You could apply that principle but implement it when someone has listened to a track 20 times on Spotify (or another appropriate level?)

 

That wouldn't work because there are a lot of curiosity listens in Week 1 of each single being released. You'd end up with pretty much the most popular new release debuting at #1 each week, plummeting and then perhaps rising back once sales started to pick up. It would look and be ridiculous!

 

Not really, how often do we ever see a top ten debut in the streaming charts (or even top 40 :lol:)? Discounting 1D related acts, Bieber etc it basically never happens. And even the acts who have gone in at #1 first week have generally maintained their high debut afterwards, presumably picking up a great deal of new fans along the way (particularly Bieber's songs).

 

Plus that would be no different at all to sales in the OA/OS climate, where acts with big fanbases debut high, slip away quickly and rise up again as airplay comes in. It would look no more ridiculous than the sales chart currently looks.

 

I'm not saying it's foolproof at all, but I don't agree with the current model either, listens should be capped somewhere at least, maybe at 10 or 20, like Dandy says.

 

Edited July 13, 20168 yr by gooddelta

Excuse my French here, but what a complete bunch of deluded bellends Radio 1 have shown themselves to be with that statement. Whether it's this muppet or George Ergatoudis in his constant never ending quest for 'all things new' and treating any artist over the age of 40 as a terminal geriatric, THEY were the ones who lobbied so hard for streaming to be included in official sales data. Now that Drake is at number one for nigh on three months, an artist that THEY championed in particular, they are now suddenly throwing their toys out the pram and wanting it back the way it was. I am almost wishing 'One Dance' to stay at the top a month longer just to spite them all. If you don't like how things are then it's your own sodding fault for wanting it that way in the first place. This has really made me angry :angry: :angry: :angry:

Not really, how often do we ever see a top ten debut in the streaming charts? Discounting 1D related acts, Bieber etc it basically never happens. And even the acts who have gone in at #1 first week have generally maintained their high debut afterwards, presumably picking up a great deal of new fans along the way (particularly Bieber's songs).

 

I'm not saying it's foolproof at all, but I don't agree with the current model either, listens should be capped somewhere at least, maybe at 10 or 20, like Dandy says.

 

Yes but we don't have a 1:1 ratio at the moment, we have 100:1.

 

Olly Murs did around 83,749 on Spotify on Day 1, which fell to 66,948 on Day 2 - if we make an assumption that the difference (16,801) is the number of initial listens by individuals than that is a weighty sale figure and combined with download sales would see him sitting around #3 at the moment.

 

You suggest that listens should be capped, they are; weekly - you cannot contribute more than 0.7 of a 'sale' which is rounded down to zero anyway. Individually your contribution needs to be backed-up by popularity.

Actually I think the logical thing is for a user's contribution to be capped whenever it reaches the equivalent of 1 sale over however many weeks it takes to get there. That would then be fine by me as it is converted appropriately into the equivalent of one person 'buying' it.

Edited July 13, 20168 yr by dandy*

Actually I think the logical thing is for a user's contribution to be capped whenever it reaches the equivalent of 1 sale over however many weeks it takes to get there. That would then be fine by me as it is converted appropriately into the equivalent of one person 'buying' it.

 

That's what I was going to suggest next. Either way I accept that my previous suggestion was flawed having read DB's argument, but I maintain that something has to change with the calculations, and very quickly. I don't think changing the ratios are the answer, but more stopping individuals being able to contribue forever to the chart position of one song.

I agree Rich, the main issue for me is also that someone can continually contribute sales to a track when actually someone who buys the track but listens to it more often is capped at 1.

I think the problem is more with how people access new music not the chart composition - radio station playlists are stale and unadventurous. Admittedly the slow charts feed back negatively, but radio should at least try to break more than 1 hit per week from the established 'safe' artists, and maybe ones that they own (I'm looking at Global and the Wanted etc.). “Tilted” by Christine and the Queens for example I could see easily being a Top 10 hit given good rotation at the major networks (#10 on Shazam) but nobody except Radio 1 and 6Music appear to be on board.

 

Heart still have “Love Yourself” and “Stitches” in high rotation - but do you see either in the Top 40 ??

I think the problem is more with how people access new music not the chart composition - radio station playlists are stale and unadventurous. Admittedly the slow charts feed back negatively, but radio should at least try to break more than 1 hit per week from the established 'safe' artists, and maybe ones that they own (I'm looking at Global and the Wanted etc.). “Tilted” by Christine and the Queens for example I could see easily being a Top 10 hit given good rotation at the major networks (#10 on Shazam) but nobody except Radio 1 and 6Music appear to be on board.

 

"Tilted" is also playlisted on Radio 2 and Capital (!!!) though so it may actually become a top 20 hit in the end (even more hopefully).

Actually I think the logical thing is for a user's contribution to be capped whenever it reaches the equivalent of 1 sale over however many weeks it takes to get there. That would then be fine by me as it is converted appropriately into the equivalent of one person 'buying' it.

 

think that's the best idea I've read so far and seems like the "logic" thing to do, stop counting after a person has reached the equivalent of one sale

"Tilted" is also playlisted on Radio 2 and Capital (!!!) though so it may actually become a top 20 hit in the end (even more hopefully).

