ChartsPlus - Do you know about it?

Moderators: trebor, kingofskiffle, nympho

 

Postby kingofskiffle » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:36 am

etjoset wrote:I subscribe since issue 1. A huge respect to those who give their time and dedication to it.
Thank you :)
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby vdoerken » Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:48 am

Hi Lonnie,

I did not get the latest issue 883 on Tuesday and no answer to my mails.

Do you know if there is any problem?

Thanks in advance.

Volker
User avatar
vdoerken
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001
Location: Wuppertal, Germany

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:04 am

Hi,

It was sent out this week. Check your last email to make sure you have not accidentally finished your subscription (I’m sure that is not the case but I have to ask) and also check your spam folder. If nothing in Spamthen make sure your inbox has enough free space. Again, I’m sure it does but I have to say these things.

Chris will reply to emails but it does take a day or two to reply at times. We try and respond as quickly as we can.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby vdoerken » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:07 am

kingofskiffle wrote:Hi,

It was sent out this week. Check your last email to make sure you have not accidentally finished your subscription (I’m sure that is not the case but I have to ask) and also check your spam folder. If nothing in Spamthen make sure your inbox has enough free space. Again, I’m sure it does but I have to say these things.

Chris will reply to emails but it does take a day or two to reply at times. We try and respond as quickly as we can.
The subscription is still valid, there is nothing in the spam-folder and the box is not full.

Last week there was the same problem and Chris resent it one day later.

No problem - I can wait until Chris answers.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Volker
User avatar
vdoerken
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001
Location: Wuppertal, Germany

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:12 am

Yes, Norton Anti Virus had a problem. My copy of issue 884 was Sent on 2018-07-31 01:42:34 if that helps anybody else.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Blondini » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:21 pm

You need to correct/update the subscription details listed. I bought the "current" issue not realising it's a month behind.

UKChartsPlus885: 03/08/2018-09/08/2018 (w/e 11/08/2018) - 1 issue @ £5.50
Should say 31st August - 6th September. 09 not 08. ?

The advance order one is a month behind, too.

Emailed Chris. He said he'd send the latest one but had to wait 24 hours as per non-subscriber licensing rule. Not received it but you say it takes a couple of days to reply so...

From the issue i got, it's impressive. Especially good to see extended top 200 downloads charts. I should take out the 3-month quarterly v soon.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 54974
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby kingofskiffle » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:36 pm

Yes the website does sometimes run out of date a little. One of the problems with not being able to amend all the times. Chris has a full time job as well as CP - as do we all - so everything that we do is for the love of doing it as we don't get any money for doing it. I do appreciate that people are paying for this and so they expect a high quality service and should get this, but hopefully people do understand that sometimes it might take a little time.

Pleased you like the extended Download 200. We have had that since 22 May 2010 issue, so if you buy any back issues from that date onwards then you'll get those.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Blondini » Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:08 pm

Yes, good to know, thanks. It is a grand feat to pull off for the four of you. I am interested in some of the Budget Album Charts, too. So i may get some specific back issues for that.

Although i think the New Entries Spotlight should feature the full top 200 albums, especially as top 200 runs feature in the discographies. Doesn't make much sense doing a 101-200 of the download chart ungainly glued to the top 100 general chart.
Don't think The Big Top 40 should be included as the chart is farcical and changes its methodology on a whim - it's basically a full iTunes chart now (doesn't seem to have any airplay element). Completely pointless and the info is easily found on the net.

In Neil & Liam Finn discography: The first Finn Brothers album is credited simply Finn - the act's name at that time.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 54974
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:07 pm

Blondini wrote:Yes, good to know, thanks. It is a grand feat to pull off for the four of you. I am interested in some of the Budget Album Charts, too. So i may get some specific back issues for that.
Let me know if your after specific albums and I can try and search and find the right issues for you.

Although i think the New Entries Spotlight should feature the full top 200 albums, especially as top 200 runs feature in the discographies. Doesn't make much sense doing a 101-200 of the download chart ungainly glued to the top 100 general chart.
Don't think The Big Top 40 should be included as the chart is farcical and changes its methodology on a whim - it's basically a full iTunes chart now (doesn't seem to have any airplay element). Completely pointless and the info is easily found on the net.
Top 200 albums is fun to find all the tracks for and verify all the entries are correct. I agree but it's down to time.
101-200 Singles was to appease those who felt we lost out when the OCC wouldn't let us have the Top 200 Singles so we did what we could. Big 40 is basically the iTunes chart, and we keep it because it's useful to gauge future hits. We get 3 extra days sales for that chart don't forget so if somethings high on iTunes then it is likely to enter the following week as well.

