Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Record Business Top 100 chart

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some things are certainly confusing.

    For instance. I was listening to Clodagh Rodgers the other day. Clodagh said that "Come Back & Shake Me" was selling 50,000 a day! She may have a mean't a week. But either way, the total figures for it are more like 200,000 in 1969. Didn't make sense.

    Going through charts say in 1977. In the middle of the year the average #11 record, was selling 20,000. 4 years later in mid 1981, the average #11 is 30,000.

    In contrast, the 60s/70s & 1980s had some 55 million people iving in the UK....Though, a very small number were apparently buying records, but 10 million watched Top Of The Pops, every week & the BBC Sunday Chart show, had 14 million listeners. Of course, not everybody likes the same music, but it doesn't add up, very well.

    I'd put the fall in record sales (after the 1986 period) down to the amount of re-issues & more teen-based records being released (& maybe the beginning of CDs) having an affect. My brother said to me in 1987 "I've bought 25 records this year. Where as throughout the 60s & 70s, I bought over 200". So, what really happened? Was he out of the age group, that were buying records? I confess that I never buy records, when they come out. I've never shaped any sales chart, as I've always bought second hand stuff.

    Comment


    • 1985 (Gallup)
      01 THE POWER OF LOVE - JENNIFER RUSH 1.24m
      02 I KNOW HIM SO WELL - ELAINE PAIGE & BARBARA DICKSON 753,100
      03 INTO THE GROOVE - MADONNA 717,800 (this is the full sale, as it was still selling into 1987)
      04 19 - PAUL HARDCASTLE 712,000x18 (672,400 x17)
      05 FRANKIE - SISTER SLEDGE 665,800x18 (630,800 x17)
      06 I WANT TO KNOW WHAT LOVE IS - FOREIGNER 659,700x18 (624,200 x17)
      07 DANCING IN THE STREET - DAVID BOWIE & MICK JAGGER 591,600

      Alan Jones has missed the sales of 1986 in these next 3. Though (like I previously said), he's put most of 1985 to a 19 multiplier, for some reason in his Top 80 Of The 80s. These are the correct figures at x17:
      [08 A GOOD HEART - FEARGAL SHARKEY] (not a mrib #1) 586,000
      [09 TAKE ON ME - A-HA 583,000]
      [10 SAVING ALL MY LOVE FOR YOU - WHITNEY HOUSTON] 580,000

      11 MOVE CLOSER - PHYLLIS NELSON 578,000
      12 EVERYBODY WANTS TO RULE/RUN THE WORLD - TEARS FOR FEARS 560,000
      13 LOVE AND PRIDE - KING 552,900
      14 EASY LOVER - PHILLIP BAILEY & PHIL COLLINS 516,800
      15 AXEL F - HAROLD FALTERMEYER 511,800
      16 I'M YOUR MAN - WHAM! 504,300
      17 MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE - SHAKIN' STEVENS 489,000
      18 I GOT YOU BABE - UB40 & CHRISSIE HYNDE 487,900
      19 CRAZY FOR YOU - MADONNA 485,400
      20 YOU SPIN ME ROUND - DEAD OR ALIVE 483,500
      21 HOLIDAY - MADONNA 476,900
      22 SOLID - ASHFORD & SIMPSON 472,000
      23 TRAPPED - COLONEL ABRAMS 456,100
      24 THERE MUST BE AN ANGEL - EURYTHMICS 454,200
      25 1999/LITTLE RED CORVETTE - PRINCE (a mrib #1) 448,000 (all singles between 1983 & 1985)
      26 CHERISH - KOOL AND THE GANG 442,000
      27 DANCING IN THE DARK - BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN 429,000
      28 SHOUT - TEARS FOR FEARS 418,300
      29 YOU'LL NEVER WALK ALONE - THE CROWD 397,800
      30 IF I WAS - MIDGE URE 388,100
      31 NIKITA - ELTON JOHN 388,000
      32 HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO - BONNIE TYLER 367,200
      33 KAYLEIGH - MARILLION 363,600
      34 A VIEW TO A KILL - DURAN DURAN 344,700
      35 WE ARE THE WORLD - USA FOR AFRICA 324,700
      36 LEAN ON ME - RED BOX 319,600
      37 DON'T BREAK MY HEART - UB40 317,300
      38 SEE THE DAY - DEE C. LEE 315,800
      39 PART TIME LOVER - STEVIE WONDER (a mrib #1) 313,500
      40 MONEY FOR NOTHING - DIRE STRAITS 312,600
      41 WE CLOSE OUR EYES - GO WEST 306,000
      42 DON'T YOU FORGET ABOUT ME - SIMPLE MINDS 299,000
      43 NIGHTSHIFT - COMMODORES 291,800
      44 RUN TO THE HILLS - IRON MAIDEN (1982 & 1985 versions) 291,000
      45 SEPARATE LIVES - PHIL COLLINS & MARILYN MARTIN 290,000
      46 THAT OLE DEVIL CALLED LOVE - ALISON MOYET 289,000
      47 WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER HERO - TINA TURNER 288,000
      48 TARZAN BOY - BALTIMORA 287,300
      49 KISS ME - STEPHEN TIN TIN DUFFY 284,200
      50 I FEEL LOVE (MEDLEY) - BRONSKI BEAT & MARC ALMOND 283,900
      51 POWER OF LOVE/DO YOU BELIEVE IN LOVE - HUEY LEWIS & THE NEWS 283,600
      52 WELCOME TO THE PLEASURE DOME - FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD 280,500
      53 SUDDENLY - BILLY OCEAN 278,600
      54 MATERIAL GIRL - MADONNA 273,800
      55 SOMETHING ABOUT YOU - LEVEL 42 260,600
      56 EVERY TIME YOU GO AWAY - PAUL YOUNG 255,000
      57 ATMOSPHERE - RUSS ABBOTT 248,300
      58 RUNNING UP THAT HILL - KATE BUSH 247,400
      59 WHITE WEDDING - BILLY IDOL 245,500
      60 PIE JESU - SARAH BRIGHTMAN/PAUL MILES KINGSTON 244,800
      61 GAMBLER - MADONNA 240,000
      62 RHYTHM OF THE NIGHT - DEBARGE 234,200
      63 DO WHAT YOU DO - JERMAINE STEWART 232,200
      64 BORN IN THE USA/I'M ON FIRE - BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN 230,400
      65 ST ELMO'S FIRE - JOHN PARR 229,500
      66 SINCE YESTERDAY - STRAWBERRY SWITCHBLADE 225,700
      67 CLOSE TO THE EDIT - ART OF NOISE 224,900
      68 HISTORY - MAI TAI 224,700
      69 WORD GIRL - SCRITTI POLITTI 222,800
      70 LIVE IS LIFE - OPUS 221,000
      71 LOVE DON'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE - JIMMY NAIL 217,600
      72 OBSESSION - ANIMOTION 215,300
      73 REBEL YELL - BILLY IDOL 209,600
      74 ROAD TO NOWHERE - TALKING HEADS 209,500
      75 JOHNNY COME HOME - FINE YOUNG CANNIBALS 206,800
      76 DRESS YOU UP - MADONNA 204,970
      77 COULD IT BE I'M FALLING IN LOVE - DAVID GRANT & JAKI GRAHAM 204,900
      78 ANGEL - MADONNA 202,100
      79 BEN - MARTI WEBB 200,600
      80 ONE MORE NIGHT - PHIL COLLINS 196,400
      81 SAY I'M YOUR NUMBER ONE - PRINCESS 193,600
      82 THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER - HOWARD JONES 191,700
      83 FEEL SO REAL - STEVE ARRINGTON 189,800

