MFR

The 1996 figures for the Fugees and Spice Girls from Hit Music were calculated using 16 as the multiplier (i.e. panel sales x 16 = market sales). Alan Jones' figures from Music Week are close to using 15 as the multiplier (15 had been used by Hit Music until the final quarter), but not exact. Maybe he used some hybrid of 15 and 16, but the point of change was not the end of the third quarter / start of the fourth quarter. He wasn't using the defined universe sales (DUS) back then, although he has often used them since. In the all-time Top 100 singles from 2002, and referring to sales occurring in 1996 only 2 Become 1, Gangsta's Paradise, Earth Song and Wonderwall - DUS has been used Spaceman by Babylon Zoo - panel sales x 16 has been used Killing Me Softly and Wannabe - panel sales x 15 appears to have been used

That's a fair point, but in the (fairly distant?) past some of those records would have had longer at the top and kept some of the others off.

As a chart fan with experience going back to the 1970s I have to say that I am not keen on a return to one-week number ones and singles that peak in the first chart week. Part of the excitement was in watching them go up, and perhaps making an unexpected upward movement just when you thought they'd peaked. The early 1990s were so much better than the later 1990s in my opinion, with classic climbs to the top by the likes of Rhythm Is A Dancer, The End Of The Road and Think Twice. Multiple runs of instant number ones made the chart dull due to its predictability. It was often obvious what would be number one weeks ahead of the event. At least the late 1990s had How Do I live by Leann Rimes with its bizarre meanderings. Otherwise too many singles got to number one because of their fanbase without having qualities that could attract the casual buyer. Downloading improved the charts no end for a time, but for me it's getting predictable again.

Alan Jones in Music Week 04/07/2009 has the following (sales to 27/06/2009) Earth Song 1,092,596 One Day In Your Life 801,823 Billie Jean 752,766 You Are Not Alone 587,722 These figures are very close to what Simon has estimated. No others above 500,000 but Don't Stop Till You Get Enough is on 494,675 and is expected to reach 500,000 thiw week.

You are quite right. It had sold something like 338,000 by the end of 2001.

The actual differences varied through each year, generally becoming smaller. For most of 1994 the difference was greater than 27%, but between 25% and 26% in the last quarter, and still about the same for the first 3 quarters of 1995. The approximately 20% difference occurs in the fourth quarter. You are right about 1996. The difference was 13-14% in the first three quarters, but less than 2% in the last quarter, but this difference was versus a muliplier of 16 rather than the 17 of 1994 and 1995. The defined universe was roughly the same size in early 1996 compared with late 1995.

Robbie. Your comment at ChC is indeed basically right. Without seeing the figures for the chart being referred to it is hard to be definitive, but Whigfield had about 800,000 DUS. The difference between OCC's DUS and panel sales times multiplier was bigger in 1994 than later on as the DU grew regularly, and reached the point where it effectively became the market equivalent in 1997. The actual multipliers used by Music Week / Hit Music for singles (albums had a different value) was 17 in 1994 and 1995 and 16 in 1996. However, each of those years had multiplier revisions during the course of the year and Alan Jones' 1996 year-end analysis in Music Week differed from Hit Music's interterpretation of largely the same data. The changes were 1994 15 (inherited from Gallup) to 17 1995 17 to 16, then back to 17 after the year-end 1996 15 to 16, presumably because the DU became greater than the 3750 shops implied by using 15 - hence DUS took over soon after. The data is held by OCC in DUS form. For 1997 onwards, therefore it is as originally presented. For 1994 to 1996 it appears that for this chart they have provided DUS data only and not interpreted it into a multiplier type figure used at the time. This rather sells 1994 singles short and probably 1995 as well. It's probably not far off reality for 1996 and Alan Jones often quotes DUS figures from 1996 in preference to the multiplier ones he quoted at the time. For 1994 and 1995 the reality would be somewhere between DUS and the original figures. As for the 1980s. Without knowing the figures being used in revised charts its again hard to be certain. It ought to be a multiplier revision rather than a DUS because Gallup had a register of shops not a Defined Universe as far as I know. But are deliveries figures being used for the 1980s? Robbie, are you thinking of the 982,000 quoted for Especially For You by Kylie Minogue & Jason Donovan on the all-time chart from 2002. Retail was only 845,000 at the end of 1989 using Gallup's recommended multiplier, as used by Alan Jones in Record Mirror. It had still sold under 900,000 in September 1991 (Alan Jones comment in Music Week) and I do not think it would have sold many copies after 1989 anyway. I think 982,000 sounds like a deliveries figure.

I've not seen this particular chart, but the reason for the differences would be due to different methodologies being used and revised interpretations of previously announced figures. In the case of Saturday Night by Whigfield, the 800,000 sales is the Defined Universe Sales figure (DUS) and relates the number of copies sold in the identified universe of record shops. Earlier figures were based on sales figures compiled by 1. recording the number of sales from shops in the sample in each week. 2. these figures were scaled down using complex algorithms to a standard 250 shop figure (i.e. the panel sales figure). 3. this figure was then multiplied up by the amount (the multiplier) deemed to be the best fit for the number of shops in the UK at the time. The multiplier could be varied from year to year as the number of shops selling recorded music increased or decreased. Gallup maintained a register of these shops which was then taken over by Millward Brown and OCC. The reason for the difference between the 800,000 figure quoted here and 1.092 million quoted previously is that in 1994 the Defined Universe was only around 3200 shops whereas the multiplier used for singles at the time (17) was based on the assumption that there were (approximately) 4250 shops. The Defined Universe was expanded rapidly during the mid-1990s. By 1997 OCC had concluded that 99% of all singles sales and 95% of all album sales were occurring in the Defined Universe and so DUS figures replaced panel sales times multiplier-based figures. A smaller multiplier is still used to allow for product known to be distributed outside the Defined Universe, a calculation now presumably nearly obsolete as not many singles are sold physically. To answer the original question I would say that the OCC figures are now very accurate. Prior to that they were less accurate, but many of the differences are down to interpretation rather than errors, at least as far back as when Gallup took over the chart in 1983. Presumably, in this chart they also had Spaceman by Babylon Zoo at around 945,000 rather than 1.1 million. If so, the reason for the difference would be same as for Whigfield and the others mentioned.