 

Yeah, but is it just one of those songs that they ‘playlist’ but then don't end up playing... ?

 

 

Yeah, but is it just one of those songs that they ‘playlist’ but then don't end up playing... ?

 

No :P

Well its only 1 play per day, but it is better than nowt.

Actually I think the logical thing is for a user's contribution to be capped whenever it reaches the equivalent of 1 sale over however many weeks it takes to get there. That would then be fine by me as it is converted appropriately into the equivalent of one person 'buying' it.

 

I think you're on the right line of thinking here, but simply doing this I suspect wouldn't have much effect. How many of the people still streaming One Dance have already played it more than 100 times? Probably not that many.

 

Only counting the first 10 plays by a user could work. But again it's just a question of how easy it would be for OCC to actually implement this.

I think the problem is more with how people access new music not the chart composition - radio station playlists are stale and unadventurous. Admittedly the slow charts feed back negatively, but radio should at least try to break more than 1 hit per week from the established 'safe' artists, and maybe ones that they own (I'm looking at Global and the Wanted etc.). “Tilted” by Christine and the Queens for example I could see easily being a Top 10 hit given good rotation at the major networks (#10 on Shazam) but nobody except Radio 1 and 6Music appear to be on board.

 

Heart still have “Love Yourself” and “Stitches” in high rotation - but do you see either in the Top 40 ??

 

It's a vicious cycle isn't it?

I have a problem when people are trying to END a song's life on chart, as 4 months or sth is the longest time a song can be a hit.. It's very strange considering that I'm still listening to the songs that were hits couple of years ago.

 

Even if it made room for other songs it doesn't mean those other songs somehow become bigger hits. It doesn't work that way.

 

Plus I think that song's life cycle is actually shorter now that it was for example in the 90s when one could hear Wonderwall among others for 2 years at least.

 

I have a problem when people are trying to END a song's life on chart, as 4 months or sth is the longest time a song can be a hit.. It's very strange considering that I'm still listening to the songs that were hits couple of years ago.

 

Even if it made room for other songs it doesn't mean those other songs somehow become bigger hits. It doesn't work that way.

 

Plus I think that song's life cycle is actually shorter now that it was for example in the 90s when one could hear Wonderwall among others for 2 years at least.

 

I think if there was more more room for newer songs in the chart, more of them would be getting media support and therefore get more plays. Of course there's also the fact that many people listen to songs that are just in Spotify's chart, or hits playlists, so these same songs get more and more plays.

 

The official chart and the streaming services own charts don't just reflect consumption - they have a direct effect on it.

 

 

I'd like to see music video views counted. The charts have been manipulated one way or the other so why not add video streams as well.

I'd like to see music video views counted. The charts have been manipulated one way or the other so why not add video streams as well.

but it's often the case that people stream videos because they want to watch the video rather than listen to the song.

 

also if video streams were added we'd have songs like Sorry, Love Yourself, Uptown Funk spending even longer in the top 40.

If I was in charge of the OCC I'd make each first stream count 1:1 with a paid for sale, and just wouldn't register any further streaming 'sales' after the first play from each individual account.

 

That way neither sales or streaming is given any more or less importance, and songs would move around just as they did before streaming was introduced. If a song was to somehow get 14 weeks at #1, it would be because more new people are discovering it as the weeks go by, not because the same people are playing it over and over again.

 

I appreciate that the sales to audio streams ratio is related to revenue generation, but nevertheless in the notional interests of fairness and ensuring parity between the two sectors in the combined chart, this does sound a rather compelling idea, as it scotches the issue of the same people simply streaming the same song incessantly artificially inflating the fortunes of that title in the singles chart. We seem to have to accept that streaming is rapidly cannibalising the sales market, but my biggest beef with the combination of these two different ways of consuming music is that there's not enough similarity between the two - i.e. a paid-for purchase is a one-off impact regardless of listens thereafter, while a stream can be reflected on multiple occasions, even though 100 have to accrue before they are converted to a 'sale' equivalent. If an initial stream only counted towards a track's tally for the charts, then it would in a way seem a fairer balance between streaming and buying. That said, I suppose it's always been possible for people to buy more than one copy at different stores in different weeks, but then realistically, few if any would seriously look to purchase enough multiple copies of a download (and definitely a CD!) to equate to the kind of numbers added by multiple streams.

 

Whatever formula they apply to chart compilation however, the main things are that is is as accurate as it can be using that methodology, and that the data being captured is derived from voluntary consumption by the public - NOT programming by broadcasters. Hence, the argument for including airplay in the mix is no greater now than it was previously, including the era when the chart's turnover was many times greater than it is presently. Let the chart reflect whatever the public's consumption each week has been, albeit that it must now be ranked using an awkward juxtaposition of two very different styles of digital consumption. It shouldn't be changed just to make it move differently, and the boss of Radio 1's opinion should have no greater bearing on this than mine, or anyone else's on this site. Nevertheless, the opinions that will count and could skew the way the chart operates (even more than they already have) are industry execs, and if enough see a benefit for them (not buyers, not streamers, not chart fans, not radio/TV watchers), they will of course vote in changes that help deliver that.