Spotify: Female artists with most playlist reach

[Toxicity.]

2 minutes ago, Coklek92 said:

So having 5 songs on TTH is similar to having 1 song on TTH according to IStan's logic 

Playlist reach is about exposure, whether people stream the song on that playlist is another story. IStan thought he did something here 

 

[Badboidami]

Hmmm, it seems like Gaga's catalogue does terrible numbers for a quite recently released album. Cannot be surprised, though. Ariana's collab time is up.

[peterstyles13]

4 minutes ago, Coklek92 said:

So having 5 songs on TTH is similar to having 1 song on TTH according to IStan's logic 

Playlist reach is about exposure, whether people stream the song on that playlist is another story. IStan thought he did something here 

But hey what if 30 MILLION people listened to a song at once huh? Would get streams faster than 30 songs in a 1M follower playlist. CHECKMATE!!! 

OT: Very interesting stats

[Ash12345]

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

Edited February 12, 2021 by Ash12345

[Feanor]

13 minutes ago, peterstyles13 said:

Considering that 1 multipled by 30M is the same thing as 30 mulitplied by 1M... yes?   
One song having 30M in reach = 30M.
30 songs having 1M in reach = 30M. 

That's basic maths. What is so hard to comprehend in that? 

 

What even  Let's do basic maths again.

30M x 1 = 30M

10 x 1M = 10M

As you might know, 30M in reach is higher than 10M. No one said otherwise and that was not the point that was being made in any way, shape or form. 

 

What kind of impossible exaggerated scenario is this?   Do you expect us to take you seriously when your entire argument revolves around an illogical example that would absolutely never happen? You do realize that's not ACTUALLY how things work, right? You are literally making up the most extreme example you can muster knowing it's never gonna happen like this. Can't believe I have to say this but in the real world, when people put on a playlist, they listen to the darn playlist. Which means the more songs you have on the playlist, the higher your chance of getting a song played is . If someone wanted to listen to a specific song, they'd just search for it on the Spotify search bar and click play. They won't go into a playlist full of other songs just to play it . Useless and unrealistic example 

 

You should be well aware that the artists with huge playlist reaches don't just have that kind of reach because they have 30 songs () on relatively small playlists. It's mainly because they have multiple songs on big playlists, such as Today's Top Hits, RapCaviar, All Out 00s, Songs To Sing In The Car, etc. The amount of song a given artist has on a playlist must be taken into consideration because it obviously impacts how often their songs will be listened to since they have more exposure (which is the whole point of the thread). Just look at Dua. She currently has 3 songs on the biggest playlist on Spotify (TTH). Yet in all seriousness you want to sit there and pretend as if she's not advantaged compared to someone who has only one on the same playlist?  

 

 

Yeah, no. At the end of the day, absolutely no one keeps up or cares about the unique daily listeners of an artist beside a handful of stans. What matters and what has always mattered is how many streams you get. But hey, if anything, this just reinforces what I was saying. Let's say a given listener listens to an entire playlist, the artist with multiple songs on that playlist is advantaged and will get their songs played more than an artist with one song on the same playlist. Don't know how often I'll have to repeat this before you get it.This is the whole point that has been made from the start and it clearly shows why it is important to take into consideration the fact that artists very often have multiple songs on the same playlist. 

 

The list in the OP clearly indicates the total exposure for all the songs an artist released. Having 30 songs on a playlist that has 1M followers obviously means that each song is exposed to 1 million followers. Yet YOU are implying it makes absolutely no difference wether you have 1 song or 30 songs on that same playlist, as if your chance to get a song played are the exact same no matter how many songs you have on it. You either know this makes no sense and you're just of bad faith (would it be because your fav is so high when it comes to cumulative playlist reach? Gee I wonder), or you're just hung up on useless semantics. Either way it's quite embarrassing as you keep denying and ignoring basic maths. Definitely not a good look if you ask me!

 

 

 

This right here. The list in the OP simply describes the playlist reach of female artists, as defined by Songstats. 

There is no negative connotation for any artist whatsoever, unless someone themselves inserts one into it. How can it be "flawed" or make people "look bad" when it's an objective list based on numbers as posted by a source?

 

I don't know why one would even get so bothered by these numbers to not only bring in different sources that use a completely different methodology to define playlist reach, but then to use also those different sources to make random calculations in order to make some counter-statement to something that was never stated in any way in the OP to begin with

 

 

[peterstyles13]

9 minutes ago, Ash12345 said:

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

Interesting  Shows just how Taylor doesn't rely on payola and Spotify playlist placements to be huge!