      So, not really many major differences in 1985. MRIB prefer "19" & Paul Hardcastle & there's also the Alan Jones 80's sellers, increasing 1985 to x19, but i've stuck to 17. I wonder actually, if he went to 19 to compensate unknown sales of some that continued to sale in other years, here? Certainly, Madonna was Miss Big 1985 & all her 1984 hits re-charted, including "Lucky Star" in the equation. Some 17,000 were split down the middle for "Lucky Star" & "Borderline" during 1985. Possibly why stock was replenished to give "Borderline", a complete re-issue in January 1986.

      Comment


      • Basically then the sales figures which Record Mirror published in the mid/late 80s are wrong?

        Comment


        • This was the same debate with the 90's figures, the OCC are using DUS figures for 1994-1996, (which equated to a 12-13 multiplier reverting to panel sales) and Alan Jones was using a 17 multiplier in his MW analysis at the time. Its all just estimation, there is no wrong or right answer, however I think Alan Jones does tend to opt for being too high rather than be too low.

          Comment


          • [Quote: In contrast, the 60s/70s & 1980s had some 55 million people iving in the UK....Though, a very small number were apparently buying records, but 10 million watched Top Of The Pops, every week & the BBC Sundayy Chart show, had 14 million listeners. Of course, not everybody likes the same music, but it doesn't add up, very well.]

            Whilst I don't entirely go along with Graham's conspiracy of the industry somehow lowering sales figures, I am bound to agree that when you think even a million-seller - defined by any music fan as a mega-hit - has only been purchased by 1/62nd of the current UK population, it rather pales into modest insignificance. Even when the population wasn't as swollen as now, a seven-figure tally would only mean 1/55th or so of the country's potential consumers bought - or are believed to have bought given the nature of the sampling methodology used right up to 1997 - that supposedly massive release.
            Given the way people of each era recall and recount their singles-buying habits as having been very prolific, and artists of those periods state with straight faces that they were shifting 50,000 copies a day, as well as the apparent explosion of pop culture from c 1963 onwards, it does seem surprising that the biggest hits aren't recorded as having shifted higher totals. But then that is based on people's individual memories, and assumptions made about how successful the hits really were in those years. Most casual music followers would probably assume singles sales were extremely high during the 1960s, and have been on a steady decline ever since, but figures from various sources suggest that is not actually the case. Yes, they remember watching TOTP religiously each week, but how many releases did they actually go out and buy? 10 million viewers would never translate into even half that number of buyers.
            We don't have anything like what we need to establish genuinely complete and credible sales totals for the earlier decades of the charts, but what little we can glean, however inconsistent and prone to arbitration or massaging, has to be trusted more readily than personal recollections and hearsay, if only in the interests of statistical soundness. This thread is right to debate the whys and wherefores of the differing approaches to sampling used by BMRB, Gallup and MRIB - they all had flaws and maybe only an uneasy combination of figures reported by each can give the most accurate picture of the size of hits from 1960 to 1990 (or even 2000). But what we should not accept is that NONE of these were anywhere near correct, and that the reported tallies were somehow massaged down, or so poorly-compiled that they missed tens of thousands of legitimate sales. Yes they missed many, but not in the kinds of numbers some might allege. That is especially so where we appear to have some congruence between the different sources on how much a single shifted.

