Once a record on ACR has again declined in sales for three successive weeks, should it's streaming ratio then be doubled to 600:1? That would stop the likes of Perfect, Paradise and 2002 clogging up the lower echelons of the top 40 for weeks on end and This Is Me re-entering the top 40 every so often.

Doubling the ratio again would put it at 400:1 for paid subscription streams and 2400:1 (!) for free streams!

 

I think the current ratio is fair. It doesn't push long-runners totally out of the chart, but it's enough to allow fresh music to overtake. Long-runners still get represented in the chart, which is the way it should be I think.

I don't think there should be "double ACR" in the way you describe it..

 

BUT I would get behind incrimental ACR and the 20 week rule to stop old songs clogging the bottom end of the chart.

I think it is fine as it is now with ACR. Will get very confusing with multiple degrees of ACR. It’s only mega hits that are managing to stay top 40 for long periods after going ACR. It’s only us chart fans that care about these lower positions so not really a justifiable move. You don’t want to completely eliminate the presence of these songs, especially if they are still massively popular.

 

Plenty more songs are charting than there were before ACR and the charts aren’t so stagnant now, so ACR is doing its job.

No. It's already too confusing now without throwing another curveball in there - quite simply just keep it as "on ACR" or "not on ACR"

Who cares if it's confusing? I think the rules need to be far more sophisticated.

BUT I would get behind incrimental ACR and the 20 week rule to stop old songs clogging the bottom end of the chart.

I feel like the problem with this (apart from my general dislike of recurrency rules) is that there's honestly a severe lack of 'fresh' songs that are closely missing out since old stuff tends to decline so slowly to the point of effective equilibrium once they're out of the top 100. For instance there are only 13 songs in the Spotify top 200 right now that haven't reached the Spotify top 100, so those other 87 songs are mostly effectively deadweight, and it would get even more severe in the #201-#300 section I imagine. There'll certainly be no running out of fresh singles of course, but they'll probably reach a point of such irrelevance that the chart as a barometer of popularity will feel like a lie.

I might test that theory by making a Spotify Hot 100, but you are probably right. There is a lack of fresh songs no matter how many rules you place on the chart.

That will never change though, the general public are just too slow to move on by our fast-paced standards!

The problem is people’s streaming habits are different to buying an MP3 track or CD. People in general stream songs over a longer period and this has led to songs hanging around in the charts significantly longer in proportion to pre-streaming era. What I think is needed is perhaps a system where the ACR kicks in earlier - maybe 5 or 6 weeks but the ACR doesn’t increase as rapidly to avoid big drops in chart positions which look rather odd. You can have a system where ACR is increased to 1:200 after 6 weeks and 1:300 after 10 weeks.

personally I think its nonsensicl that streams count forever when you spend 20 pounds on a vinyl and counts once even if you keep listening to it at home for 20 years ;) I think a "cap" rather than acr would solve all problem and songs will drop more gradually as every person hits his cap at different times

personally I think its nonsensicl that streams count forever when you spend 20 pounds on a vinyl and counts once even if you keep listening to it at home for 20 years ;) I think a "cap" rather than acr would solve all problem and songs will drop more gradually as every person hits his cap at different times

Exactly what I keep saying, unique users hitting a 'cap' would firstly makes things drop gradually and it will more accurately reflect the AMOUNT of people who like a song rather than how much people are streaming a song which has always been what the official chart is about.

personally I think its nonsensicl that streams count forever when you spend 20 pounds on a vinyl and counts once even if you keep listening to it at home for 20 years ;) I think a "cap" rather than acr would solve all problem and songs will drop more gradually as every person hits his cap at different times

As I’ve said previously, I think this is by far the best solution. And I think the cap should be something VERY LOW, like 10 streams - otherwise it wouldn’t solve the problem. I don’t know how many times the GP listen to songs, but surely once you’ve played a song 10 times, you can tell if you like it or not. Lots of people will reach that point in the first few weeks, but others may take a long time, leading to a gradual decline for non-fanbase acts. The streaming chart can track which old songs are constantly being listened to...

The essential problem is that historically rules were put in place to try and make the playing field level (restrictions on numbers of formats, minimal retail price etc) now there are rules to make the playing field uneven. To some extent the "rules" are now a side show and aren't the real problem, they have failed to address the issues they were designed to, i don't know what the answer really is, but to keep on trying to "force" the charts and music consumption to fit an idea of what we were used to just makes it more and more artificial. Arguably it's unclear what they are measuring anyway, it isn't purchasing and (thanks to ACR etc) it isn't really consumption in it's rawest form.