In Neil & Liam Finn discography: The first Finn Brothers album is credited simply Finn - the act's name at that time.
. Yeah we spotted that after issue.... copy and paste error I'm afraid. Sometimes small things are manually amended and as with everything the odd error gets through.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby freeme » Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:49 pm

What kind of charts have 2005 full issues?
don't disturb this groove!
freeme
Manager
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004
Location: Haywards Heat, UK

Postby kingofskiffle » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:48 am

At the start of the year

Top 200 singles
Top 200 Albums
Top 50 compilations
Airplay Top 100
Budget Top 50
Dance Singles and Albums Top 40
RandB singles and albums Top 40
Rock singles and albums Top 40
Indie singles and albums Top 50
Download Chart Top 40
Year to date Top 75 for singles and albums

By the end of the year the singles Chart had expanded to a Top 250 due to the OCC Chart expanding.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Gambo » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:57 am

Lonnie can I just clarify whether, when you had to renegotiate things with the OCC following their withdrawal of a full Top 200 'uncompressed' tracks chart and only permitted a 'compressed' Top 100 to be published by UKCP, you and the team looked into the possibility of them letting you have the Top 200 sales chart (i.e. digital and physical)? Or was it that because you had historically always carried the downloads-only listing that you chose to take the extended version of that rather than substitute with the full sales tabulation? I am guessing that to have added the total sales chart alongside that of just downloads would've added yet-more money to the fee which would have been prohibitive, so it's not a deal-breaker for me, but ideally I would prefer to see the full sales version. I realise that the Top 100 is on the OCC website, and that nowadays there's little difference in positioning between overall and just download sales given that physical contributes so little, but a Top 200 sales would be handy.

Ta!
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby freeme » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:28 pm

kingofskiffle wrote:At the start of the year

Top 200 singles
Top 200 Albums
Top 50 compilations
Airplay Top 100
Budget Top 50
Dance Singles and Albums Top 40
RandB singles and albums Top 40
Rock singles and albums Top 40
Indie singles and albums Top 50
Download Chart Top 40
Year to date Top 75 for singles and albums

By the end of the year the singles Chart had expanded to a Top 250 due to the OCC Chart expanding.
No scottish, welsh and physical charts?
don't disturb this groove!
freeme
Manager
 
Posts: 1698
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004
Location: Haywards Heat, UK

Postby kingofskiffle » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:41 pm

freeme wrote:
kingofskiffle wrote:At the start of the year

Top 200 singles
Top 200 Albums
Top 50 compilations
Airplay Top 100
Budget Top 50
Dance Singles and Albums Top 40
RandB singles and albums Top 40
Rock singles and albums Top 40
Indie singles and albums Top 50
Download Chart Top 40
Year to date Top 75 for singles and albums

By the end of the year the singles Chart had expanded to a Top 250 due to the OCC Chart expanding.
No scottish, welsh and physical charts?
Scottish and Welsh for songs only in the Top 2500/250 Singles/Albums charts. At that time they where listed alongside the main entries. Son a row would have

Pos - lek - 2wks - Title - Artist .......... Label (Number) Scot. Welsh Peak Weeks

If that makes sense. The Physicals chart we never had.

Welsh charts are actually fun in 2007-2009 as they frequently had less than 75 records actually selling. The last chart like that (10/10/2009) was a Top 15 and they re-did the rules the following week. Number 15 was "Once Upon A Christmas Song" which explains how low the market went. The following week, with the new rule change, the chart went back to normal and became digital and physical, like the main chart.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby kingofskiffle » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:50 pm

Gambo wrote:Lonnie can I just clarify whether, when you had to renegotiate things with the OCC following their withdrawal of a full Top 200 'uncompressed' tracks chart and only permitted a 'compressed' Top 100 to be published by UKCP, you and the team looked into the possibility of them letting you have the Top 200 sales chart (i.e. digital and physical)? Or was it that because you had historically always carried the downloads-only listing that you chose to take the extended version of that rather than substitute with the full sales tabulation? I am guessing that to have added the total sales chart alongside that of just downloads would've added yet-more money to the fee which would have been prohibitive, so it's not a deal-breaker for me, but ideally I would prefer to see the full sales version. I realise that the Top 100 is on the OCC website, and that nowadays there's little difference in positioning between overall and just download sales given that physical contributes so little, but a Top 200 sales would be handy.

Ta!
Gambo we did not as we where not allowed any say whatsoever as to whether we could have the larger chart. The OCC decide what charts they wish to allow for publication, as the owner its their right to do that, and they decided they didn't;t want the old Top 200 being published anywhere. We had a lot of (very quick) emails back and forth with them. If I recall correctly it was a decision made about 8 days before implementation or at least we where told 8 days before the withdrawal so we where very surprised. We really wanted a physical chart (of ANY size!) to be added to the publication.

