official chart Hot 100: #76 Bon Appetit; #55 The Cure; #1 I'm the One

[iHype.]

26 minutes ago, Rico Shameless v2 said:

TML sold 1.8m, TC 2.3m, NWTS 1.7m and Views 1.6m. So yes, he hit 2m way before streaming took a hold. He's been consistent in pure sales (if this were a pop girl's run, ATRL would be praising high heavens - instead you get people patting the backs of acts like Gaga for being able to scan gold or Selena matching around 300k; just an example). On top of that all his albums besides maybe TML are consistently streamed. So this forced harshness over "playing level field" and such is truly exaggerated / straight up false.

 

And people aren't obligated to support his endeavors. His output is in line with the demand.

Whew the clock. 

 

Anyways, Rentboy saying Views selling 1.7 million and being 5x Platinum in SPS isn't deserving of 13 weeks at #1 is the same person who said in a Billboard thread last month that Shape of You "completely deserves its 12 weeks #1" with Shape of You having 1.8 million sales to date and being 5x Platinum in SPS.

 

Funny how ATRL works, right?

[Jacob.23]

1 hour ago, Fruity said:

Its not pathetic at all. Wake up, it's 2017, the streaming era.

Are you actually kidding? A 12 week number one should be getting 2 million sales AT LEAST. Look at the other 10+ week number ones (frozen, 1989, 25, etc.) they all either doubled, tripled, or quadrupled Views' sales

Less than 2 million is sad even for the streaming era

 

I'm pretty sure it's the lowest selling album that spent 10 wks at number 1

 

Edit: I admit Views' streaming is insane, but it doesn't make up for the lack of sales

Edited May 15, 2017 by Jacob.23

[fridayteenage]

53 minutes ago, iHype. said:

 

 

Anyways, Rentboy saying Views selling 1.7 million and being 5x Platinum in SPS isn't deserving of 13 weeks at #1 is the same person who said in a Billboard thread last month that Shape of You "completely deserves its 12 weeks #1" with Shape of You having 1.8 million sales to date and being 5x Platinum in SPS.

 

 

First 12 weeks for

 

Views sales run: 1-1-3-4-5-5-5-4-3-3-7-9 (Average: 4) Weeks in T2: 2. 

Shape of You sales run: 1-1-1-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (Average: 1) Weeks in T2: 12.

 

1>2>3>4

Edited May 15, 2017 by fridayteenage

[iHype.]

6 minutes ago, fridayteenage said:

First 12 weeks for

 

Views sales run: 1-1-3-4-5-5-5-4-3-3-7-9 (Average: 4) Weeks in T2: 2. 

Shape of You sales run: 1-1-1-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (Average: 1) Weeks in T2: 12.

 

1>2>3>4

 

 

 

Using this logic, selling 100K and being #3 is worse than selling 50K during another week and being #1.

 

They still have same total sales, weekly positions aside. Shaming something for selling 1.7 million overall and spending 13 weeks at #1, and then praising somthing for selling 1.8 million overall and spending 12 weeks at #1 makes absolutely no sense.

[fridayteenage]

Oh did Views and Shape of You come out at the same time? I didn't know that. 

[Heart.me]

1 hour ago, Rico Shameless v2 said:

TML sold 1.8m, TC 2.3m, NWTS 1.7m and Views 1.6m. So yes, he hit 2m way before streaming took a hold. He's been consistent in pure sales (if this were a pop girl's run, ATRL would be praising high heavens - instead you get people patting the backs of acts like Gaga for being able to scan gold or Selena matching around 300k; just an example). On top of that all his albums besides maybe TML are consistently streamed. So this forced harshness over "playing level field" and such is truly exaggerated / straight up false.

 

And people aren't obligated to support his endeavors. His output is in line with the demand.

[iHype.]

