This manoeuvre was inevitable, as are future reviews and tweaks to the sales/streams ratio in coming years, as Martin Talbot of OCC confirms. However as someone who wishes to keep the charts as simple and consistent in their compilation methodology as possible - and who never really reconciled to the notion of counting both these discrete kinds of music consumption together in an awkwardly-combined single chart - this is just yet another alteration that effectively renders comparisons between current and earlier unit totals close to meaningless.

 

So not only must we try and make sense of the folding-in of audio streams alongside true sales by the presenting of streams as an equivalent 'sale' figure, which has made a mockery of the concept of 'total sales' and most notably 'million-sellers', we now can't even compare combined unit tallies for tracks from July 2014 to December 2016 like-for-like with those that will follow from January 2017, up until the next adjustment in ratio which will likely come around 2019. Presenting these streaming equivalent 'sales' as a continuum from the pure sales era is a nonsense and it really is like counting apples and pears.

 

I appreciate many followers want the chart to speed up and be configured so as to reflect more newer music. But I just want a chart that is accurate and counts consumption as consistently and fairly as possible, irrespective of the speed and shape that creates in the weekly tabulations. Insisting on combining these two formats meant that from mid-2014, this could never really be achieved meaningfully, especially with all the periodic adjustments they feel they must make as streaming steadily overhauls buying and reduces actual sales to more nominal amounts.

 

As a sales-orientated person who still buys downloads, I am pleased that sales will effectively have more of an impact again. But as many point out, that won't last if streaming continues to grow apace, and it can't ultimately mask the fact that sadly, paid-for purchases are on a fairly steep decline overall, and despite the fact that I see them as a fairer and simpler means of measuring a track's commercial popularity than streaming, I have to concede that giving sales an artificially higher profile in the charts by increasing the streaming-to-sale ratio just skews the true picture even further.

 

To my mind, whatever happens, we should be given far more detail when total tallies are reported as to the contributions of paid-for sales and audio stream equivalents. We get that breakdown for the weekly No 1 single and album, but rarely for anything else, and I'm never clear on whether the OCC are consistent in citing either total sales, or total combined units, when they announce current totals. The picture is too blurred and for those of us who want to establish the separated-out totals for each type of consumption, that information should be available to us, regardless of whether the official charts are combined and at what ratio the two formats are counted.

 

By the way, do we have a specific date for when this change is due to take effect? So far we just seem to have "January"!

By the way, do we have a specific date for when this change is due to take effect? So far we just seem to have "January"!

 

I would think 30 December to be honest as that is New Music Friday, unless its split, 100/1 for 2 days, and from the 1st Jan 150/1

 

 

^^Very good points above.

 

Does anyone think there will be a time without sales and we just revert to counting actual streams as the weekly tallies?

^^Very good points above.

 

Does anyone think there will be a time without sales and we just revert to counting actual streams as the weekly tallies?

 

No - just as vinyl has persisted, owning music is likely to remain popular, at least with us 'oldies'. :P

once the iTunes download store closes due to insignificant numbers of people downloading it may well make more sense to quote sales figures in terms of streams, and let one sale equal 150 streams rather than 150 streams equalling one sale.

good news. but it's not enough

A thought just occurred - will this ratio change affect the album chart too, as the last thing the album chart needs is another drop in numbers... :drama:

Nope, just the singles chart!

I would have been more positive about the re-assessment if free streams had been removed from the equation. Free downloads and free vinyl and free CD's have NEVER counted towards chart returns so I see no reason for free streaming to be any different. If you can't be bothered to buy (or afford to buy, I have been there too!), doesn't matter you can still have the music, but the charts shouldn't reflect it. The argument about being "paid-for" by advertising is irrelevant. The consumer is not paying for the product. It's being sponsored.

 

Gambo's point about million-sellers is the one that really bugs me the most - streaming devalues the achievements of records that sold a million physical copies when they were bloody expensive (equivalent of about 5 to 10 pounds in current spend), so you REALLY had to want it and be passionate about it. Listening to 40 records in a chart chosen by someone else while you're doing something else and not paying attention is just no way to show passion and accuracy in a chart of a million-sellers or anything else. This development will do nothing to change that, it just slows it down for a bit. Until the technology allows for streaming to reflect paid-for ENTIRE streams chosen or playlisted by individuals, then it will continue to remain stale, slow, bland and skewed towards established artists.

