I don't know about the exact formula, but I would base the streaming points partly on percentage change from the previous week, so that it reflects engagement/change in behaviour/momentum, like the sales chart does, so that the likes of Drake and Bieber don't spend months and months in the top 5. I'd have an exclusion rule after singles leave the top 40 and fall for 3 consecutive weeks or something, to leave more room from 41-100 for new singles.

 

But basically I want the chart to look more like the sales chart - not by changing the ratio, but by using the streaming data in a different way than just on pure numbers.

double post

 

Ah you are prone to it too. My mouse doesn't work well, thats why I do it sometimes accidentally.

But why do the teenagers listen to the same songs for so long on spotify...Is it because they are in school and do not listen to the radio much and so don't get bored by the songs?

 

Whereas many adult workplaces, particularly retail and some factories have the radio on a lot so young adults get bored of pop records sooner

 

The guess I would hazard is that its not the same teenagers. Say you have 100 teenagers. Week 1, 40% of them listen to DJ Snake's song with Bieber every day. Week 2, a different 40% do. Week 3, the 40% that haven't heard it for a week rediscover it and play the heck out of it. Rinse and repeat, except adding in the superfans who will have it as their favourite song the whole time and so listen to it each and every day.

The guess I would hazard is that its not the same teenagers. Say you have 100 teenagers. Week 1, 40% of them listen to DJ Snake's song with Bieber every day. Week 2, a different 40% do. Week 3, the 40% that haven't heard it for a week rediscover it and play the heck out of it. Rinse and repeat, except adding in the superfans who will have it as their favourite song the whole time and so listen to it each and every day.

 

However with teenagers they would be more likely to discover songs later because they dont listen to radio as much as they are at school much of the day. That was my case when I was younger, my mum saying how much she liked Dont Cha, Thunder In My Heart Again and Rehab before I had heard each of these three respective songs (probably because my mum had the radio playing in her work whereas I was at school).

 

So the spotify longevity may be to do with non radio listeners discovering songs late.

 

the whole summer mix thing really makes me think they've had enough of the charts and couldn't care less for it now.

 

The summer mix was on all week not just Fridays.

 

The new Top 50 would be (removing all records after 20 weeks had elapsed no matter where they where in the chart).

 

That would be a right insult if a record climbed to a new peak of number 2 on its 20th week.

delete, duplicate post.

Edited September 2, 20168 yr by zenon

The summer mix was on all week not just Fridays.

 

They were still perfectly aware of the fact that a 3:45 to 4:15 summer mix would eat into the already reduced chart show though.

However with teenagers they would be more likely to discover songs later because they dont listen to radio as much as they are at school much of the day. That was my case when I was younger, my mum saying how much she liked Dont Cha, Thunder In My Heart Again and Rehab before I had heard each of these three respective songs (probably because my mum had the radio playing in her work whereas I was at school).

 

So the spotify longevity may be to do with non radio listeners discovering songs late.

 

I think the whole marketing aspects of new songs is part of the problem - Songs are now released with no build up, promo etc, meaning it takes a while for radio, media, word of mouth to spread about a new release hence something taking 10+ weeks to peak.

I posted this a couple years ago, but it's even more interesting reading now. An article from Reuters from 1997, talking about the "worrying" state of a "pointless" chart with too many new-entries and high-fallers - chart activity that I think many now miss!

 

LONDON (Variety) - In the first seven weeks of this year, there were seven No. 1 songs on the U.K. singles chart -- six of which entered the list in the top spot. But rather than celebrating, the industry is expressing concern over the chart, which some say is being so manipulated by record companies that it is pointless.

 

The Spice Girls and Blur may have had their latest hits debut at No. 1, but that has much to do with loss leader marketing and exclusively sales-derived statistics.

 

Many singles fall out of the chart nearly as quickly as they rise. Of the seven No. 1 hits, only No Doubt's Don't Speak has remained there for more than a week.

 

Some industry players are calling for a rethink of how the U.K. chart works. One idea is to remodel it along the lines of the U.S. chart, a complicated (and sometimes controversial) formula based on sales and airplay -- reflecting not just what people are buying, but also what they are listening to.

 

So what accounts for the U.K. chart's volatility?

 

Record companies in Britain typically sell a CD single to retailers for 2.43 sterling ($3.89), the minimum price needed to qualify for the chart. But the price to the consumer can be as low as 99 pence ($1.58) in the first week of release. The reason a single can be sold below cost is because record companies often offer an enticement to retailers: buy one single and get another one (or even two) free.

 

Giveaways boost a single's entry position on the chart, prompt more radio and TV play, and are intended to whet the consumer appetite for an artist's album, because that is where the real money is. (In 1996, single sales in the U.K. hit 78.3 million units, up 10.7% over 1995; album sales rose 6.2% to 208.4 million units sold.) U2's single Discotheque, for example, was reportedly offered on a three-for-the-price-of-one deal to some stores, as was Blur's Beetlebum and the Spice Girls' worldwide hit Wannabe, which has sold 1.175 million units in the U.K. This loss-leader marketing practice may be good news for fans, but some observers argue that it is a smash-and-grab approach geared toward the short term.