41 minutes ago, Jacob.23 said:

Are you actually kidding? A 12 week number one should be getting 2 million sales AT LEAST. Look at the other 10+ week number ones (frozen, 1989, 25, etc.) they all either doubled, tripled, or quadrupled Views' sales

Less than 2 million is sad even for the streaming era

 

I'm pretty sure it's the lowest selling album that spent 10 wks at number 1

 

Edit: I admit Views' streaming is insane, but it doesn't make up for the lack of sales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you want to compare overall sales & SPS let's do that with the albums Views blocked from #1 each week:

Dangerous Woman - <400K sales to date; <1.5m SPS to date

Black - <200K sales to date; <500K SPS to date

Last Year Was Complicated - <100K sales to date, <500 SPS to date

The Getaway - <400K sales to date, <750K SPS to date

Blank Face LP - <100K sales to date, <500K SPS to date

HardLove - <100K sales to date, <200K SPS to date

Everybody Looking - <100K sales to date, <300K SPS to date

The Devine Feminine - <100K sales to date, <500K SPS to date

 

Views has 1.7 million sales to date; every album it blocked didn't even sell 500K. Views has 5 million SPS to date, only 1 album did more than 1 million, and none did over 2 million.

 

To say Views doesn't deserve it's 13 weeks #1 because other albums with similar weeks did much more units is hypocritical when you purposely ignore all the albums Views blocked each week ended up going on to also do a fraction of what Views did. Literally your same argument works towards why Views deserved those weeks against the albums. 

 

Billboard 200 doesn't assign weeks at #1 based on how much 'an album did compared to other albums with the same weeks at #1'. It assigns weeks at #1 based on how an album does against the competition each week. Views clearly did better than it's competition each week and overall, meaning it deserved the #1 ranking each time.

 

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

Yet historically speaking in thirty years, it's sales will stand out as very low for 12+ week number one albums for the bb200 chart history.

 

ut was number one because it outdid the competition.  Ye that doesn't remove the fact that historically,i and to sales are very low for the 13+ week #1 club.

 

ehile praising whet it do doe, let's at least admit what it didn't do.  All the facts, I other words, and not just hose that mar it look good.

 

 

Just like in the future every other album that goes #1 for 1 week or 10 weeks will have lower sales than other #1 albums in the past decades. Sales as an entirety are declining, pretty useless to point out in 2017. If you compare the sales of the #1 albums in 2017 to the #1 albums in 1987, no album "deserved" to go #1 this year.

[Fruity]

1 hour ago, Jacob.23 said:

Are you actually kidding? A 12 week number one should be getting 2 million sales AT LEAST. Look at the other 10+ week number ones (frozen, 1989, 25, etc.) they all either doubled, tripled, or quadrupled Views' sales

Less than 2 million is sad even for the streaming era

I'm pretty sure it's the lowest selling album that spent 10 wks at number 1

 

Edit: I admit Views' streaming is insane

Ding ding ding.

 

1 hour ago, Jacob.23 said:

but it doesn't make up for the lack of sales

Yes, it does... Music consumption is dynamic and moving on, and Drake is a symbol of that, whether you like it or not. I don't know

why anyone still goes on and on about the pure sales run of a song or album anymore to drag an artist, music consumption is NOT just about sales anymore.  Views is huge and earned those 13 weeks via Billboard's extremely simple and fair methodology, it was the biggest album each week.

 

And given Drake earned the majority of his weeks at #1 due to his incredible streaming numbers, it's therefore pretty ridiculous to take Views' weeks at #1, immediately compare it to the SALES of Frozen/Adele/Taylor and then call the performance "sad" or "lacking."

 

[Tylerbv]

Views has great SPS, but I think it's pretty dumb for it to be #1 when it's selling less than half of the #1 selling album. The formula should be tweaked a little bit imo.

[Fruity]

2 minutes ago, iHype. said:

Just like in the future every other album that goes #1 for 1 week or 10 weeks will have lower sales than other #1 albums in the past decades. Sales as an entirety are declining, pretty useless to point out in 2017. If you compare the sales of the #1 albums in 2017 to the #1 albums in 1987, no album "deserved" to go #1 this year.

