interest in their greatest hits

Or possibly it sold that much back in the day that taking a reduced profit is of little consequence.

 

Edit - I should read all entries before posting!

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by stebags