Latest on MJJC

Radio vs Streaming: What is more relevant?

filmandmusic

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
5,428
Points
113
I am still flabbergasted at the apparent success of MJ’s Chicago on streaming services, it even recently lead to a silver record in the UK. So it points towards this song being quite a success, especially as a non single release back in 2014.

Then at the other end we have radio. I frequently check monthly playlists of radio stations all over Belgium and as of now Chicago has never been played. I conclude with this info that the vast majority of people never heard of Chicago even when it is now one of MJ’s most popular tracks on streaming services. I believe radio still has a far bigger reach than something like Spotify.

Isn’t it part of listening to the radio that they (DJ’s) pick up what becomes popular and get it on their playlists? Is radio running behind regarding this song or are the streaming numbers not as important as they appear?

Not too long ago when Kate Bush suddenly scored big on streaming platforms the radio also picked up Running Up That Hill again. Chicago isn’t anywhere close to scoring that much streams in comparison so maybe it doesn’t mean all that much that it is an MJ top 10 streaming song for many months now?
 
Good question. I wish I had an answer. I've almost given up on all of this stuff, I'm just confused by all of it.

Slightly off-topic - just yesterday I posted some album sales figures from chartmasters - it said this:
"The analysis from chartmasters.org is actually the most accurate given its use of equivalent album units. It also strictly uses certified sales which is often less than actual sales but is objective."

Certified sales less than actual sales? Say what?

Back on topic - I don't know what radio does these days. It used be driven by the charts and the playlist system, the songs were picked by the producer not the DJ. But now, in the streaming era? I have no idea how it works.

filmandmusic said:
[...] Isn’t it part of listening to the radio that they (DJ’s) pick up what becomes popular and get it on their playlists? [...]
Click to expand...
I'm guessing DJ's play stuff bc they found it on the web? Or their listeners flagged it up on social media?

In answer to your question, I would have said streaming is more relevant these days but bc you've linked it to the situation re Chicago I'm not sure. Really interesting question ... 🤔
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Charts aren't about sales any more. It's just about streams, which people don't actually pay for.

filmandmusic said:
I am still flabbergasted at the apparent success of MJ’s Chicago on streaming services,
Click to expand...
To be honest, it doesn't mean anything. It's too easily manipulated.

filmandmusic said:
Then at the other end we have radio. I frequently check monthly playlists of radio stations all over Belgium and as of now Chicago has never been played.
Click to expand...
Why would they? There's so much new stuff coming out they can't even keep track of all that.

filmandmusic said:
I believe radio still has a far bigger reach than something like Spotify.
Click to expand...
I think so.

filmandmusic said:
Isn’t it part of listening to the radio that they (DJ’s) pick up what becomes popular and get it on their playlists?
Click to expand...
How it works is that the labels ask/pay for the stations to play a song. DJs have nothing to do with the vast majority of what gets played. They're told by their boss.

filmandmusic said:
are the streaming numbers not as important as they appear?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

zinniabooklover said:
"The analysis from chartmasters.org is actually the most accurate given its use of equivalent album units. It also strictly uses certified sales which is often less than actual sales but is objective."

Certified sales less than actual sales? Say what?
Click to expand...
Certified sales (ie backed up) are always less than actual sales, because it's impossible to count everything.

Also, ChartMasters say on their website that all they do is estimate numbers. None of it is real, it's just a guy playing with some data.
 
R1chard said:
Certified sales (ie backed up) are always less than actual sales, because it's impossible to count everything.
Click to expand...
I'm almost at the point of giving up on all of this bc I don't understand it and it almost seems like nonsense to me. But before I give up completely, can you explain what 'backed up' means?

R1chard said:
Also, ChartMasters say on their website that all they do is estimate numbers.
Click to expand...
I don't think I ever recovered from finding out that sales figures aren't even sales figures but are to do with the number of units shipped.

R1chard said:
None of it is real, it's just a guy playing with some data.
Click to expand...
This is basically where I'm at, now. I still post the occasional thing in the chart watch thread but not sure if I even want to do that any more. It's all so mad.
 
zinniabooklover said:
But before I give up completely, can you explain what 'backed up' means?
Click to expand...
Meaning, it's not just a claim.

ie, "here's the receipt".

Sales numbers acknowledged by a certifying body (eg a third party, like RIAA, BPI).

A label can say anything they like (ie "Look - Thriller sold 100 million copies in 1983!") but it doesn't matter unless it's actually true.

So you basically have the certified sales, which inevitably are less than the actual total because stuff gets missed out, and rounding errors, etc.

zinniabooklover said:
I don't think I ever recovered from finding out that sales figures aren't even sales figures but are to do with the number of units shipped.
Click to expand...
Life's too short to worry about this sort of stuff. It's only important if you work as a record exec trying to make another billion dollars from this.

zinniabooklover said:
is is basically where I'm at, now. I still post the occasional thing in the chart watch thread but not sure if I even want to do that any more. It's all so mad.
Click to expand...
The industry has changed. The companies don't make money selling CDs. There is no longer any such thing as a sales chart.

It's not about sales any more. People haven't bought records for more than 10 years. It doesn't matter any more - let's get on with our lives.
 
R1chard said:
Meaning, it's not just a claim.

ie, "here's the receipt".
Click to expand...
Got it. I was interpreting things differently, lol.

R1chard said:
Life's too short to worry about this sort of stuff. It's only important if you work as a record exec trying to make another billion dollars from this.
Click to expand...
I don't worry about this stuff! :ROFLMAO:

I was a little bit startled when I found out about that whole 'units shipped' thing and it does put a little bit of a dent in the idea of the physical sales era, imo. Otoh, it doesn't change the status of Thriller so it's fine.

