there's lots of point. for "chart based" pop acts of the type where "fans" care about chart positions, such as your boy bands and x factor shite, they rely on the exposure that being in the charts brings. singles are often used as a marketing tool to get music played on radio and tv so people buy the albums or see the band on tour. so get a chart placing and you get the exposure, miss the charts and miss exposure

once you have the exposure with an act like no direction you can sell lunch boxes, t shirts and all sorts of absolute shite branded with the b(r)and name and you can make more money from that than record sales. so records can be a loss leader to the real money made. that's why artists sometimes give away albums for free. there's more money to be made from rigging the charts now than there's ever been

Oh dear.

The charts have only ever been as accurate as when people were motivated to buy for example some people prefer to buy albums rather than buy singles "album" acts never tended to be big single sellers ie REM.

Also some people saw the singles chart as uncool and if an artist got in there they had "sold out".

So they have never been accurate as to what they public actually liked in a particular week but it was the best way to find out.

Airplay was never and never should have been included look at America, record companies really did rig the charts there, with songs not released because radio stations wouldn't play them or to make people buy the album instead.

I am glad we never had the American system.