 

"The U.K. chart is such an anomaly to anywhere else in the world because it is 100% sales-based," says MTV Europe's Harriett Brand, senior VP for talent and music programming. "In other countries, going straight to No. 1 would be really impressive because it's so hard to do.

 

"The problem is that initial sales in the U.K. are fan-based. You hype a song to No. 1, then it could disappear, and you may have lost people who wouldn't normally like that artist. When you allow a song to build over time, it allows (a) career to develop. You can give CDs away if you want to grow market share, but that does not grow your business."

 

Another contentious issue is that only the majors can afford significant loss-leader sacrifices. As a consequence, smaller indie labels must either be satisfied with a considerably less-than-level playing field, or go to the majors to maximize an artist's potential. Loss leaders can also discriminate against acts the majors are less interested in investing in.

 

"A lot of good music is being made that doesn't see the light of day," says veteran U.K. music entrepreneur Jonathan King. "A huge amount of top hits are not wanted by the public, and the only acts that happen are the ones that have instant appeal." King has launched a U.K. chart to rival the one from CIN, the official British chart compiler. King's Real Hits chart averages three weeks of sales, includes radio and TV airplay, and even Internet voting. He says he set up the alternative chart because this year the chart has become so completely manipulated.

 

But the U.K. chart system has its supporters.

 

John Preston, the chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, the music business' lobbying body, pulls no punches. Preston, who is also chairman of BMG Entertainment Intl. U.K. & Ireland, says "the U.K. chart is absolutely real -- airplay is subject to decisions made by a small group of people. And it's only the people who are not doing well in the chart (who) are bitching." Preston notes that loss leaders are standard across the record industry, including the independents, and that gambling on big first-week sales is a very targeted decision determined by the product being sold. What is also overlooked is that many singles never reach No. 1 but

perform well over a sustained period. In BMG's case, Preston cites, No Mercy's Where Do You Go has placed well in successive weekly charts. Intriguingly, Where Do You Go is No. 1 in King's chart.

 

The biggest hype machine for singles in the U.K. is the BBC's venerable music show, Top of the Pops. MTV and other music TV programming also plays an important role. But radio is still the backbone. The chart machine machinations crystallized last year with the much-ballyhooed battle for the No. 1 spot between Britpop rivals Oasis with Roll With It and Blur with Country House. Both singles are said to have gone to retailers on some sort of loss-leader basis, but EMI offered the better deal on Blur. Country House won the No. 1 designation.

 

And pity poor Blur now. After Beetlebum debuted at the top of the U.K. chart at the end of January, it dropped to seven and then 29 in the subsequent weeks. A good single it may be, but not a particularly commercial one.

Reuters/V

Edited September 2, 20168 yr by BillyH

drop the streaming chart - it can have it's own chart (not that anyone would chose to listen to something so dull). Reintroduce the sales chart and continue to call it the official singles chart. Sales are still higher than the early noughties and it's still fit for purpose. The big hits are still big hits in it, but those that people have stopped buying drop out (Drake is virtually out of the sales top 40, yet tediously top 10 on streaming), that immediately freshens up the sales chart, frinstance Dua Lipa's fab new single is 30. This obsession with having the charts reflect teenagers listening habits rather than reflecting everybody's music taste (which sales does, proportionately, and always has done - Bieber and Drake still topped the sales chart, just didn't hang around forever).

 

It's not complicated. The Sales chart is still way fresher, still inclusive, and kinder to older and new acts. If there are around half a dozen acts hogging all the top spots that's basically obsessive music fans + lazy chart playlisters dictating what everyone else should hear. It's go back to sales or let it die a natural death, the equivalent of clogged-up arteries sucking the life out of the music biz... :o

 

I think the whole marketing aspects of new songs is part of the problem - Songs are now released with no build up, promo etc, meaning it takes a while for radio, media, word of mouth to spread about a new release hence something taking 10+ weeks to peak.

 

Yes i remember the time I was baffled that this song Written In the Stars, which I knew off by heart and seemed to be everywhere wasn't in the chart. I thought it had fallen out of the chart already (I didn't look at the chart every week back then). So I was shocked when the next week it was only released and it appeared at number 1. Such was the advance promo back then.... :o

Edited September 2, 20168 yr by TheSnake

drop the streaming chart - it can have it's own chart (not that anyone would chose to listen to something so dull). Reintroduce the sales chart and continue to call it the official singles chart. Sales are still higher than the early noughties and it's still fit for purpose. The big hits are still big hits in it, but those that people have stopped buying drop out (Drake is virtually out of the sales top 40, yet tediously top 10 on streaming), that immediately freshens up the sales chart, frinstance Dua Lipa's fab new single is 30. This obsession with having the charts reflect teenagers listening habits rather than reflecting everybody's music taste (which sales does, proportionately, and always has done - Bieber and Drake still topped the sales chart, just didn't hang around forever).

