Dec 09

In Ragebows: Reality TV and A Future For The Charts

FT12 comments • 1,788 views

What does it mean to buy 10 copies of a CD? It means you have 10 copies of a CD to deal with. What does it mean to “buy” 10 copies of an MP3? You have the same file sitting on your hard drive 10 times.

In one sense there’s no difference. If you throw 9 of your CDs away and delete 9 of your files, it’s the same outcome. But you can do other things with your surplus CDs – give them to friends, for instance. And here there really IS a difference, in that buying 1 (non-DRM) MP3 allows you to do anything that buying 10 or 100 or a million of them would.

The end of the idea of “music distribution” in the digital world is hardly a novel one, but things like a race for number one, where people are buying multiple copies of the same file, bring home to you the reality and the oddness of it. In terms of what it allows you to do, paying for 10 MP3s is actually just paying 10 times as much for 1 MP3.

Which reminds me a bit of the Radiohead “In Rainbows” model, which was supposed to be a transformative one for the industry by allowing punters to pay what they like for a record. More bands should adopt this model, said the analysts, and I don’t think many people actually noticed that the digitisation of music means that most bands already have adopted a modified version whether they wanted to or not.

The modification being that you can’t pay nothing for a song – you have to have an initial stake to get you the music in the first place. And paying “anything you want” only counts in increments of that stake. But if the stake for Joe McElderry’s record is 29p, and you think it’s worth, say, three pounds, you can pay three pounds for it and get a notional 10 copies.

Of course you might say that you’ve always been able to do this. And you have. But two things have stopped it being much of an issue. First is that there’s extra costs in buying multiple physical copies – securing a reliable supply, storing them, etc. And second is that the stake – the single unit cost – has generally been high enough that the total cost of bulk-buying mounts very quickly, which is why it doesn’t work for albums.

But with 29p digital singles the stake is low enough for this kind of de facto “In Rainbows” pricing to happen with ANY SINGLE. Which only leaves the question of why you would WANT to pay more than the initial stake. What’s in it for you?

The “In Rainbows” model turns the question round and turns it into a question of how much you value the music and how much of that value you want its creators to see. But the Rage vs Joe chart battle suggests another reason to do it: the more you pay for an MP3 the more your payment matters. And when that happens “the charts” become a different sort of game: a mix of popularity contest, weighted-vote political conference and stock market. If you pay £3 for the Rage single, your opinion counts ten times as much as someone paying 30p for the same single (or for the Joe one).

Is there a name for this sort of game? Yes, there kind of is: as I suggested in an earlier post it looks very like the mechanics of a reality TV phone vote. Each vote costs n, and you can buy as many votes as you like. The more you buy the more influence you have over the result. The honest truth is that the votes happen on so large a scale that buying 10 doesn’t make much more of a difference than buying 1, but on the other hand the sums involved aren’t large either and people aren’t deterred from putting their money where their enthusiasm is.

With a phone vote, unlike in an MP3 purchase, your initial stake doesn’t get you anything tangible or intangible. But it does contribute towards a definite outcome. For the music industry the sudden irruption of phone-vote-mentality into the “actual charts” is surely a tantalising opportunity. If people believe that this chart-game matters, then “In Rainbows” pricing suddenly has a wide mainstream application. But currently people don’t seem to think “being number one” matters except in very unusual circumstances like the present ones.

How could they turn the charts into a game? They need to turn them into a public event first. At the moment, as Peter Robinson noted in the last Observer Music Monthly, the people running the charts are mostly interested in how they can make them more reflective of “real time” listening and sharing of music. The sales-only chart is doomed whether we like that or not – and something like RATM v X-Factor will actually hasten this, as it takes what a “sale” implies further into the realm of abstraction. And in particular, the weekly frequency of the current charts seems increasingly arbitrary and outmoded.

But to make the charts a public event, the arbitrary frequency needs to be embraced – pegged to something else. What I’d suggest is this: something like Top Of The Pops, featuring the highest-rated (in sales, in sharing, in streamed plays) etc acts of the week, either performing or showing videos. This would include a phone vote element, and “Number One” would be determined by the winner of that vote.

This format has a bunch of advantages – it keeps an element of direct competition which people seem to like, it jailbreaks the stylistic straitjacket that’s the worst element of current reality pop shows, it puts more music in the public eye, it makes music something people can talk about more easily, and it makes money. As landlines continue to die out you could actually go further and give an actual MP3 copy of the record to every mobile phone voter, so the show becomes a music retail channel too (and the “Number One” honour remains linked with higher sales).

This is a huge jump from the rigid, transparent, sales-based charts that used to be such a successful industry tool. And I’d be surprised if this format actually happened (even if I think it would be somewhat awesome). But I genuinely do think that the lesson the record industry can learn from Rage vs X-Factor is that when music is virtual goods, its biggest opportunity lies in becoming more like reality TV, not less.


  1. 1
    lonepilgrim on 18 Dec 2009 #

    I think this sounds a great idea – I also like the way fans have given songs added value by creating their own youtube videos which, if they take off – like the Bobby Brown wedding video – help the songs sell.

