The weighting should be based on revenue generated. 1 stream on spotify generates around $0.004 in revenue and the average price for a song on US iTunes is $1.29. So it would take ~320 streams to equal 1 paid download.

 

So a 300-1 ratio would be better.

I think it's more like 125 - Spotify say their average per stream payout is (or was at time of writing) $0.006 to $0.0084, and the $1.29 is only $0.90 after Apple's 30% cut.

The weighting should be based on revenue generated. 1 stream on spotify generates around $0.004 in revenue and the average price for a song on US iTunes is $1.29. So it would take ~320 streams to equal 1 paid download.

 

So a 300-1 ratio would be better.

 

That's what they said they have done though - I don't know how truthful it is but that's how they came up with 100.

 

It'll be based either on the average dealer price, not retail price though.

Edited January 18, 20169 yr by AcerBen

200-1 for me. In order to truly represent the popularity of new songs in the chart, sales must count for an extremely large proportion, otherwise, as we have seen demonstrated in some scenarios in the chart (for example the longevity of What Do You Mean? in the top 7), it will become stale.

 

Why would that "truly represent the popularity of new songs in the chart", and what does the staleness of the chart have to do with reflecting popularity? I'm sick of seeing What Do You Mean in the top 7 as well, but if it's getting 3 million streams a week it's clearly more popular than a new single that sells 5,000 copies in its first week. It's boring, but it's not wrong.

I guess the issue is partly timing. Someone who used to download a song and then listen to it regularly for a few months might now be streaming it over those few months instead. In the past the chart impact has always occurred at the beginning, before the customer started using the product, and now it is being spread over the duration of the product's use. This isn't necessarily wrong and could be seen as a better measure of snsong's popularity. In the past we might have welcomed X Factor and charity record sales only counting once the user had listened to them at least a certain number of times if that could have been measured.

 

However it is very different from the criteria that we are used to and it jars with us, as well as making for a slower chart.

I don't think listening to music for free should be treated any differently to paid for streaming. I personally pay for my Apple Music subscription, but if people want to stream for free and not get the rewards of a subscription (offline listening, no ads etc), the that's their prerogative! The songs are still being listened to and it is still helping to measure the popularity of each particular song!

 

On a side note; Your views on whether advertisers should pay record companies (or not) are completely irrelevant to this thread though. Where is the evidence that advertising increases the expense for others? Companies need to advertise in some form of another in order to generate sales (which in turn can help to reduce prices for consumers). The record industry even uses this through airplay, literal advertisements and promo slots on radio/tv.

 

I think that the streaming ratio should stay as it is, the ratio for physical singles didn't change just because downloads took off so why should streaming be any different? It leaves the chart as consistent as can be. Admittedly, the slower pace of the chart has caused my interest in it to take a huge nosedive, but me wanting a faster paced chart would need to be achieved more organically.

 

Streaming inclusion in the chart is based on the amount of revenue the streaming brings in not on the popularity of a song. It's just that those who stream a record most effect the chart by this bases. There is a difference however between sales and streams. Once you have purchased a record then you don't need to do it again. This means that a finite number of people can buy the record, a proportion of the population of the country. However there is not limit to how many times a person can listen to a record. If you calculate the streams the same way as a purchase of a record, which is what is happening now, a stream record can have a sale (eventually) bigger than the population of the UK! Adjusting the stream ratio to a level where it takes less streams to make the same price of a download, will ensure that this figure will be reached even sooner.

 

Advertises already pay record companies indirectly by running adverts on streaming sites. Without such revenue the streaming sites would struggle under the enormous costs they are faced with for the catalogue of music they offer consumers. Indeed it is already known that several have very shaky business plans. With some sites already closed for business. Even subscriptions don't pay the full cost. And if they did very few would subscribe to the likes of Spotify.

Advertising as a whole pushes up the cost of any product you purchase because the companies that use it pass the cost on to the consumer who buys the product. This explains why some branded products, who use advertising, cost more than those that don't. In the past you could advertise a product and the consumer would buy it. But these days it possible to get past the adverts, so companies have changed tactics and spent more money to get around this problem. They pass this on to the consumer, it's the only way it can be done. Though some argue, especially those rich enough to pay for branded products, that consumers benefit from reduced costs from increased sales. I think this is mostly bullshit, the costs being reduced by reducing wages, longer hours and tougher working conditions, rather than a product, being advertised. Indeed some advertising is all about the company itself and not related to any purchase of the product. Most advertising is unwanted. Like the fact that I have an add blocker on this site, youtube and other sites. So such sites have to get the lost revenue from elsewhere. Or they shut down.

Advertising a product has limits. For example advertisers want to have consumers that can purchase the products. They do like the gullible people. Young people being extremely of that nature. As they get older they will loose interest in a site, which they see as simply exploiting them for their money. There is also the problem that there are not enough advertisers to go around. The more competition for advertising revenue the less money extracted from it. Thus increasing the costs. I am sure you have noticed the "P" on the TV screen over the last few years. That's there because the VCR killed adverts on TV. Multi TV channels reduced audience figures further so the products are now incorporated in the show itself.

