Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5344980" data-attributes="member: 2732">The only way to really get more reliable data for sales would for there to be a Billboard revolution in the industry, or something like Bookscan as reported by Lisa.Billboard Magazine used to work similar to ICV2's method.&nbsp; Then, in 1991, they implemented a huge upgrade--they implemented a POS tracking software for record stores (Soundscan) and computers that could track actual songs being played on the playlists instead or relying on program and music director reports (Broadcast Data Scan).&nbsp; It's surprising how this changed the way hits happened.&nbsp; Before, you had a system where there were a lot more #1 hits but they'd only last a week or two--once a song peaked people would end up removing it fast from the reports (even if they played it more often), and you had more rotation.&nbsp; This method, while having its own checks and balances, ended up allowing some level of payola style corruptions.After the revolution--you found surprises.&nbsp; What ended up happening after Soundscan was that we found out #1 hits lasted longer--you had hits for 7-20 weeks at #1, and less people getting #1 hits.&nbsp; You also found some interesting patterns such as lesser artists getting more hits than the established ones, white people charting higher on the R&amp;B charts, etc.&nbsp; The problem with gaming and comics is that the industry is not composed of many large chains but small FLGS, which likely prevents this type of rollout.&nbsp; And unlike the major book stores, most books aren't returnable, so the inventory once bought doesn't have a return for checks and balances.&nbsp; This means that actual sales data of the accuracy level of Billboard is probably going to be hard to get.But the charts from ICv2 are probably the best form of research we are going to get, and I'll believe them over ancedotal evidence from isolated store reports.&nbsp; It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to be skeptical with a bias--and I fear too many people debating the subject who are fans end up like or dislike one competitor and are sort of concerned that what evidence we have suggests something contrary to their viewpoint.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnRTroy, post: 5344980, member: 2732"] The only way to really get more reliable data for sales would for there to be a Billboard revolution in the industry, or something like Bookscan as reported by Lisa. Billboard Magazine used to work similar to ICV2's method. Then, in 1991, they implemented a huge upgrade--they implemented a POS tracking software for record stores (Soundscan) and computers that could track actual songs being played on the playlists instead or relying on program and music director reports (Broadcast Data Scan). It's surprising how this changed the way hits happened. Before, you had a system where there were a lot more #1 hits but they'd only last a week or two--once a song peaked people would end up removing it fast from the reports (even if they played it more often), and you had more rotation. This method, while having its own checks and balances, ended up allowing some level of payola style corruptions. After the revolution--you found surprises. What ended up happening after Soundscan was that we found out #1 hits lasted longer--you had hits for 7-20 weeks at #1, and less people getting #1 hits. You also found some interesting patterns such as lesser artists getting more hits than the established ones, white people charting higher on the R&B charts, etc. The problem with gaming and comics is that the industry is not composed of many large chains but small FLGS, which likely prevents this type of rollout. And unlike the major book stores, most books aren't returnable, so the inventory once bought doesn't have a return for checks and balances. This means that actual sales data of the accuracy level of Billboard is probably going to be hard to get. But the charts from ICv2 are probably the best form of research we are going to get, and I'll believe them over ancedotal evidence from isolated store reports. It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to be skeptical with a bias--and I fear too many people debating the subject who are fans end up like or dislike one competitor and are sort of concerned that what evidence we have suggests something contrary to their viewpoint. [/QUOTE]

Verification