Am I right in thinking that the David Bowie single only included the single track downloads, but they changed the rule after that to include the album pre-order sales as well, because iTunes started charging you 99p for the instant grat. If that's the case, I think it kind of makes more sense to disqualify the single altogether rather than just include the single track downloads, because it just gets messy.

fairly simple: all tracks that are eligible to subsequent album discounts are not chart eligible because they aren't being purchased independently of the album. Record Companies should nominate where this is going to be the case and if they lie then both the single and album become chart ineligible on the grounds that it's neither one nor the other: it's either a single or it's an album. Where tracks are downloaded as singles, but not the whole album, and are not subjected to any "album discount" then they chart as singles.

 

That will stop most of the superstar chart manipulating free adverts going on. Then if acts wish to release a host of singles without album discounts, fine, that has always been the definition of a single. You pay for the single you pay for the album. No freebie's. no free hats, pcgames, posters, stickers or promises of eternal life. Just the single. Just the album.

Wait, If they can t separate the sales this time round then why would 'the monster' be chart eligible?

The whole situation is ludicrous. Looking at the latest itunes chart, Eminem has three tracks in the Top 10, but only one, Monster, is chart eligible.

 

It's about time the OCC and retailers started to collaborate to ensure that the singles chart is a proper representation of the best-selling tracks each week.

It's not between the OCC and the retailers, the rules are clear and if the record companies deliberately decide to strategise around these rules then the prime ones to blame for the current situation (if even you think there's a real issue out there) are the record companies.

The OCC rules are drawn-up by the big record companies and itunes essentially, just as they used to give away freebies to get singles into the chart, and release 4 different versions of the same lead cd single with crap remixes and throwaway rubbish extras to try and desperately grab a high chart place at the expense of their most-loyal fanbase. Then they would delete genuine hits to force you to buy the album when you just want the single. They then stopped releasing singles altogether to force you to buy the album. It's all about getting the maximum amount of dosh from the fans and expanding sales.

 

I have no respect for the artists allowing it to happen. Pet Shop Boys release a single? If it's off an album you get extra tracks (good quality not rubbish) and remixes from name remixers, so there's a reason to buy it. I see no reason, if you are a fan of Bieber Eminem Perry or Gaga to purchase a track you can get on the album a week or two later. Wait till they give you a reason to buy it, if you're a fan. I purchased Roar as it was a genuine single weeks ahead of the album, and Applause because I was hoping it would grow on me more than it did - I'm a fan of both acts and used to buy the albums. :(

Is it that hard to tweak iTunes so it displays which sales were album sales and which were individual? Should not be rocket science.

Seems like a rocket science to OCC.

 

Don't forget about Eminem guys, that he has 3 tracks in the top-10 mostly because all of them are given away for free, and only part of their sales are genuine. If iTunes counted only genuine sales, Eminem tracks would be far lower.

 

And instant grats may lead you to this sometime soon:

 

1 Eminem - The Monster (feat. Rihanna) 1.0000

2 Eminem - Survival 0.6633

3 Eminem - Rap God 0.6261

4 Eminem - Berzerk 0.5482

 

This is a Russian iTunes top-4.

They're not given away for free though!

 

See point #3: http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159255

Firstly could you maybe add a bit to the title? Perhaps add something like '(OCC chart rules controversy)' or some such. I only say this because I nearly overlooked this thread entirely because the phrase 'instant grats' meant nothing to me until today, and I suspect this is the case for at least some other members of this forum who would otherwise find this thread interesting and wish to contribute.

Secondly does anyone else get the impression that the OCC dislikes chartologists (particularly online ones like us) and deliberately introduces new complications and rules that result in hard to explain chart anomalies in a bid to discourage us from the whole subject? I mean if they could keep the numbers of chartologists to a minimum, or extinct us completely, then there is no leaking of their data and no unauthorised sharing of their charts, and of course no one to tell them when they've clearly made an error. I just feel that a decade ago you bought precisely one single or precisely one album and it (in nearly all retailers) counted in that week's chart as precisely one of whatever it was (subject only to the definition of single being governed by number of tracks and total length), but now there have been so many complications and changes of rules that have led to so many anomalies in the chart record that you need a lot of dedication to the subject nowadays to fully understand it all.

I haven't read the whole thread, but shall LAY my stance out on the table all the same.

 

I think it's a great idea to encourage people to buy albums, that market needs something, anything, to try and breath some life back into it. However, I don't think they should chart if you simply get the song as an instant reward for pre-ordering the album. Someone may pre-order an album that would never have bought the single individually and in that respect serves only to heighten record label propaganda of ''NUMBER ONE IN XX COUNTRIES'' and stuff.

Firstly could you maybe add a bit to the title? Perhaps add something like '(OCC chart rules controversy)' or some such. I only say this because I nearly overlooked this thread entirely because the phrase 'instant grats' meant nothing to me until today, and I suspect this is the case for at least some other members of this forum who would otherwise find this thread interesting and wish to contribute.

Good point. I've added a subtitle.

What happens if you pre-order the album and then other instant grat singles are released in subsequent weeks - are you automatically charged for them or are you sent an e-mail asking you whether you want it or something? And if there already more than one available when you pre-order the album, are you asked which ones you want to download now?

Edited November 3, 201311 yr by AcerBen

Do 'instant grat' tracks actually work, anyway?

 

I mean in the sense that you pre-ordered/bought an album that you wouldn't otherwise have bought at all?

 

After all, if they don't generate *extra* sales, what's the point?

What happens if you pre-order the album and then other instant grat singles are released in subsequent weeks - are you automatically charged for them or are you sent an e-mail asking you whether you want it or something? And if there already more than one available when you pre-order the album, are you asked which ones you want to download now?

I asked about this the other day, but no-one replied.

 

Has anyone on this thread pre-ordered Lady GaGa's album on iTunes?

 

If so, were you charged when 'Dope' became available?

 

I think potentially you could be charged 99p every week and could end up paying £3.96 before you know it.

 

 

 

Sorry if this has been asked already - But since Eminem's album is out tomorrow and Berzerk, Rap God and Survival will be eligible again, will their sales only count from Tuesday onwards, or will the chart include today's and yesterday's sales as well?

Sorry if this has been asked already - But since Eminem's album is out tomorrow and Berzerk, Rap God and Survival will be eligible again, will their sales only count from Tuesday onwards, or will the chart include today's and yesterday's sales as well?

 

 

Good question, I think they count from tomorrow, but I'm not 100% sure.

Good question, I think they count from tomorrow, but I'm not 100% sure.

It should be tomorrow, that's if the OCC can separate the sales :lol:

 

 

They're not given away for free though!

 

See point #3: http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159255

In the end, they are, as once the album becomes eligible, you will only pay for the album but not for the album + singles. While in the chart the album + 1 instant grat single will be counted.

I asked about this the other day, but no-one replied.

 

Has anyone on this thread pre-ordered Lady GaGa's album on iTunes?

 

If so, were you charged when 'Dope' became available?

 

I think potentially you could be charged 99p every week and could end up paying £3.96 before you know it.

 

I haven't pre-ordered it but it works in the same way as Complete My Album, so you'll be charged for each track individually and then the rest of the money will be taken when the album is out. You're still paying the same amount.