 

Exciting new and challenging acts will still be in the sales charts, because people who buy music are passionate. Not saying streamers AREN'T passionate about music, but it's more of a volume thing than an artist thing. (I think back to when I used to illegally tape all current music, cos I love it so and didn't have the cash - and it didn't affect the chart - but I still used my pocket money for a single or album that I was absolutely passionate for, which DID affect the chart. In the long run, I ended up buying everything I taped, so it wasn't lost to the music industry, I've been supporting them ever since)

Its a difficult one, how do you reflect popularity with a population that doesn't believe they should pay for music (or pay 10 quid a month subscription)?!

I have no problem with free streams being included tbh. I am just glad YouTube views are not included unlike the US charts.

Its a difficult one, how do you reflect popularity with a population that doesn't believe they should pay for music (or pay 10 quid a month subscription)?!

Nothing's for free.

 

Streaming is paid for by advertising if it is free. The cost of adverts puts the price of the things that everyone uses that are done by this method.

Streaming is new, so those who stream tracks for nothing are simply getting away with not paying for it now. But Record Companies are greedy bast*rds and so are the people who make the music. They will put a lot of pressure to secure more money from streaming. And frankly the advertising revenue will just not cover that, especially when streaming costs go up. So the gravy train for those who spung there music for free will come to end sooner or later.

Will be interesting to see what effect this does have beyond lowering sales by a 1/3rd. My guess is little, except taking us back to about a year ago when Top 10 sales hits could still be decent sized combined Top 40 hits.

Will be interesting to see what effect this does have beyond lowering sales by a 1/3rd. My guess is little, except taking us back to about a year ago when Top 10 sales hits could still be decent sized combined Top 40 hits.

 

Agreed its not as if we didn't have 20 week top 40 tracks before 2014.

Nothing's for free.

 

Streaming is paid for by advertising if it is free. The cost of adverts puts the price of the things that everyone uses that are done by this method.

Streaming is new, so those who stream tracks for nothing are simply getting away with not paying for it now. But Record Companies are greedy bast*rds and so are the people who make the music. They will put a lot of pressure to secure more money from streaming. And frankly the advertising revenue will just not cover that, especially when streaming costs go up. So the gravy train for those who spung there music for free will come to end sooner or later.

 

I would argue that artists have every right to get paid when someone enjoys their music, they all originally came from nothing after all.

I don't think this will change anything in terms of the charts apart from lower 'sales' - the playlists dominate the general public and many times Iv found myself listening to songs that I don't like or wouldn't usually listen to just because they cropped up on a playlist thus gaining extra sales.

I would argue that artists have every right to get paid when someone enjoys their music, they all originally came from nothing after all.

I agree totally with you. But at the moment Spotify the biggest streaming service at the moment pays next to nothing to the artists. One artist had millions of streams, but the money they got from Spotify wouldn't even pay for a year's subscription to the site!

 

At the moment the only ones making money are Bieber and Drake. My argument is that it will have to stop sooner or later. I predict sooner.

 

...and worse, the more power Spotify gets, the more of a monopoly the music industry will become. They will dictate what they promote, how much artists will be allowed to get (with the record companies, not the artists). There would need to be a complete change in consumer habits, a musical/technological revolution, to hand power back to the people. Just because spotify plug something you like doesn't mean that there aren't way better records NOT getting plugged (and charted) which is a chart first - popular SALES hits could still over-ride radio or record company plugging in the olden days, and promote new acts in the lower chart positions as people were glued to the exciting charts in their millions.

 

Not any more.....

...and worse, the more power Spotify gets, the more of a monopoly the music industry will become. They will dictate what they promote, how much artists will be allowed to get (with the record companies, not the artists). There would need to be a complete change in consumer habits, a musical/technological revolution, to hand power back to the people. Just because spotify plug something you like doesn't mean that there aren't way better records NOT getting plugged (and charted) which is a chart first - popular SALES hits could still over-ride radio or record company plugging in the olden days, and promote new acts in the lower chart positions as people were glued to the exciting charts in their millions.

 

Not any more.....

 

I disagree - if people don't like a song, no amount of promo will make people buy/stream it

I disagree - if people don't like a song, no amount of promo will make people buy/stream it

but if it's track say, 4 on a promoted Spotify playlist and people are just listening to that playlist in the shower or something (can't skip the track/forget to skip the track due to doing something else for example) then that's basically a stream for that song, which will count towards the official chart.

 

It's why I make my own playlist and use that instead, but the average Joe member of the public won't be bothered to make a playlist and will just use the one Spotify promote.