Sign in to follow this  
Squall

Are australian certifications flawed?

Recommended Posts

Squall
Quote

1. The two tracks attracting most streams are reduced to the level of the average of the next eight highest streamed tracks associated with the album (or all tracks where an album has fewer than ten tracks). This ensures that albums with one or two hit singles do not distort the performance of an album within the albums chart.

 

2. After the methodology above is applied, the streams of the top ten tracks (or all tracks where an album has fewer than ten tracks) making up the album are aggregated together and converted using the streaming conversion factor established for the singles 1:175 and the widely used rate of ten tracks = one album.

WWAFAWDWG? has spent 67 weeks in the top 10 and it's only 2x Platinum, it looks like, for her, 1 sale = 2500 streams

 

Does the ARIA need to fix their methodology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iHype.

UK & Australia have the worst rules for streaming. That's why their certifications are absolutely dead, and they completely ruined their album market. 

 

Yes I get that people don't like huge hits inflating an album, but the whole idea of limiting streams for certain tracks and only counting a certain amount of tracks basically pretends millions of streams don't exist at all. You're not providing a full picture of success if you pick and choose what counts just because.

 

Also, albums have always been inflated by hit singles. There is a reason why every artist's best-selling albums... are their ones with their biggest hits. Hits will always be the main driver of album success. You had the "Who Let the Dogs Out" singers going 3x Platinum with the album in 2000, selling as much as Mariah/Janet/Madonna were at that point, not because people were interested in them as artists, but because they wanted to hear one viral song. :skull: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squall
9 minutes ago, iHype. said:

UK & Australia have the worst rules for streaming. That's why their certifications are absolutely dead, and they completely ruined their album market. 

 

Yes I get that people don't like huge hits inflating an album, but the whole idea of limiting streams for certain tracks and only counting a certain amount of tracks basically pretends millions of streams don't exist at all. You're not providing a full picture of success if you pick and choose what counts just because.

 

Also, albums have always been inflated by hit singles. There is a reason why every artist's best-selling albums... are their ones with their biggest hits. Hits will always be the main driver of album success. You had the "Who Let the Dogs Out" singers going 3x Platinum with the album in 2000, selling as much as Mariah/Janet/Madonna were at that point, not because people were interested in them as artists, but because they wanted to hear one viral song. :skull: 

:clap3: 

 

Using their current methodology, Divide would be at like 184k (without pure sales) :deadbanana4: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah
3 hours ago, iHype. said:

UK & Australia have the worst rules for streaming. That's why their certifications are absolutely dead, and they completely ruined their album market. 

 

Yes I get that people don't like huge hits inflating an album, but the whole idea of limiting streams for certain tracks and only counting a certain amount of tracks basically pretends millions of streams don't exist at all. You're not providing a full picture of success if you pick and choose what counts just because.

 

Also, albums have always been inflated by hit singles. There is a reason why every artist's best-selling albums... are their ones with their biggest hits. Hits will always be the main driver of album success. You had the "Who Let the Dogs Out" singers going 3x Platinum with the album in 2000, selling as much as Mariah/Janet/Madonna were at that point, not because people were interested in them as artists, but because they wanted to hear one viral song. :skull: 

Wouldn't the excluded streams of the popular songs from an album still go to the certifications of the songs? They don't stop existing, and, if anything, that's for sure a way more accurate representation of the success of an artist's releases.

 

Albums being sold back in 2000 (or whenever before 2016) thanks to the traction of a hit song is not similar to what happens in the streaming era. "Who Let the Dogs Out" being 3x Platinum is the whole LP with its 13+ songs being 3x Platinum, not like current "Platinum" albums that are just 1 hit song's certification modified to album form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iHype.
1 minute ago, Jeremiah said:

Wouldn't the excluded streams of the popular songs from an album still go to the certifications of the songs?

But this is about album certifications :huh: When talking about the success of the album, it doesn't really make sense to pick and choose which songs from the album count. Not unless it's a re-release or something. 

 

The "Who Let the Dogs Out" album is 3x Platinum due completely to the popularity of one song. It doesn't matter how the statistics reflect it or what method they chose of consumption. It is undeniably due to one hit and nothing more. Hits will always be album boosters, and the idea that you need to weigh down hits is stupid. People do not just listen to 15-track albums from front to back every single day. Even when they buy the album they don't. People listen in full once or twice, then revisit their favorite songs. Albums will always be driven due to certain songs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah
3 minutes ago, iHype. said:

But this is about album certifications :huh: When talking about the success of the album, it doesn't really make sense to pick and choose which songs from the album count. Not unless it's a re-release or something. 

 

The "Who Let the Dogs Out" album is 3x Platinum due completely to the popularity of one song. It doesn't matter how the statistics reflect it or what method they chose of consumption. It is undeniably due to one hit and nothing more. Hits will always be album boosters, and the idea that you need to weigh down hits is stupid. People do not just listen to 15-track albums from front to back every single day. Even when they buy the album they don't. People listen in full once or twice, then revisit their favorite songs. Albums will always be driven due to certain songs.