 

Fair enough there needs to be some way to assist the promotion of new songs but endlessly fiddling with the rules isn't the answer and indeed lends the charts less credibility in the long run.

As I’ve said previously, I think this is by far the best solution. And I think the cap should be something VERY LOW, like 10 streams - otherwise it wouldn’t solve the problem. I don’t know how many times the GP listen to songs, but surely once you’ve played a song 10 times, you can tell if you like it or not. Lots of people will reach that point in the first few weeks, but others may take a long time, leading to a gradual decline for non-fanbase acts. The streaming chart can track which old songs are constantly being listened to...

Was about to say exactly this. If streams were counted at a 1:10 ratio but capped at one sale, we'd get a chart similar to that of 5/10 years ago, and songs would either have massive sales at first then decline very quickly, or have lower peaks but spend more weeks on the chart. I think that's a reasonable compromise.

The essential problem is that historically rules were put in place to try and make the playing field level (restrictions on numbers of formats, minimal retail price etc) now there are rules to make the playing field uneven. To some extent the "rules" are now a side show and aren't the real problem, they have failed to address the issues they were designed to, i don't know what the answer really is, but to keep on trying to "force" the charts and music consumption to fit an idea of what we were used to just makes it more and more artificial. Arguably it's unclear what they are measuring anyway, it isn't purchasing and (thanks to ACR etc) it isn't really consumption in it's rawest form.

 

Fair enough there needs to be some way to assist the promotion of new songs but endlessly fiddling with the rules isn't the answer and indeed lends the charts less credibility in the long run.

It's a case of if they had a 'cap' in the first place, they distinguished what were single stream and what was streamed as part of listening to an album and they didn't have the whole 'no data for Thursday so lets so an average or make the whole thing up' problem (of course the latter isn't the OCC's fault but not having accurate data is a problem particularly in a close week like this week was) then we wouldn't be in this situation.

 

I think after the all time highs of 2012 they didn't think actual single sales would be at a 13 year low just three years after streaming was introduced in 2015, I think they thought sales would still be the biggest factor at this point. The whole thing is so much different from going from vinyl to CDs and CDs to downloads so they had to do something different to track it anyway.

Edited September 2, 20186 yr by Grandwicky

My idea of what should have been done in the first place is to only count the first 10 streams of a certain song by each paying subscriber. So each of the first 10 plays represent 1/10th of a sale but anything beyond that doesn’t count to the chart. That way newer songs have a much better chance but older songs are still being represented because the more popular songs are still being discovered by people all over.

Oh didn’t see Pete and Juranamo’s posts but it seems like we’re talking about a similar solution.

A streaming cap of 10 songs is one thing, but changing the ratio to 1:10 would be dire - if two people each stream Hot Hits UK every day for 5 days, it would be like they’ve bought all its 60-odd songs between them :lol:

 

I’d actually rather you’d have to stream a song multiple times before it counts at alll, but then it would take even longer for new songs to have an impact - so that won’t happen.

 

Going back to the question in the subject, I don’t think increasing ACR again would put the songs mentioned at the top of the thread in a truer position - they’re all higher in the sales chart right now, except 2002 which is just 8 places lower there. Sales can have a long tail just like streams. Though I think there’s a valid argument that This Is Me has benefitted more than any other track this year from double counting with album streams, without which it may not be top 40 anymore.

A streaming cap of 10 songs is one thing, but changing the ratio to 1:10 would be dire - if two people each stream Hot Hits UK every day for 5 days, it would be like they’ve bought all its 60-odd songs between them :lol:

 

I’d actually rather you’d have to stream a song multiple times before it counts at alll, but then it would take even longer for new songs to have an impact - so that won’t happen.

 

Going back to the question in the subject, I don’t think increasing ACR again would put the songs mentioned at the top of the thread in a truer position - they’re all higher in the sales chart right now, except 2002 which is just 8 places lower there. Sales can have a long tail just like streams. Though I think there’s a valid argument that This Is Me has benefitted more than any other track this year from double counting with album streams, without which it may not be top 40 anymore.

No one is saying anything about changing the ratio to 1:10 :huh: Keep the other rules the way they are but maybe have the 'cap' replace ACR or even run alongside it. It makes more sense to stop someone's streams counting as if they've 'bought' a song then to complicate things further with double ACR.