            [Quote: I'd put the fall in record sales (after the 1986 period) down to the amount of re-issues & more teen-based records being released (& maybe the beginning of CDs) having an affect. My brother said to me in 1987 "I've bought 25 records this year. Where as throughout the 60s & 70s, I bought over 200". So, what really happened? Was he out of the age group, that were buying records?]

            Dave, your brother's tastes in pop probably hadn't entirely moved with the times across three decades of record-buying! However, one factor that I do believe affected actual singles sales much more than people imagine is recording from radio shows. This began with reel-to-reel tape machines with microphones in the 1960s and finished in the 1990s with sophisticated dual-deck cassette technology. Not only was recording off the Top 20/30/40 increasingly popular throughout those years, to the point where it became a rite of passage for kids and teenagers, but from the 1980s we also had facilities to copy that material and give it to friends, thereby eroding sales of the single even further ("Home taping is killing music"!). People didn't fall out of love with single songs per se, and indeed still haven't. It's just that the means of appropriating them, in a reasonably complete and high-quality form from radio, and later via illegal but free peer-to-peer file-sharing software, represented valid alternatives to shelling out to buy the actual disc. Sales only recovered with the advent of the legitimisation of the download market, which has not only made millions more titles accessible, but lowered prices from a 2-4 CD single to a 59 - 99p MP3 download, which despite its lack of tangibility and 'soul' has brought many potential buyers back to the fray because of its sheer convenience as well as value. And younger consumers never knew any different anyway as even home taping and copying was passe by the time they started taking an interest.

            There were some marketing triumphs that helped kickstart the physical singles market in its last 20 years: issuing 12'' mixes, multiple 7'' remixes, CDs, CDs with different B-sides, 'front-loaded' marketing campaigns. But ultimately none of these could withstand the march of procuring the hits for free.

            Sorry guys - getting off-topic again. Back to Dave, Robbie, Graham, MFR....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graham76man
              My problem with these figures is the low amount in the charts. For example Dave mentions 6,000 shops. So if each of those shops sells 2 copies of a record per day over 6 days that's 72,000 copies sold.
              Two records in a record shop is hardly and isn't a massive sales rush. But as you see a small seller could be in the top five nationally!
              It's highly unlikely that a record would just sell 2 records a day with a total of 12 in each shop. For a start some shops could clear the 12 copies on Saturday alone. But this leaves me with a huge doubt about the accuracy of a chart that can report a top 20 record sale of under 20,000.
              So when Gallup or MRIB reported a 20K sale at number 20, I think that was at the best a joke, or at worst a massive fiddling of the figures.
              The problem gets worst when you come to best sellers. It's a question sometimes of weeks in the chart. When records hang around for ages they are bound to rack up big sales. But not according to these chart compilers. Because there charts have much lower sales. These chart struggle to have more than one or two million sellers a year. Leading to all time best seller list that only recently went past 100 in total million selling records. I reckon that million sellers are more likely to be at least 5 a year since 1963. I'm not certain about the 50's, but judging from the people I know who bought records and the amount of 78 rpm records that can be found in charity shops, I believe that a good few 50's record sold a million.
              Just think how many records have past 20 weeks in the charts and how many are also million sellers, there's a miss-match and it hints at wrong reporting of sales.
              It wasn't 6,000 shops in Gallup's estimations.

              They created a register of shops selling recorded music. As we're discussing the late 1980s I'll refer to the figures for February 1987, these figures appearing in the BPI Yearbook and their Statistcical Handbook series. The total number of such shops in the register was 4,961 at that point.

              But that figure includes an estimate of 800 shops that sold fewer than 100 units per week in total, and I guess that these had other products to sell to keep them in business.

              That leaves just 4,161 shops that were the core of the record-selling business. The specialist chains (HMV, Virgin and Our Price) totalled 326 shops. The multiples, consisting mainly of WH Smith, Woolworths, Menzies and Boots totalled 1,810, of which 346 were not one of the four chains listed.

              Independent specialists totalled 2,025, of which 401 were categorised as large, 778 as medium and 846 as small. Large meant selling 1,000 units or more per week, medium meant 500-999 units per week and small meant 100-499 units per week. Bear in mind that these unit totals included album sales, and by the late 1980s these were more than twice the number of singles sold.

