UK Chart Changes: Youtube added, Paid (100:1), Free (600:1)

Moderators: trebor, nympho, kingofskiffle

 

Postby Robbie » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:01 am

SummerPeur wrote:sorry this ratio is for only singles?

or is there an album ratio as well?
The changes only affect the Singles chart, the albums chart will continue to be compiled with the same rules as before.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Thriller » Mon Jun 25, 2018 3:25 pm

I support the weighting changes, definitely! It decreases the stranglehold young consumers are having on the chart with all these mumble rappers.

So for every million YT views a song receives 1,600 sales? It’s not gonna make that much impact really so why not.
User avatar
Thriller
Moderator
 
Posts: 73769
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003
Location: UK

Postby Gambo » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:00 pm

As I feared, then. Only a matter of time I suppose the way things are.

So in 13 years we have seen some major breaks in lineage from the way that the charts measured (and the way we consumed) popular songs: April 2005: virtual products partially-allowed alongside physical; January 2007: full-integration of all paid-for tracks; June 2014: audio streams allowed alongside sales at a 100:1 ratio; December 2016: weekly ratio adjusted to 150:1; July 2017: maximum of 3 biggest tracks per artist and doubling of ratio from 150:1 to 300:1 after 9 weeks if in 3-weeks of relative decline; July 2018: video streams allowed alongside audio and sales, at a universal 100:1 for subscription and 600:1 for free.

Some may well see this new move as 'the last straw' for a chart that once represented just clear popularity of audio recordings, albeit that such popularity has potentially been augmented to varying degrees by the background presence of an accompanying promotional video in the last 35-40 years, as this now measures two forms of media which while inextricably-linked, can be appreciated mutually-exclusive of each other, which doesn't necessarily mean the SONG is popular, possibly just the short film that promotes it. Others more pragmatically will see this as an inevitable and necessary move to take account of the broader ways in which we can choose to consume music in all its aural and visual forms, and that this is just the OCC seeking to stay at pace with the speed of development facilitated by digital technology and reflected in the alacrity of the British public to gravitate to these newer forms of consumption. All well and good, but it makes chart positions and unit tallies relatively incomparable depending on which era one looks at - arguably we now have four distinct eras that one can't say match-up in terms of chart performance or market shape: a pre-2005 physical sales era, a 2005-2014 digital and physical sales era, a 2014-2018 audio streams and digital/physical sales era, and post-2018 a video/audio streams and digital/physical sales era.

I suppose the final cornerstone left in this broadened conceptualisation of measuring a song's importance to consumers is that these rules at least restrict video streams to official promotional clips, eschewing the possibility which in my view the Americans embraced far-too-willingly of including unofficial self-generated public clips for songs. It is massively-sensible to exclude such nonsense, as indeed it is to finally recognise the key distinction between subscribed-to and ad-supported streaming, albeit arguably the ratios never feel quite right.

One thing's for sure though: include every Tom, Dick and Harry's video clips pertaining to pop and I'm off! For me, that is the final straw with the OCC chart. As for chart turnover and movements, I daresay the saturation of streaming on video may have just as much of a slowing-effect as that on audio, so for those really objecting to that, it's bad news. Also, if we're moving to a 100:1/600:1 streaming split based on the kind of platform, what of the post-9-week ACR rule? Would both types of streaming need to be in decline against the market for 3 weeks, or just one? Whenever ACR kicks-in, will their streams be doubled in both types of platform? Will ACR still even exist? Maybe I've missed this but it doesn't seem clear to me from the latest announcement.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby Robbie » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:07 pm

Someone at another board asked Music Week for clarification of ACR under the new rules and was informed that ACR will remain in place which would mean 200:1/1200:1 ratios being applied as appropriate. My guess is that the trigger point will be as now, that sales are in decline for 3 weeks with a track on at least its 9th week in the top 100 for ACR to apply from the following week. I'm also assuming it will be overall streams (both audio and video) that move to ACR from the following week. We'll find out soon enough as some tracks are bound to hit ACR in the early weeks of the new look chart and this is bound to be highlighted.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby JakeP » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:17 pm

How will the chart compilers know the difference between free users and paid subscription users?