Streaming incorporates all the above problems. However because it's new and a growing audience it can get pass these problems. But only for so long...

 

As for your final argument, that will not happen. Those forces that want to see streaming grow even more than it is will make it change in favour. They have already made certain that the download figures no longer represent the true figures that they once gave them, by simply fiddling the figures in the way the do best.

As I argued when streaming was first introduced. Once Apple have gained enough ground in the streaming market, they will pull the plug on downloads, just like Sky did with analogue TV. With the help of the BBC who got their way and got a chart that no longer looks like iTunes chart for the week. Even if they no longer care two monkeys about it! - IE A Friday Chart show, reduced to get rid of the repeating crap and news and traffic bulletins !

 

Although it makes for a more boring chart, in a way a chart that reflects what people are listening to is more meaningful compared to what people are buying. Just because people have stopped buying a song, it doesn't mean it's less popular than it was before.

 

But there's also the fanbase factor, whereby a relatively small group of people can have a disproportionate influence through repeatedly streaming songs. It'd be interesting to see a figure for 'number of streams divided by number of streamers'.

 

e.g. is a song listened to 30 times a week by 100000 people, really more popular than one listened to once a week by 2.5 million people? The latter would certainly demonstrate *wider* appeal, if nothing else...

 

But there's also the fanbase factor, whereby a relatively small group of people can have a disproportionate influence through repeatedly streaming songs. It'd be interesting to see a figure for 'number of streams divided by number of streamers'.

 

e.g. is a song listened to 30 times a week by 100000 people, really more popular than one listened to once a week by 2.5 million people? The latter would certainly demonstrate *wider* appeal, if nothing else...

 

The fanbase factor has always been FAR stronger in a sales environment.

 

E.g. 10 fans buying all 5 formats of a single = 50 sales.

10 fans streaming a track all day for a week = 7 sales (0.1 sale/per fan/per day limit)

 

The current ratio approximates very accurately the revenue brought in by streaming (as shown in the 2015 BPI figures) and therefore I see no reason for them to change.

ISTM part of the problems is :

 

What *is* the best way to measure the popularity of a song? :coffee:

 

Even then, there's a split between short-term, and long-term popularity... :banghead:

Less than 100-1. We should be embracing this current streaming revolucion!, not trying to push it away (though any attempts to do this are ultimately futile). Spotify is leading our chart into a stagnant and robotic future, and I'M ALL FOR IT

 

 

(but seriously; the ratio is best kept as it is, as dan was saying altering things would only cause difficulties~)

But there's also the fanbase factor, whereby a relatively small group of people can have a disproportionate influence through repeatedly streaming songs. It'd be interesting to see a figure for 'number of streams divided by number of streamers'.

 

e.g. is a song listened to 30 times a week by 100000 people, really more popular than one listened to once a week by 2.5 million people? The latter would certainly demonstrate *wider* appeal, if nothing else...

 

I agree that it'd be interesting to see that, though I suspect Bieber would still be #1

Personally, I believe that for the duration - possibly the next few years - the ratio should remain as it is, as for all its mathematical convenience and arbitrariness, it isn't the worst approximation of equating audio streams into notional sales.

 

My complaint, shared by many chart and music watchers, is that there should've been no need for this calculation in the first place, had it not been insisted-upon by the industry that the mainstream singles and later albums charts must reflect both sectors in a combined form. It was never going to be anything less than an unsatisfactory fudge as fundamentally, renting a digital track an unlimited number of times on-line is distinct from buying a track once, either digitally on-line or physically in-store. Whilst there were notable differences between the old tangible formats and virtual new one (pricing and constant availabilty being the most obvious), the integration of the download alongside CDs etc in the 2000s was at least more even, as it still allowed a like-for-like comparison on a broad basis between figures for pre and post-integration titles, i.e. a paid-for purchase was required to contribute towards a chart placing regardless of format. Audio streaming, while still the same product, is renting rather than buying, and so are two separate measurements of popularity.

 

I'm not arguing that streaming shouldn't be regarded as a major means of measuring modern musical appreciation; in the 2010s it is manifestly not just about sales any more. I just wish they could've been brave enough to keep the two tabulations for the two sectors separate, in the expectation that eventually (by 2020 at latest) the streaming chart would eclipse the sales chart in terms of national importance, while the latter would still be continued as more of a subsidiary to the former, which would at some point be arbitrarily adopted as the chart of record. This to me is akin to the steady transferral from sheet music charts, which measured sales, but of actual musical scores of popular titles rather than audio recordings (and therefore was a totally discrete product), and were gradually overtaken by the range of then-new record sales-based tabulations in various music publications. Sheet music charts continued, but just became a very niche sector compared to the burgeoning recorded music sales charts, which by the late 1950s were plainly the dominant method of determining popularity of currently-available songs. In the same way as it would've been barmy to try and combine sheet music sales with recorded music sales at that time, it seems similarly stupid to attempt it with sales of recorded music and recorded music rentals.