              By August 1992 the number of shops had dwindled to just 3,410, plus the estimated 800 others, the biggest decline being in independent specialists of all sizes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rubcale
                Basically then the sales figures which Record Mirror published in the mid/late 80s are wrong?
                Well Alan gave a clever guide didn't he? But he just decided to bass his ideas on 18. He is a column writer & not an official sales anaylist. I'd like to put faith in Barry Lazell & MRIB, as he owned the company. But it just depends on what he thought to correct for his market. It will be good to see Mike Robinson's answers to MRIB's puzzles. He did also have some contacts in BMRB & Gallup. The majority of Gallup's chiefs always told people, that 17 was their multiplier (like has been said). This (does) go out of sequence in 1990 - 94, where Alan has not changed his idea (though it took him 3 years to get the 17 correct).

                Did my brother move with the times? Well he was still trying to be 20, when he was 30 (put it that way). I certainly remember the ongoing words in 1986 "There are too many oldies, cramming up the charts & it's just old hat". Did the Reynolds Girls reflect that comment in 1989?! Radio One would not play anything before 1967 in 1986. 3 years later they were playing records from 1958 on a couple of shows. The late 80s became oldies meet acid house. I think as to why a sudden sales full. You get into the 90s & it's still there, championed further by certain new films, using more oldies in them. Does a trend rise (after Radio One threw out the oldies & the "old" presenter mob)? Maybe. But then you got teenagers not really knowing many old songs & not a lot for the 30 something male to actually buy. You had the "older" female via mother etc buying the Daniel O'Donell's & Boyzone's etc & a kids market buying stuff like the dire Spice Girls & various created popstars (that couldn't play an instrument for toffe, even if they tried)....Amazingly they called them "girl" "bands", when they were more like elastic bands. No. I don't think it's a point of choice in changing with the times. The market changed, rather than my brother. Who is now 50 & still trying to be 20 & could probably drink your regular 20 year old, under the table to boot. The market (i'd compare) to today's TV. It's aimed at the female market. TV is Soapland, every night & the humour has changed in the P.C. World of today. There is a breakdown of communication in an educational sense & swearing is rife & that is also apparent in regular musicians of today. If you're going to make a recording of musical impact, make sure you throw in a few "fs" & "bs". Youngsters love it, apparently.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by davetaylor
                  Some things are certainly confusing.

                  For instance. I was listening to Clodagh Rodgers (as a guest on that BBC Surrey, Shaun Tilley "Top Of The Pops Playback" show. Clodagh said that "Come Back & Shake Me" was selling 50,000 a day! She may have a mean't a week. But either way, the total figures for it are more like 200,000 in 1969. Didn't make sense.

                  Going through charts say in 1977. In the middle of the year the average #11 record, was selling 20,000. 4 years later in mid 1981, the average #11 is 30,000.

                  "God Save The Queen" in 1977, entered the chart at #11, on 2 days sales (Friday & Saturday's) as it were released on Friday (like most records were in those days). According to a x17 multiplier, it sold just over 290,000 in 1977 (though BPI did not award that until years later). Mary Macgregor (just above it in 1977's best sellers) did get a silver disc.

                  November 1973 & you've got Gary Glitter selling 150,000 to enter at #1, in 2 days. 150,000 in 2 days, makes sense. But (like Graham points out) many figures do look very low.

                  In contrast, the 60s/70s & 1980s had some 55 million people iving in the UK....Though, a very small number were apparently buying records, but 10 million watched Top Of The Pops, every week & the BBC Sundayy Chart show, had 14 million listeners. Of course, not everybody likes the same music, but it doesn't add up, very well.

                  I'd put the fall in record sales (after the 1986 period) down to the amount of re-issues & more teen-based records being released (& maybe the beginning of CDs) having an affect. My brother said to me in 1987 "I've bought 25 records this year. Where as throughout the 60s & 70s, I bought over 200". So, what really happened? Was he out of the age group, that were buying records? I confess that I never buy records, when they come out. I've never shaped any sales chart, as I've always bought second hand stuff.
                  I'd ignore statements like 'selling 50,000 a day' when made by a record company, artist or newspaper columnist, as these comments tend to refer to the size of one particular shipment, perhaps the initial shipment, which might then be followed by no further sales until the next week's orders came in.

                  The 1977 chart makes sense to me with respect to the certifications. Only 4 of the top 60 singles are not listed by the BPI as having been certified at least silver. Two of those actually were certified despite the BPI not listing them. The year-end number 58 was certified in 1979. God Save The Queen was number 61 and was certified silver in 1994. The other Sex Pistols single, Pretty Vacant, was certified silver in 1980. Other certified singles lower in the chart had pretty much all been on sale before the end of 1976, or were still selling into 1978.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by davetaylor
                    Originally posted by rubcale
                    Basically then the sales figures which Record Mirror published in the mid/late 80s are wrong?
                    Well Alan gave a clever guide didn't he? But he just decided to bass his ideas on 18. He is a column writer & not an official sales anaylist. I'd like to put faith in Barry Lazell & MRIB, as he owned the company. But it just depends on what he thought to correct for his market. It will be good to see Mike Robinson's answers to MRIB's puzzles. He did also have some contacts in BMRB & Gallup. The majority of Gallup's chiefs always told people, that 17 was their multiplier (like has been said). This (does) go out of sequence in 1990 - 94, where Alan has not changed his idea (though it took him 3 years to get the 17 correct).
                    Alan's figures only differed from the Gallup figures in 1985, 1986 and 1987. In the first 2 years he presented panel sales figures, divided by 100, and suggested multiplying them by 1800, when Gallup apparently would have recommended using 1700 for this exercise. In 1987 Alan multiplied the panel sales by 18 himself.

