April 19, 201411 yr I don't know about anyone else but I often view a track on YouTube for less than 30 seconds or 1 minute max, because it's either a crap (quality wise) or the wrong thing! Presumably such things count as a view. Is it the same with streaming sites. Does a 30 second listen count as a view? Could the charts be fixed by doing that?
April 19, 201411 yr I don't know about anyone else but I often view a track on YouTube for less than 30 seconds or 1 minute max, because it's either a crap (quality wise) or the wrong thing! Presumably such things count as a view. Is it the same with streaming sites. Does a 30 second listen count as a view? Could the charts be fixed by doing that? I think a 30 second listen on any site would count as a view. But an individual person can't fix the charts with streaming, since all the major sites have precautions to prevent it. On Youtube you could get yourself views easily back in 2007, but it was a long time ago they started doing things to prevent it. No way would any major streaming site today allow you to play a song on repeat all day and count those as streams. The charts have constantly been getting rigged in recent years anyway thanks to Facebook campaigns and things like that, so I don't think it would make much of a difference (if anything, I think it might be easier to fix the chart with sales than it is with streams). The main difference streaming would make is that the charts would become even slower. :(
April 19, 201411 yr Here streaming is included in album chart and it's as lively as ever but also more reflecting what's actually popular http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/albumit/2014/15 The biggest problem is that nobody knows what is the mysterious "streaming ratio" (stream vs sale) Edited April 19, 201411 yr by SKOB
April 23, 201411 yr Just had a thought streaming might make the top 5 at Christmas the normal old xmas classics. I know they get top 20-ish on sales, but surely they would get streamed more as people don't wanna buy them as they are redundant for 11 months of the year.
April 24, 201411 yr Just had a thought streaming might make the top 5 at Christmas the normal old xmas classics. I know they get top 20-ish on sales, but surely they would get streamed more as people don't wanna buy them as they are redundant for 11 months of the year. That's a very good point. As I said, the main difference in counting sales and streams - you can influence the chart with your streaming for years and years without actually buying a song. 'Fairytale...' and 'All I Want...' for the top-5 this year? :lol:
April 24, 201411 yr I think it would more accurately reflect the december charts imo, Fairytale & All I Want are massive up until 25th!
April 24, 201411 yr I think it would more accurately reflect the december charts imo, Fairytale & All I Want are massive up until 25th! but i bought them 20 years ago - i play them at christmas but that's not a repeat sale. why shouldn't my plays count towards the chart too (having actually paid for them, I feel on higher moral ground).... :lol:
April 24, 201411 yr And here we come to the conclusion that ideally to measure the on-time popularity of songs we should count every play that is made by every user from the legal purchases... :lol: But the fact is, measuring the charts only by sales will only get more irrelevant with the years. Sales are down by about 10% this year in singles, while the streaming is on its highest and still tends to grow. With all of the massive deficiencies of the streaming it should be included in some sort of way. UK won't come to the the current US chart situation (where the top-10 is seemingly dead with almost no movement there at all) because it has always been more volatile, and with a much less population. But the chart will be much more dull - fact - but more representative of public's taste.
May 21, 201411 yr Any update on when the UK Official Chart will add streaming to the Singles Chart? p.s. A huge milestone for Spotify and the music industry was announced today. January, 2010:------------ 250,000 paying subscribers March 17, 2010:----------- 320,000 July 20, 2010: ---------------- 500,000 Dec 8, 2010: ---------------- 750,000 March 8, 2011:--------------- 1,000,000 July 14, 2011: -----------------1,600,000 Sept 21, 2011: --------------- 2,000,000 Nov 23, 2011: ----------------2,500,000 Jan 26, 2012: -----------------3,000,000 July 31, 2012:-----------------4,000,000 Dec 6, 2012: ------------------5,000,000 March 12, 2013:---------------6,000,000 May 21, 2014:----------------10,000,000 paying subscribers Edited May 21, 201411 yr by Dust2
May 21, 201411 yr Anyone know if this is happening then>?> From those figures it should have happened in 2011!!
May 21, 201411 yr They've marketed Spotify really well when you think about it. I remember I was always hearing about it back in 2009/2010 from music publications, it's kind of surprising it was so talked about with relatively few suscribers at the time.
May 22, 201411 yr before anyone get excited about this I suggest logging onto this weeks top 100 streaming chart: http://www.officialcharts.com/official-streaming-chart/ oh it's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring. The future of the singles chart is...nothing happens for months on end. Just like the USA. So many old tracks refusing to go away, so unless they do chart change rule (as USA) where once a record drops out the 50 it can't re-enter. Which then ceases to be a real chart, it's a chart plus breakers...
May 22, 201411 yr Would streaming be included in the album chart at all? They include it in Sweden and the chart is beyond pointless now, I think Rihanna's Unapologetic has moved about 5 positions all year.
May 23, 201411 yr They include it in Sweden and the chart is beyond pointless now, I think Rihanna's Unapologetic has moved about 5 positions all year. Doesn't that mean that the album is popular? People are streaming it. Which generate money. If Unapologetic is the #30 most streamed album that week, it means that it makes #30 most money for an album. Edited May 23, 201411 yr by Dust2
May 23, 201411 yr Doesn't that mean that the album is popular? People are streaming it. Which generate money. If Unapologetic is the #30 most streamed album that week, it means that it makes #30 most money for an album. they thought about basing charts on revenue in the 90's when singles charted by being available for £1 and outcompeting the normally priced singles (for a week only usually) of £4. I'd be interested to see whether Spotify & co pay the same rates across the board per play per track or whether they do batch deals regardless of plays or varies per artist. I doubt it would come close to the revenue an album sale generates - and as we've discussed before, repeat plays on sales don't count, which is all spotify is at the end of the day - the same people playing the same tracks week after week and distorting the charts. At least with sales charts it's genuine NEW people buying the tracks week after week, so it's a more accurate chart of current taste.
May 23, 201411 yr I heard that Big Top 40 will be including the BuzzJack Multichart for the Top 10 - but will discount Bre's chart on taste and decency (and because he keeps making unfunny !!!1!! jokes about OA/OS that weren't funny in 2011 and are beyond parody that even Adbul Fareek would call crap in 2014).
May 23, 201411 yr Doesn't that mean that the album is popular? People are streaming it. Which generate money. If Unapologetic is the #30 most streamed album that week, it means that it makes #30 most money for an album. Artists and labels earn very little from streaming compared to downloads and CD sales.
Create an account or sign in to comment