Edited February 12, 2021 by peterstyles13

[istan4badgalriri]

9 minutes ago, peterstyles13 said:

Yeah, no. At the end of the day, absolutely no one keeps up or cares about the unique daily listeners of an artist beside a handful of stans. What matters and what has always mattered is how many streams you get. But hey, if anything, this just reinforces what I was saying. Let's say a given listener listens to an entire playlist, the artist with multiple songs on that playlist is advantaged and will get their songs played more than an artist with one song on the same playlist. Don't know how often I'll have to repeat this before you get it.This is the whole point that has been made from the start and it clearly shows why it is important to take into consideration the fact that artists very often have multiple songs on the same playlist. 

 

The list in the OP clearly indicates the total exposure for all the songs an artist released. Having 30 songs on a playlist that has 1M followers obviously means that each song is exposed to 1 million followers. Yet YOU are implying it makes absolutely no difference wether you have 1 song or 30 songs on that same playlist, as if your chance to get a song played are the exact same no matter how many songs you have on it. You either know this makes no sense and you're just of bad faith (would it be because your fav is so high when it comes to cumulative playlist reach? Gee I wonder), or you're just hung up on useless semantics. Either way it's quite embarrassing as you keep denying and ignoring basic maths. Definitely not a good look if you ask me!

 

 

 

Abolustely no one keeps up with unique listeners yet Monthly Listeners is precisely the metric Spotify chooses to display on the profile of each artist and the metric they use for their global artist ranking. Alright boo!  

I don't know about you but I'd rather have my song streamed by 100 different people than have it heard by 1 person who replayed it 100 times. And if daily/monthly listeners was simply a result of who has the biggest playlist reach then the list of most listened artists would perfectly match the list of most playlisted artists (flashnews: it absolutely does not!)

And yes... "playlist reach" is, like I said, by definition, the amount of unique listeners an artist can theoretically reach based off the amount of followers each playlist they're featured on has. It makes absolutely no sense to consider that being featured on a minor Spotify playlist of 1 million followers has the same impact as being featured on Spotify's biggest playlist with 30 million followers, regardless of what chance/probability the artist has to get streamed on the first playlist. Not to mention that Spotify's playlists with 1M to 5M followers have 100 to 150 or even 200 songs (instead of 50 for TTH).

The numbers in the OP are essentially cumulative playlist reach. 

 

I don't care where my fave ranks on the list presented in the OP because I know how flawed it is. And it's really not her fault she has so many smashes that they're all over Spotify's "2000s hits" and"2010s hits" playlists. She has the best engagement rate, as proven above.

 

[istan4badgalriri]

25 minutes ago, Coklek92 said:

So having 5 songs on TTH is similar to having 1 song on TTH according to IStan's logic 

Playlist reach is about exposure, whether people stream the song on that playlist is another story. IStan thought he did something here 

Except I've never said that. I've made comparisons between big and small playlists.

But yes, an artist is still exposed to the same amount of unique listeners whether they have 1, 2 or 5 songs on Today's Top Hits. To say that an artist with 5 songs on TTH has a 150M playlist reach from TTH alone, and is exposed to 150M unique listeners when the playlist only has 30M followers make absolutely no sense.  

 

The probability that they get played more than another artist because they have 1 or 2 more songs on the playlist, which is pretty much what you guys are arguing about, is another debate. Y'all coming at me about basic math all while failing to get the point and understand how blatantly exaggerated the numbers in the OP are is cracking me up. Nicki Minaj's catalog is not being exposed to 700M+ listeners everyday, loves.  

[taylor__fan]

5 hours ago, Near said:

DEMI WITH A HIGHER PLAYLIST REACH THAN TAYLOR  

Scooter really spending those coins he got from her masters huh

 Scooter is shameless

 

5 hours ago, istan4badgalriri said:

That's a very misleading list considering it combines the playlist reach of every individual song, which is double counting on multiple occasions considering some of these artists have several songs placed on 1 playlist. It doesn't make any sense nor does it give an accurate picture.

Having 5 songs on a playlist of 5M followers surely doesn't have more impact than having 1 song on a playlist of 30M followers.