 

It's not complicated. The Sales chart is still way fresher, still inclusive, and kinder to older and new acts. If there are around half a dozen acts hogging all the top spots that's basically obsessive music fans + lazy chart playlisters dictating what everyone else should hear. It's go back to sales or let it die a natural death, the equivalent of clogged-up arteries sucking the life out of the music biz... :o

 

I'd like the chart to look more like the sales chart (which you can do by changing the way you use streaming data, not by removing it altogether) but it would be ridiculous to switch back to a sales only chart. Sales are going to continue to fall so whilst at the moment the sales chart looks reasonable enough, it's not going to be in a few years time. Don't you remember how stupid the chart started to look around 2005, with Elvis Presley at #1 every week.

I think the whole marketing aspects of new songs is part of the problem - Songs are now released with no build up, promo etc, meaning it takes a while for radio, media, word of mouth to spread about a new release hence something taking 10+ weeks to peak.

 

Yes it's a perfect storm of OAOS, streaming, useless A&R and clueless media that's causing this slowdown.

Edited September 2, 20168 yr by AcerBen

Yes it's a perfect storm of OAOS, streaming, useless A&R and clueless media that's causing this slowdown.

 

Dua Lipa's new single is a prime example this week, it's started to fall rapidly on iTunes and streaming as her fanbase could only get it so far and the general public doesn't know it exists yet, radio are still playing HTH as it took them a while to warm up to it - She will continue to fall on the charts until the record label reduce it to 59p and she goes Top 20 on iTunes and radio suddenly take notice... Then the cycle continues with her next release due to the current one taking 6-8 weeks to take off.

Edited September 3, 20168 yr by ___∆___

True comments about length of time taken to break tracks by acts who arent monster huge - but in a sales chart climate they would get week one nationwide publicity on Radio 1 as a popular listener attraction on a Sunday (still no reason why the Chart Show has to be on friday - we managed perfectly well back in the day having the rundown on Tuesday lunchtimes in 10-15 minutes for chart fanatics like me, with the full rundown on Sunday). The problem is the streaming chart itself is so slow (due to the chart itself generating the play order - there is NO way that the exact same top 14 tracks are played in exactly the same order week after week by listener choice, it's people playing them from 1 downwards till they get bored) it's like a Brontosaurus with a pea brain, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to register something has happened. That's a fundamental flaw in the set-up that won't change.

Charts are not for chart fanatics... there's a reason why streaming is added: otherwise the industry wouldn't know what people are loving the most

 

I don't see how it's any different for Dua Lipa to have a #30 single or #50 single at this point. Hell, there was one time when a top 20 single meant a career is over, I'm so glad we are not there any more

At least the charts are a true reflection of success now - for example in the early 2000's it wasn't much of a big deal if you had a top 40 single but these days you know you've made it when you get a top 40.

I'd like the chart to look more like the sales chart (which you can do by changing the way you use streaming data, not by removing it altogether) but it would be ridiculous to switch back to a sales only chart. Sales are going to continue to fall so whilst at the moment the sales chart looks reasonable enough, it's not going to be in a few years time. Don't you remember how stupid the chart started to look around 2005, with Elvis Presley at #1 every week.

It's not that I don't agree that streaming should be included in some way (it's a huge source of revenue for the music industry so probably should be, although I doubt it makes up over 80% yet as it does in the chart so something must be wrong), but I actually don't agree with the statement that the chart looked stupid in 2005 - having the possibility of Elvis getting to #1 was interesting, and sales may have been depressingly low but the rise and fall of singles was still a normal thing to see, and (at least to me) it was a lot less stupid than it is now!

 

I agree with all the statements about finding some way of limiting the streams for a song - firstly finding some way of separating paid streams and not counting free users towards the chart is a perfect idea, as personally I don't think somebody should be contributing to the chart without paying a penny. This could make a massive difference - I'm not sure exactly how many people use Spotify for free, but pretty much everybody I've spoken to about it does! Secondly, though the difference here would be miniscule as barely anybody actually listens to the same song week after week, I also agree that one user shouldn't be able to contribute more than 1 sale equivalent. This is just on principle, as when I buy a single I will often listen to it well over 100 times, and don't like the idea that I'm contributing less to the chart than somebody who didn't even buy it! I may just be old-fashioned though :P

 

The absolute biggest change that NEEDS to happen though, is Spotify and other streaming services must stop advertising their "most played" playlist so much - it just leads to people listening to songs purely because they've been listened to so many times already, which for obvious reasons is really bad for chart movement.

 

Forgive my rant, I know this has all been said before, but the chart is getting so tedious now, just wanted to add my voice to the crowd...

It's so much harder to get your single into the top 40 these days but at least now that makes it a true hit when it does happen and if you can get to number one then it's probably going to be a million seller. I don't think the OCC should change the streaming formula at all, if anything I wish the singles chart was like this a long time ago so crap music "artists" like Westlife would have struggled to get 14 UK No1 singles.

Edited September 3, 20168 yr by PeaceMob