I recently saw an edition of Music Week which gave the sales breakdown and 50% (give or take) was streaming, 40% download and 10% physical. Those are from memory so might be more Streaming but I was shocked how much of it was streaming. Apple Music / Spotify/Amazon have a lot to answer for in making it now a streaming market and buying music at least as a download is vanishing. But thats another discussion. Either way, your point - we did try and get the physical chart and try and carry it but it was not offered. We where able to increase the Compilations to a Top 100, Indie Breakers to Top 50's and print full Top 75's of the Scottish and Welsh Singles and Albums. That was largely all we could get. And it wasn't, if I'm right, a more money thing either, which struck me as odd as surly if we had paid more they would have wanted to provide the Physical chart? In all seriousness though, the Vinyl chart is largely the physical market now anyway with the current Top 4 the same across both charts. It's largely Cassette sales, a small number, that makes the change.

Hope that helps. I can't, obviously, say all I know as a lot is confidential between OCC and CP, but that gives a picture of what we where trying to do to save the charts.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Gambo » Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:36 pm

Thanks Lonnie - all makes sense given the situation you suddenly found yourself in, and remembering that the OCC hold all the aces when it comes to which charts they licence for publication.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby Robbie » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:13 pm

Hopefully one day the OCC might have a change of heart and allow UKC+ to have access to, and to publish, the Top 200 Singles chart that they still to this day continue to compile and make available to the industry. Without ACR and a three tracks per main artist limit the two charts are suffieciently different. On just starred out tracks this week there were 28 of them which didn't make the top 100 despite having sold enough. 10 were by Eminem (all would have been top 30), 6 were from 'The Greatest Showman' and the rest a mixture of Drake, Mamma Mia 2 songs and a variety of other acts. And then there are the tracks near the bottom on ACR which would be higher and titles on ACR outside of the top 100 which would revert back to SCR and would be well inside the top 100.

I can see why the OCC don't want the chart to be published as in doing so it would give semi-official status to a chart that is compiled solely for the industry. It would also cause some confusion too if the alternative chart was referred to in the national press and on wesbite forums. But it would be a wonderful boost for UKC+ and would likely lead to a higher subscription base.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Chartaholic » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:15 pm

It well could be the industry players that don’t want it released, and that was part of the deal with the change to the ACR chart. That OCC not release it.
Chartaholic
Groupie
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017

Postby Robbie » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:38 pm

Chartaholic wrote:It well could be the industry players that don’t want it released, and that was part of the deal with the change to the ACR chart. That OCC not release it.
Probably though the OCC themselves would not want the chart to become public knowledge since it would undermine the Official Top 100 were it to be readily available outside of industry circles.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Chartaholic » Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:56 pm

Robbie wrote:
Chartaholic wrote:It well could be the industry players that don’t want it released, and that was part of the deal with the change to the ACR chart. That OCC not release it.
Probably though the OCC themselves would not want the chart to become public knowledge since it would undermine the Official Top 100 were it to be readily available outside of industry circles.
Yea, I guess I just think it is just as likely for those same reasons that industry wouldn’t want it released.

We will probably never know :)
Chartaholic
Groupie
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017

Postby Robbie » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:05 pm

Chartaholic wrote:
Robbie wrote:
Chartaholic wrote:It well could be the industry players that don’t want it released, and that was part of the deal with the change to the ACR chart. That OCC not release it.
Probably though the OCC themselves would not want the chart to become public knowledge since it would undermine the Official Top 100 were it to be readily available outside of industry circles.
Yea, I guess I just think it is just as likely for those same reasons that industry wouldn’t want it released.

We will probably never know :)
In a way it's like years ago when the OCC were ultra-secretive about the midweek chart updates. The midweeks were always meant to be for industry eyes only from when they first were introduced in the mid 80s. Indeed at one time CIN/OCC would go to great lengths to get websites to stop members posting the midweeks: just about any website with a forum that had members posting midweeks were targetted by them in the period 2000 to 2005. Dotmusic was the first but after a while it was every website, including UKMIx - there used to be a thread advising posters not to post the midweeks in this forum. The OCC (or CIN as they were then) were being put under pressure from record labels in response to the then editor of the Bizarre gossip column in the British newspaper The Sun using the midweek positions of underpeforming records to mock the individual acts. In fact things got so bad in 2002 that the OCC ordered a total clampdown on midweeks and even suggested that they may go as far as not compiling one each day as they currently do. In the end, around 2005, the OCC seemed to have a change of heart and these days rarely contact websites to ask them to stop posting midweeks. I imagine they would only do that these days if the entire chart was posted, along with sales for each title. I think they realised that chart fans taking an interest in the midweeks was good for the music biz.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Fedepeti » Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:27 pm

I think that another version could be made, a "small, essential, cheap or light" version with only the most important charts: Top 100 Singles, Top 200 Albums and, maybe, Top 200 Download Singles, that's it.