 

Neverthless, however true and sensible the above seems, the decision has been made to combine these two different ways of consuming music, in the name of creating a singular chart that can be seen as a 'single source of truth' rather than having two competing official tabulations. I can see why they made that choice, and so it now has to be lived with, whatever impact it has on relative unit tallies for different titles, ability to compare current with past performance, and the way titles move around the Top 100/200 weekly chart - i.e. very slowly in the case of extremely-commercial pop hits.

 

Don't change the chart, just because it doesn't suit some people's tastes. And they won't, until such time it is decreed by the industry at large that it is broadly in their interest to make a change, for the charts primarily serve them not consumers or fans.

 

I am dismayed to see the exponential growth of streaming, as it seems so impermanent and intangible, but let's be honest: had we been able to centrally-measure the number of times people actually listened to the songs they had bought in the pre-2010s era, I think it would've been factored-in to chart compilation one way or another many moons ago, as there is no real way one can argue that the number of times someone streams a song does not have a meaningful bearing on how popular that recording is overall. It is simply a secondary means of assessing that popularity on a relative basis, however clumsy combining returns with true sales may be. Yes, it can be manipulated to create sometimes disproportionate outcomes which can affect chart positions, but t'was ever thus with sales too. That can never be mitigated against completely.

 

I just hope that in the quest for measuring song popularity, the concept isn't taken to its broadest definition. If they are, things may get yet-more-complicated chart-wise by the eventual factoring-in to the official rankings of video streams, streams of unofficial performances etc. That would take the singles and albums charts too far away from their roots in my book. But I'm not betting against that becoming the case by the next decade. If it does, I'm cancelling my subscription to UK Charts Plus and I'm outta here!

Am I right in thinking that if you have a premium a/c you can listen to songs offline/put them on an iPod?

Yup. You can download a track to your iPod to listen offline to the track and you will then have 30 days to play the track. In that time frame you can listen to it as many times as you want. If you sync the iPod to Spotify within that time, the 30 days countdown starts again. If you don't, you can't listen to the track(s) once 30 days is up.

Edited January 19, 20169 yr by Robbie

^

and if you are offline, listening to a track, when you sync with Spotify, the amount of times you've listened to a track is sent back to Spotify.

 

I do wonder if listening to a track last week when being offline will count towards this week's chart when the information is sent to the OCC via Spotify? Or even listening to the track, for example, four weeks ago when offline and then going back online, would that count towards the current week sales period when the play was 4 weeks ago?

^

and if you are offline, listening to a track, when you sync with Spotify, the amount of times you've listened to a track is sent back to Spotify.

 

I do wonder if listening to a track last week when being offline will count towards this week's chart when the information is sent to the OCC via Spotify? Or even listening to the track, for example, four weeks ago when offline and then going back online, would that count towards the current week sales period when the play was 4 weeks ago?

 

Good question. :unsure:

 

What if you listed to the track more than 70 times - could they tell if that was within one week, so hitting the cut-off?

Edited January 19, 20169 yr by vidcapper

^

and if you are offline, listening to a track, when you sync with Spotify, the amount of times you've listened to a track is sent back to Spotify.

 

I do wonder if listening to a track last week when being offline will count towards this week's chart when the information is sent to the OCC via Spotify? Or even listening to the track, for example, four weeks ago when offline and then going back online, would that count towards the current week sales period when the play was 4 weeks ago?

 

Good question is right - no wonder streams are added late to the chart updates!!

The fanbase factor has always been FAR stronger in a sales environment.

 

E.g. 10 fans buying all 5 formats of a single = 50 sales.

10 fans streaming a track all day for a week = 7 sales (0.1 sale/per fan/per day limit)

 

The current ratio approximates very accurately the revenue brought in by streaming (as shown in the 2015 BPI figures) and therefore I see no reason for them to change.

 

That's partially true, but the streaming fans can do that every week, not just once. That's what's happening with Beiber. It only takes a Simon Cowell type to come up with two more acts just like Bieber and the top ten would be blocked up with those three acts for weeks on end.

 

Part of the problem is - a lot of other established artists hardly seem interested in releasing singles, nowadays - the rate of new entries in the charts is far lower than it was just a few years ago. :(

Part of the problem is - a lot of other established artists hardly seem interested in releasing singles, nowadays - the rate of new entries in the charts is far lower than it was just a few years ago. :(

 

That could be cured by a TV show on a either BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 or maybe Channel 4, that only featured new records. Not featuring current chart hits. It should trigger people to at least buy them. I don't know if it would work with streaming. Artist can do the show as long as they are not in the top 40 with the record! It would have to be around 5pm on the main channels or 6pm on BBC2 or C4. One night a week - say a Friday - when records come out?

 

It might work on Channel Five, but most of the other stations would have little impact on buying.

The ratio is good as it is imo. I doubt the OCC will ever change it anyway, as then they'd either have to retroactively change songs' chart sales which would take too much time/effort for them or to be inconsistent which we would all hate.

As long as their database is set up sensibly (not guaranteed to be the case), it should be a piece of cake. Sales and streams should be held as separate figures, with the streaming / sales ratio held somewhere. It is then just a case of changing that ratio, with everything else following automatically.