I'm assuming that once a track has been let off ACR and returned to SCR there will be no period of grace (other than 3 subsequent weeks of decline) before the track returns back to ACR. In other words it won't be allowed a further 10 weeks before the rule once again kicks in. That could see the track fall away quite quickly.

 

Hmm.. it's not really clear. Maybe it does get another 10 weeks if it gets a "manual reset", because it's not really a reset otherwise. And they said it can only be used in exceptional circumstances - I suppose it will only be if it's managed to chart for 10 weeks as an album track before being promoted as a single later on.

Reading these rules it seems to me that the 'official' chart is about to become a complete mess in terms of what is the best selling or most streamed tracks are anymore. What exactly is it supposed to represent? Maybe they should re-name the chart 'random list of things we think should be doing well' or something...

But I take that to mean they apply it on that week. That is still "after 3 weeks". I don't see why they would delay applying it to the 4th week, by which time it might have started increasing again!

 

This is where I'm getting confused too, especially because as you say it could suddenly have an uplift.

Mess.

This is where I'm getting confused too, especially because as you say it could suddenly have an uplift.

 

I think it's pretty clear it'll happen on that 3rd week, people are just being silly again, like not understanding what OCC mean by "sales". A chart is compiled after a week's sales, so after three weeks of decline they apply ACR.

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by AcerBen

I suppose if it were applied on the 4th week, it'd be easier to follow. Otherwise during midweek, there could be close cases where it's not clear until the last day whether or not the penalty is to be applied. If it's done on the 4th week, then it's clear what the song's fate will be from the outset.

I think it's pretty clear it'll happen on that 3rd week, people are just being silly again, like not understanding what OCC mean by "sales". A chart is compiled after a week's sales, so after three weeks of decline they apply ACR.

I don"t think this is clear at all though and it's not being silly, but it would be exceedingly messy if this was applied *on* the third week. It would render the midweeks pretty useless too if a song is on the normal ratio all week and suddenly on ACR by Friday? It's less logical imo.

I don"t think this is clear at all though and it's not being silly, but it would be exceedingly messy if this was applied *on* the third week. It would render the midweeks pretty useless too if a song is on the normal ratio all week and suddenly on ACR by Friday? It's less logical imo.

Yeah but what if then the cap is applied in the midweeks and then by the final compilation point it has actually achieved an increase? Same difference really

I don"t think this is clear at all though and it's not being silly, but it would be exceedingly messy if this was applied *on* the third week. It would render the midweeks pretty useless too if a song is on the normal ratio all week and suddenly on ACR by Friday? It's less logical imo.

 

 

I was thinking of the same thing, my understanding of the rule would be to apply the 1-300 rule on Week 4 (somehow... probably midnight after the cut off point on Thursday on Week 3, it just makes sense.) I think OCC needs to clear it up, at the moment Descapito is probably increasing in sales, so it gets a reset back to 0 :lol:

 

Descapito could decrease 1 week, gain the following week, decrease the following week etc etc, :lol:

Yeah but what if then the cap is applied in the midweeks and then by the final compilation point it has actually achieved an increase? Same difference really

This is why I think ACR is applied in the fourth week, after three consecutive weeks of decline, it makes the most logical sense?

This is why I think ACR is applied in the fourth week, after three consecutive weeks of decline, it makes the most logical sense?

 

 

Same here 00.01 Friday after Thursday midnight switched over to the 1-300 ratio I'm assuming that's how it will work. :unsure:

Just give all streams a 300-1 ratio.

Just give all streams a 300-1 ratio.

 

Then it would go back to square one as downloads continue to decline.

The mids are potentially going to be very messy. After all, if an artist has four songs "selling" enough to make the chart, are they going to apply the cap or will they wait until the end of the week? If they apply it to the mids we could get a song sitting comfortably in the top forty on Wednesday which is nowhere to be seen by Friday.

 

I don't envy people who use the mids to write about the chart ready for publication as soon as it is announced on Friday. Oh, wait... :huh:

Remember in 2006 when songs were made ineligible for not being available on physical format any more (e.g. Crazy, Maneater etc)? Ineligible songs used to appear in the midweeks spreadsheet, but they would be starred out so they would have no position allocated to them but would be listed with their sales in between the other positions

Edited July 2, 20178 yr by -SCOTT-

Then it would go back to square one as downloads continue to decline.

Reduce the price of downloads then.

I think it's pretty clear it'll happen on that 3rd week, people are just being silly again, like not understanding what OCC mean by "sales". A chart is compiled after a week's sales, so after three weeks of decline they apply ACR.

 

I'm pretty sure it means that the penalty will be applied from week 4, after three weeks of declining 'sales' are observed under SCR. Otherwise the single would in effect be given two 'sales' figures in the same week, the SCR to justify application of the rule, and the ACR to justify the final chart position.

Reading these rules it seems to me that the 'official' chart is about to become a complete mess in terms of what is the best selling or most streamed tracks are anymore. What exactly is it supposed to represent? Maybe they should re-name the chart 'random list of things we think should be doing well' or something...

Couldn't have put it better myself! The whole thing is horrible.

Part of the problem with the new rules, is that they are bound by what the industry will agree to, rather than what makes logical sense...

It's almost the entire problem in my view! They can't not listen to certain significant industry players - especially when they may be helping to fund the chart itself - and sometimes must act to appease them, however skewed or hopeless the resulting compromise may be.

 

We all knew the ludicrous decision in March 2006 to remove a track from the official chart if it had been deleted physically more than two weeks earlier, regardless of how healthy ongoing digital sales were, would be disastrous and skew the allocation of positions horribly, unfairly booting out genuine-selling singles while artificially inflating the ranking of those still eligible to be listed. And that restriction was applied from position 1 downward. Yet we all had to resign ourselves to the reality that it was a sop to a sector of the industry that the charts company had to accommodate - in this case the then-still influential physical retailers - whose main interests were not allowing digital to overwhelm physical so swiftly, and how it'd look with gaps in their chart displays where a single was no longer stockable physically but still occupied an official chart position. It didn't matter how dated we all had to accept those causes would soon become, if they weren't already outmoded by that stage. Their influence was enough to create a compromise that was always going to taint the veracity of chart records for the nine months before they conceded that all sales must be counted and all tracks selling enough awarded a chart rank, but was never going to reverse the sad decline in physical sales or even support retailers long-term. The concept of 'chart walls' was dead in most of them within three years, and soon after so was that of the CD single per se.

 

We need to acknowledge and tolerate the increasing cannibalisation of true sales by audio streaming, but the way the two types of consumption have been combined in the chart is clumsy, and was always going to create further problems down the line. Restrict streaming at source rather than restrict the charts.