January 19, 20169 yr Could be the case... but then again Youtube pays royalties and it's not included.
January 19, 20169 yr Author Could be the case... but then again Youtube pays royalties and it's not included. That's different because it's video streaming rather than audio streaming though.
January 23, 20169 yr Proper sales are only terrible here now because streaming was introduced, making it easier for free access - they were fine beforehand: Rather Be sold almost 163,000 in its first week, plus My Love, I Got U, Nobody to Love, Hideaway, Waves and Summer all sold over 100,000 in the first half of 2014.
January 23, 20169 yr I think the argument of 'but sales will be so low without streaming!!!!1!1!1!' is pretty rubbish. Sales are still low, whether we count streams or not. It's almost like people are afraid to face that reality so they'd rather inflate the figures. So what if sales are low? If a sales chart eventually becomes redundant, so be it. But streams aren't interchangeable with downloads like downloads were with the physical CD ten years ago. Even in 2008 the chart didn't look this boring.
January 23, 20169 yr I'm pro-streaming being in the chart but I'm also tired of how slow it is and how long songs are staying in it. Can anyone come up with a system that gives more weight to newer songs but doesn't end up making the chart meaningless? I wouldn't want them to remove songs like What Do You Mean altogether, but there must be some formula they could use to reflect the fact that it's no longer gaining in popularity, and it's just the same people listening to it over and over. There's no doubt it's still a popular song and should be on the chart, but at the same time the chart is supposed to be a promotional tool for the record industry, and how can it be if one artist is hogging 3 of the top 5? I don't know what the answer is.
January 23, 20169 yr I'm pro-streaming being in the chart but I'm also tired of how slow it is and how long songs are staying in it. Can anyone come up with a system that gives more weight to newer songs but doesn't end up making the chart meaningless? I wouldn't want them to remove songs like What Do You Mean altogether, but there must be some formula they could use to reflect the fact that it's no longer gaining in popularity, and it's just the same people listening to it over and over. There's no doubt it's still a popular song and should be on the chart, but at the same time the chart is supposed to be a promotional tool for the record industry, and how can it be if one artist is hogging 3 of the top 5? I don't know what the answer is. like for example, after a certain amount of streams counted, the stream to sale ratio for that particular song is doubled? That would improve the situation. Edited January 23, 20169 yr by mdh
January 23, 20169 yr But wait, can't I just put a song on repeat and help it climb the chart? No, only 10 streams count per user per day on any streaming service. For example, I could listen to Justin Bieber's Love Yourself 20 times on Spotify and 20 times on Apple Music today, but only the first 10 from Spotify and the first 10 from Apple Music will count. I was under the illusion it was 10 streams per week for every account.
January 23, 20169 yr Author I was under the illusion it was 10 streams per week for every account. Nope, definitely per day! So even if you streamed a song 10 times every day for a week, you'd only contribute 7/10ths of a sale.
January 23, 20169 yr Where did you get that information from? That's fucking shit though. Who would think that was a wise idea, when artists with a large amount of fans can easily get an advantage using their 'I <3 BIEBER' playlists, and I'll get sick of Lush Life if I do that.
January 23, 20169 yr Author From the OCC when it was first announced :P I very much doubt many people will spam listen a song to the maximum - it would take something on a huge scale to effect the chart because each person can only add 0.7 sales a week. Actually buying the song would count for more. So it's not really much of an advantage ~
January 23, 20169 yr The 'large amount of fans can easily get an advantage' argument doesn't wash. In the physical era you had 10 fans buying 5 formats of a single each = 50 sales. In the streaming era you have 10 fans streaming a song all day and all night for a week = 0.7*10 = 7 sales.
January 23, 20169 yr From the OCC when it was first announced :P I very much doubt many people will spam listen a song to the maximum - it would take something on a huge scale to effect the chart because each person can only add 0.7 sales a week. Actually buying the song would count for more. So it's not really much of an advantage ~ Well here the difference is that if you stream it you don't pay for it (you pay for a monthly subscription), while with ever "actual" sale you pay every time. So it's much easier to get someone to the top using streaming - this way you "pay" the same for one stream as for 70 streams per week.
January 23, 20169 yr Spotify needs a fresh playlist, just take stuff off the playlist when it's been out a few weeks
January 23, 20169 yr People will listen to a song all day though. I recall Eric Blob stating that he'd spent the entire day listening to Right There by Nicole Sherzinger. Edited January 23, 20169 yr by T Boy
January 23, 20169 yr Author Well here the difference is that if you stream it you don't pay for it (you pay for a monthly subscription), while with ever "actual" sale you pay every time. So it's much easier to get someone to the top using streaming - this way you "pay" the same for one stream as for 70 streams per week. Is it really easier though? When you can only contribute no more than 0.7 sales per person a week. It'd be *cheaper* but not easier. People may well listen to a song all day but it caps at 10 plays per day so beyond that it means nothing.
January 23, 20169 yr As I can imagine it's easier (i.e. cheaper) for the people who don't have their own income, who are mainly school people. I'd like to see a chart where the limit would be reduced to 10 times per week. How much would it change? Only OCC knows.
January 23, 20169 yr Oh please. I would imagine these people probably stream Bieber multiple times each day. Therefore they have seven sales every week instead of one.
January 23, 20169 yr Author Oh please. I would imagine these people probably stream Bieber multiple times each day. Therefore they have seven sales every week instead of one. No need to be so aggressive with your language about it please! As I said, they can only contribute 0.7 sales a week per person, because there's a cap of 10 streams a day. I'm not sure anyone's actually paying attention to that part :lol:
January 23, 20169 yr The 'large amount of fans can easily get an advantage' argument doesn't wash. In the physical era you had 10 fans buying 5 formats of a single each = 50 sales. In the streaming era you have 10 fans streaming a song all day and all night for a week = 0.7*10 = 7 sales. And they would drop out of the chart immediately after charting if it was just a fanbase track - I would say it's fair enough if a fan is prepared to pay for 5 formats (and help both the artist and the music industry by buying them - you did after all get bonus tracks that these days get stuck on "deluxe" albums to try and get you to buy the same product twice). Not paying for anything at all, and having your listening habits dominate the chart (which they clearly do to at least an extent) would be like giving away free singles in the cd era and have them count towards the chart. I'm not in favour of advert-paid-for listening having ANY contribution to the charts for that reason. If you don't pay, you don't get it counted as chart.... The sooner that happens the better.
Create an account or sign in to comment