 

According to chartmetric (which doesn't double or triple count):

 

Dua Lipa - 420M

Ariana Grande - 371M

Cardi B - 333M

Miley Cyrus - 298M

Taylor Swift - 294M

Selena Gomez - 294M

Sia - 284M

Doja Cat - 266M

Shakira - 249M

Billie Eilish - 246M

Nicki Minaj - 234M

KAROL G - 224M

Lady Gaga - 218M

Halsey - 210M

Katy Perry - 204M

Beyoncé - 201M

Demi Lovato - 197M

Olivia Rodrigo - 195M

Camila Cabello - 191M

Rihanna - 182M

 

 Nice try.

This makes 0 sense, how is it the same to have 5 songs in TTH than having one?

 

[peterstyles13]

27 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

Abolustely no one keeps up with unique listeners yet Monthly Listeners is precisely the metric Spotify chooses to display on the profile of each artist and the metric they use for their global artist ranking. Alright boo!  

Yeah, it's also the only place where it is mentioned  Absolutely no one keeps up with that information. Listeners are not incorporated in any chart methodology in practically any country in the world. Outside of the cute lil "about" section of an artist's page, it is never mentioned nor used for anything. People care about streaming records, not listeners records. This is certainly not brand new information to you, is it?
 

27 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

I don't know about you but I'd rather have my song streamed by 100 different people than have it heard by 1 person who replayed it 100 times.

Back at it again with the most ridiculous and exaggerated examples, I see. Practically any artist would prefer to hold streaming records over listeners records. Being the most streamed artist > having the most monthly listeners (we literally don't know overall listeners for a given artist since it's that irrelevant of a stat). If you feel otherwise, that's fine you are allowed to. No one will stop you! 

 

27 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

if daily/monthly listeners was simply a result of who has the biggest playlist reach then the list of most listened artists would perfectly match the list of most playlisted artists (flashnews: it absolutely does not!)

Who said it was? 

 

27 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

It makes absolutely no sense to consider that being featured on a minor Spotify playlist of 1 million followers has the same impact as being featured on Spotify's biggest playlist with 30 million followers, regardless of what chance/probability the artist has to get streamed on the first playlist.

This is an example that you brought up and that you insist on mentioning over and over again when it absolutely proves nothing. The whole point from the very start is that the more songs you have on a playlist, the more those songs get exposed and therefore played, which means it is critical to take into consideration the fact that artists might have multiple songs on a playlist. You're the one who insists on going on the most ludicrous tangents possible by making wack comparisons that are simply not realistic to begin with
 

27 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

The numbers in the OP are essentially cumulative playlist reach. 

Did you just realize this now? It's literally stated in the OP  The constant lack of points you make, chile it's embarrassing

Edited February 12, 2021 by peterstyles13

[Cloröx]

13 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

Except I've never said that. I've made comparisons between big and small playlists.

But yes, an artist is still exposed to the same amount of unique listeners whether they have 1, 2 or 5 songs on Today's Top Hits. To say that an artist with 5 songs on TTH has a 150M playlist reach from TTH alone, and is exposed to 150M unique listeners when the playlist only has 30M followers make absolutely no sense.  

 

The probability that they get played more than another artist because they have 1 or 2 more songs on the playlist, which is pretty much what you guys are arguing about, is another debate. Y'all coming at me about basic math all while failing to get the point and understand how blatantly exaggerated the numbers in the OP are is cracking me up. Nicki Minaj's catalog is not being exposed to 700M+ listeners everyday, loves.  

It's pretty clear to me that we have different definition of playlist reach. According to your logic, artist with 5 songs on TTH is having similar exposure with artist one song on TTH. But we all know it's not that case because the first actually have 5x more exposure. That's the biggest flaw 

[Jimmy.]

2 hours ago, istan4badgalriri said:

And... you think having 1 song on a playlist of 30M followers has the same impact has having 30 songs on a playlist of 1M followers ?

You think 1 song reaching 30,000,000 unique listeners has the same impact as 30 songs reaching 1,000,000 unique followers ?

I'll be nice and help you realize how wrong you are with a simple, straightforward example:

 

If those 30M followers stream that 1 song all at the same time (obviously won't happen, but that's for case by case comparison), that's 30M streams brought in, within 2-3 minutes. 

Now... for those 30M streams to be generated from the playlist with 1M followers (considering you can't possibly stream 30 songs simultaneously), that'll take 90 minutes. The only way you can get to the same result as the first example is if the listeners stream every single song, or if they replay the same song 30 times. And in either cases, that'll take way, way longer.  

 

Being playlisted on Today's Top Hits is, in theory, an immediate reach to 30 million unique listeners.

Being on a playlist with 1 million followers is, and remains, whether there's 1 or 30 songs on that playlist, an immediate reach to 1 million unique listeners. 

