August 18, 201014 yr Streaming songs in the chart would be terrible. Do you think Record companies care about airplay, they care about sales and sales alone. If a song hits #1 on airplay alone, it simply means that some people like the song so much to play it on their station, same with streaming really.
August 18, 201014 yr I've not been through all the posts but I for one do not want this to happen. I like our charts being based solely on sales. The Billboard Chart with airplay confuses me and this seems like a step in that direction. Um... I'm really unsure. They can just create their separate charts and see how it goes.
August 18, 201014 yr I think it's a great idea. The charts are all about popularity after all... not to see who can rake in the most sales.
August 18, 201014 yr It won't be long until we jump on the American system and incorporate airplay! Yeah that'd be bad! As long as the charts show what's popular among the nation and not the media I'm happy.
August 18, 201014 yr 1 play won't equal 1 point for the chart. It'll me in millions of plays I should think. Or maybe that's a bit ambitious more like 10,000 plays = 1 point. That's why charts compiled by the revenue criteria make sense. The German charts are compiled like that IIRC. I've read somewhere that the label still earns some *little* amount of money from streaming. So it'll be fair enough to include them in the chart. The other thing is that there is revenue for the retailers and the revenue for record labels and artists which is a different thing. But I'm for two separate charts: first is official which is under current rules. And another one will include streaming etc.
August 18, 201014 yr The thing is, with streaming, we choose what song to listen to. With radio airplay, we don't get to choose what gets played in general. Seriously, if what got played on the radio was solely down to the viewers, I don't think stations like Heart would be playing Empire State of Mind every 20 minutes, and 30 songs from the 1980s every day. Although I suppose that's why so few people under the age of 20 listen to that station anymore...
August 19, 201014 yr Absolutely abhorrent idea UNLESS if they did it whereby every song a user plays in a week is listed as one 'sale' for that song, regardless of how many times the songs are played. If you buy a CD or a download you could listen to it 100 times a week, but only that one sale is added to the chart totals. Therefore, if you stream a song 100 times in a week, it should count as one 'sale' only, for that week. That's fair, and stops chart manipulation by people streaming 500 times a week and every time counting. If they did it like that, the only difference to now would be that if a person streamed a song the following week, and the week after that, etc, then it would be equivalent to the person buying a new CD/download every week, which I doubt even 0.00001% of people actually do at the moment. That would boost 'sales', of course, though probably not long-term for particular songs, as I imagine most people go through phases where they play a song a lot, then not so much or not at all: often the time when the song is most popular chart-wise anyway. Perhaps an artificial (non-paid sales) boost for 4-6, maybe 8 or 10 weeks of a song's peak popularity, decreasing as the song loses general popularity. That would be OK. If the OCC/whoever did want to be anal about it they could include as many plays of a song from one streaming site as they currently allow multiple purchases of singles/downloads from a single source. The problem there is that if that permitted total was, say, 5, then a song streamed only 5 times (but with all 5 counting) by one person would be as popular in terms of the chart as a song streamed 50 times by one person but with only 5 counting, when of course it isn't; this would always be a problem when using what's basically airplay, not sales. Hence why it should be one weekly sale per streamed song, regardless of the number of times it's played that week. As for songs that otherwise wouldn't get into the charts, like 60s/70s/80s/90s stuff that doesn't have TV show exposure: yes, those songs would gain greater 'sales' via streaming, but it's unlikely to affect the charts much, as songs that would chart highly will also be streamed highly, keeping things pretty much as they are now. Edited August 19, 201014 yr by John_Squire
February 19, 201213 yr I've changed my mind on this now. After seeing the Swedish charts, they're a mess! Sales only please.
