Official Top 40 best-selling songs of 1994

And Whigfield should be on 792,000 sales. (not 729,000)

If you have it, can you publish a Higher Resolution image as it’s a tad fuzzy for the smaller numbers.

Google americanradiohistory and search MusicWeek for 14/1/95.

Click on the image and it should become clearer

You realise that they just "forgot" about D:Ream? It's just been omitted erroneously. Also, the sales are completely incorrect and absurdly low - Without You at barely over 400,000 - it was easily over 400,000 (and near to 500,000) as far as a I remember. 700,000 odd for Wet Wet Wet seems to be missing near a million too. Also, by 1994, EPOS was a lot a lot more accurate so all of this is a bit odd to say the least. I think Whigfield sold something like 400-500 it's first week on sale. So many omissions and anomalies

Thanks Lee. Not sure where our sanity would be without your paper archives. Just wish OCC could have the same.

Totally agree.

I agree. Data Quality is essential as this is history and a chart we want to trust. I get the occasional anomalies for differences in the methods of the day. Also some of the timing issues of when historical listings were published (before the end of the year in the 70s and early 80s which we all thought was nonsense). BUT we need clear definitions and to have things explained properly. We now all know better, and have higher standards.

Sorry it’s out of year (1994) Two recent OCC articles as a comparison:
1992 - Whitney Houston’s, "I Will Always Love You" 1.66m sales, spent 10 weeks at the top was 1992 Christmas Number 1.
2015 - Maroon 5's “Sugar”, 1.67m sales, peaked Number 7, 27 weeks inside the Top 40 in 2015
I think Maroon 5 are great, “Sugar” is a great song, BUT I don’t believe this “sales”number. The streaming multipliers do not work… and then there is ACR so hits like this no longer get fully counted.

Unfortunately most of the people they employ seem to be verging on illiterate and only can use text speak (and even swear in some articles now), so this is the type of shoddy dirge we've come to expect.

They are million sellers but they were still not million sellers by the end of 1994. This article is about Year End Best Selling Songs. These numbers featured here are just the sales those singles/songs had during 1994 in UK. Both songs were still inside the charts during first weeks of 1995 and did sell important amounts during 1995 as well.

Nonsense. Wet Wet Wet would not sell an extra million copies in 8 years when it was only in lower reaches of the chart in 1995 and then exited the chart. It was reported as a million seller in 1994. The problem is due to using DUS sales recorded in the OCC database which did not cover the complete market in 1994 and 1995.

I was saying much the same thing in response to the similar thread below Bengy, it seems implausible to say the very least. What's DUS stand for though? I assume this is something to do with the way the chart was compiled using data from a sample of retailers previously, before being switched to collecting all the sales from shops across the country for a truer picture around this time...?

DUS = Defined Universe Sales. The universe in this instance is the overall "universe" or collection of retailers that report sales to the OCC through Kantar Millward Brown. By 1997 that universe amounted to 99% of all retailers selling singles and 95% of all retailers selling albums. For singles, that meant it included nearly every sale. However when Millward Brown took over chart compilation duties in February 1994 and began the DUS system it was closer to 75% for singles and probably less for albums. The charts back then were compiled under a chart panel system which sampled retailers and which would estimate total market sales. The old panel sales system was replaced by DUS in April 1997 for compiling the weekly charts.

The end result is, if DUS figures are used for sales for 1994 to Quarter 1 1997 they will be lower though the variance will be less the closer the sales weeks get to April 1997. The OCC have used DUS for 1994 when compiling this list. However there are no sales for January 1994 included as those sales aren't on the relevant computer system: they were collected by Gallup and not Millward Brown. I still think there is an error with the figure given for Wet Wet Wet. I'm sure the OCC once gave the DUS figure as being 1.3m. The OCC at least need to recheck the figures stated in the article.

Thanks Robbie. That’s a great explanation we’ll explained.

As Bengy said - nonsense. Whigfield sold something like several hundred thousand in a few weeks. Wet Wet Wet didn't sell about 50,000 copies a week - it had easily sold a million come November time.