Yet the list in the OP implies that both of these cases are the same.

 

Now... an effective way to see how flawed the list in the OP is (how it makes some of these artists look inaccurately bad), and to see how well these girls' playlsting is really translating, is if we look at the artists with the most unique listeners on X day, comparatively to the total number of listeners from combined playlists those artists appear on (using Chartmetric data):

 

Let's use yesterday:

 

Listeners

1. Ariana Grande - 8.07m

2. Dua Lipa - 7.23m

3. Taylor Swift - 6m

4. Billie Eilish - 5.7m

5. Doja Cat - 4.96m

6. Olivia Rodrigo - 4.91m

7. Rihanna - 4.88m

8. Sia - 4.8m

9. Halsey - 4.66m

10. Selena Gomez - 4.62m
#11-#20:

  Hide contents

 

11. Miley Cyrus - 4.55m

12. Cardi B - 4.33m

13. Lady Gaga - 4.14m

14. Nicki Minaj - 3.9m

15. Karol G - 3.71m

16. Katy Perry - 3.42m

17. Shakira - 3.41m

18. Beyoncé - 3.39m

19. SZA - 3.29m

20. Megan Thee Stallion - 3.18m

21. Camila Cabello - 2.85m

22. Demi Lovato - 2.83m

 

 

Playlist Reach

1. Dua Lipa - 420M

2. Ariana Grande - 371M

3. Cardi B - 333M

4. Miley Cyrus - 298M

5. Taylor Swift - 294M

6. Selena Gomez - 294M

7. Sia - 284M

8. Doja Cat - 266M

9. Shakira - 249M

10. Billie Eilish - 246M

#11-#20:

  Hide contents

 

11. Nicki Minaj - 234M

12. KAROL G - 224M

13. Lady Gaga - 218M

14. Halsey - 210M

15. Megan Thee Stallion - 208M

16. Katy Perry - 204M

17. Beyoncé - 201M

18. Demi Lovato - 197M

19. SZA - 196M

20. Olivia Rodrigo - 195M

21. Camila Cabello - 191M

22. Rihanna - 182M

 

Best engagement rate with listeners (playlist reach/number of listeners):

 

1. Rihanna 2.68%

2. Olivia Rodrigo 2.51%

3. Billie Eilish 2.32%

4. Halsey 2.22%

5. Ariana Grande 2.18%

6. Taylor Swift 2.04%

7. Lady Gaga 1.9%

8. Doja Cat 1.86%

9. Dua Lipa 1.72%

10. Beyoncé 1.69%

11. Sia 1.69%

12. SZA - 1.68%

13. Katy Perry 1.68%

14. Nicki Minaj 1.67%

15. Karol G 1.66%

16. Selena Gomez 1.57%

17. Megan Thee Stallion 1.53%

18. Miley Cyrus 1.53%

19. Camila Cabello - 1.49%

20. Demi Lovato - 1.44%

21. Shakira 1.37%

22. Cardi B 1.3%

 

Well would you look at that... gives quite a different picture to that of the OP.

 

 

Oh wow! 

[bluebirdsforever]

4 hours ago, TayAlison89 said:

not this being a Taylor vs. Ariana thread again, this is probably the biggest bore of a feud stan world has ever seen, I'm quitting

 

 

taylor pure sales this ariana streaming that, both are going to be down there with the Katy's and Gaga's one day and we'll look like clowns and move on

 

 

OT: not Sia being up there  

Omg spill miss TayAlison

 

OT: Very interesting stats for all!

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by bluebirdsforever

[Cockney Cupcake]

Adele’s team really doesn’t try at all  

organic queen I guess

[Tylerbv]

You think your fave has it bad? Carrie only has 13.9 million reach 

[State of Grace.]

the mental gymnastics in this thread

 

1 hour ago, Ash12345 said:

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

this is actually very interesting  

[JawBreaker]

4 hours ago, peterstyles13 said:

Huh? What kind of weird logic is this? 

 

If anything the numbers in the OP give a far more accurate picture of their actual playlist reach and how it affects their streams. Why on Earth would you count the reach of a playlist only once if you have multiple songs on said playlist? How can you not possibly get that having multiple songs on the same playlist multiplies your chance to get your music played? Let's say someone shuffles TTH where a given artist has 4 songs. Logically speaking, the artist in question's chance of being played are 4 times higher than if they only had one song on the playlist. Yet using your method of calculating the reach, you completely ignore this as if have 1 song on TTH is the same as having 4. Newsflash, it's not at all.  