R1chard said:
The industry has changed. The companies don't make money selling CDs. There is no longer any such thing as a sales chart.
Click to expand...
I know. That's why I can't maintain my interest. I'm really pleased that Michael has good streaming figures and I hope that continues. But it's all so nebulous.

R1chard said:
It's not about sales any more. People haven't bought records for more than 10 years.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. People still buy vinyl and CD's. Just not in the quantities they used to, it's a niche market nowadays. The old days are not coming back, that's for sure. People love the convenience of streaming but there's still a place for physical media.

R1chard said:
It doesn't matter any more - let's get on with our lives.
Click to expand...
Mm, I dunno. I think it does still matter to lots of people. I don't think it gets in the way of them living their life, it's just something they care about. Which I can understand. It's just not for me.

Having said that, I predict I will probably last all the way until the next lot of figures come out for The Essential or Number Ones and then I'll lose my sh!t all over again, lol. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
filmandmusic said:
Not too long ago when Kate Bush suddenly scored big on streaming platforms the radio also picked up Running Up That Hill again. Chicago isn’t anywhere close to scoring that much streams in comparison so maybe it doesn’t mean all that much that it is an MJ top 10 streaming song for many months now?
Click to expand...
Running Up that Hill was allready a hit decades ago. Thanks to a super-popular series on Netflix, the revival also made it into the charts, back in the radio and all the media reported on it. Chicago is a different story. A song that only fans know becomes much more popular in this Internet scene and receives a decent stream boost, but nowhere near the level of the Kate Bush song. It is not a media-heavy event.
 
zinniabooklover said:
I was a little bit startled when I found out about that whole 'units shipped' thing and it does put a little bit of a dent in the idea of the physical sales era, imo.
Click to expand...
It's the reason you shouldn't listen to anything the record companies say. They can say absolutely anything they like, but it doesn't mean it's true. In fact, a lot of the time the record company has no idea how many copies an album sold. Plus, it's in their own interest to make stuff up, which is why they use loose wording like this.

The only people who know how many copies were sold are the record stores. They're the ones who deal with the general public. So the only facts are the ones that come from a certifying body.

zinniabooklover said:
Otoh, it doesn't change the status of Thriller so it's fine.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I couldn't care less about this. I'd like Thriller just as much if it was the 2nd best selling album, or if it was the 99th best selling album. It really means nothing.

High sales are not the reason I like Michael Jackson.
zinniabooklover said:
That's why I can't maintain my interest. I'm really pleased that Michael has good streaming figures and I hope that continues.
Click to expand...
But why?

I don't own shares in Sony, I don't get paid a bonus from them. And I don't really care what other people listen to. It's not my business.


zinniabooklover said:
Well, yes and no. People still buy vinyl and CD's. Just not in the quantities they used to, it's a niche market nowadays. The old days are not coming back, that's for sure. People love the convenience of streaming but there's still a place for physical media.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. I'm one of those people. For me it's CD or nothing. In my whole life, I have never bought any music, movie or videogame that wasn't available on a physical disc, and I never will.

But as you say, the era of "record sales" has come and gone. There was a period before record sales, and we're now living a period after record sales. People have decided that they don't want to own music any more.

SmoothGangsta said:
Streaming, definitely. Most younger people use streaming and don't listen to the radio.
Click to expand...
The share of the population that is under age 18 is 22%.
 
Well, if you wanna be slippery and get out of it, that's fine, but from a simple Google search:

600 million people stream music. That's 7% of world population

89% of the UK population listened to live radio on average for 20.3 hours per week.

More Americans listen to the radio than use Facebook each week. 55% of Gen Z in the U.S. listen to radio every day. Adults listen to 104 minutes of radio per day, 12.2 hours per week.

So it's not even close.
 
@mjfanatic777 said:
Streaming...I mean who really listens to the radio anymore?
Click to expand...
Everybody on the 'Yay! Just heard Michael on the radio' thread, I guess. :D

Obviously, radio isn't as big as it used to be and for sure there probably is a generational divide. But radio is hanging in there, I would say. That said, maybe radio is just as big as ever but it doesn't seem like it bc the audience is now so fragmented. There are way more radio stations around now than ever before.
 
If you're out and about or in your car (and pay for it), then you can listen to radio. Streaming is something you can do anywhere though, and most people do it while they're driving also.
 
R1chard said:
Well, if you wanna be slippery and get out of it, that's fine, but from a simple Google search:

600 million people stream music. That's 7% of world population

89% of the UK population listened to live radio on average for 20.3 hours per week.

More Americans listen to the radio than use Facebook each week. 55% of Gen Z in the U.S. listen to radio every day. Adults listen to 104 minutes of radio per day, 12.2 hours per week.

So it's not even close.
Click to expand...
Your statistics analysis is utterly abominable.
 
Like, this isn't something where we need to ask everyone for their opinion. It's an objective fact - one of these is bigger than the other. I've already given the data as to which one is more important.

@mjfanatic777 said:
Streaming...I mean who really listens to the radio anymore?
Click to expand...
Do you drive a car?
 
I think streaming is more important for current artists than the radio. Drake has over 300 songs that charted on the Hot 100. I doubt that many of them got radio airplay. In the past the singles charts was based on a combination on radio airplay & sales of physical singles (also it's B-side if it also got airplay). Album tracks that got radio airplay did not qualify for the singles charts, but Billboard did have separate airplay charts for the different radio formats of that time like AOR, easy listening, country, Top 40, etc. The singles charts now consists of album tracks too if they were streamed enough. Billboard also has more charts now than decades ago, which are based on streaming and also paid subscription radio stations. Paid radio is separate from regular free stations. A certain amount of streams is considered a sales equivalent as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top