Also this website https://spotifycharts.com/regional/gb/daily/latest will it change to show the breakdown of free user and paid subscribers? It would be interesting to see if there really is a big discrepancy between what music free users listen to compared to paid users.
User avatar
JakeP
Superstar
 
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013

Postby Robbie » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:31 pm

JakeP wrote:How will the chart compilers know the difference between free users and paid subscription users?

Also this website https://spotifycharts.com/regional/gb/daily/latest will it change to show the breakdown of free user and paid subscribers? It would be interesting to see if there really is a big discrepancy between what music free users listen to compared to paid users.
There have been test charts running for some time now so presumably Spotify etc already provide a breakdown of subscription streams and ad-funded streams and have done for some time.

As for the latter, I don't know. I suppose it depends if Spotify want to make the breakdown of free users and paid subscribers public but given how secretive the company likes to be (especially when acknowledging what % of their customer base are paid subscribers) they may not want to provide more information than total daily streams.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby kingofskiffle » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:01 pm

Apparently Spotify had 70 million subscribers in January 2018. That is worldwide though... Nearly 8.3 million UK people where paid subscribers to a streaming service in January this year. (Source: http://musically.com/2018/03/05/nearly-8-3m-brits-music-streaming-subscribers-january/) Article is quite informative and if the figure is 8 million then thats just ver 10% of the UK population which at least makes it credible to count those in some sort of chart (I approve of a streaming chart in general just not entirely sure it should be part of the main chart but on the other hand....) Spotify has about 5 million subscribers in the UK based on that article I'd say.

I like that streaming ration alters to reflect the market. I think we are finally heading towards a "Hot 100" for the UK. been heading that way for a few years. I think I shall start following the Physical Chart and the Sales Only Chart a lot more though. But at least the OCC website offers the option to do that for those who don't want the main chart.
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6021
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby Nameless » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:57 am

How do orher countries deal with stteaming for their charts?
Nameless
Roadie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016

Postby Shayonce » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:16 am

I think it's good. but would love to see more bold ratio that represent the royalty differences.
User avatar
Shayonce
Manager
 
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008

Postby Gambo » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:18 pm

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the probable operation of ACR following the latest changes Robbie.

As regards this issue of test charts etc, I notice on the OCC site that they have been able to compile a 'most-streamed videos to date' chart, which apparently takes-in video streaming data going back to January 2014, the same date that the application of audio streams goes back to. So does this mean that the OCC actually began sourcing video stream data as far back as then? If I'd have known they were doing that alongside audio, I'd have been far-more surprised that they didn't actually introduce video to the mainstream combined chart sooner.

But unlike audio, its video equivalent has had no real prior build-up or 'soft launch' as the marketeers would have it. Audio was previewed by compilation (and publication) of its own separate chart it I recall from May 2012, albeit that for some reason that information isn't used in retrospective calculations of audio streaming performance. I might've missed it as someone who no longer really gets to look at MW (and also doesn't take much notice of video charts generally), but has there been a stand-alone official video streams chart published by way of a trailer for the probable full integration into the main chart, and if so, when did that start (presumably if it's not been issued anywhere they've been compiling one privately)?

Sorry for all the Qs but Robbie you're probably the best person to answer these as you always seem to have the inside track!

KOS I know what you mean about not necessarily being entirely unsupportive of the push towards a 'Hot 100' style songs (and videos) chart, but still instinctively feeling that it's not really for you. I do hope they keep the sales-only and format breakdown charts going, even if the combined chart as we know it today will no longer be available (presumably we won't still get a sales and audio streams-only tabulation, in the same way as the 'uncompressed' old-style Top 200 never gets to see the light of day since the changes of a year ago)?
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby Robbie » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:53 pm

In the business section of the OCC website (where the OCC advertise their subscription packages to access sales, charts and other data) the OCC state that they have been collecting UK audio and video streams since Week 1, 2014.

http://www.officialcharts.com/our-busin ... /b2b-data/

Clicking on the image at the above link, which mentions "2014 audio and video streams" you will notice that the url contains both the date the image was uploaded, which is May 2015, plus at the bottom, in small print the text says that the information was correct to 1 Janaury 2015 and so is probably a summary of the previous 12 months back to January 2014. I can remember seeing the same image appear as a full page ad at probably the same time in Music Week and it probably clicked in my mind way back that video streaming data was being collected though it took seeing that image to remind me of the fact...

