Streaming sites having charts shows that people can be channelled into their music listening habits. It's like the download sites too. They rely on people not looking for records, just visiting the chart pages. It's long been recognised. How do you get the public to like your record? Answer make certain it's in the charts.

The fact that streaming sites adopted the habit of having charts is not accidental.

 

It's not that different to when you had to buy physical records/CDs, that record shops had their own charts (e.g. Woolworths, WH Smiths, HMV etc.) Put the ones you expect to sell most of (or have the biggest margin on) in the prime position.

 

 

Streaming is simply renting records and the public have not worked that out - YET.

 

I think they (we?) have worked that out, and that's what they like. Like it or not, it's the future.

 

 

I think they (we?) have worked that out, and that's what they like. Like it or not, it's the future.

 

I doubt that very much! Especially the bit about the public liking something they don't know they are paying for as they think it's free, due to advertising. It's obvious that people will stream records when otherwise they would have to pay 99p for them, but advertising simply doesn't expand to meet demand. So the gravy train for the free users will end soon.

 

Downloads were the future they said. Physical singles will vanish like the 78.

 

Things don't happen like people expect. You only have to look at films that predicted the future. I'm not flying in cars, and kids are not hovering on skateboards.

 

Streaming hasn't turned a corner yet and isn't Spotify loosing money? Things look rosy for streaming for the time being, but who would have predicted that download sales would start falling rapidly?

Edited July 26, 20159 yr by Graham A

Things don't happen like people expect. You only have to look at films that predicted the future. I'm not flying in cars, and kids are not hovering on skateboards.

 

But unlike these, streaming already exists.

 

It's only the matter of finding the correct business model and the music biz is working on that.

Edited July 26, 20159 yr by SKOB

Streaming's clearly going to be come more popular, but I think it's unlikely to completely wipe out CDs and downloads any time soon, because there are plenty of people out there who will never pay £10 a month. Some people are just happy to download the odd single now and then, or the odd Now compilation or Adele album, and just listen to those over and over.

Obviously, because LP hasn't died either, has it?

 

But different kind of music will succeed in different formats. If we are talking about current hits, it's all about streaming. If we are talking about an album by Michael Bublé or Bob Dylan, we are talking about physical product (mostly).

But unlike these, streaming already exists.

 

It's only the matter of finding the correct business model and the music biz is working on that.

 

I think you have misinterpreted my comment about the future.

What I was implying is the next logical step in the development of streaming isn't going to be that streaming might become the norm. As I said earlier people thought downloading would be the norm. Some kind of technological breakthrough might mean that streaming isn't needed anymore, just like downloads.

A whole sequence of events could happen that could put a nail in streaming's coffin. Some of these things won't even be connected to the music industry at all.

 

Another example of the future not going as planned...

At the moment Microsoft for example are looking great with the free windows 10. But what happens if when it comes out the computer nerds hate it! That could mean the end of Microsoft in a few weeks! You never no with history.

 

Your other statement implies that the music biz is working for the collective good of each other. That's complete bullshit! If Apple can get one over on Spotify they will. Since Apple want you to pay big time for streaming then, that will end the free service and I think the public will then look for something else to put their money in, leaving streaming with only say a small part of the music bizz.

When Apple brought out it's ipod they made certain other companies couldn't use it. That doesn't sound like some business being nice about the development of new projects.

Fair enough! I do think that all innovations aim at making things easier for consumers so they are the people who actually decide what becomes the norm. So I don't see any reason why consumers would stick with downloading individual tracks/albums when they have all the music available with streaming and just like that.

Edited July 27, 20159 yr by SKOB

I believe OA/OS must be a better approach from the consumer's - well, the downloader's - perspective, as it means one can buy the track just aired on radio or TV to own immediately, if that is one's preference. But despite Sony's brave move to revisit it, I am not convinced that the other majors will necessarily follow, as they are plainly still so wedded to the front-loaded marketing strategy for keenly-anticipated new singles in order to maximise their opening chart position. And it's little wonder when we still find that despite people claiming they get bored and move on before the track is available legally, and the option of the illegal route, AND the steady decline in downloading in favour of streaming, a significant number of people will still either pre-order or buy in that first week after 6-8 weeks waiting, and thereby maximise the initial chart entry position, in the most successful cases enough to make Number One. Even if Sony succeed in demonstrating that tracks can be broken low and eventually build to a respectable chart peak - which we already know can and does happen as we see in unforeseen slow-burn hits and also those available digitally as album tracks before release as a single per se - I think it will be a long while yet before the others choose to surrender that first-week-peak approach, especially as has been pointed out with acts with keen but limited fanbases who mostly buy (teen pop acts mainly), as they are much-less-likely to fall short on chart peak and overall sales without that pre-release promotional build-up.

