Moderators: Amir, kingofskiffle, arab, AutomaticBR, seattleboy
It's for two reasons:Nackar wrote:It's quite weird that many of these "lowest total album tally" and "lowest sales for #1 album" 'records' date from the mid-90s.
This is true. They are not comparing this week's sales with the figures used at the time, although they rarely reported any figures in the mid-1990s.Robbie wrote:It's for two reasons:Nackar wrote:It's quite weird that many of these "lowest total album tally" and "lowest sales for #1 album" 'records' date from the mid-90s.
1. The OCC / Millward Brown database only contains weekly sales data back to February 1994. Prior to that sales data was compiled by another research company (Gallup) and the OCC do not have access to their raw data. Instead the OCC only have access to the weekly market reports that Gallup produced.
2. The OCC / Millward Brown database of sales for the period 1994 to 1996 is less comprehensive than that of 1997 onwards. The amount of record stores returning sales data in the period 1994 to early 1997 grew from record stores covering about 75% of the singles market and probably less than that for the albums market in February 1994 to record stores covering 99% of the singles market and 95% of the albums market in early 1997. Alan Jones (in the Music Week article quoted in NorfolkScot's post) uses this incomplete data for the period 1994 to 1996 simply because it is easily accessible from the OCC database. Hence it looks as if sales were poor back then. In fact they were a lot healthier but the sales data in the OCC database appears not to make this so.
Prior to early 1997, before just about every sale that took place in the UK was recorded each week by Millward Brown (the current chart compilers for the OCC), the methodology used for compiling the charts was different. The weekly sales figures that were produced at the time using this older method of compiling the charts indicated that sales were a lot higher than the sales that are in the OCC database. The sales calculated back then were estimates of total market sales (ie estimates of sales of all singles and albums in all record stores in the UK and not just the sales of singles and albums in stores that reported sales to Millward Brown). So when Alan Jones states that 'Happy Nation' by Ace Of Base sold 12,042 copies in the sales week ending 25 June 1994, he is quoting the figure held in the OCC database. The sales figure calculated at the time would have been higher than this - at a guess perhaps about 16,000. That's still a poor sale but not as poor as the sale recorded in the OCC database.
I see now, that actually makes a lot of sense! Obviously recording sales was more difficult before the advent of the internet and I can see how it would take a few years for a new method/company to be fully implemented.Robbie wrote:It's for two reasons:Nackar wrote:It's quite weird that many of these "lowest total album tally" and "lowest sales for #1 album" 'records' date from the mid-90s.
1. The OCC / Millward Brown database only contains weekly sales data back to February 1994. Prior to that sales data was compiled by another research company (Gallup) and the OCC do not have access to their raw data. Instead the OCC only have access to the weekly market reports that Gallup produced.
2. The OCC / Millward Brown database of sales for the period 1994 to 1996 is less comprehensive than that of 1997 onwards. The amount of record stores returning sales data in the period 1994 to early 1997 grew from record stores covering about 75% of the singles market and probably less than that for the albums market in February 1994 to record stores covering 99% of the singles market and 95% of the albums market in early 1997. Alan Jones (in the Music Week article quoted in NorfolkScot's post) uses this incomplete data for the period 1994 to 1996 simply because it is easily accessible from the OCC database. Hence it looks as if sales were poor back then. In fact they were a lot healthier but the sales data in the OCC database appears not to make this so.
Prior to early 1997, before just about every sale that took place in the UK was recorded each week by Millward Brown (the current chart compilers for the OCC), the methodology used for compiling the charts was different. The weekly sales figures that were produced at the time using this older method of compiling the charts indicated that sales were a lot higher than the sales that are in the OCC database. The sales calculated back then were estimates of total market sales (ie estimates of sales of all singles and albums in all record stores in the UK and not just the sales of singles and albums in stores that reported sales to Millward Brown). So when Alan Jones states that 'Happy Nation' by Ace Of Base sold 12,042 copies in the sales week ending 25 June 1994, he is quoting the figure held in the OCC database. The sales figure calculated at the time would have been higher than this - at a guess perhaps about 16,000. That's still a poor sale but not as poor as the sale recorded in the OCC database.