As for a standalone weekly video streams chart I can't recall seeing one published in the past on the OCC site though Music Week have published one for a few years now though based solely on plays on Vevo so I'm assuming Vevo were supplying this data directly to Music Week. In fact it's likely it was Vevo as there's not only a Vevo UK Video Streams chart (a top 20) published in the magazine there's also one for the US plus a few other countries such as France, Germany and Australia published in Music Week too.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby KokoCollino » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:28 pm

JakeP wrote:How will the chart compilers know the difference between free users and paid subscription users?

Also this website https://spotifycharts.com/regional/gb/daily/latest will it change to show the breakdown of free user and paid subscribers? It would be interesting to see if there really is a big discrepancy between what music free users listen to compared to paid users.
Spotify was able to deliver it since 2014 already. Germany only counts premium streams (and does so since January 2014).

I don’t think Spotify sees benefit in making the premium/free numbers public.

In their public filing for Wall Street they claimed a % and premium streamers obviously are more heavy users. I’m using my phone, can’t search the link right now. It was a WW number though.
Looks like I found my way home
User avatar
KokoCollino
Superstar
 
Posts: 5321
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015

Postby KokoCollino » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:31 pm

Nameless wrote:How do orher countries deal with stteaming for their charts?
Germany only counts premium streams. The chart is not unit, but value based. They add 0.69€ or 1.29€ for a download and the value of a premium stream:

(Accounts x average monthly price for an account)/number of streams in a month

It’s the best system IMO.

They don’t count premium video streams yet afaik but I’m sure they announce it soon. Won’t make much of a difference because there aren’t many YouTube Premium subs yet and idk how famous Apple Music videos are.
Looks like I found my way home
User avatar
KokoCollino
Superstar
 
Posts: 5321
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015

Postby Nameless » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:00 pm

^Thanks
Nameless
Roadie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016

Postby Gambo » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:11 am

Yes and thanks in particular to Robbie for providing further info on collection of video streaming data by the OCC and publication of charts. It's a shame that if they were compiling test charts for an official video streams listing (including data beyond that provided only by Vevo) that these were not made available online, or better-still, published in MW, as the download chart tests were from June to August 2004 before that chart became fully-live, ahead of the integration process with the main singles chart eight months later. While I don't think any tests were published before May 2012 for audio streaming, at least the stand-alone chart was published when it went live (and I suspect still appears in MW to date despite this format having been integrated into the main tabulation for four years now). Never mind. All we can do is sit back and see how it pans-out as the weeks unfold.
Gambo
Manager
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006
Location: Croydon

Postby Nameless » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:09 pm

Physical - vinyl is much bette than CDs The sound, the feel, the artwork

Digital - Why pay for downloads in the age of streaming?

The 2 extremes - vinyl and streams are the best formats.
Nameless
Roadie
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016

Postby Magnetico » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:19 am

Blondini wrote:That's basically what happened anyway - the video was 99% of the reason it charted. Strangely - in recent months YouTube has had less impact on the Billboard charts than it did when it was first introduced. The YouTube chart on Billboard is full of reggaeton / latin tracks and even the likes of Taylor and Selena that get huge video views barely make an impact on the main Billboard chart. They must have changed their methods of calculation.
As I know Billboard is changing its rules since this week:
Billboard rules from June 29, 2018
User avatar
Magnetico
Roadie
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009
Location: Southampton, UK - Suwałki, Poland

Postby Graham76man » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:34 pm

Nameless wrote:Physical - vinyl is much bette than CDs The sound, the feel, the artwork

Digital - Why pay for downloads in the age of streaming?

The 2 extremes - vinyl and streams are the best formats.
Only very high quality hi-fi equipment will make vinyl sound better than CD. Of course the feel and the artwork are much better, though you have to be careful handling the records themselves. One scratch and the record is only good for the bin.

You pay for streams the same as downloads. Even free streams come at the cost of higher prices for other things you have to pay for. The advertisement pot is not an exhaustible pot, so streaming runs up the price of the things being advertised. Streaming is really only a form of renting music. You never own it. Unlike the record, CD, or download. If you have paid 59p for a track, then that's all the money you need to fork out. But streaming means you never stop paying for the privilege of playing the same track over and over again. Unless you only like listening to a certain track a few times. You will never recover the cost of playing the track. If you were a record company which system would you pick?
However most streaming services are still paying far too little for the music and this will have to end sooner or later. But if streaming services have killed off downloading, then you will be paying a lot more money when the price of streaming is up to the real cost of what it truly costs to stream music.