 

Lest we forget, it's why the OCC were moved to alter the chart survey week - most labels wouldn't countenance the notion of their precious and carefully-marketed new singles having only two days' sales before their maiden chart position was calculated. In most cases sales will even out over the first couple of weeks after a Friday release, and hits will see a large leap upwards in week 2 when the remainder of the first full week's sales are factored-in, but as there's a chance that 2nd week spot won't be as high as if it'd had the full 7 days of sales, they didn't want to risk that.

 

Consumers are seemingly in no greater position to dictate a track's chart performance through audio streaming either, seeing as most singles are held back in that sector until the same week in which they are released to buy - even though we've had examples of hotly-tipped hits entering low on streaming points alone, pottering around and then still vaulting to No 1 or 2 when finally available to download. I think we will gradually see some relaxation on this front though, as it has been proven that the peak chart showing may not necessarily be damaged by pre-purchase streaming and a few preliminary weeks floating around the 41-100 end of things. Also, as streaming is picking up pace and is favoured by younger, commercial hit-friendly but often impatient consumers who increasingly will not buy a track and look to 'rent' it online at the soonest opportunity, I think we will begin soon to see pre-download streaming a more common feature.

 

But earlier release to buy as well as stream? Sony will likely be on their own for a long haul on this - and may yet decide once more than it isn't working well enough for them and revert to the predictable front-loading policy. After all, it's probably all that most current record execs know how to do and feel secure with, given that it's the model that was first pioneered in the late 1980s and has dominated the singles market since 1995 seeing through the seismic shift from CD to download, and seemingly now the further shift away from buying altogether. By the time the majors decide to give up on the pre-release promo, download sales will have dwindled to a more marginal percentage of the overall market and so it will only matter to a relatively small sector of us who intend to continue buying what we like to play back whenever rather than just listening while logged-on.

Edited July 29, 20159 yr by Gambo

The other labels might not have option to delay Gambo if what I am hearing turns out to be correct. Apparently the EU is passing a law that will make other download sites able to sell records to members of the public not registered in their country. This means that a record released in say Germany could be downloaded by someone from the UK. As the other European countries use OAOS then if you wanted the record, you could just switch to iTunes Germany and get it from there. Of course it might not be as simple as that, there is all the business of registering with the download site, unless iTunes for example make one registration available to all European sites.

I suspect what might happen is that certain sites have "download imports". Just like the old record shops of the past, used to do, actually they still do, those that are left!

 

Of course this all depends if the EU will pass the law. It will be very complicated, since tax would be much harder to collect from consumers going to outside places to download. It will be very interesting to see what happens if the other EU sites sell downloads cheaper than 99p.

I don't really get why would label delay for a song anyway, especially with big names. They get much bigger profit if it's available to stream/buy right away. Let's say Calvin Harris' new song had been held back for 6 weeks, they would've lost SIX WEEKS worth of downloads and streaming (which in this case equals maybe 250-300k). It might have debuted at #1 or #2 but sold a lot less in the long run. I'm pretty confident it will easily sell over 400k now, just based on how great the response has been. It might not get a top 3 peak but does it really matter? Does it make promoting Calvin Harris' music a lot harder?

 

No it doesn't. Labels can still promote the song even if it's out for public to hear. It's still new to most people even if it had been charting for couple of weeks.

Edited July 29, 20159 yr by SKOB

My biggest gripe is Fight Song still isn't out in the UK. Why!?

I don't really get why would label delay for a song anyway, especially with big names. They get much bigger profit if it's available to stream/buy right away. Let's say Calvin Harris' new song had been held back for 6 weeks, they would've lost SIX WEEKS worth of downloads and streaming (which in this case equals maybe 250-300k). It might have debuted at #1 or #2 but sold a lot less in the long run. I'm pretty confident it will easily sell over 400k now, just based on how great the response has been. It might not get a top 3 peak but does it really matter? Does it make promoting Calvin Harris' music a lot harder?

 

No it doesn't. Labels can still promote the song even if it's out for public to hear. It's still new to most people even if it had been charting for couple of weeks.

 

They tested OAOS when it first came out for everybody. Though it did work for some acts, most acts suffered from the result of it. It seems that Radio Airplay is just too useful a tool in the UK to ignore. The problem is that under OAOS a record will move up the charts slowly, unless you spend money marketing it's release. But since radio does not cost much, a build up of pre-orders is the result of the delayed release. New entry at one! Not 75!!!

An entry at 75 will have the media saying "flop". Even the recent Five Seconds of Summer record was called a flop entering at 18! Radio people who pick the playlist are not democratic in the records that make the list. They rarely choose them on the sound, because most records are good! So the look for an excuse not to list a record. Entering the chart outside the top ten is a good excuse.