Exactly. 

 

Are we going to start dragging Taylor for having no diamond albums because album artists of her stature in the 90s have multiple? Obviously not. Times change and the climate does not allow diamond albums anymore, except in the extremely rare anomaly of Adele who has just collected 2 of the biggest eras of all time.

 

Music consumption is in a transition period away from sales and toward streaming, that much has been clear for at least 3-5 years, and it seems some of these girls STILL don't get that Drake (due to the demographic of his listeners) is much, much further along that spectrum of transition than other artists. Therefore in relative terms, his sales will be comparatively low, and streaming comparatively high.

[Rawr]

drake deserved every single one of his weeks at number one.

you are an idiot/delusional if you are gonna compare his sales to albums from years ago

his album has been streamed so many times, the other albums can't say that.

[Planet Mars]

Drake could have done far more to help Views pure sales, he refused to release any video and abandoned the era earlier than he should have. But again 'Views' deserved those weeks, this is 2016/2017, not 2007, SPS is the best measurement of popularity. The streams the album pulled for weeks were INSANE. That's a far better measurement of popularity now.

[Ivan_brit]

Malibu at #63  with less than 24 hours of Streams & sales 

 

I still hate Miley Team by releasing the song on a Thursday  It better rise to the top 10 next week 

[fridayteenage]

the uk method is better and doesn't over-count smash singles that are already well represented on their own chart

Edited May 15, 2017 by fridayteenage

[Agenor]

11 minutes ago, fridayteenage said:

the uk method is better and doesn't over-count smash singles that are already well represented on their own chart

But the "streaming sales" are still not counted when OCC do their all time best selling albums charts in the UK, only the pure sales. Same as Nielsen never comparing pure sales and SPS (especially since their SPS chart doesn't include "streaming sales" of singles before the album was released).

Edited May 15, 2017 by Agenor

[Jaf207]

3 hours ago, iHype. said:

And if you want to compare overall sales & SPS let's do that with the albums Views blocked from #1 each week:

Dangerous Woman - <400K sales to date; <1.5m SPS to date

Black - <200K sales to date; <500K SPS to date

Last Year Was Complicated - <100K sales to date, <500 SPS to date

The Getaway - <400K sales to date, <750K SPS to date

Blank Face LP - <100K sales to date, <500K SPS to date

HardLove - <100K sales to date, <200K SPS to date

Everybody Looking - <100K sales to date, <300K SPS to date

The Devine Feminine - <100K sales to date, <500K SPS to date

 

Views has 1.7 million sales to date; every album it blocked didn't even sell 500K. Views has 5 million SPS to date, only 1 album did more than 1 million, and none did over 2 million.

 

To say Views doesn't deserve it's 13 weeks #1 because other albums with similar weeks did much more units is hypocritical when you purposely ignore all the albums Views blocked each week ended up going on to also do a fraction of what Views did. Literally your same argument works towards why Views deserved those weeks against the albums. 

 

Billboard 200 doesn't assign weeks at #1 based on how much 'an album did compared to other albums with the same weeks at #1'. It assigns weeks at #1 based on how an album does against the competition each week. Views clearly did better than it's competition each week and overall, meaning it deserved the #1 ranking each time.

 

Do you have sps totals for any other albums? I have been looking for someone who keeps track of them.

[Jaf207]

People on this site need to get with the times. People stream music. Less buy it now. That's just the way it is. Sorry your favorite artist is not benefiting from this.

[Rentboy]

Streaming will never be respected like sales are. Its cheap currency like YouTube views. Cause we all know its often the same fans boosting the numbers constantly with repeat plays. Week after week. Which keeps certain artists songs and albums afloat in the charts when they would have sank fast in the sales dominated era. Sales are one time receipts. Streams are repeat receipts.

