Best thing for them to do is get rid of streaming on the official charts and have the official charts for sales only.

 

Getting rid of streaming from the official chart would be absolutely ludicrous since (as others have mentioned) streaming is by far the most dominant format of consuming music and the most accurate method of presenting the UK's most popular songs. We do already have a sales chart as well :P

Best thing for them to do is get rid of streaming on the official charts and have the official charts for sales only. As for physical the should be no rules on it to in courage people to spend money on artists instead of the cop out streaming.

 

You win biggest L take of the year so far.

Best thing for them to do is get rid of streaming on the official charts and have the official charts for sales only. As for physical the should be no rules on it to in courage people to spend money on artists instead of the cop out streaming.

 

I also preferred the sales era, don't get me wrong - but you are aware they're basically obsolete now aren't you?

 

Like, you'd probably even get top 40 hits on less than 20 sales in a sales-only chart nowadays.

Like, you'd probably even get top 40 hits on less than 20 sales in a sales-only chart nowadays.

I don’t believe it’s quite that bad. I would imagine it’s still in the region of 200!

 

Granted this was almost 18 months ago, but for instance, Elton John/Britney Spears - Hold Me Closer: it was #42 in the download chart on 11th November 2022 with 250 download sales, and #34 in the sales chart with 342 sales.

 

Of course the larger point that the sales chart is obsolete in terms of really representing what’s popular, still holds true!

Yeah it’s roughly 300 sales for #40 and 800 for #10 in the sales chart

You win biggest L take of the year so far.

It isn't my fault you can't handle others opinions. I might not always agree with your opinions but I am not going to start name calling.

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by kimberley88

I also preferred the sales era, don't get me wrong - but you are aware they're basically obsolete now aren't you?

 

Like, you'd probably even get top 40 hits on less than 20 sales in a sales-only chart nowadays.

I just think streaming is a bit of a cop out. I don't support it so I don't subscribe, if I like a song I would buy It via download or cd to support the artist . If we really have to have streams in the charts then maybe the public should be charged per stream a bit like how you can rent a movie ( like min 10p a stream) instead of a monthly subscription. I know it isn't likely to happen but I can't help but think streaming loads of songs for a small monthly subscription isn't that far off from not paying the artists at all. I understand they brought streaming in because sales was low and wanted to make the charts look better with higher numbers.

It is just a shame people are now longer willing to support artists now days.

 

Edit I just noticed I had already said I didn't like streams 10 days ago and i have basically just repeated myself, I had forgot all about it lol.

Edited March 27, 20241 yr by kimberley88

You're fighting a battle that was lost many moons ago. The genie is out of the bottle where streaming is concerned.

 

I'd be a hypocrite to bemoan it, I value my Spotify a lot and wouldn't want to go back, the charts have just by and large been one of the casualties of this change.

Yeah, 10p per stream would quickly add up! I don’t see streaming prices going up too much anytime soon. If they go beyond a certain point, I think lots of people would just go back to pirating.

Yeah it’s roughly 300 sales for #40 and 800 for #10 in the sales chart

Julian, what about top 100? how many sales you would need to go top 100, sure thats very little

 

I remember when the itunes sales were dying and streaming wasn't counting yet that in Spain you could go top 100 with 1 sale :o

Julian, what about top 100? how many sales you would need to go top 100, sure thats very little

 

I remember when the itunes sales were dying and streaming wasn't counting yet that in Spain you could go top 100 with 1 sale :o

I reckon 150 or so for #100, so about half #40.

speaking as someone who is keeping the sales chart (and musicians income) alive - moral high-ground here as streaming gives 'em eff all in terms of income unless they are global massive hits - I could "fix" the charts in a jiffy, as I've said many times before.

 

Album plays count for album "sales", not albums sales AND single track "sales".

 

Single track plays count for single "sales" and not towards album "sales".

 

Streaming Platform Playlist plays count for nothing, as does the catch-all terms "play xmas songs" "play Ed Sheeran songs".