  2. 2
    koganbot on 18 Dec 2009 #

    From a producer’s point of view, what – or whose – product are the charts? What would be someone’s incentive for investing money in a new chart format?

    British singles charts have always had a different meaning from the American, since a small number of purchasers can make a difference in Britain, hence can affect the outcome, hence purchasers will care more about a purchase’s effect on the charts – paradoxically making a song’s chart rank not all that representative of a song’s actual popularity or ability to move albums, which was what the biz’s financial game was about from 1968 until the crazy last few years; now, no one’s sure what the game is. The U.S. singles charts have never been limited to counting sales, but rather have always made radio play (and now video plays and whatnot) a main factor in the formula – though the mp3 has recently made sales larger and more significant than they’ve been in a while. Billboard has long assumed that singles sales don’t indicate a song’s popularity, given that most people’s singles-driven purchases aren’t for singles and that relying on sales would give one set of consumers (singles buyers) a disproportionate impact on the rankings – again, the next few years could be another shift, but it’s not yet clear to what.

    Where the issue is buying versus stealing, I’d think that for most purchasers the psychosocial-economic behavioral motive isn’t what sort of blip heavy sales will make on the national singles charts (only a tiny percentage of records or mp3s have a chance to do this), but more what sort of effect a purchase will have on the artist’s ability to create and market more music. This is the Radiohead model more than the Reality TV model, and I’ve read that indie labels are doing a better job than the majors of getting fans to commit money to the artist, though I don’t know if that’s true. My guess is that mainstream biz efforts will be to try to figure out how to generate money through streams – either through ads connected to the streams or through subscription to a service that then awards royalties to producers and artists, though neither model has worked yet, as far as I know.

    A poptimists polls-type format might be a way of generating streams!

  3. 3
    wichita lineman on 18 Dec 2009 #

    I tried to start a conversation on how TOTP could be revived a year or so ago – make it live, with the idea that you can affect the result right up to the end of the programme. You could have a play off between the midweek top 10 singles. It seems obvious to me that at least as many people would want to watch genuine stars as watch x factor’s amateur hour. Anyway, the stock BBC answer is ‘we are fulfilling our music remit, no room for any more’. Also that it would wreck radio 1’s flagship Sunday chart show.

    It seems like an open goal for the BBC to me. also more people spending more money on music seems like an industry winner. Isn’t it only a matter of time before they decide to bring it back? Frank and Tom should be hired to sort out the logistics. Everybody wins!

  4. 4
    lonepilgrim on 18 Dec 2009 #

    I know Rickie Lee Jones asked her fans to ‘invest’ to cover the costs making of her last album “Balm in Gilead’* and – depending on the amount you invested – you either got a ‘free’ signed CD when it was released – or your name printed on the credits.

    * and a fine album it is too

  5. 5
    swanstep on 18 Dec 2009 #

    Let there be a lottery where new dictators for the whole music ecosystem are chosen. If you are selected you get to subject everyone to your wretched band or your ipod playlist or your youtube channel or whatever you like. To (a) make sure you take the job seriously (have some serious skin in the game), and (b) ensure that horrible lottery choices get quickly purged, and (c) help the people grow quickly grow to respect any good choices the lottery throws up,and (d) make the whole thing fun and self-funding, let there be an *official assassin* (this role can be lottery-filled too, but’chosen from an elite corps’ is customary and more fun) who has to try to kill each new lottery-chosen musical dictator. The assassin is mic’ed/camera-ed up etc. so that the people get to follow both the assassin’s progress *as well* as their new musical taste-maker (who is naturally media covered all the time). There’s all sorts of suspense and participation as a genuinely popular dictator will have lots of people helping him/her elude/stop the assassin, whereas an unpopular one will effectively face an army of assassins and so won’t last a day.

    [Essentially this idea is explored as alternative to democracy in PK Dick’s first novel A World of Chance a.k.a. The Solar Lottery.]

  6. 6
    koganbot on 19 Dec 2009 #

    (Off-topic, but I’m wishing for Rickie Lee Jones consumer advice, if anyone wants to give it on this livejournal thread.)

  7. 7

    […] Ewing has a think about the future of charts – or, at least, a future he’ll like to […]

  8. 8
    Masked Dave on 20 Dec 2009 #

    Pitch this to the BBC. It doesn’t matter if it replaces the official top 40 or not, everyone I’ve mentioned this idea to loves it and the top 10 or 20 it’d produce every week I imagine could actually replace the ‘official’ chart.

  9. 9
    lonepilgrim on 20 Dec 2009 #

    K-Punk weighs in on the topic here:


  10. 10
    Tommy Mack on 20 Dec 2009 #

    There is only one way to end this madness.

    Ban all music!

  11. 11
    Jonnie on 24 Jun 2011 #

    Woah nelly, how about them alppes!

  12. 12
    Railan on 24 Nov 2012 #

    rates trends for 15 year fixed, 5 year ARM and 1 year ARM mragtoges, visit Jay Thompson’s The Phoenix Real Estate Guy. If history repeats itself, it’s only a matter of time before 6% interest rates are long gone.

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page