[brianc33710]

If I am not mistaken, the other 13 week #1 from the 2010s, the Frozen Soundtrack, has sold about 4.5 M albums (I cant find the thread with the last updated total). Frozen would've had some SPS help from Let It Go (both versions), Do You Want To Build A Snowman, and maybe some of the other smaller songs. Frozen surprised everyone, as it was the biggest selling Soundtrack in over a decade.

 

Honestly, the two albums are so different in sales numbers that Views, which has sold 1.7 M and only topped Top Album Sales for two weeks, doesn't come close to matching Frozen's. However, Frozen reigned in a time prior to the SPS BB 200 Consumption chart, and might have had fewer #1 weeks due to strong streamers. We may can find the sales numbers for each week Frozen was #1 and compare that to the weekly SPS numbers for Views.

 

As for BB needing to change the streaming formula, since 1,500 streams = 1 sale is what's used by the RIAA now, BB won't change this until the RIAA does. BB would also wait until the RIAA changes its TEA proportion. That's not BB trying to "stack" the rules to benefit Drake albums, just the consistency with the RIAA's current numbers.

 

[brianc33710]

40 minutes ago, ChartsFan said:

But who first set the ratio....

The RIAA. BB is actually more conservative than the RIAA, because BB limits streaming to ODS. Also, the RIAA started at 1 download = 1,000 streams. The RIAA later changed its rule to 1 sale = 1,500 streams, but still all combined.

 

BB has not been as zealous as some on this thread seem to think. No, I cannot rationalize The Life Of Pablo going Platnium with only 50k in sales. I would like the limit for certifications to no more than twice of what the albums (and singles) have sold. That would have Views at 3.3-3.4 M based upon its ~ 1.7 M sales.

[ClashAndBurn]

2 hours ago, ChartsFan said:

Stapleton's Traveller sold 2/3 of Views totals in 2016 (and the 4th highest total for the year)  yet never hit number one during the year of 2016.

 

Some artists are benefited by streaming. Other artists suffer.

And some artists are benefitted by leaving streaming out while others suffer. So in a sense, what you're asking is for those artists to suffer at the expense of the market that isn't bringing in nearly as much revenue.

[brianc33710]

24 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

And some artists are benefitted by leaving streaming out while others suffer. So in a sense, what you're asking is for those artists to suffer at the expense of the market that isn't bringing in nearly as much revenue.

What @ChartsFan wants is a more even balance between the two extremes. I believe SPS is a valid method of measuring album popularity. However, an album that has only sold 1.7 M copies should not already be certified 5XP. Triple Platinum makes much more sense, as that's 50% streams and 50% sales. If I were to ever able to get the data for raw sales, TEA, and SEA, I would limit the SPS proportion to 50% of its units. And non- ODS streaming shouldn't count toward an album and/or a singles certification.

 

EDIT: And I would also create a Silver certification for 250k, and a Ruby/Emerald/Sapphire level at 5 M.

[Fruity]

1 hour ago, brianc33616 said:

I would like the limit for certifications to no more than twice of what the albums (and singles) have sold. That would have Views at 3.3-3.4 M based upon its ~ 1.7 M sales.

1 hour ago, brianc33616 said:

An album that has only sold 1.7 M copies should not already be certified 5XP. Triple Platinum makes much more sense, as that's 50% streams and 50% sales. If I were to ever able to get the data for raw sales, TEA, and SEA, I would limit the SPS proportion to 50% of its units.

What you are proposing here is completely arbitrary and absurd, I can't begin to imagine how you plucked this 50% figure out of your head and rationalised it. Thankfully it will never happen. 

 

[Jred]

3 hours ago, brianc33616 said:

No, I cannot rationalize The Life Of Pablo going Platnium with only 50k in sales.

 

The Life Of Pablo wasn't made available for purchase until two months after the album was released, and even then, it was an edited version, so it wasn't going to sell much after pulling such massive streaming figures for its first few weeks. That's how it went platinum.