 

That's literally not true. Did you even bother going on their website before posting your shtick that proves absolutely nothing?

 

OP said Nicki Minaj has 714M in reach. Songstats show exactly that.

 

OP said Sia has a reach of 672M. Songstats show exactly that. 

 

So on and so forth for every artist. So what's not clicking?

 

4 hours ago, Feanor said:

That's playlist reach as defined by Chartmetric. You are more than welcome to make a thread based on those numbers.

 

This thread however, as clearly mentioned in the first sentence of the OP, is based on Songstats. And going by their way of counting, having multiple entries in a playlist increases your overall playlist reach exposure. If you agree or disagree with that methodology is up to you, but that does not matter here.

 

The numbers in the OP are taken directly from Songstats. There was no calculation to combine any numbers, cause these numbers are explicitly labeled as "playlist reach, all" in the site itself, on which this thread is based on.

 

A source was cited, the numbers were presented the way they appear and are labeled in the source, and that's all there is.

There was no ulterior motive or the claim that these numbers are the ultimate definition of playlist reach.

 

 

2 hours ago, peterstyles13 said:

Considering that 1 multipled by 30M is the same thing as 30 mulitplied by 1M... yes?   
One song having 30M in reach = 30M.
30 songs having 1M in reach = 30M. 

That's basic maths. What is so hard to comprehend in that? 

 

What even  Let's do basic maths again.

30M x 1 = 30M

10 x 1M = 10M

As you might know, 30M in reach is higher than 10M. No one said otherwise and that was not the point that was being made in any way, shape or form. 

 

What kind of impossible exaggerated scenario is this?   Do you expect us to take you seriously when your entire argument revolves around an illogical example that would absolutely never happen? You do realize that's not ACTUALLY how things work, right? You are literally making up the most extreme example you can muster knowing it's never gonna happen like this. Can't believe I have to say this but in the real world, when people put on a playlist, they listen to the darn playlist. Which means the more songs you have on the playlist, the higher your chance of getting a song played is . If someone wanted to listen to a specific song, they'd just search for it on the Spotify search bar and click play. They won't go into a playlist full of other songs just to play it . Useless and unrealistic example 

 

You should be well aware that the artists with huge playlist reaches don't just have that kind of reach because they have 30 songs () on relatively small playlists. It's mainly because they have multiple songs on big playlists, such as Today's Top Hits, RapCaviar, All Out 00s, Songs To Sing In The Car, etc. The amount of song a given artist has on a playlist must be taken into consideration because it obviously impacts how often their songs will be listened to since they have more exposure (which is the whole point of the thread). Just look at Dua. She currently has 3 songs on the biggest playlist on Spotify (TTH). Yet in all seriousness you want to sit there and pretend as if she's not advantaged compared to someone who has only one on the same playlist?  

 

 

Yeah, no. At the end of the day, absolutely no one keeps up or cares about the unique daily listeners of an artist beside a handful of stans. What matters and what has always mattered is how many streams you get. But hey, if anything, this just reinforces what I was saying. Let's say a given listener listens to an entire playlist, the artist with multiple songs on that playlist is advantaged and will get their songs played more than an artist with one song on the same playlist. Don't know how often I'll have to repeat this before you get it.This is the whole point that has been made from the start and it clearly shows why it is important to take into consideration the fact that artists very often have multiple songs on the same playlist. 

 

The list in the OP clearly indicates the total exposure for all the songs an artist released. Having 30 songs on a playlist that has 1M followers obviously means that each song is exposed to 1 million followers. Yet YOU are implying it makes absolutely no difference wether you have 1 song or 30 songs on that same playlist, as if your chance to get a song played are the exact same no matter how many songs you have on it. You either know this makes no sense and you're just of bad faith (would it be because your fav is so high when it comes to cumulative playlist reach? Gee I wonder), or you're just hung up on useless semantics. Either way it's quite embarrassing as you keep denying and ignoring basic maths. Definitely not a good look if you ask me!

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ash12345 said:

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

 

1 hour ago, peterstyles13 said:

Yeah, it's also the only place where it is mentioned  Absolutely no one keeps up with that information. Listeners are not incorporated in any chart methodology in practically any country in the world. Outside of the cute lil "about" section of an artist's page, it is never mentioned nor used for anything. People care about streaming records, not listeners records. This is certainly not brand new information to you, is it?
 