                    From late 1988 Gallup started to list their recommended multipliers on the sales reports, and 17 was recommended for singles. Alan may well have been using this earlier in the year anyway for year-to-date figures and in historical cases already (e.g. What Have Done To Deserve This by Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield selling 255,000 in a list of their hits given in Record Mirror some time in 1988, having been listed as having sold an implied 267,000 in the singles artists rankings for 1987).

                    Gallup and Alan continued to use 17 in 1989 and 1990. In 1991 they continued with 17, although we got precious few figures once Record Mirror ceased publication. With Gallup reducing the multiplier to 15 for 1992 and 1993, 1991 was revisited at some point and 16 was subsequently used for 1991, though whose decision this was i do not know.

                    The multiplier was changed several times during 1994 to 1996 as new sectors were added to the sample as DUS reporting approached, but during this period Alan mostly used the recommended multipliers, perhaps only differing in 1996 on a few occasions.

                    Comment


                    • Didn't Alan change his formula in 1987's points system? I seem to remember him advising that the points system wasn't compatible, with the 1986 list, but would be if you multiplied by 0.55...Whatever he mean't by that? I suppose multiplying by 0.55 would give the points in retrospect of his 1986 ist, but you'd still have to the multiply it by either 17 or 18 i.e. Dusty & the Pet Shop Boys. If he had them on 267 & you multiplied by 0.55, it would give you 146.85 & multiplying by 18, would of given you 2643.3 = 263,330 sales to an 18.

                      Comment


                      • Removed
                        Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!

                        Comment


                        • Home taping was certainly taking off big in the 70s. Though, the BBC were doing something to discourage it. This was (of course) squeezing & fading 20 records into one hour, via the Top 20. It was done that way on purpose. Even when the Top 40 began on 12th November 1978 (for Sunday purposes) it was still pretty much the case & fading was still going on 'til 1991. The industry kicked up big time in 1992, when Trevor "Bruno" Brookes started to play records in full in his 4pm Sunday Top 40.

                          Independant Radio had other ideas. Fading early & talking all over the intros, was their motto.

                          Graham, I take all your points seriously. They make much sense to me. Missed shops & under the counter stuff, certainly happened. By "Under The Counter", I mean when someone (like Jonathan King) would go into a store & give them a few hundred copies to sell.

                          Here's is an email (I had back from Mike, earlier):
                          "Dave, thank's for your message. During my time in the compilation of RB & MRIB with Barry & co, we originally took on a 300 store poll. In your talk on multipliers for sales figures, our goal was to create a 4,500 shop figure (for RB) in the years 1978 to 1983. The Magazine (itself) used round figures of 10. To achieve a reasonable sales figure, we needed to multiply by 15. In contrast (to say BMRB) our figures would always be higher (than their's). I believe BMRB were operating on a 200/220 poll in 78/79 & would of used multipliers to 20, in reflection to RB & 15. BMRB increased to 450 shops towards 1981 (so decreased their multiplying angles to 11 (I think). Though (in that ratio) the RB equivalent should of been 13 (but we never gave sales figures out, after 1981.

                          MRIB was another kettle of fish & worked to 250 shops polled (in an equation to 6,000). So, we'd go to a 20 in multiplying. On that scale (Cliff Richard's Christmas offering in 1988/89, sold 978,000). Some would argue the figure was too high & (indeed) during the run, we increased to 300 shops, around mid 1988. So, the multiplying angle should of decreased to compensate, but it didn't happen, until 1989. In 89, it went down to 18 & further on in the 90s, we decreased shops in reccession hit Britain (91-92) & (later) in their infinite wisdom, Independant Radio ceased to take our charts (until 2003).

                          The whole idea of MRIB, was to take into account a 10% market of shops, ignored by other chart compilers. Thus we put a "hidden" market out to the public.

                          For your interest, I will have a look at your figures & get back to you, soon

                          Regards

                          Mike"

                          Comment


                          • [Quote: Home taping was certainly taking off big in the 70s. Though, the BBC were doing something to discourage it. This was (of course) squeezing & fading 20 records into one hour, via the Top 20. It was done that way on purpose. Even when the Top 40 began on 12th November 1978 (for Sunday purposes) it was still pretty much the case & fading was still going on 'til 1991. The industry kicked up big time in 1992, when Trevor "Bruno" Brookes started to play records in full in his 4pm Sunday Top 40.]

                            It is true that one always risked not obtaining a complete beginning-to-end airing of a track on the Radio 1 Sunday chart. Anyone, including myself, who recorded frequently during the 1980s and '90s would be alive to the frustration of forshortened or abridged airings. One could always take the radical step of buying the single if the recording wasn't good enough! Though my recollection is that during most of the '80s, recording singles from the Top 40 was reliable enough, especially if you caught the song for the first time as a new entry, as usually the presenter (Tony Blackburn/Tommy Vance/Simon Bates/Richard Skinner/Bruno Brookes) would play it pretty much from start to finish without verbal or other interruption. And when Radio 1 took on full FM status in '88 the quality of the taped recording would be pretty competitive - usually free of scratches frequently found on 7" and sharper than cassette. Saying that, non-new entries, especially those in the chart for a protracted period, may well be curtailed abruptly, and the complete 40 weren't aired until 1991.

