The UK's Official Chart 'millionaires' revealed

Guess so

(I know you're wanting OCC confirmation) but it's definitely 100:1 for total sales, that hasn't changed. 150:1 and 300:1 only applies to the weekly charts.

For lifetime combined sales, 100:1 is used for historic consistency. (150:1 and the accelerated 300:1 is used for weekly chart and its pacing).

Would 100 listens give the artist the same revenue as a sale? I think a unit should be equal to how many streams equal the same revenue for the artist as a single sale, would make it fairer for the artist as otherwise how do get to the 100:1 figure from? Also I don't think the age should matter as this would surely take the units down if it was more correct

Too easy to get a million seller these days. The ratio should be 300:1 for historic consistency.

its a joke! You have streaming way too inflated!

I don't think it's possible to compare them, so you probably shouldn't. We should just have two lists. Understandable that they have to be combined for the weekly chart now, but don't agree with mixing sales & streams for the all-time chart because it's made it completely meaningless. Do appreciate the full sales breakdowns though OCC!

Hi Ben, the traditional Million Sellers (i.e sales-only) list still exists, and there will be a streaming-only list too. However, a sales-only and streams-only list by their nature will only ever tell one side of the story, the simple fact is we're going to see fewer and fewer Million Sellers as streaming now accounts for nearly 90% of the singles market. This Millionaires list above is intended as an interesting snapshot in time, looking at the unique transition period we're currently in between the sales and streaming era. It's fascinating to see how things measure up side by side isn't it!

Sad that in time this will become more and more irrelevant as recent streamers crowd it. There really is no like for like comparison anymore. Maybe there never was. The chart was slow to pick up downloads and so songs from the early 00s are deflated as regards to their impact and popularity. Beyonce's Crazy in Love and Evenesence' s Bring me to Life would be HUGE.

Yes but who would buy a physical single record these days? Who would buy a single download? As OCC states 90% of singles are from streaming, when people realise which clearly they are streaming has already taken over its just the last 10% of people who havent caught on yet. No physical single will sell a million again so how would you define the chart?

Although what your saying is true, who in their right mind is actually buying singles now as opposed to streaming? Even downloads, the poor suckers who won't give up their iTunes as they've already paid so much money on it. I pay a tenner a month for my music pleasure which I might add costs much more than Netflix where I get audio and visual. Maybe if everybody finally got with the times then charts would be much more accurate. Anyway check out imagine dragons 'radioactive' didn't even make top 10 but is still in most streaming top 100s now as is an incredible track and is doing better than many classic number 1s as it should. Time for all to move on

stop paying for streaming you lose all the music, download/purchase the CD, you have it for ever. That's one of the many reasons why.........

When the CD jumps and you have to buy it again, streaming lasts forever with unlimited songs always. Download - you download all the tracks you want whenever you want when streaming. Why pay for individual tracks when you can just pay for them all all the time

If you look after your CDs then they don't skip.
Are you streaming or downloading - make up your mind two different formats. Streaming means you're getting it over the internet from a central server whereas downloading means you actually possess it and can have it anywhere. Streaming only lasts until a) the internet goes down or you are in a non-internet area, b) until the companies price you out of the market or you can no longer afford to pay the subscription c) until the next fad/delivery service comes along.

No matter how long you look after a CD it breaks eventually. I still buy albums on cds but we're talking singles here. You clearly haven't paid for a streaming service before as once you downloaded you dont need internet to listen its downloaded and therefore it's the same as paying for an individual download. I don't know how many singles you pay for but after paying £3.99 for singles previously and around £0.99 for downloads when they are cheap then £9.99 for unlimited downloads works for me. It's also much more accurate when you think people listening to songs more, many times I've purchased a song and then not listened to it much at all but other songs I've purchased and played them millions of times. So think of that, times are moving on try it first then think about it

Streaming lasts as long as the streaming service/record company/artist allows you to stream it. That is why I never rely on it. My collection is out of my control. Streaming is good to source new music. Not to be a music 'collector'

It is for me. If any artist or anybody with rights to their music decides to not place it on a streaming service as they think they deserve more money then they are not an artist I want to listen to, there's plenty more music out there!

you forgot to mention as a UK citizen the licence fee in part for BBC Radio and even Later with (but I don't listen/watch these at all) is aprt of the cost. By the way, the music podcasts equate to legalised home taping with some ads in many cases!

That's right. Downloading changed things massively, making music more accessible than ever at the touch of a button. Singles sales boomed in the Noughties as a result and we saw more million sellers than ever before.. Streaming has shaken things up all over again. Then you've got artists like Ed Sheeran who do incredibly well across the board on physical formats, downloads and on streaming services too. Amazing.