Video streams to enter UK’s Official Singles Chart this summer

CEO of the Official Chart Company - Martin Talbot:

" We think it is important to count the free streams as there are people who cannot afford to pay for a subscription or may not have access to credit cards,” says Martin Talbot, chief executive of the OCC. “They could be young kids or teenagers who don’t have credit cards – or it could be low-income families. It could count against certain genres of music if we stripped those out completely.”

Does that logic really stand up to scrutiny? I am not using the internet for free. I pay my mobile phone provider to give me internet access. I pay my electricity company the cost of the electricity to run my laptop and charge my phone. I pay Google Play and other music apps to buy a few new songs (yes, some people actually buy songs, not stream them for free!).

The old format singles chart wasn't free. You had to go to a store to buy a record, cd single and when the internet came a long you had to pay to download a single. Free streaming is contrary to the point of the chart - it is based on single sales, not free streaming. When was the chart meant to be altruistic? Why should the boss of the OCC care if some teenagers or young adults can't afford to pay for streaming? That shouldn't be his concern. The old boss of the old chart didn't say "we've decided to include some stores that are giving away extra free copies of their singles because low income families can't afford to buy singles." That would never happen. It's weird how free streaming is part of the sales chart. I guess the CEO would say "more people stream for free so we have to include that data." I still find it hard to defend.

This is final stab to the Official Singles Chart! First one was including album tracks to the chart, and now streaming videos!?! Why streaming videos do not have separate chart?? Also streaming numbers can be fabricated and video streaming, specially Youtube can be fabricated too. So, singles chart is NOT singles chart already for years, and now name of the chart can be changed to Official audio/video tracks chart. This is pointless really. And who is happy with it? Major record companies. Thanks, but no thanks. I do not have interest in this chart anymore. Shame, it was once leading chart in the world together with Billboard chart. Why UK industry wants to push people from the UK Official chart? People will anyway switch to Spotify or other charts and this website will become history. Thanks OCC. You really nail it this time.

I heard about this and took an interest in the chart for the first time in months (having previously been obsessed with the chart for decades), then I realised your ridiculous falsification of the chart through 'Accelerated chart ratio' and the fact that you are still doing nothing about the playlists manipulating the chart I will not be following your fake chart again any time soon.

does this mean we will be seeing no more of the hideous 300:1 streaming ratio after 3 weeks in decline after 10 weeks in the chart?

This is stupid and it's getting progressively more stupid.
Internet has destroyed the way people are interacting with music. And it's fine. It's always been changing.
It's just a shame that somehow the lowest common denominator won. The most idiotic, mindless, heartless, tasteless, emotionless strains of pop music, dance music, rock music, hip-hop all blossomed into what we have today. I blame lack of effort. If you can make a song hit the top 10 without actually going to buy it anywhere, it's too easy. I blame kids who didn't develop taste yet, but are already going crazy over some stupid pop song and listening to it hundreds of times on Spotify and such. Back when, kids didn't control the market as much as they do now. I blame executives who are fine with endlessly churning formulaic material as long as the formula works, and the formula works because they know how to get into people's heads. A song being "catchy" is one thing, a song being inescapable - it's carefully crafted piece of product. I blame the OCC and other chart compilers who are slaves to relevance.
These days you gotta scan the depths of album charts to find something actually decent. Most of the times I'm just asking myself, "why bother", and get a new album from someone I've been listening to since the year 2000.

How about only including platforms where you have to make a financial investment?? Maybe only allowing 1 stream per ip address to count. You can be number one for 15 weeks without selling a record.

I whistled a tune this morning. Does that count?

so the goalposts have shifted again.why not just be done with it and include radio plays,club and jukebox plays and maybe just to completely f**k it up..include ebay,amazon and record fair sales?

Is a far better idea not counting the ad funded streams as much as paid for subscriptions as I'm sure the artist and all included with the track get far less revenue from ad funded tracks. Is 100 streams fair, I'm not sure but let's see how it impacts the charts in the future. Is great that music videos are included as they are still a listen to a track. It's getting much better the sooner everybody moves to streaming and stops living in the past the better. Streaming services are the way in which people listen to music more than any other way and it will continue to grow. It's also far more retrospective of how much a track is liked, there will be no more groups like boyzone, mcfly, spice girls etc running of the success of previous music where people would buy a single just because they like the band, now it's more if you actually listen to the song which makes it more popular rather than just buying it and it sitting somewhere gathering dust after 2 listens and not even liking the song.

I can't help but think the Charts are becoming meaningless. Most of the "biggest songs if all time" are becoming more recent songs. Soon, you wont find any songs considered classics for decades, in any All Time Biggest Songs list.
Its because youre comparing songs that were measured by one method, vs songs measured by somewhat questionable and unequal methods. Methods that can be manipulated. For example, in the US The top two country songs of all time, are from the last year. One song is still #1, some 30 weeks later. Sure, #1 for 30 some weeks? I don't buy it.