When OAOS first came out Nicola Roberts (Girls Aloud) was trying to get a solo career going. But she couldn't get the airplay for her new song, because under the system it had gone in low on the charts. Radio people called it a flop and the fact she is not having hits now or making records is proof the OAOS is not good.

Record companies are aware of who's releasing records, so they try to pick a week when a record might not pushed out by a massive single release from someone else. So after enough time to play the record on radio they get the record out. Recently records have been issued ahead of schedule due to the fact a crap cover version was selling too well.

 

I don't really get why would label delay for a song anyway, especially with big names. They get much bigger profit if it's available to stream/buy right away. Let's say Calvin Harris' new song had been held back for 6 weeks, they would've lost SIX WEEKS worth of downloads and streaming (which in this case equals maybe 250-300k). It might have debuted at #1 or #2 but sold a lot less in the long run. I'm pretty confident it will easily sell over 400k now, just based on how great the response has been. It might not get a top 3 peak but does it really matter? Does it make promoting Calvin Harris' music a lot harder?

 

No it doesn't. Labels can still promote the song even if it's out for public to hear. It's still new to most people even if it had been charting for couple of weeks.

 

Because if major networks like Capital either refuse to play OAOS records or just don't support any that fail to make an immediate impact, they'll lose out on a lot more potential sales by not getting any media support, than those sales they might lose by holding it back.

 

Of course labels care more about sales than chart peaks. But they can't always get the sales if they release too early.

Edited July 30, 20159 yr by AcerBen

I think other record labels will eventually just do on air, on sale, since eventually it'll be so difficult to get songs to debut at #1 through holding them back (when sales are lower and streaming is higher), that there'll just be no point in doing it anymore. So the other labels will continue to hold back songs for the next few years, but when it becomes pointless they'll stop doing it.

 

Another thing is that it depends on the artist. Drake or DJ Snake or Kanye West can miss the top 40 all they want with their singles and nobody will care. But if One Direction or Lady Gaga debut at #3 with a single it apparently signals the end of their careers. I think most pop artists (except a few, notably Rihanna who can flop all she wants too) are stuck in this trap, whilst rock, dance, hip hop artists can flop more easily (usually in cases like Duke Dumont, Dizzee Rascal, Sigma or DJ Fresh who have a string of #1s, people are a bit surprised when they miss #1, but there isn't the same "Their career is over" rhetoric). Although I think it helps in those genres that a lot of the songs that "flop" in the charts are actually big hits in the real world, so they don't seem like flops, whilst in pop music it's all about the charts, so that's probably a big difference. There isn't an "underground pop scene" or anything lol.

 

Honestly, if I were responsible for marketing a pop star in 2015, I might purposefully make sure their 2nd single flops and their 3rd single is a hit... And then after that make sure they have a flop single every now and then, so that when it unintentionally happens people won't care as much. It might sound ridiculous, but if you want a pop star that's going to be near the top of the game for 10 years, I think it'd be beneficial in the long run.

Edited July 30, 20159 yr by Eric_Blob

I think other record labels will eventually just do on air, on sale, since eventually it'll be so difficult to get songs to debut at #1 through holding them back (when sales are lower and streaming is higher), that there'll just be no point in doing it anymore. So the other labels will continue to hold back songs for the next few years, but when it becomes pointless they'll stop doing it.

 

Yes this is basically it

Honestly, if I were responsible for marketing a pop star in 2015, I might purposefully make sure their 2nd single flops and their 3rd single is a hit... And then after that make sure they have a flop single every now and then, so that when it unintentionally happens people won't care as much. It might sound ridiculous, but if you want a pop star that's going to be near the top of the game for 10 years, I think it'd be beneficial in the long run.

 

Trouble is if the 2nd single flops, you might not get the chance to release a third single.

 

New editorial from ROTD suggests all majors are now on board, and Capital may not have done blanket ban on OAOS after all

 

All three UK major labels seem to be engaged in a heavy push to make On Air On Sale (OAOS) the de facto industry standard by the time we enter the crucial Q4 release period. This push is causing quite a buzz – and a lot of debate - both within record companies and at UK radio and the wider media industry.

 

Of course, not everyone feels so positive about the change. Whilst Radio 1 is apparently fully on-board, we understand that a number of commercial radio programmers are less enthused. Let’s not underplay the importance of commercial radio: whilst it might not feature and break as many new artists as the BBC does, it remains absolutely vital in bringing artists through to a point of mainstream success. With the commercial radio industry in the UK increasingly networked, its role in bringing music to a huge audience is arguably bigger than ever. A Radio 1 playlist is nice, but if you want to truly break an artist to a huge level, commercial radio support is vital.