                            I remember that some cheeky editing of songs went on during '91 as they struggled to squueze the 40 in to 2.5 hours. When it moved to a 3 hour show in Mar '92 (Trevor took over again from Mark Goodier) they more-or-less could fit them in pretty-much in full. But when Goodier returned in Apr '95, gradually a casual and less-tightly-produced approach took over, and by 2000 I imagine nobody bothered with home-taping off the R1 show, as the chances of obtaining even a new arrival in full were negligible - besides the fact that many more computer-savvy folk were obtaining decent-enough quality complete tracks from illegal (free) downloading, which negated most people's need or preference for recording most of their singles off the chart show.

                            Thankfully, not everyone was lazy and cheapskate like me, and, like Graham, actually went out to buy most of their favoured singles. People like that, combined with some canny re-marketing of an ageing format, helped overall sales back from what seemed like certain death in 1992 to buoyancy by 1998. And after reinvention as a digital free-for-all at rock-bottom pricing, again the 'single' rides high. Shame it's at the expense of the once-mighty album.

                            Comment


                            • Removed
                              Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by davetaylor
                                Didn't Alan change his formula in 1987's points system? I seem to remember him advising that the points system wasn't compatible, with the 1986 list, but would be if you multiplied by 0.55...Whatever he mean't by that? I suppose multiplying by 0.55 would give the points in retrospect of his 1986 ist, but you'd still have to the multiply it by either 17 or 18 i.e. Dusty & the Pet Shop Boys. If he had them on 267 & you multiplied by 0.55, it would give you 146.85 & multiplying by 18, would of given you 2643.3 = 263,330 sales to an 18.
                                In 1986 (and 1985) Alan added up each act's panel sales, divided them by 100, rounded them and called them 'points'. Then, for the benefit of anyone who wondered what the actual sales were, he advised multiplying the points by 1800.

                                In 1987 Alan added up each act's panel sales, and multiplied them by 18, so the 'points' that year were the actual sales estimates in thousands, based on a multiplier of 18.

                                But 267,000 sales, listed as 267 'points', for Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield using a multiplier of 18 indicates panel sales of about 14,833. Dividing these by 100, as he had the previous year, gives 148 'points' rounded to the nearest whole number. Multiply 267 by 0.55 gives 146.85. Rounding, this gives 147 'points', so we can see multiplying by 0.55 gives only an approximate translation from one year to the other.

                                But, my point about the 1987 figures is that if this single sold between 266,500 and 267,500 using 18 as the multiplier, then the equivalent figure using 17 as the multipier would give a sale in the range of about 251,700 and 252,600. But the figure you listed is 249,600, which is clearly lower than a straight conversion from 18 to 17.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Graham76man
                                  Originally posted by MFR
                                  It wasn't 6,000 shops in Gallup's estimations.

                                  They created a register of shops selling recorded music. As we're discussing the late 1980s I'll refer to the figures for February 1987, these figures appearing in the BPI Yearbook and their Statistcical Handbook series. The total number of such shops in the register was 4,961 at that point.

                                  But that figure includes an estimate of 800 shops that sold fewer than 100 units per week in total, and I guess that these had other products to sell to keep them in business.

                                  That leaves just 4,161 shops that were the core of the record-selling business. The specialist chains (HMV, Virgin and Our Price) totalled 326 shops. The multiples, consisting mainly of WH Smith, Woolworths, Menzies and Boots totalled 1,810, of which 346 were not one of the four chains listed.

                                  Independent specialists totalled 2,025, of which 401 were categorised as large, 778 as medium and 846 as small. Large meant selling 1,000 units or more per week, medium meant 500-999 units per week and small meant 100-499 units per week. Bear in mind that these unit totals included album sales, and by the late 1980s these were more than twice the number of singles sold.

                                  By August 1992 the number of shops had dwindled to just 3,410, plus the estimated 800 others, the biggest decline being in independent specialists of all sizes.
                                  That 6,000 was Dave's figure not mine. Don't think much of experts who can't agree on things. Anyway it's likely your list doesn't include Supermarkets, who were selling loads of singles. They couldn't supply Gallup with data, because most of the data would be just "none food item". The same problem happened with book sales. The book sales charts didn't include Supermarket data. A book in the Supermarket could sell more than double what the book stores in the the ones that supplied the data for the book charts.
                                  My estimation of sales was based on a small amount selling accross ALL the shops. However this was probably never the case. In fact Woolworths itself could have shifted the 72,000 all by themselves even in the number of stores they have. Even today iTunes can easily shift the typical 40K seen in the Real Chart.
                                  The arrogance of the assumption that a shop can only sell 100 copies a week. Or an estimation even Shops are profit only business. The music business is not an essential item like bread to buy. That figure is poppycock.
                                  Those 800 shops selling fewer than 100 units per week were partly supermarkets and partly corners shops, garages and motorway service stations. And of course they survived because selling records was only a small part of what they did. Other supermarkets were included in the 346 shops classed as 'other multiples'.