February 19, 201213 yr Another reason the Swedish charts are a mess is they don't include iTunes sales for some bizzare reason :/ But mostly because of the Spotify inclusion, it was just ridiculous when Eric Saade's Hearts In The Air went (2-OUT)! But the worst thing would be that you could easily trick Spotify into thinking you've had one play when really you've just skipped straight to the end. Deluded loons would find it easier than ever to control the chart :drama: Edited February 19, 201213 yr by Liаm
February 19, 201213 yr But the worst thing would be that you could easily trick Spotify into thinking you've had one play when really you've just skipped straight to the end. Deluded loons would find it easier than ever to control the chart :drama: I would love to do this to my favourite songs in an attempt to get them high in the charts :lol: but other than that the charts could look pretty bad with Spotify and Vevo plays included
February 19, 201213 yr 200 streams = 1 ($1.29 Itunes) download in term of REVENUE Right now, subscription is about 15% and legal download is 85%. What will happen when subscription generate as much money as download? In Sweden right now, subscription is 84% and legal download is 16%. As for Sweden Chart, is it messed up every week? I'm looking at the Sweden Spotify Top 100 list right now, it doesn't look "messed up" at all. It is only MESSED UP when a major act releases an album and people stream this album. This mean many songs will chart in the SONGS CHART. but it's a SONG POPULARITY CHART. If a song is listened to a lot (on-demand), it just mean that the song is popularity for that particular week. Would anyone claiming it is unfair if Adele release her next album and a lot of her songs sold well and 8 of them made it to the top 20 of the Singles Chart? Edited February 19, 201213 yr by Dust2
February 19, 201213 yr As for manipulation of streaming (by streaming over and over again) Spotify/VEVO software probably prevents this and put a cap of for example 10 a day of a song per user. 10 streams x $0.005 = $0.05 payment 1000 streams x $0.005 = $5 payment It's in THEIR BEST INTEREST to prevent manipulation. Why pay $5 for a manipulated song when you can pay $0.05? Especially, 99.9999% of users probably won't listen to THE SAME SONG more than 10 times a day. Edited February 19, 201213 yr by Dust2
February 19, 201213 yr 200 streams = 1 ($1.29 Itunes) download in term of REVENUE Right now, subscription is about 15% and legal download is 85%. What will happen when subscription generate as much money as download? In Sweden right now, subscription is 84% and legal download is 16%. As for Sweden Chart, is it messed up every week? I'm looking at the Sweden Spotify Top 100 list right now, it doesn't look "messed up" at all. It is only MESSED UP when a major act releases an album and people stream this album. This mean many songs will chart in the SONGS CHART. but it's a SONG POPULARITY CHART. If a song is listened to a lot (on-demand), it just mean that the song is popularity for that particular week. Would anyone claiming it is unfair if Adele release her next album and a lot of her songs sold well and 8 of them made it to the top 20 of the Singles Chart? But there's a difference between paying money to buy a specific song and listening to it on a streaming site having paid a subscription. There could be all sorts of reasons for listening to it including just a piece of research. There's also nothing to stop people making up a playlist and then playing it constantly (possibly with the sound off some of the time) just to give selected songs a boost.
February 19, 201213 yr As for manipulation of streaming (by streaming over and over again) Spotify/VEVO software probably prevents this and put a cap of for example 10 a day of a song per user. 10 streams x $0.005 = $0.05 payment 1000 streams x $0.005 = $5 payment It's in THEIR BEST INTEREST to prevent manipulation. Why pay $5 for a manipulated song when you can pay $0.05? Especially, 99.9999% of users probably won't listen to THE SAME SONG more than 10 times a day. You know more about this than me, so I might be wrong, but don't they get paid for showing adverts though. So if a song gets streamed 1,000 times, they'd have to pay more money to the record label/artist/whatever, but they'd also get paid more money by the companies sending them adverts to display or play? I don't really know what I'm talking about though. :lol:
February 19, 201213 yr Good Brighton game today Suedehead? :P Brighton won 4-3. Sadly, due to an obscure loophole in the laws of the game, Liverpool have gone through :cry:
February 19, 201213 yr HAHA Some of those goals were ridiculous, especially the 3rd OG. Best watching your Jimmy Case dvd from 1983, theres a player we can agree on now!! :D
February 20, 201213 yr HAHA Some of those goals were ridiculous, especially the 3rd OG. Best watching your Jimmy Case dvd from 1983, theres a player we can agree on now!! :D I saw Jimmy Case at the old Goldstone Ground many times. The first og was shambolic but there was little Bridcutt could do about it. He was blameless for the second as well. However, the Dunk og was an embarrassment.
Create an account or sign in to comment