 

You just can't simply attribute the success of a song to an album.

 

If 750,000,000 streams equals a Gold album certification, but 600,000,000 are by the album's hit song, then that's a highly inaccurate award. Only if the said hit song occupied 8 tracks spots on a 10-song album, that'd make sense.

 

As you said, "Who Let the Dogs Out" boosted the sales of the album, they didn't pass and compress million of streams/sales of the song as album sales. And even if it's a plausible "fair point" on how those sales were only thanks to the one hit, those were different times where purchasing behavior and market tactics were different, and where there was no way to monitor that (basically because there was no cheating). Nowadays, it's totally possible to track and distinguish what's actually being consumed, and the industry going out of its way to merge albums and songs' success will only cause more damage since they're only creating a mirage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iHype.
2 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

 

 

If 750,000,000 streams equals a Gold album certification, but 600,000,000 are by the album's hit song, then that's a highly inaccurate award. Only if the said hit song occupied 8 tracks spots on a 10-song album, that'd make sense.

You’re expecting album tracks to draw similar streams of radio singles, how stupid 

:rip:
3 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

those were different times where purchasing behavior and market tactics were different,

People bought an album, and listened to their favorite songs. It’s not hard to understand. This is why albums that sold 30 million copies in the 1990s, on Spotify have one or two hits with big streams, and the rest of the album tracks have a few million. The album tracks held up nowhere near as well as the signature hits because they were never being listened to as much. Even if people did buy the album they simply didn’t listen to the album tracks as heavily. 
 

Anyways, UK & Australia have albums spending an entire year in the top 10 and struggling to go 1x Platinum. This is because albums even which get HUGE attention overall for all tracks get heavily weighed down. It’s ridiculously dumb and these rules exist for no purpose other than to have a conservative view of streaming in favor of pure sales (which is now a dead market). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah
3 minutes ago, iHype. said:

 

You’re expecting album tracks to draw similar streams of radio singles, how stupid 

Artists like Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande and Bad Bunny totally show that people can be interested on a full album in the streaming era.

 

5 minutes ago, iHype. said:

 

People bought an album, and listened to their favorite songs. It’s not hard to understand. This is why albums that sold 30 million copies in the 1990s, on Spotify have one or two hits with big streams, and the rest of the album tracks have a few million. The album tracks held up nowhere near as well as the signature hits because they were never being listened to as much. Even if people did buy the album they simply didn’t listen to the album tracks as heavily. 

Now you're expecting 90s album tracks to have hundred of million streams? Who's the stupid here now :rip:

 

There's honestly nothing else to add to what I've already said, because it's that simple. Inflate an album's stats with one hit song's success is not the way to solve the format's dying status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iHype.
12 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

Artists like Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande and Bad Bunny totally show that people can be interested on a full album in the streaming era.

Their biggest hits still swallow their album tracks in terms of streams. :skull: 7 Rings has 1.2 billion Spotify streams, while the biggest album track has barely 200 million. Infact, 7 Rings has more streams than every album track combined. Hits will always be the main drivers, even for the artists that attract full album listens more than others.

 

The only ones that are exceptions tend to be indie artists who have no radio singles, so all the album gets similar streams. In that case, you're rewarding them yet making rules against artists who actually get success. :rip:

 

12 minutes ago, Jeremiah said:

Now you're expecting 90s album tracks to have hundred of million streams? Who's the stupid here now :rip:

I was pointing out your logic :deadbanana2: "Back in the day they still bought a full album!!1".

 

Okay, and when they did, they listened to primarily the hits still. Hence why the hits are largely the ones revisited now. If they were listening to album track #12 as much as the biggest hit single, then it wouldn't have 50x less streams. The album tracks didn't hold up at all because they were never as listened to even then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevyy
6 minutes ago, iHype. said:

 

 

I exposed your dumb logic :deadbanana2: "Back in the day they still bought a full album!!1".

 

Okay, and when they did, they listened to primarily the hits still. Hence why the hits are largely the ones revisited now. If they were listening to album track #12 as much as the biggest hit single, then it wouldn't have 50x less streams. 

 

Is there any proof to this? I have been buying music since 1992 and ... I always listened to the entire album bc I didn't have that much pocket money and could only afford like 5 CDs per year... so I played them out until they basically had scratches all over them...

 

Initially when people in the 90s or 80s bought an album, they were playing the hit single over and over and then when you had enough of it, you ventured more into the album as a whole. 

 

It's not bad to have a favourite song on an album... but i question the notion that people would only listen to that one and never spin the rest of it. 

 

I hear this claim all the time. I can imagine that there are people who would buy an album and then only play 1 tune off of it... but I can't imagine that being the majority of all people who bought albums back in the day.

 

For teenagers who were really into music and therefore bought albums... it was way too expensive to discard a whole album for a single. 

 

And then you have the stans too... a Beatles stan would certainly play the whole album... and me as a Mariah stan would always play the entire thing too... and learn the lyrics, read the booklet etc.