 

If one can't be arsed to choose something to play via a personal playlist or requesting it by name then it isn't a genuine choice and it's no different from listening to a radio station (whose plays count for nothing). 8 million people listening to Dua Lipa's current hit on Radio 2 is no different from Amazon playlisting their latest exclusive amongst a bunch of festive favourites that they decide on and people passively have on in the background while writing Xmas cards. Radio One playing the new top 40 is no different from Spotify having a playlist called "Top 40". Skipping tracks that annoy you at least shows some degree of control and choice that you don't have on radio, but it's still not actively CHOOSING to hear a particular track.

 

The charts would then genuinely reflect what people are choosing to listen to and/or buy. Album genuine sales can still reach 100,000 in a year. And it would create spaces for new acts and tracks. ACR may or may not still be a thing, but my suspicion is it wouldnt be needed if company created playlists weren't getting counted.

 

Of course this will never happen cos the streaming companies and record labels like being in control of the product they are mutually pushing in co-operation with the OCC (see ACR, info news releases for current profile acts like "Best-selling tracks", award puff pieces etc) and which is after all interested in maintaining an interest in the chart existing and continuing as opposed to an industry barometer of streaming habits which you can follow on a daily basis on the streaming platform themselves.... :teresa:

 

 

I would argue that streaming a song 100 times is fairly close to buying a .69 download once in revenue. Label and the platform will have their share in both cases.

I would argue that streaming a song 100 times is fairly close to buying a .69 download once in revenue. Label and the platform will have their share in both cases.

I'd go further and say it's more of a personal commitment to spend 5 hours listening to something than spending under a dollar on it as well.

 

(Before anyone points out that people can just stream things in the background without listening, people can and also will buy things they don't listen to, people for whom that amount of money is a trifle).

Thank you to everyone for this super interesting thread.

 

I bought my first single for 6sh 8d (33p in today's money) in HMV, Oxford Street, London in August 1964: "A Hard Day's Night", which was still in the era when record companies or artist managers could organise teams of people to go round the record shops and get a song into the Top 20 or even slip a known shop contributor to the charts a £1 note to add a few sales to their returns. I estimate that there were some 45 hits which reached No 20 for 1 week in the 1950's and 1960's which were not entitled to be there on sales alone.

 

I started to write down the Top 20 every week on Sunday evenings listening to the heroic Alan Freeman's Pick of the Pops, now Friday evenings since July 2015.

 

I own every Top 20 single which has been physically released since the first chart in November 1952 up to last week's chart - I have not yet acquired any of the six new entries to today's chart. I still prefer to buy vinyl but I also buy cassettes and CDs in that order.

 

I strongly believe in a chart generated by sales, no matter the cost of the bought or downloaded song.

 

I do not know enough about streaming - never having done that myself - to offer a suggestion on the ratio between streaming and physical sales but if a member of the public paid money for the song, it should be included in chart sales in some form or other - I strongly support that point.

 

I do not believe in ACR or any other chart manipulation mechanism, even if it means that certain songs stick around for months on end - if people are buying the song, it must be properly reflected.

 

The only argument I might accept is for a separate chart for songs that are, say, more than 52 weeks old, in order to allow new talent and new songs to better flourish and to more readily reach the ears of the public. This should also apply to Albums; and to Christmas songs which have already charted. The exception would be old hits which suddenly reappear, as Raye, Natasha Bedingfield and Sophie Ellis-Bextor have done this year for specific but whatever reasons: they should be allowed back into the current new chart.

Edited March 29, 20241 yr by Tuttavilla

By the way, if one noted down the Spotify Top 50 every day with the sales for 7 days and added them up, would that give a truer reflection of a proper sales chart without falsely manipulating the chart with ACR etc. compared to the OCC/Radio 1 chart?

Spotify do post weekly charts so no need to do any addition

Spotify do post weekly charts so no need to do any addition

Thanks. And is it the same 7 days, Friday to Thursday?

It is, although technically speaking the OCC don't actually get the Thursday Spotify data, they just estimate it.

It is, although technically speaking the OCC don't actually get the Thursday Spotify data, they just estimate it.

Gosh, worse and worse. No excuse for that in this technical age.