Instead of VOTES, release the performances by each act and see who SELLS the most

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 01:31

1. Simon can still make money
2. We'd get to see who realistically would be able to sell in the real world.

Of course the charts would be bombarded for a quarter of the year with Xfactor rubbish, but it's always filled with rubbish anyway.

Sharon87 · 03/12/10 - 01:47

No that would destroy the integrity of the charts. Maybe people should only vote if they would buy their songs in the real world, that would make sense.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 02:34

Sharon87 wrote: »

No that would destroy the integrity of the charts. Maybe people should only vote if they would buy their songs in the real world, that would make sense.

The sales wouldn't have to be counted to the chart (or even released tbh), I think it'd be a good idea

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 02:43

They'd make much less money this way because they'd have to pay royalties for each cover song (lets face it, they're all covers), distribution costs (e.g. Apple taking a cut of the profit) etc...

£1 per phone call is much easier, especially when it's an automated service (or I assume it is - I have never voted, but I pretty much doubt they have millions of people sitting in a call centre

)

Plus, you're singling out people who download music. Almost everyone has a phone of some sort and they can vote multiple times. People will be less inclined to download a paid-for song multiple times... if they even download it in the first place.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 02:48

Carmen Queasy wrote: »

They'd make much less money this way because they'd have to pay royalties for each cover song (lets face it, they're all covers), distribution costs (e.g. Apple taking a cut of the profit) etc...

£1 per phone call is much easier, especially when it's an automated service (or I assume it is - I have never voted, but I pretty much doubt they have millions of people sitting in a call centre )

Plus, you're singling out people who download music. Almost everyone has a phone of some sort and they can vote multiple times. People will be less inclined to download a paid-for song multiple times... if they even download it in the first place.

It's 35p per call (via BT landlines, at least). The rest of your post is pretty much spot on, though.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 02:49

anactoria wrote: »

It's 35p per call. The rest of your post is pretty much spot on, though.

Oops! I think something on the show is £1... perhaps the competition? I obviously got that mixed up

But, yeah, same applies. Phone calls will be making much more than downloads will.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 02:52

It's a horrible idea, TBH. It's unfair to the contestants and to the fans, seeing people with more money would buy their favorites more than once. All this would show is which contestant has the wealthier fans, after all over time, paying for songs would total up much faster than calling.

Of course, you could set up algorithms to ensure that only song per itunes account count, but they are many ways to get around that. Plus, if you did set up such algorithms, Itunes should surely crash with so much data being transferred over in such a short period of time.

Not to mention you would be isolating anyone without a credit card computer, most people nowadays at least have phones. Not to mention many of the older viewers would have no idea how to buy off itunes.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 09:59

I like this idea, but I fear it may skew the result more towards the most popular song each week as opposed to the most popular singer. It may become a song contest rather than a singing contest (not that it actually is a singing contest, but you know what I mean...)

I'd be interested after this series to compare the weekly voting figures to the weekly performance download figures. Wonder whether they will be released.

Mr_X_123 · 03/12/10 - 10:50

They should definitely do this. And restrict it to one song per account. That way the block voting of silly little teenage girls would be stopped.

And a true market appeal of each artist would be determined.

I think it would make quite a big change.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 10:56

They did do this on popstars the rivals (cheryls one), the highest charting band won (obviously it was the girls) but TBH it took at bit of the fun out of the show as everyone knew who'd won before the final show.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 11:06

Its not perfect but I like the ethos behind the idea OP - might stop multivoting too. However, as poster above says people would know the frontrunners and the suspense would be killed as weeks went on.

GhostlyMary · 03/12/10 - 11:23

Carmen Queasy wrote: »

They'd make much less money this way because they'd have to pay royalties for each cover song (lets face it, they're all covers), distribution costs (e.g. Apple taking a cut of the profit) etc...

As well as the contestants getting performers' royalties. I think the American Idol contestants make some money out of this as their studio versions of each weeks' performances are sold on itunes. Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't watch the show.

GhostlyMary · 03/12/10 - 11:27

bazaar1 wrote: »

They did do this on popstars the rivals (cheryls one), the highest charting band won (obviously it was the girls) but TBH it took at bit of the fun out of the show as everyone knew who'd won before the final show.

That's not how they did it at all.

There were no "winners" as such. The final shows were when the groups were put together with one last male and one last female contestant being eliminated, leaving five of each. There was no further show after that. Just the releases of the singles by both groups. The girls got to #1 and the boys to #2.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 11:37

They could do this now with the non-elligible tracks that get released each week. I think it's a good policy because they could limit the purchases or at least only count one download per artist per week so there would be no block voting.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 11:38

They ARE doing this (releasing the perfornances on iTunes) but not making public the sales data. It's probably influencing the judges decisions though and may explain how Katie survived 4 sing-offs.

Orri · 03/12/10 - 12:50

http://therealchart.blogspot.com/

Most weeks Matt is top, followed by Rebecca

*Liya* · 03/12/10 - 13:23

Orri wrote: »

http://therealchart.blogspot.com/
Most weeks Matt is top, followed by Rebecca

I doubt this is official. Cher #1 with Stay?...i love her but i don't think so.

[Deleted User] · 03/12/10 - 15:48

GhostlyMary wrote: »

That's not how they did it at all.

There were no "winners" as such. The final shows were when the groups were put together with one last male and one last female contestant being eliminated, leaving five of each. There was no further show after that. Just the releases of the singles by both groups. The girls got to #1 and the boys to #2.

they did actually:

'ITV broadcast a special show on 22 December 2002 to reveal which of the two groups (if either) had made it to number one in the UK Singles Chart. '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popstars_The_Rivals

Hey there!

Quick Links

Instead of VOTES, release the performances by each act and see who SELLS the most

Comments