 

I really don't know why people claim that oh so many people never made it to track 12 on an album. 

 

What I also want to stress is that back in the 90s... you probably only got 1 lead single in advance to the album... and then if you liked it or stanned for the act... you bought the album... however.... albums - successful ones - sometimes charted for 1-2 years.... which I would assume means that people were interested in the whole thing. Especially when the album had like 6-7 (successful) singles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bad guy

Yes and so is the UK. Albums are lucky to go 2x platinum there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squall
4 hours ago, bad guy said:

Yes and so is the UK. Albums are lucky to go 2x platinum there now.

If they were using a 1000 streams = 1 album sale formula, Billie would be 5x Platinum :weeps: 

 

Even 1500 would be WAY better.

Edited by Squall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah
11 minutes ago, iHype. said:

Their biggest hits still swallow their album tracks in terms of streams. :skull: 7 Rings has 1.2 billion Spotify streams, while the biggest album track has barely 200 million. Infact, 7 Rings has more streams than every album track combined. Hits will always be the main drivers, even for the artists that attract full album listens more than others.

 

The only ones that are exceptions tend to be indie artists who have no radio singles, so all the album gets similar streams. In that case, you're rewarding them yet making rules against artists who actually get success. :rip:

 

I was pointing out your logic :deadbanana2: "Back in the day they still bought a full album!!1".

 

Okay, and when they did, they listened to primarily the hits still. Hence why the hits are largely the ones revisited now. If they were listening to album track #12 as much as the biggest hit single, then it wouldn't have 50x less streams. The album tracks didn't hold up at all because they were never as listened to even then.

 

Of course a single will have more streams since singles usually receive, you know, promotion, push and, on Spotify's case, playlisting. Albums tracks usually have a similar amount of streams between them, which is closer to a more accurate representation of the full album's success. I only named those artists to show there's people listening to full projects, since album tracks with over 100M is nothing less than amazing.

 

I didn't want to dig on your "90s album tracks" comment because, truly, it was stupid. First, 90s songs are over 20 years old. They're obviously not current hits, and very likely by artists well past their primes or even career course. Second, there's many generational differences between the people who bought music in the 90s to the people who consume music today, one of them being that older generations don't use Spotify as extensively as newer generations. Third, singles from 90s are frequently the ones being added to popular playlists on the platform, not the album tracks.

 

There's no denying that hit songs attract album sales (they've always had, and singles releases' goal is exactly that) and that album tracks do not nearly receive as much attention, but an album sale is that: an album sale, even if only thanks to one hit song. What's curious is that you seem to mock albums sold thanks to a hit song back in the day and their respective album certifications, but you're totally ok with current albums certs being inflated with one hit song's success...

 

...but there's big difference between both cases. One was a "fair" reality, while the other is an alteration or disturbance to mask a declining market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enzolorenzo
6 hours ago, iHype. said:

UK & Australia have the worst rules for streaming. That's why their certifications are absolutely dead, and they completely ruined their album market. 

 

Yes I get that people don't like huge hits inflating an album, but the whole idea of limiting streams for certain tracks and only counting a certain amount of tracks basically pretends millions of streams don't exist at all. You're not providing a full picture of success if you pick and choose what counts just because.

 

Also, albums have always been inflated by hit singles. There is a reason why every artist's best-selling albums... are their ones with their biggest hits. Hits will always be the main driver of album success. You had the "Who Let the Dogs Out" singers going 3x Platinum with the album in 2000, selling as much as Mariah/Janet/Madonna were at that point, not because people were interested in them as artists, but because they wanted to hear one viral song. :skull: 

Don’t most countries use similar rules though? For example in Italy the most streamed track on an album isn’t counted if its streams make up for more than 70% of the album total (also only premium streams count). I also believe that the German methodology is pretty similar to the UK one. Anyways I do believe that most chart companies should fix their methodology though or maybe lower the certifications threshold. For example here in Italy a lot of albums are struggling to scan gold despite having relatively good chart runs. Like thank u, next (album) debuted at #2 and had a pretty good chart run, spending 33 weeks in the top 100 and finishing at #59 on the YEC, yet it only scanned gold in the first week of 2020 :rip: 

Edited by Enzolorenzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bad guy
4 hours ago, Squall said:

If they were using a 1000 streams = 1 album sale, Billie would be 5x Platinum :weeps: 

 

Even 1500 would be WAY better.

Right :weeps:

 

It charting in the top 10 for 50+ weeks and only being platinum doesn't sit right with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squall
3 minutes ago, bad guy said:

Right :weeps:

 

It charting in the top 10 for 50+ weeks and only being platinum doesn't sit right with me.

Almost 70 now :skull: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bad guy
Just now, Squall said:

Almost 70 now :skull: 

In UK too? Omg :deadbanana4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squall
22 minutes ago, bad guy said:

In UK too? Omg :deadbanana4:

Oh no nevermind I thought you were talking about Australia :skull:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this