The introduction of YouTube doesn't surprise me in the least. The owners of YouTube have clearly put pressure on the Record Industry and seeing how important YouTube is to selling records, they had to submit to the demands. Otherwise YouTube would have made it more difficult to get video's on to their site.
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Postby Robbie » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:46 pm

The new Singles chart rules are now online

http://www.officialcharts.com/media/654 ... y-2018.pdf

One interesting change is to do with when a track on ACR can revert back to SCR

Resets
i) Automatic Reset – a track within the Top 100 on ACR and which is within 3 years of release can automatically return to SCR if it’s combined sales and stream total increases by 50 percentage points greater than the market change week on week. For example, a track with a week on week variance of +39%, in a week where market variance is -11%, would be automatically reset.
The inclusion of the 3 years rule should effectively kill off the chances of old Christmas tracks dominating the upper reaches of the Singles chart.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Westen » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:53 pm

I'm not sure I understand that new rule?
User avatar
Westen
Legend
 
Posts: 11329
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013

Postby Biebz » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:59 pm

Westen wrote:I'm not sure I understand that new rule?
Songs older than 3 years are permanently ACR
User avatar
Biebz
Best Damn Member
 
Posts: 23478
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013
Location: UK

Postby kingofskiffle » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Biebz wrote:
Westen wrote:I'm not sure I understand that new rule?
Songs older than 3 years are permanently ACR
They would have to adapt this for key events - i.e. if Michael Jackson had died under ACR they would have let some of his songs chart. I would hope anyway...
http://thechartbook.co.uk - for the latest are best chart book - By Decade!
User avatar
kingofskiffle
Superstar
 
Posts: 6021
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004
Location: On The Internet

Postby iHypeMusic » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:31 pm

Biebz wrote:
Westen wrote:I'm not sure I understand that new rule?
Songs older than 3 years are permanently ACR
I said last year they would create a rule to combat the Christmas hits slayage that would get worse as streaming grew!

Christmas hits do way better on streaming than they did on digital sales. To the point of where 75%+ of the top 50 on Spotify during Christmas day was Holiday songs.

The Holiday hits re-charting every year would eventually cause them to dominate all the most weeks #1, top 10, top 75, etc records.
User avatar
iHypeMusic
Personal Assistant
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013

Postby Robbie » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:36 pm

Looking at the full rules on resets it appears that tracks older than 3 years from the date of release can have a manual reset though this rule is meant to only be used in exceptional circumstances and where the track is being scheduled for promotion. Would this ever apply to older tracks? The days when older tracks would have a new release (I'm thinking of songs like 'Stand By Me', 'Take My Breath Away', 'Young At Heart etc) seem to be at an end and of course it's virtually impossible to delete tracks now only to re-release them a few years later when they are used in a film or where the film has its TV debut or is used in an advert etc. Download sales would still count in full but streaming is now the dominant format and would labels even bother asking for a manual reset, assuming it is even possible. There are also restrictions on manual resets which suggest it is intended for current product and not old tracks. The full rules on resetting:

7.3 Resets
i) Automatic Reset – a track within the Top 100 on ACR and which is within 3 years of release can automatically return to SCR if it’s combined sales and stream total increases by 50 percentage points greater than the market change week on week. For example, a track with a week on week variance of +39%, in a week where market variance is -11%, would be automatically reset.

ii) Manual Reset – In exceptional circumstances, where a track is being scheduled for promotion, a label may elect to manually reset a track to SCR. This manual reset is limited to two tracks per artist album, only where the track in question is outside the Top 100 and subject to one week’s notice being given from the releasing label that they wish to implement a manual reset. Manual reset shall be strictly subject to Official Charts and/or CSC approval.
User avatar
Robbie
Superstar
 
Posts: 5514
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001
Location: Newcastle

Postby Graham76man » Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:47 pm

A Digital Chart of Music, would of course need reset buttons.

Presumably the name of the guy in charge of the charts now is called HAL. :wink:
Education for anyone aged 12 to 16 has made a mess of the world!
User avatar
Graham76man
Manager
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010
Location: Sheffield

Return to Chart Analysis