Neither for nor against this really as it's not really that much of a drastic change. It will only affect the Rita Ora style hits really, the Post Malone tracks that stick around forever will still stick around forever since no-one actually bought them

So this modification means label can't do the tricks to avoid ACR by putting tracks on 59p right?

That’s my take on it too - which is bad I think as I liked getting a track for 59p and I suspect they’ll stop doing it as often now

so in other words more pointless tinkering with the chart without grasping the actual real problem (which is passive playlisting).

 

So it's OK for people to keep streaming a song on playlists to determine it's chart position but it's not OK to include actual bonafide sales (regardless of whether they are 59p or 99p, it's people BUYING a track as opposed to listening to it in amongst other tracks someone else chose for them) - this is insane thinking, it's prioritising Spotify power over consumer choices. The old-fashioned way of dealing with singles being discounted was to introduce a minimum price point. It's a major duhhhhhhh moment, my brain hurts, too obvious. Of course if record companies all decide to charge 59p cos the profit margin is still better on one sale than 100 plays on Spotify, then that might oops take a small bit of control of the charts out of the streaming companies hands. The ones that are causing the problem in the first place along with the Official Charts Company backing. Yes, those ones.

Labels will have to find other ways

Sure they will

 

Off the top of my head, they can be strategic with when they add/remove songs to certain playlists, to make sure that they get an increase at the right time. You could even remove a song from a big playlist on week 8 and then re-add it on the very same playlist on week 9 for example to make it increase in streams over the previous week.

Edited January 3, 20196 yr by Eric_Blob

There is a minimum dealer price for downloads though.

 

And of course the minimum dealer prices for physical singles didn't really stop people circumventing them.

I wish they'd just do away with ACR and cut the problem off at the legs and introduce some rules that actually tackle the problem with streaming instead of sweeping it under the rug. Having songs falling 20-30 places most weeks is just such a mess.

Agree, i wish they’d introduce caps instead of Acr

But doesnt seem likely

So at least they are being consequent

Always thought it was idiotic that itunes determined acr

Regarding the apparently very prompt decision to introduce the latest rule tweak to the car-crash marriage that is the streams-cum-sales combined singles chart, it seems to fit in with the pattern established in recent years, when OCC introduce changes once every six months, either taking effect the first week of January or of July. I don't know if this means they only review their rules at fixed half-yearly intervals, but it certainly implies this. Although should some kneejerk alteration suddenly be deemed necessary in between the Jan/Jul change cycle, I daresay they'd introduce it sooner without waiting until the next regular rule change point. They probably would've done so following the Sheeran debacle, but (ludicrously) it would've taken them by surprise and so they needed another three months to formulate what they and the industry agreed as a suitable solution, which essentially took them to the usual July mid-year change point anyway.

The change should've been ACR taking place at 15 weeks as opposed to 10 weeks as Dan (?) already mentioned.

This also means that the NOW effect can no longer help songs avoid ACR?

What's the best me that if time before ACR can come in? 10 or 15 weeks of another?

What's the best me that if time before ACR can come in? 10 or 15 weeks of another?

 

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

If tracks don't go on ACR until streaming has declined for three weeks in a row with no regard to sales will that actually benefit slow burning sleeper hits because streaming takes longer to kick in for these songs meaning they could be on SCR for much longer before being affected by these rules?

What if their streams fall three weeks in a row early on though or does it only count after 10 weeks?

What if their streams fall three weeks in a row early on though or does it only count after 10 weeks?

The earliest a song can hit ACR is on its 10th week, which would only happen if its streams declined in its 7th, 8th and 9th weeks.

What's the best me that if time before ACR can come in? 10 or 15 weeks of another?

 

God no! The opposite needs to happen, songs should hit ACR at 7 weeks. Right now we have such a slow chart and anything that gets to number 1 stays there for an eternity.

I think ACR should count 10 weeks in the top 40, not in the top 100

it's ok or songs that debut high like Drake or Calvin but too soon for slow climbers

Just means a song will always be restricted by how long a run at no1 it can have.

It would be interesting if some big artist decided to manipulate the chart by removing their song from, say, Apple Music every third week before replacing it the week after to get an increase in streams. Don't know how possible that would be but you could theoretically avoid ACR forever that way!

I think they'd rather have the revenue of a week's streams than avoid ACR for as long as the song charts, besides the fans would be very annoyed that they can't stream the song every 3rd week.