Surely it's got to be a decrease of sales? There's been plenty of times where songs have climbed quite a bit in sales but dropped in positions due to influxes in popular new releases or whatnot, so I can't see it being by position. Also, just consider how static the chart can be at times - songs often move up and down a couple of places or even remain a non-mover.

Yeah it's bound to be sales.

Agree 100%. This is like a fanfiction of the official chart top 40. Nothing 'official' about it anymore, it's twisting all of the rules and all of the stats to create the kind of chart they want, which will essentially be just an advertisement for new music.

 

Stupid if you ask me. What can chart positions possibly mean any more when they're not reflective of either sales OR consumption, but some half-baked mishmash of the two that lets both sides down?

This was always going to be the problem when they added streaming into the chart.

 

They should just have separates charts for paid purchases and streaming.

 

Constantly changing the rules and ratios because they aren't getting the chart they want is stupid.

I'll echo the people who aren't thrilled about this. On first glance it makes the singles chart more complex than I'm comfortable with, and looks like the 2017 version of singles getting deleted after an arbitrary amount of weeks. I'm hoping this won't mess up chart runs to a major extent, and really there's enough variables about how this is gonna work that I'll keep an open mind until we see it in action. I'm just not convinced it's necessary when top 40 seems to be moving faster this year ('Shape Of You' being an obvious exception) and it's not going to help the turnover of songs at #1 go any faster. The limit of 3 tracks per artist looks like an extreme measure too but I'll surely stop complaining when it helps less established artists get higher chart positions :heehee:

So a slow burner that has been in the chart for 10 weeks e.g. a chart run of 40-37-36-32-33-29-31-25-27-27 would have their streaming ratio increased as well.

 

 

Well something had to be done about the farce that was Ed and Drake's chart takeover during the Spring. With Taylor potentially releasing a new album later this year it was going to happen again. But having only three songs chart sounds a bit odd, although I'm assuming this is to account for two lead singles and the most cherry picked track. Does this mean that if a 4th single is picked then that would be added additionally? All in all i think its a good move.

 

Don't see the need to drop the ratio to 300:1 after a few weeks though on the singles chart. I can see what they are trying to achieve but the charts have picked up the pace this year compared to last year significantly. I think given another year or two it would gather further pace as people/record labels become more accustomed to the streaming market. Creating an artificial chart run just is ridiculous.

 

Also in regards to Calvin's negative comments about albums, they are far from dead. They've actually seen a small revival the past year, which is probably why he's now along with the chainsmokers is releasing an album after saying they wouldn't. For example, Ed's last two albums have both accumulated around 300k from streaming respectively and I'm sure Drake and maybe stormzy have around 50-100k. Doesn't sound much but this is a big bump from last year, the way its progressing I think albums are about to get a new lease of life.

Can the change be retroactive pliz?

That would mean Lana del Rey's Love

Would go top 40:)

Interesting. Good news for smaller artists.

 

Like Kylie? :P

Can the change be retroactive pliz?

That would mean Lana del Rey's Love

Would go top 40:)

Somehow I doubt the OCC are going to wanna retroactively change all the previous charts to accommodate every new rule they bring up. :P

This seems a good idea, however is it worthwhile as dont most people just look at the spotify chart anyway to see whats popular. The amount of downloads sold doesnt seem to make much of a difference except in a few cases (Like Artist for Grenfell ).

Using today's Spotify chart for example Shape of You is #12 with 251,888 streams but under 300:1 it means you half the total and that makes 125,794 streams tumbling down to number 50!

Sigh, another year, another rule change. They were on the right path trying to make the Charts look more realistic but the changing of streaming ratio & now this seem like steps backward.

Using today's Spotify chart for example Shape of You is #12 with 251,888 streams but under 300:1 it means you half the total and that makes 125,794 streams tumbling down to number 50!

that admittedly looks a bit messy. people are gonna look back and ask why Shape of You dropped from 20 to 40 in one week. I guess it's just something we have to get used to though, long gone are the days where the charts were as simple as a sale being a sale.

that admittedly looks a bit messy. people are gonna look back and ask why Shape of You dropped from 20 to 40 in one week. I guess it's just something we have to get used to though, long gone are the days where the charts were as simple as a sale being a sale.

 

Messy but good!

So if a #1 moves something like 45-30-28-17-7-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1, on which week would its sales be converted to 300:1 if its latter three weeks at #1 all saw sales declines? Could this mean that with its streams halved from this point onwards a technically less popular song could then snatch the #1? This should well and truly put and end to 12+ week runs at the top, unless songs increase sales at points during their run at the top rather than just decreasing every single week.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by gooddelta

So if a #1 moves something like 45-30-28-17-7-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1, on which week would its sales be converted to 300:1 if its latter three weeks at #1 all saw sales declines? Could this mean that with its streams halved from this point onwards a technically less popular song could then snatch the #1? This should well and truly put and end to 12+ week runs at the top, unless songs increase sales at points during their run at the top rather than just decreasing every single week.

 

I actually realised this, as Bryan Adams record is untouchable, as mentioned in a previous post somewhere.

 

Labels can pull tricks to slightly increase weekly sales i.e. Drop price to 59p but yeah will be hard to see another Bryan Adams

Guess Despacito will be on 1:300 soon too

So if a #1 moves something like 45-30-28-17-7-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1, on which week would its sales be converted to 300:1 if its latter three weeks at #1 all saw sales declines? Could this mean that with its streams halved from this point onwards a technically less popular song could then snatch the #1? This should well and truly put and end to 12+ week runs at the top, unless songs increase sales at points during their run at the top rather than just decreasing every single week.

No doubt they could try cutting the price to 59p (or lower) every few weeks to give it a sales boost so that the three-week clock starts again.

True r.e. the 59p point, though with the impact of download sales rapidly becoming less and less this trick won't be very effective for much longer.

These rules are now entirely arbitrary and ridiculous.