 

Commercial radio isn’t wholly opposed to OAOS, but executives that we’ve spoken to have expressed concerns. They fear that it will be harder for them to really champion new artists under the new system. They fear it will be harder for them to engage in the same kind of detailed partnerships with labels around new artists. They fear lending support to a project which could then be viewed as being a failure because its chart performance appears underwhelming, in comparison to the release date model. Underlying all this of course is the fear that in their own competitive market, they will lose the ability to gain an edge over their rivals, to claim successes and to attract advertisers to their platforms.

 

Whilst these concerns are quite justified, one could also argue that they stem from a desire to preserve an old model which works well for commercial radio stations, but which is increasingly not fitting to modern times, or the needs of artists and record companies. That’s not to say however, that commercial radio bosses are completely shutting the gate on OAOS. Suggestions that large radio groups appear ready to boycott OAOS releases appear to be wide of the mark. Perhaps their biggest concern however, and one that is absolutely justified, is that for this difficult transition to be bearable, it has to be applied equally and across the board. All the key labels must be on the same page, and implementing OAOS in a consistent and fair way.

 

There are also large challenges to grapple with for label marketing departments. Whilst on the corporate level, the big three seem determined in their plans, we understand that many within those companies are struggling with coming to an understanding of how they can plan really successful campaign in this new paradigm. Even if you downplay the importance of initial chart position – as is the plan – they still need to have understandable metrics for success. It might be easy to get cross-media support for the big acts – as happened for Disclosure and Sam Smith’s new single this past Monday. They’re placed in a slightly schizophrenic position where impact on release is designed to be less important – but they still need to achieve impact over the lifetime of a release. Without

the old-style chart impact date, perhaps the most important question will be what is the new definition of ‘success’?

 

We welcome a world where actual lifetime success is the defining metric of success - it’s entirely fitting to an industry in transition to a streaming model. But how can that lifetime success be achieved? Will labels look to release videos for a single on the same day as the audio track, for example, or will videos increasingly be used as a tentpole event to refresh interest around a track and boost its longer term success? Will labels continue to support long download preorders for forthcoming albums, in order to protect the continuing downloads market? Will pre-orders be revealed ahead of OAOS dates? There are many similar questions to be worked out and for the most part they are questions which labels are already grappling with even without OAOS.

 

Another spectre hanging over OAOS is the idea that some significant labels might not play ball. The original push for OAOS in 2011 was arguably hamstrung when Warner UK dropped its support. Even if all majors are now aligned, they will also have to justify this approach to managers who want to see clear evidence of success, and will want to gain a competitive advantage by any means necessary. Furthermore, it looks increasingly likely that Ministry of Sound may break rank on OAOS and enjoy the advantages that could deliver for its own perceived success. In a recent MBW interview MoS CEO Lohan Presencer was quoted as saying: “We have the ability to do what we want. Some records we will make available on air / on sale where it’s appropriate. Some we’ll hold back.”

 

hilst the wider independent community seems generally supportive of OAOS, some of the most aggressive chart-focused indies could threaten to undermine the project.

Which in turn might undermine the support ofnmedia, if this initiative is not fully adopted. We have to wonder how much influence Apple bring to bear on this push. It seems no coincidence that the push comes at a time when Apple itself is both transitioning to a streaming music model and establishing itself as a media player in its own right. Spotify has long been supportive of on air on sale, but it didn’t have a downloads market to protect. Since Apple has apparently decided to go ‘all out’ on streaming, it has a clear vested interest in ensuring its customers have access to as much in-demand music as possible, as well as an ability to place

considerable pressure on labels.

 

It’s impossible to properly address or even just to raise all these questions in one piece. What is absolutely clear is that OAOS will be a really significant and sometimes difficult transition. It’s also one that will be threatened if labels again break rank. Whilst some will no doubt delight in playing rogue, even those labels which are apparently supportive of OAOS will have to work hard to make sure that they don’t chip away at OAOS, or fail to support it on certain products. This would lead to an inevitable decline and collapse of the initiative. Labels will also have to redefine their own expectations and metrics of success, as well as being able to unequivocally argue to artists and managers that this is the best strategy for all. We overwhelmingly feel however that OAOS is evidence of an industry starting to take a longterm view, putting fans first and deliberately encouraging a multi-platform music market where music is monetised as often and as widely as possible.

Edited July 30, 20159 yr by AcerBen

I remember when Universal did OAOS the first time and they made an exception for Jennifer Lopez, which was seemingly at her management's insistence.

FINALLY.

 

Although I can see the argument for having the demand build up period (particularly for fanbase acts who need the selling point of 'the number one hit' to shift an album) it's so hugely frustrating to not be able to get a great new song in high quality for sometimes two months.

Brillant news though il believe it when I see it of course.

 

I mean what happened before 1995? For example in the current TOTPs 1980 big artists like Bowie entered the top 10 immediately with Ashes to Ashes because he was a huge artist. But other artists and songs still rose the chart?!