The OCC clearly haven't thought this through that much then. For what reason should Linkin Park be on ACR on the week that they experience a huge sales boost? I thought songs were put back at SCR on the week they got the >50% boost but now it appears that they only get put back on afterwards? :unsure:

 

And Thunder dropping 20-53 is such an epic fail on the OCC's part. They need to do something to stop songs dramatically falling one week and then remaining fairly stable or slowly climbing as others fall from then on. I read someone suggest ACR become more gradual, so 1-150 becomes 1-200, 1-250, 1-300, ... 1-500. That might be a good idea.

 

(as well as changing it so that ACR doesn't affect songs in the top 10 to prevent situations like the number one seller and streamer not being the official number one)

And Thunder dropping 20-53 is such an epic fail on the OCC's part. They need to do something to stop songs dramatically falling one week and then remaining fairly stable or slowly climbing as others fall from then on. I read someone suggest ACR become more gradual, so 1-150 becomes 1-200, 1-250, 1-300, ... 1-500. That might be a good idea.

 

(as well as changing it so that ACR doesn't affect songs in the top 10 to prevent situations like the number one seller and streamer not being the official number one)

 

I agree the rule is silly, seeing Thunder dropping so much, as Gooddelta mentioned above, if a track spends 10 weeks in the top 75 region (41-75), those tracks will never see the light of day inside the top 40.

 

It does kind of make sense that is returned to normal chart ratio the week after the 50% increase. If I understand all these new rules correctly, it would be difficult to monitor during the same week. Obviously, these Linkin Park tracks have had a massive increase but take a normal track and an extreme example, it might have increased a fair bit towards the beginning of the week and therefore returns to normal chart ratio for the first midweeks but then is completely taken off sale for the rest of the week so by the Friday chart, it didn't actually increase 50% in comparison to the whole market and therefore shouldn't be on normal chart ratio. It obviously doesn't work in the case of these tracks which increase due to celebrity deaths but they are a small number of hits and I feel like returning to normal chart ratio the SAME week of the increase would be difficult to monitor in most cases? I feel like I'm poorly explaining this but I hope someone gets me, you can't fully identify a 50% increase or not until the day of the chart which then renders the midweeks pointless. To be fair, I'm probably just completely misunderstanding the new rules and this post makes no sense :lol: :drama:

 

Basically, down with the new chart rules and just make the chart representative of what has been bought and streamed once again. Those were the good old days :heehee:

I just think it'd be better of the OCC to at least let any "death effect" boosts be captured with SCR, to give a better representation of the impact of it.

 

At least it's charting in the top 40 though, that matters more than exact numbers.

The 3 track rule change was controversial but maybe arguable.

 

Whereas this ACR is really just an unadulterated mess. This is the worst rule in any chart ever.

The chart is...a mess.

 

So every time not that there's a tragic loss, or something like Ariana's show, or somebody does a TV special and loads of their older songs get boosts, you're telling me that they're going to get hit by ACR for no good reason?

It does kind of make sense that is returned to normal chart ratio the week after the 50% increase. If I understand all these new rules correctly, it would be difficult to monitor during the same week. Obviously, these Linkin Park tracks have had a massive increase but take a normal track and an extreme example, it might have increased a fair bit towards the beginning of the week and therefore returns to normal chart ratio for the first midweeks but then is completely taken off sale for the rest of the week so by the Friday chart, it didn't actually increase 50% in comparison to the whole market and therefore shouldn't be on normal chart ratio. It obviously doesn't work in the case of these tracks which increase due to celebrity deaths but they are a small number of hits and I feel like returning to normal chart ratio the SAME week of the increase would be difficult to monitor in most cases? I feel like I'm poorly explaining this but I hope someone gets me, you can't fully identify a 50% increase or not until the day of the chart which then renders the midweeks pointless. To be fair, I'm probably just completely misunderstanding the new rules and this post makes no sense :lol: :drama:

 

Basically, down with the new chart rules and just make the chart representative of what has been bought and streamed once again. Those were the good old days :heehee:

 

I get this and I think in all likelihood you're exactly correct here, but can it really be that hard to run a quick check just before the chart is finalised to see if any songs on ACR have increased sales by 50%? It would make the midweeks slightly inaccurate but only for a very small handful of songs.

But i thought that on the 1st week with new rules

Oasis were in the chart with Don't look back and that got normal ratio

Same for mr brightside

In all fairness, Thunder has dropped significantly down in the iTunes chart too (right now it's at #62, I think 53 or so with combined songs) so was likely going to have a fairly substantial drop this week anyway even without ACR.

 

I don't understand how Rain by The Scrip has dropped to #44 in the mids though, despite still being mid-late 20's in iTunes and (I assume) rising on Spotify. Its individual chart positions have rarely changed since last week yet it's dropped 17 spots? :lol: Not sure how that works out, same goes for a few other tracks too..

 

 

In all fairness, Thunder has dropped significantly down in the iTunes chart too (right now it's at #62, I think 53 or so with combined songs) so was likely going to have a fairly substantial drop this week anyway even without ACR.

 

I don't understand how Rain by The Scrip has dropped to #44 in the mids though, despite still being mid-late 20's in iTunes and (I assume) rising on Spotify. Its individual chart positions have rarely changed since last week yet it's dropped 17 spots? :lol: Not sure how that works out, same goes for a few other tracks too..

It's not top 200 on Spotify.

There's no point going into the singles because they were so wrong yesterday after ACR but in albums Lana only shortened her lead by 200 copies, so certainly will not be #1 this week. Only a week of pre-orders didn't work in her favour.

“Despacito” is remaining on ACR this week, its sales are up 21% week-on-week, and the whole market has increased by 4% so it'd need to be going up by 52% and not 50%. That however is enough for it to climb back to #1 over last weeks "number one".

