So the UK Singles Charts have changed their rules to include all downloads (irrespective of an accompanying physical release), and as a result, various hits from yesteryear are coming back from the dead. On one level this makes the charts, and the means by which they are calculated, more transparent and straightforward. Whether it will also increase the amount of 'dead weight' in the Top 40, and make it a less salient measure of what's hot, remains to be seen. Retailer HMV may believe (or hope) so, as it is pulling the chart from its racks after "deeming [it] no longer relevant to its in-store offer", according to Music Week (subscription required).
PopScores showing differences between Name
Awareness and Informed Awareness for several artists:
see text later in article for explanation
(© Entertainment Media Research, Music Week, 2006)
Unit sales are by no means the only the way of keeping your finger on the pulse these days. The trackability of digital behaviour makes all sorts of measures possible. Take a look at Flickr's weekly 'chart' of interestingness, for example. And if you want a true measure of genuine popularity, wouldn't it be better to count what people actually listen to, as do the MyStrands and Last.fm charts?
The main problem with that is that that it brings back even more old songs (Oasis's Wonderwall, released in 1995, still features in both the MyStrands and Last.fm Top 10s at the time of writing). Charts can't be static; they need a narrative to draw people in.
One alternative is to provide a chart of the rate of change in listening-based measures, so you can see who's rising most quickly. You can see an example of this in the 'Artist Hype List' on the left of the Last.fm charts page, or indeed in my last entry. If anything, this appears to have the opposite problem: the Top 5 seem to be completely different most weeks, which also undermines the narrative.
The industry is interested in predicting sales and loyal listening, to help them manage their promotional campaigns, and possibly their artist development as well. This is where PopScores, produced by Entertainment Media Research, have been attracting interest since they were launched in the UK last November — see coverage in The Times, The Scotsman and Research magazine. (Trade magazine Music Week also features PopScores in some depth.)
Unlike Last.fm, MyStrands or Flickr, PopScores aren't compiled by digital tracking but by the old-school method of surveying a sample of 4,500 people, aged between 13 and 59, and presumably balanced in terms of UK region, ethnicity, income and so on. There are three key measures at present:
- song recognition;
- artist's name awareness (have you heard of Gnarls Barkley? then they have name awareness for you);
- informed awareness (did you know Gnarls Barkley was a US duo, rather than a bloke from Chipping Norton or a band from the Adelaide? then we're talking informed awareness).
- And I read somewhere, but can't find it now, that a fourth measure — intent to buy — will be added shortly.
Name awareness figures for an artist are always higher than informed awareness, but it's suggested (according to Music Week) that the narrower the gap between the two, the greater the sales potential. I don't know the basis of that suggestion, but if it's true then presumably the chart above would encourage the industry to seek to improve James Morrison's 'informed awareness' rating to exploit untapped potential. (I've heard of him, and what I've heard, including Pete Paphides memorable description of him in The Times article as "Chris Martin in a James Blunt wig", suggests that getting better informed isn't going to persuade me to part with cash — but I'm not as representative as 4,500 people.)
The PopScores also map which artists have support polarised among men or women, or spread evenly between them. Fans of Take That are apparently the most polarised on gender lines. Then there is the "emotional connection" that listeners feel with particular artists, as in the Entertainment Media Research quote in The Scotsman:
"We found awareness of the artist, familiarity and popularity — i.e. emotional connection — are critically important factors. They are the basis upon which executives in the industry can understand how their marketing strategies are performing. For example, fans may like Beautiful the single but not want to be associated emotionally with buying the James Blunt album" (my emphasis).
It makes poor James sound like a bit of a whore: "I just paid him money; but I never loved him, I swear I didn't."
I digress. The point I'm making is that there are a growing number of measures of popularity — the sales charts are far from being the only game in town. In my book I also mention the charts based on peer-to-peer file-sharing produced by BigChampagne and how they match that up with Nielsen TV and radio ratings in the US. And there are plenty of bands who will use their large numbers of MySpace views and friends as a sign of popularity to attract interest from the industry.
When Chess and Atlantic Records started scouting for, and developing, some of the greatest music acts of the 20th Century, they didn't have any of this analysis or data-mining to rely on. They did it by the seat of their pants.
Used intelligently, good data can help answer specific questions. The industry and media can benefit if they ask the right ones.
But if you just want some general indicator of the zeitgeist, you pays your money and you takes your choice from the variety of imperfect measures that are out there. Or you consult the tea leaves, your gut instinct and your ears.
Recent Comments