                                  By the mid-1990s the data identified the supermarkets themselves, 211 Asda, 202 Sainsbury, 260 Tesco, 308 Safeway and 65 Dixons. The 'others' selling fewer than 100 units per week had dropped from 800 to 400. Independent specialists had declined overall from 2,025 to only 1,207. The total number of shops was by then 4,077 plus the 400 others.
                                  Originally posted by Graham76man
                                  Apart from MFR points
                                  It's not a conspiracy thoery at all. The Real Chart compiled by the Compilers produces the sales figures that show much higher record sales in the UK, than those shown by the Industry. Now of course you can say that these figures are nonsense and that the Record Industry produces correct figures. But once you understand where the Real Chart figures come from, you would be a fool to believe the other figures.
                                  With that out of the way if you accept the Real Chart sales, then you have to work out what happens to the missing sales when the Record Industry produce their charts. The Compilers will not tell me or anyone how the Music Industry operates in this respect. So when I talk about how they MIGHT do it it's just my way of thinking or understanding the problem. I'm no expert on the record industry, unlike MFR who appears to be. So perhaps we should be asking MFR (or others) if the Real Chart figures are correct then how did/does the Industry get the figures wrong? Maybe they can come up with better explanations. Instead of saying to someone who's inside the Music Industry like Clodagh that they don't know how many record they sold. Because that might be true! You never know.
                                  Is there anyone else on here apart from you who does think the Real Chart figures are correct?

                                  Soon after you joined this forum, to much bafflement, as a chart put together by you from data supplied by some god-like all-seeing eye was always going to sound implausible, you told someone that (Everything I Do) I Do It For You by Bryan Adams had sold 4.7 million, rather than the 1.53 million given officially. Is 4.7 million still what you would say it sold?

                                  Even odder was that you said it wasn't even a number 1 on the Real Chart. Is that still true?

                                  I asked you what the weekly Real Chart sales were for this single. Of course I already knew approximately what the official figures were for most of its run. Surely the Real Chart weekly figures would all be way higher than the official figures for this single, due to its greater reach, shall we say? But, no, there was one week when the Real Chart figure was lower than the official figure? How could this be? You blamed it on the weather.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Graham76man
                                    The Real Chart compiled by the Compilers produces the sales figures that show much higher record sales in the UK, than those shown by the Industry. Now of course you can say that these figures are nonsense and that the Record Industry produces correct figures. But once you understand where the Real Chart figures come from, you would be a fool to believe the other figures.

                                    Yes but were did the Compilers of The Real Chart get their figures from?

                                    Is there any link which explains just how this chart operated?

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by rubcale
                                      Originally posted by Graham76man
                                      The Real Chart compiled by the Compilers produces the sales figures that show much higher record sales in the UK, than those shown by the Industry. Now of course you can say that these figures are nonsense and that the Record Industry produces correct figures. But once you understand where the Real Chart figures come from, you would be a fool to believe the other figures.

                                      Yes but were did the Compilers of The Real Chart get their figures from?

                                      Is there any link which explains just how this chart operated?
                                      http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/p...eal-chart.html

                                      That is Graham's blog which explains more about his chart.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by MFR
                                        Originally posted by davetaylor
                                        Didn't Alan change his formula in 1987's points system? I seem to remember him advising that the points system wasn't compatible, with the 1986 list, but would be if you multiplied by 0.55...Whatever he mean't by that? I suppose multiplying by 0.55 would give the points in retrospect of his 1986 ist, but you'd still have to the multiply it by either 17 or 18 i.e. Dusty & the Pet Shop Boys. If he had them on 267 & you multiplied by 0.55, it would give you 146.85 & multiplying by 18, would of given you 2643.3 = 263,330 sales to an 18.
                                        In 1986 (and 1985) Alan added up each act's panel sales, divided them by 100, rounded them and called them 'points'. Then, for the benefit of anyone who wondered what the actual sales were, he advised multiplying the points by 1800.

                                        In 1987 Alan added up each act's panel sales, and multiplied them by 18, so the 'points' that year were the actual sales estimates in thousands, based on a multiplier of 18.

                                        But 267,000 sales, listed as 267 'points', for Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield using a multiplier of 18 indicates panel sales of about 14,833. Dividing these by 100, as he had the previous year, gives 148 'points' rounded to the nearest whole number. Multiply 267 by 0.55 gives 146.85. Rounding, this gives 147 'points', so we can see multiplying by 0.55 gives only an approximate translation from one year to the other.

                                        But, my point about the 1987 figures is that if this single sold between 266,500 and 267,500 using 18 as the multiplier, then the equivalent figure using 17 as the multipier would give a sale in the range of about 251,700 and 252,600. But the figure you listed is 249,600, which is clearly lower than a straight conversion from 18 to 17.
                                        I didn't convert, as I already had the panel sale. Didn't need to involve Alan's figures in my case. In any case your 147 points x 18 = 2646. The original panel sale is 14682. It it's multiplied by 17, you get 249,594. I've just rounded it up to the nearest 100, which in this case is 600 i.e. 249,600. At 18, it's 264,276. So, (in this case) you're wrong. Where you got 266,500 - 267,500 from is not clear, as that is not part of any equation, with or without a mathematical degree. I don't really get what Alan did with those points. It doesn't make any sense. Like most of his columns, it's just another mess. Why he didn't just put the points in the way, he had been doing is unclear. He should of put 147 points & be done with. 0.55 & all that stuf, compared the 1986. Nonsense.