Back at it again with the most ridiculous and exaggerated examples, I see. Practically any artist would prefer to hold streaming records over listeners records. Being the most streamed artist > having the most monthly listeners (we literally don't know overall listeners for a given artist since it's that irrelevant of a stat). If you feel otherwise, that's fine you are allowed to. No one will stop you! 

 

Who said it was? 

 

This is an example that you brought up and that you insist on mentioning over and over again when it absolutely proves nothing. The whole point from the very start is that the more songs you have on a playlist, the more those songs get exposed and therefore played, which means it is critical to take into consideration the fact that artists might have multiple songs on a playlist. You're the one who insists on going on the most ludicrous tangents possible by making wack comparisons that are simply not realistic to begin with
 

Did you just realize this now? It's literally stated in the OP  The constant lack of points you make, chile it's embarrassing

The clockity clock work 

This makes the most sense lol. As said by Peter that user is most likely pressed about the numbers not being in Rihanna's favour. Not suprised hes making up the most ridiculous scenarios. While at the same time trying to convince us that 5 songs on TTH has the same exposure as someone with 1 song. 

 

 

[tayloralison]

2 hours ago, Ash12345 said:

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

Taylor

[Cloröx]

2 hours ago, Ash12345 said:

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

It's time for new thread luv 

[Jude]

And they accused Ariana for being the queen of payola when she's not even top 5.

[OrgVisual]

All the fake numbers in this thread Well I assume the numbers in the OP includes users' personal playlists as well?

[EarthJang]

The essay 

 

6 hours ago, Ash12345 said:

Actually user @istan4badgalriri does make one small point.

 

Counting playlisting this way is not really an accurate measure of how much an artist is being pushed onto people, because it counts stuff like This Is Artist playlist followings multiplied by the number of songs they contain.

 

For example, This Is Rihanna has 2,056,562 followers and 37 songs, so she would get 76m playlist reach from that playlist alone. But no one would consider artist specific playlists like that payola. So perhaps we should subtract playlisting that comes from artist specific playlists

 

Another example 

 

Taylor Swift

226m from This Is Taylor Swift (103 songs x 2.19m reach)

113m from Taylor Swift Complete Collection (238 songs x 476k reach)

25m from Lover, Taylor: Love Enhanced Album (27 songs x 917k reach)

So Taylor actually gets 364m from artist specific playlists, and only 165m from playlists that give her GP exposure.

 

Playlisting excluding artist specific playlists

 

Nicki Minaj: 656m

Cardi B: 631m

Sia: 598m

Dua Lipa: 591m

Rihanna: 574m

Camila Cabello: 564m

Selena Gomez: 548m

Beyonce: 547m

Halsey: 544m

Demi Lovato: 488m

Katy Perry: 474m

Miley Cyrus: 459m

Lady Gaga: 425m

Ariana Grande: 418m

Billie Eilish: 305m

Taylor Swift: 165m

but I agree with this 

[chiliam]

Taylor better hope on a new label or hire someone to do bettet playlistting. Its embarrassing at this point

[Beny]

8 hours ago, Badboidami said:

Hmmm, it seems like Gaga's catalogue does terrible numbers for a quite recently released album. Cannot be surprised, though. Ariana's collab time is up.

Interessting...

 

[Ash12345]

12 hours ago, Fnooky said:

I agree. An extreme example are Spotify's playlists for their charts which I don't think are payola or unorganic since they are based on daily plays.

 

Spotify's Global Top 50 playlist has almost 16m followers. If Taylor released the Fearless re-recordings today and charted 15 tracks inside the top 50, she would gain 238m playlist reach from it. If she charted 15 tracks inside the top 50 of the US as well, she'd gain another 50m playlist reach since Spotify's US Top 50 playlist has 3.3m followers. That would bring Taylor's total playlist reach up to over 800m and that's excluding the playlist reach she would gain from charting in the UK, Australia and every other country that Spotify has a chart for. The very same thing would happen to every artist that drops an album bomb with this methology. You see how that is incredibly misleading.

 

Songstats also includes and multiplies playlist reach from playlists created by 3rd parties which again can barely be considered payola'd or unorganic. The only time it makes sense to count multiple times is when it comes to editorial playlists in the vein of Today's Top Hits, Hot Hits XYZ, All Out XYZs, etc where Spotify gets to decide which song is added and how high it is placed all by themselves. 

I agree although a lot of the artists on this list don't have any song on Chart playlists due to a lack of recent releases. The 3rd party playlists are also typically pretty insignificant in contributing to an artist's playlist reach compared to the editorial ones.