That version at low cost, maybe half the price of the Express or Full, can get many new subscriptions of people only interested on the main charts and you can get 3 versions to choose, the essential one at low cost, the express one and the full version.

It's only an idea to increase the number of subscriptions, maybe for a limited time period to see if it works.

Thanks a lot for the hard work on CP by the way.
User avatar
Fedepeti
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 961
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby kingofskiffle » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:08 am

The problem with doing that is that is released 500 positions. 300 of which are available for free. So whatever the price your paying for only 200 new positions. We get that price is a big issue here and we are (like any other product) fighting the price vs demand equation. If we put the current issue of CP on sale for £1 and £50 subscription we would not see a large rise in subscribers, at least not enough to offset the loss of revenue. We don’t make a profit. So we have to make sure the price covers the costs. If we put out what your suggesting half our Express subscribers would jump to that loosing money. There are only about 309 people who are as interested in paying for the charts each week I would suggest (most of which get what they want for free from the OCC website). music Week proves this because once you take out the record companies that bulk buy its sales figures are terrible. One reason why the price has gone up to over £6 an issue now. With my chart books I’m lucky to get 10 sales for each one. With ChartsPlus we are lucky to have the subscribers we do given the free OCC website. Hence the problem.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6001
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Gambo » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:17 pm

I remember the ludicrous secrecy around the midweeks in the early '00s. I recall one site I used to frequent that thought it was exceedingly wily and clever posting them under the banner "Kim Weeds"! Those were the days. Not.

I suspect that the OCC's change of heart on kidmeeks (sorry) was mostly down to the realisation that the chart as a concept had lost considerable traction as a positive cultural reference point among the British public, mainly I think because of perceived devaluation among all but the youngest of music fans of achieving a chart position owing to the very high turnover seen in the 1995-2005 period, and rapid demise of the physical single proper. They saw that actually allowing selected midweek figures to be posted freely on forums by those who wanted them, and later even openly posting them via their own auspices, might help generate some renewed interest in it, as well as satisfying the 'chartologist' sorts who'd always wanted sight of them. Midweeks help build up to the culmination of the chart sales week for keener followers, although arguably for those who favoured the element of genuine surprise at the close of the week as to where tracks would land in the rankings, it has ruined that sense of suspense forever.

I'm not sure there'll be a comparable loosening of policy with the 'uncompressed' Top 200 tracks chart, for the reasons already given, which surely will remain prescient - i.e. they can't countenance having a 'rival' tabulation that some might start regarding as better than the 'compressed' official version, thereby undermining its primacy. Saying that, as much as I remain defiantly against the imposition of restrictions that artificially-alter the rank of titles in a chart that's meant to reflect popularity by purchases and listens in descending order, looking at what would've been occupying the chart had the rules not been introduced in July 2017, I am softening to the argument that it had to happen sooner or later. Slow chart turnover is one thing, but the sort of log-jamming maintained for months on end as tracks by a small number of acts or albums are saturation-streamed indefinitely would have made for a worryingly predictable and boring Top 100/200. The 'Ed Sheeran effect' would by now have been far-from an uncommon rare feat, which to some would've lost the charts more credibility than having records falsely-removed or pushed-downwards (I suspect many chart followers of today don't realise about these restrictions anyway). Okay, I can't now place much emphasis on the actual positions each week given the skew of the 3-track and ACR rulings, but I do understand that it keeps the overall list looking a tad more varied and so may help its profile as it moves inexorably to becoming a 99% streaming measure.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby Blondini » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:42 pm

kingofskiffle wrote:
Blondini wrote:
Don't think The Big Top 40 should be included as the chart is farcical and changes its methodology on a whim - it's basically a full iTunes chart now (doesn't seem to have any airplay element). Completely pointless and the info is easily found on the net.
Big 40 is basically the iTunes chart, and we keep it because it's useful to gauge future hits. We get 3 extra days sales for that chart don't forget so if somethings high on iTunes then it is likely to enter the following week as well.

From January, only 2 commercial radio stations will carry it.

https://radiotoday.co.uk/2018/09/bauer- ... p-40-show/

I'm a subscriber, i'm happy to say. The 3 month quarterly equates to about £3.50 per week. Better value than that glossy trade mag Music Week that has barely any actual useful information in it.
User avatar
Blondini
Big Time Dreamer
 
Posts: 54974
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, UK

Return to Chart Analysis