                                        Comment


                                        • Removed
                                          Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Graham76man
                                            The Real Chart is not my chart. I just lay it out on a piece of paper for you to see.
                                            MFR asks me more questions, but I would like to know these:
                                            1. Is there anyone on here thinks the record industry don't lie or cheat to make a fast buck! That there actions are always above board?
                                            2. Does MFR work in the record industry?
                                            3. 140 million sellers to date. Does anyone really believe that since the 1940's to date that figure is accurate?
                                            1. Of course they want to make money but, why collectively try to make the numbers smaller than you suggest they are?
                                            2. No, it's just research.
                                            3. Or it could be only 135 or so, as pre-1994 million-sellers have their status based on record company reports of what they shipped, and in some cases returns took the figure back below one million, therefore they are not over-the-counter million-sellers.

                                            So did Bryan Adams really sell 4.7 million of (Everything I Do) I Do It For You?
                                            Did it really have no weeks at all as the best-selling single in the UK?

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by davetaylor
                                              Originally posted by MFR
                                              Originally posted by davetaylor
                                              Didn't Alan change his formula in 1987's points system? I seem to remember him advising that the points system wasn't compatible, with the 1986 list, but would be if you multiplied by 0.55...Whatever he mean't by that? I suppose multiplying by 0.55 would give the points in retrospect of his 1986 ist, but you'd still have to the multiply it by either 17 or 18 i.e. Dusty & the Pet Shop Boys. If he had them on 267 & you multiplied by 0.55, it would give you 146.85 & multiplying by 18, would of given you 2643.3 = 263,330 sales to an 18.
                                              In 1986 (and 1985) Alan added up each act's panel sales, divided them by 100, rounded them and called them 'points'. Then, for the benefit of anyone who wondered what the actual sales were, he advised multiplying the points by 1800.

                                              In 1987 Alan added up each act's panel sales, and multiplied them by 18, so the 'points' that year were the actual sales estimates in thousands, based on a multiplier of 18.

                                              But 267,000 sales, listed as 267 'points', for Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield using a multiplier of 18 indicates panel sales of about 14,833. Dividing these by 100, as he had the previous year, gives 148 'points' rounded to the nearest whole number. Multiply 267 by 0.55 gives 146.85. Rounding, this gives 147 'points', so we can see multiplying by 0.55 gives only an approximate translation from one year to the other.

                                              But, my point about the 1987 figures is that if this single sold between 266,500 and 267,500 using 18 as the multiplier, then the equivalent figure using 17 as the multipier would give a sale in the range of about 251,700 and 252,600. But the figure you listed is 249,600, which is clearly lower than a straight conversion from 18 to 17.
                                              I didn't convert, as I already had the panel sale. Didn't need to involve Alan's figures in my case. In any case your 147 points x 18 = 2646. The original panel sale is 14682. It it's multiplied by 17, you get 249,594. I've just rounded it up to the nearest 100, which in this case is 600 i.e. 249,600. At 18, it's 264,276. So, (in this case) you're wrong. Where you got 266,500 - 267,500 from is not clear, as that is not part of any equation, with or without a mathematical degree. I don't really get what Alan did with those points. It doesn't make any sense. Like most of his columns, it's just another mess. Why he didn't just put the points in the way, he had been doing is unclear. He should of put 147 points & be done with. 0.55 & all that stuf, compared the 1986. Nonsense.
                                              I don't have the panel sales for this single, but I do have the panel sales for some of the others from that year, and when multiplied by 18 they do work out correctly as the figures ('points') in Alan's round-up.

                                              As the ones I have are mainly those that were still in the chart in week 52 the question I need to ask is whether 14,682 panel sales is the total to the end of the year or just to the last charted week?

                                              I would guess the reason Alan changed the way the figures were presented was so we could see the approximate sales for ourselves instead of having to convert them from the panel sales.

                                              Comment


                                              • Removed
                                                Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!

                                                Comment


                                                • Up to a few years ago anyone could go along to the BPI Library in North London and look through files which gave all the panel sales right the way back.

                                                  A number of people did which is why there is exact info.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Robbie
                                                    Originally posted by rubcale
                                                    Originally posted by Graham76man
                                                    The Real Chart compiled by the Compilers produces the sales figures that show much higher record sales in the UK, than those shown by the Industry. Now of course you can say that these figures are nonsense and that the Record Industry produces correct figures. But once you understand where the Real Chart figures come from, you would be a fool to believe the other figures.

                                                    Yes but were did the Compilers of The Real Chart get their figures from?

                                                    Is there any link which explains just how this chart operated?
                                                    http://therealchart.blogspot.co.uk/p...eal-chart.html

                                                    That is Graham's blog which explains more about his chart.
                                                    Thanks, Robbie.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X