 

There seems to be some confusion over this. Mint Royale reckons 50% more than the market change means if the market is up 4% you have to be up 6% or more, but that seems a bit easy to me.

 

https://twitter.com/MintRoyale/status/889433367527264257

It does kind of make sense that is returned to normal chart ratio the week after the 50% increase. If I understand all these new rules correctly, it would be difficult to monitor during the same week. Obviously, these Linkin Park tracks have had a massive increase but take a normal track and an extreme example, it might have increased a fair bit towards the beginning of the week and therefore returns to normal chart ratio for the first midweeks but then is completely taken off sale for the rest of the week so by the Friday chart, it didn't actually increase 50% in comparison to the whole market and therefore shouldn't be on normal chart ratio. It obviously doesn't work in the case of these tracks which increase due to celebrity deaths but they are a small number of hits and I feel like returning to normal chart ratio the SAME week of the increase would be difficult to monitor in most cases? I feel like I'm poorly explaining this but I hope someone gets me, you can't fully identify a 50% increase or not until the day of the chart which then renders the midweeks pointless. To be fair, I'm probably just completely misunderstanding the new rules and this post makes no sense :lol: :drama:

 

Basically, down with the new chart rules and just make the chart representative of what has been bought and streamed once again. Those were the good old days :heehee:

 

It would make more sense to do it the same week because it could potentially mean that tracks that have a sudden increase in sales (e.g. because of a death) will actually chart higher the following week, despite actually being less popular than the previous week. But then it's not in line with how they apply ACR in the first place. And I think that would be more logical to do in the same week as well - don't see why it would be "difficult to monitor".

There seems to be some confusion over this. Mint Royale reckons 50% more than the market change means if the market is up 4% you have to be up 6% or more, but that seems a bit easy to me.

 

https://twitter.com/MintRoyale/status/889433367527264257

 

that's exactly what I posted the the other day but was told I was misunderstanding the rules

I just read the rules again

and it doesn't say anything about a 50% increase relative to the previous week

it says only relative to the market in general

 

There seems to be some confusion over this. Mint Royale reckons 50% more than the market change means if the market is up 4% you have to be up 6% or more, but that seems a bit easy to me.

 

https://twitter.com/MintRoyale/status/889433367527264257

This makes no sense though - if the market remained exactly the same (0% change) then 50% more than the market change would also be 0%, i.e. a song would only have to gain 1 sale more to be taken off ACR? Or if the market fell by 4%, wouldn't that meant that if a track *decreased* by less than 6% it would be taken off ACR? There's no way that's right!

This makes no sense though - if the market remained exactly the same (0% change) then 50% more than the market change would also be 0%, i.e. a song would only have to gain 1 sale more to be taken off ACR? Or if the market fell by 4%, wouldn't that meant that if a track *decreased* by less than 6% it would be taken off ACR? There's no way that's right!

Agreed, it's surely not right, an increase of 50% week-on-week relative to the market makes MUCH more sense.

I get this and I think in all likelihood you're exactly correct here, but can it really be that hard to run a quick check just before the chart is finalised to see if any songs on ACR have increased sales by 50%? It would make the midweeks slightly inaccurate but only for a very small handful of songs.

It should be pretty straightforward to apply the 50% check each time they compile a chart whether it be a midweek update od the final chart. It will mean that a song could move up and down rather a lot in the course of the week if it is close to the 50% threshold but, as you say, it should only apply to a handful of songs. Waiting until the next week means that the main chart impact could well be lost.

This makes no sense though - if the market remained exactly the same (0% change) then 50% more than the market change would also be 0%, i.e. a song would only have to gain 1 sale more to be taken off ACR? Or if the market fell by 4%, wouldn't that meant that if a track *decreased* by less than 6% it would be taken off ACR? There's no way that's right!

the wording in the Chart Rules could be a bit clearer but I have taken the rule:

 

6.3 Resets

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total increases by 50% greater than the market change week on week.

 

to mean that the track in ACR must record a sales increase before it is even considered for an automatic reset back to SCR. But in the example you gave in your understanding of the rules if the market fell by 4% then sales of the track would have to decrease by 2% or less and not 6% as you posted. But I'm convinced that sales of the track must increase in the first place. It's the use of the word "increases" that is causing confusion. If a smaller negative decline could cause a track to return to SCR then the OCC ought to have worded the rule as something like:

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total outperforms the change in the market by 50% or more.

[/i]

the wording in the Chart Rules could be a bit clearer but I have taken the rule:

 

6.3 Resets

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total increases by 50% greater than the market change week on week.

 

to mean that the track in ACR must record a sales increase before it is even considered for an automatic reset back to SCR. But in the example you gave in your understanding of the rules if the market fell by 4% then sales of the track would have to decrease by 2% or less and not 6% as you posted. But I'm convinced that sales of the track must increase in the first place. It's the use of the word "increases" that is causing confusion. If a smaller negative decline could cause a track to return to SCR then the OCC ought to have worded the rule as something like:

 

i) Automatic Reset – a track on ACR can automatically return to SCR if its combined sales and stream total outperforms the change in the market by 50% or more.

[/i]

Whichever way you take it, I agree that the idea of a song returning to SCR in a week where its sales actually decrease makes no sense. I really think they should have removed all confusion by just saying "increases by 50% week on week" with no reference to the market change, seeing as this is minimal anyway.

 

(Not that these rules make much sense anyway, but they could have at least made it clear what the rules were)

As far as the OCC is concerned the only people who HAVE to understand the rules are the people who made the changes to the code used to compile the chart. If we, the general public, aren't sure what the rules mean that's not the OCC's problem.