On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:21:39 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <
Sav...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 12:11:33 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <
Sav...@aol.com>
>> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:=20
>> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:18 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <
Sav...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:=3D20=20
>> >>=3D20=20
>> >> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:43:11 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote=
>:=3D=20
>> >=3D20
>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 08:19:32 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <
Sav...@aol.com>
>> >> >> wrote:=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >>=3D3D20=3D20
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 2:17:42 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wro=
>te:=3D
>> >=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:40:37 -0700 (PDT), Bruce <
Sav...@aol.com>=
>=3D3D=3D=20
>> >20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> wrote:=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >>=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> >Another reason that just using the sales chart is a problem. Th=
>ere=3D=20
>> >'s =3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >no way=3D3D3D=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> > to determine which side of the 45 gets credit for the sales. F=
>or =3D=20
>> >ins=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >tance,=3D3D3D=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> > "Hound Dog" and "Don't Be Cruel" are both shown as #1 for 11 w=
>eek=3D=20
>> >s o=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >n the =3D3D3D=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> >sales chart. Without the other 2 charts how can you possibly de=
>ter=3D=20
>> >min=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >e whic=3D3D3D=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> >h side was bigger?=3D3D3D20=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> You can't. And that,I agrree is the biggest failing of sales cha=
>rts=3D=20
>> >.=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> They really should have gotten sales figures on EACH side of the=
>=3D3D=3D=20
>> >20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> record so that sales chart positions would be more accurate=3D3D=
>20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >How can you get sales figures on each side? What are you gonna do,=
> ge=3D=20
>> >t 6=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >0 cents an hour clerks to ask every one=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >> >of 2 million people who bought CRY/THE LITTLE WHITE CLOUD to state=
> wh=3D=20
>> >ich=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> > side (or both sides) they are buying it for and write it down, and k=
>eep=3D=20
>> > tr=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >ack, and devise a way of using that data to have separate tallys for =
>sal=3D=20
>> >es =3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >for each side. CAN'T BE DONE.=3D3D20=3D20
>> >> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> >> Same as with all the other records they presumably kept tabs on. No=
>te=3D
>> >=3D3D20=20
>> >> >> the artist and title the customer asks for=3D20=20
>> >> >=20
>> >> >What about most USA stores where you don't ask, you just take a copy =
>fro=3D=20
>> >m t=3D3D=20
>> >> >he display and pay for it.=3D20=20
>> >> >=20
>> >> >Nobody ever kept tabs on anything. When Billboard called for a store'=
>s l=3D=20
>> >ist=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> > of top sellers they went by an inventory count, or just guessed at i=
>t o=3D=20
>> >n t=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >he spur of the moment. And they certainly did not distinguish between=
> th=3D=20
>> >e 2=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> > sides of a single. Customers did not need to ask for a title, the re=
>cor=3D=20
>> >ds =3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >were all out there in display cases and you just took a copy of what =
>you=3D=20
>> > wa=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >nted and then went to pay for it.=3D3D20=3D20=20
>> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> >Do you think that when there was a line of 4 people waiting to pay fo=
>r t=3D=20
>> >hin=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >gs at a department store that the cashier would take the time to ask =
>the=3D=20
>> > cu=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >stomer who bought records, "which side of that Fats Domino record are=
> yo=3D=20
>> >u b=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >uying it for?" "Okay, and which side of that Johnny Mathis record are=
> yo=3D=20
>> >u b=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >uying it for?"=3D20=20
>> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> >I bought most of my records in 1968-1973 at Grand Way, a combo depart=
>men=3D=20
>> >t s=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >tore / supermarket. The 45s and albums were all in display cases in a=
> sm=3D=20
>> >all=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> > record department with no employees around. You took what you wanted=
>, a=3D=20
>> >nd =3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >paid for them at the front of the store at the same cashiers where yo=
>u w=3D=20
>> >oul=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >d pay for groceries, clothes, an whatever else they sold.=3D3D20=3D20=
>=20
>> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> >
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/an-inter=
>ior=3D=20
>> >-vi=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >ew-of-a-record-store-from-the-1950s-which-news-photo-74273042-1542317=
>950=3D=20
>> >.jp=3D3D=3D20=20
>> >> >g=3D20=20
>> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> Sounds like Billboard should have gotten their act together and maybe=
>=3D20=20
>> >> used the figures from smaller stores in various locations that had the=
>=3D20=20
>> >> capability of better and more methodical ways of recording their sales=
>=3D20=20
>> >> for chart use in similar fashion to how stores over here did it.=3D20=
>=20
>> >>=3D20=20
>> >> But in earlier years our sales charts had the same double sider=3D20=
>=20
>> >> problem too.=3D20=20
>> >>=3D20=20
>> >> In 1958 The Everlys' "All I Have To Do Is Dream"/"Claudette" lumped=3D=
>20=20
>> >> togrether topped the charts----but by 1961 both sides of double siders=
>=3D20=20
>> >> had their own individual spots on the chart so their "Walk Right Back"=
>=3D20
>> >> sat at No.1 in NME whilst "Ebony Eyes" reached a peak of No.17.=20
>> >
>> >So you want to ignore the big stores who were selling 200 copies a week =
>of =3D=20
>> >a record and go by the small stores who were selling 18 copies a week. Y=
>eah=3D
>> >, THAT'S a good idea.=20
>> >
>> No,I'm sayimg that ALL stores needed to up their act and record sales=20
>> more accurateky.=20
>>=20
>> >I gather your store did not sell current records, but if you did were yo=
>u b=3D
>> >othering to ask each buyer what side he was buying it for.
>> We sold MOIRE than current records (by UK standards) since---as well=20
>> as "oldiies"----we also sold the very latest soul and disco recoreds=20
>> imported straight from NYC=20
>>=20
>> >We had people at=3D=20
>> > Relic who bought a stack of 25-30 new 45's when they came in. Nobody ha=
>s t=3D=20
>> >ime for that. And like I said, many times it's 80% one side but still 20=
>% t=3D=20
>> >he other side. Nobody had computers then, so there was no way to accurat=
>ely=3D=20
>> > split up both sides of a 45 sale. It couls only work if there were no f=
>lip=3D
>> > sides, and every track was just a one sided record.=20
>> >
>> You seem to be making a good argument that the sales charts were=20
>> basicallly not worth the paper they're written on since nobody seems=20
>> to have had time or motive for keeping anything like accurate figures.
>
>Well, yeah, besides the payola and the favors done and everything corrupt l=
>ike that, there was also just apathy and human error and plenty of other fa=
>ctors. Lots of times a label would take out a full page ad to promote a new=
> single and magically that single would enter the Hot 100 that week.
>
Yes and according to people in the business there that we talked with
nearly all those payola payments,freebies and "advertising costs"
eventually ended up getting charged against the royalties due to the
acts behind the hits of course
>In the 90s when CDs were selling big the charts were very accurate because =
>they were done with computers and soundscan and everything When items sold =
>they got scanned at the register for te sale, and automatically counted
>by a computer program that would go directly to Billboard's chart departmen=
>t.
I agree completely on that. Once computers entered the fray accurancy
in all aspects of the business (and of most other businesses too)
wenrt through the roof