In other words, this is a shambles

The article (and sales) have now been updated. 'Love Is All Around' is now on 1.28m sales for 1994 with 'Saturday Night' now on 729,000.

Forgot to say thanks for the terrific explanation Robbie, cheers!

Thanks!

The figures featured in this article are just about 1994 Year End sales.
The song sold 792k during 1994 and from 1995 to 2002 sold an aditional 990k (many of those copies were sold during 1995 as the song stayed on the chart until March '95 spending 43 consecutive weeks inside UK TOP 100).

Most of the singles/songs listed here sold a lot more, especially those that were still on the chart during 1995. Also some songs released during the last quarter of the year would be on TOP 40 of 1994 if counting all time sales but not counting the Year End Sales.

That's certainly the case for the likes of Cotton Eye Joe and Think Twice, which only entered the Top 40 late in 1994 and didn't hit their chart-topping peaks until 1995, but it's still pretty peculiar for Love Is All Around.

After all, it was famously Number One for 15 weeks during the summer and you'd reasonably expect its sales to be massively concentrated into that period – notwithstanding that it had a long chart 'tail' (still No.37 at New Year), 33 of those 43 weeks you mention were during '94 and that represents its entire 'significant' chart life. If not for the figures presented on this page, you wouldn't imagine that sales tally would be greatly added to by it kicking around the lower reaches of the listings for the rest of the winter. Even allowing for a slow additional accretion of odd sales over the subsequent years, it's very weird to think that it could have somehow only sold 800k or so during its lengthy chart heyday but then put on an additional million after the end of that year.

Then what about - Things Can Only Get Better - D:ream (Magnet) - 485,000 was the sale given in 1994. This is left out because the OCC database only goes back to February 1994. These are basic DUS sales instead of the usual Panel Sales and a Multiplier.

Care to read this from Music Week, dated January 14th, 1995
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01bc3ffa586e1379ea2c308c4d07e20f29232fccbe90a265d303a5a7c7f59caa.jpg

So it sold not even 800,000 in 15 weeks at number one (and many others in the Top 40) but sold almost a million the next year in a few weeks in the lower echelons of the chart? Thank goodness Lee Moore is here for some sanity

It's weird because it didn't and this list is a total farce. Just ignore a system. Next year for 1995 maybe we can just include the singles bought in Our Price Swindon and the ones the OCC like. It's a worthless list. Use wikipedia. This one is a mistake. All the rest were pretty accurate. Who checks these before the list is made and a programme is compiled?! Maybe Diane Abbott after she's worked out the cost of policing.

Love Is All Around was released on 13th Oct 1994, which means only 8 weeks sales counting for 1994 Year End Chart. In total, this song spent 15 consecutive weeks atop and a lot of weeks after that inside Top 10, Top 20 and Top 40.
So that makes sense.

Sorry but you are wrong music week reported that love is all around sold over 1.7 million in 1994. Most of its charts sales were from May - Nov 1994

No. It's doesn't make sense because it's not true at all.

It was released in mid-May 1994 and by 13th October, it had been on the charts for 22 weeks. By the end of the year it had been on the charts for 33 weeks.

Also, a single released on 13th October in any year would have at least 10 weeks on the chart by New Year's Eve.

Oops, so sorry, I was confused with the original version by The Troggs' date of release.
Wet Wet Wet's version was released on 10th April 1994. It entered at number 4 in 15th April, only 4 days of tracking week, then finally reached number 1 on 29th May. It spent 15 consecutive weeks atop until 11th September. By last tracking week of 1994, chart dated 25th December, LIAA was still at number 37.
The first week LIAA left the chart was on 12th March 1995.

Now it looks a little bit weird for only 792.000 copies in 1994. Just wait for OCC's 1995 chart for more information.

:-) No need to be sorry. Only the OCC should be sorry at their repeated incompetence and the fact that almost every article they post is full of mistakes and is never checked even though they have all the information at their fingertips

It has sold over 1.9 million in the uk to date :)