I think the 33% represents an increase in single sales from the entire chart, but that there is variation in specific positions.

 

For example, I think that the lower end of the chart will be up by more than 33% year-on-year, whereas the top end of the chart will be up by less, perhaps even as low as 20%. Therefore the 500k (which is from the top end of the chart) really needs to reflect that.

 

I'm not sure of the exact figures for positional analysis - anyone have these (January 09 to January 08)?

 

Taking the past 5 weeks of 2009 and comparing them with their nearest date equivalents in 2008, shows:

 

2008

 

No1 39,467

No2 28,223

No3 23,215

 

2009

 

No1 81,015 (+105%)

No2 54,779 (+94%)

No3 37,916 (+63%)

 

No1 sales have DOUBLED! :o

i think thats the whole point with our new digital age. Single sales were apparently at record levels last year, yet compared to the 90s, weekly sales for no1 were pitiful. I wonder if you add up the total sales for the top40/75 each week versus then when physical singles were at their peak, how it would compare. I suspect a fair bit lower now. However, with online digital there is no limitation e.g. by distribution/delivery availability, shop floor space, production etc. Every song ever recorded can be put online and downloaded to infinity, so with the sheer number available (e.g. something like 9million on iTunes) if even 1 copy of each is downloaded in a week, single sales will be so much higher than before, when even the large specialist shops could not have hoped to stock more than a catalogue of a few hundred physicals (despite singles being given a chart and an A-Z section nearly as large as albums).

I.e sales outside the main top40/75 are far far larger than before, and that is what's making the sales difference (although its increasing across the board)

Edited February 3, 200916 yr by spicefunk

Do you get anything special if your single sells 1M?

 

Back in the 50s & 60s you used to get a Gold Disc.

These were the classifications back then:

Gold - 1 million

Silver - 500,000

Bronze - 250,000

 

They then changed the classifications in the mid 70s - They brought in the Platinum disc and did away with the bronze.

 

 

i think thats the whole point with our new digital age. Single sales were apparently at record levels last year, yet compared to the 90s, weekly sales for no1 were pitiful. I wonder if you add up the total sales for the top40/75 each week versus then when physical singles were at their peak, how it would compare. I suspect a fair bit lower now. However, with online digital there is no limitation e.g. by distribution/delivery availability, shop floor space, production etc. Every song ever recorded can be put online and downloaded to infinity, so with the sheer number available (e.g. something like 9million on iTunes) if even 1 copy of each is downloaded in a week, single sales will be so much higher than before, when even the large specialist shops could not have hoped to stock more than a catalogue of a few hundred physicals (despite singles being given a chart and an A-Z section nearly as large as albums).

I.e sales outside the main top40/75 are far far larger than before, and that is what's making the sales difference (although its increasing across the board)

 

We’ve been through relatively barren sales periods before, between 1985 and 1994 there were only 5 million sellers in TEN years and only one single shifted over 200k in a week (Whigfield).

 

1985 The Power Of Love Jennifer Rush (took 16 weeks to reach No1)

1991 (Everything I Do) I Do It For You Bryan Adams (No1 for 16 weeks)

1992/3 I Will Always Love You Whitney Houston (No1 for 10 weeks)

1994 Love Is All around Wet Wet Wet (No1 for 15 weeks)

1994 Saturday Night Whigfield (Kicked off the straight in at No1 era)

 

The late 90’s singles sales boom was a once in a generation pop driven event. The late 70’s disco led to a sales expansion which saw numerous singles sell close to 2million copies.

 

To put the 90’s into context it was one of the Worlds most politically calm periods ever. Throw in the Millennium festivities and this led to a gloriously carefree pop and dance era that appealed to the masses far more than today’s fragmented niche music culture could ever do.

 

No1 single sales over the last 6 months are on a par with those of 1993/1994. So if the average No1 single sale of 2009 remains around 80k ignoring X Factor I’d say that would be pretty respectable.

I think the 33% represents an increase in single sales from the entire chart, but that there is variation in specific positions.

 

For example, I think that the lower end of the chart will be up by more than 33% year-on-year, whereas the top end of the chart will be up by less, perhaps even as low as 20%. Therefore the 500k (which is from the top end of the chart) really needs to reflect that.

 

I'm not sure of the exact figures for positional analysis - anyone have these (January 09 to January 08)?

I think that this year the top end of the chart will benefit more as songs become "crazes". Example being Lady GaGa. I think Lady GaGa will drop fast once it runs out of steam because it got a lot of exposure early on. Songs often do this, even if they have a slow burning success, there comes a point where everyone has heard the song and 90% of people have heard it. Bleeding Love did so similarly. However, Chasing Cars defies this rule imo because over a few months that got a hell of a lot of exposure.

Is Use Somebody set to become a million-seller, with the track hoping to go to No.1 this week.

Edited February 20, 200916 yr by paulakin

Is Use Somebody set to become a million-seller, with the track hoping to go to No.1 this week.

Seriously doubt it, despite the temporary brits boost its way off. someone like Gaga is far further ahead (and i don't see her getting near that). Bleeding Love may well be our next million seller as its still steadily selling at the lower reaches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Your_Ene...Green_Day_song)

 

This could be huge digital million-selling UK single.