charts discussion Billboard switches to Mediabase for airplay numbers

[Azulito]

 

 

[Yog]

What’s the outcome of this? 

[simmnfierzig]

4 minutes ago, Yog said:

What’s the outcome of this? 

If the Hot 100 formula doesnt get adjusted it will increase the average % of points from radio from ~30% to something in the 35-40% range

[Yog]

Just now, simmnfierzig said:

If the Hot 100 formula doesnt get adjusted it will increase the average % of points from radio from ~30% to something in the 35-40% range

So basically Radio gains slightly more power..☠️

[RihFenty20]

8 minutes ago, Yog said:

What’s the outcome of this? 

Radio becomes the dominant metric for the hot 100.

[spree]

Mediabase has always been king.  What they SHOULD do is get rid of the irrelevant Pop Songs chart (that started in 1992), OR....retroactively count all Pop songs from Mediabase's inception in 1973.

[Klein]

5 minutes ago, simmnfierzig said:

If the Hot 100 formula doesnt get adjusted it will increase the average % of points from radio from ~30% to something in the 35-40% range

2 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

Radio becomes the dominant metric for the hot 100.

As if we need the only metric that is not dependent on actual public consumption to be waited even more. Radio are the reason why the charts are so stagnant. I don't understand why Billboard still have them matter as much as they do.  

 

Well, at least it'll be good for LMU. ORH are gonna seethe. 

[simmnfierzig]

4 minutes ago, Yog said:

So basically Radio gains slightly more power..☠️

Yes. It's disgusting

 

But I just checked the numbers again. Seems like radio is in the 25-30% range right now and will be 30-35% after this. Not quite as bad as I thought, but still

The wrong direction Billboard 

[Dreajae]

Well radio has been dominate on the hot 100 since its inception. It's exactly how Elvis, Aretha and so many other old school legends broke chart records in their day.

 

Despite the plea for some sort of reform  they double down. It's tricky. I do think streaming should count more because it is now essentially free, accessible and reflects folks general taste . Not many people old or new are buying an individual single. That's almost strictly fandom based.

[RihFenty20]

1 minute ago, Klein said:

As if we need the only metric that is not dependent on actual public consumption to be waited even more. Radio are the reason why the charts are so stagnant. I don't understand why Billboard still have them matter as much as they do.  

 

Well, at least it'll be good for LMU. ORH are gonna seethe. 

It's probably to combat the album bombs. Streaming's power over the charts is ridiculous. There basically no winning because every single metric can be manipulated. Sales are mass purchased, fans are mass streaming their faves with playlisting, and radio is at the mercy of labels. at least now, It'll be more balanced because streaming has way too much power in the formula since sales are dead. 

[Taylena]

5 minutes ago, Klein said:

 I don't understand why Billboard still have them matter as much as they do. 

Radio stations' money is probably what keeps the lights on at Billboard's HQ and labels will keep paying radio stations for their artists being kept on rotation so nothing is ever gonna change. 

[Klein]

1 minute ago, RihFenty20 said:

It's probably to combat the album bombs. Streaming's power over the charts is ridiculous. There basically no winning because every single metric can be manipulated. Sales are mass purchased, fans are mass streaming their faves with playlisting, and radio is at the mercy of labels. at least now, It'll be more balanced because streaming has way too much power in the formula since sales are dead. 

I see where you are coming from. The thing is... I don't seem to agree with most people regarding album bombs. The reality is that in case of album bombs, the songs are actually the most consumed of the week. And Billboard should represent that: the consumption of the songs. It's not necessarily that i like album bombs in the charts, but it makes sense to me. 

 

I agree that every single metric can be manipulated. But at the very least, with sales and streaming, it is the actual consumers that are deciding which song(s) to support (playlisting aside). In the case of radio, the consumer is entirely passive, which is why I don't enjoy it that much. 

 

What I mean is that I don't think Billboard should stop counting radio in their charts (because there are still people that discover/listen to songs through radio), but they should weight less imo. 

[Taylena]

3 minutes ago, Klein said:

What I mean is that I don't think Billboard should stop counting radio in their charts (because there are still people that discover/listen to songs through radio), but they should weight less imo. 

Radio is basically advertising for songs and if an ad on streaming is not counted for actual charts why would radio?  Radio is still existing in other countries even though it doesn't count for official charts anywhere else except the US. It wouldn't go away. Then they could be free from label influence and actually reflect what's popular and let people discover good songs. 

[Rev8]

9 minutes ago, Klein said:

I see where you are coming from. The thing is... I don't seem to agree with most people regarding album bombs. The reality is that in case of album bombs, the songs are actually the most consumed of the week. And Billboard should represent that: the consumption of the songs. It's not necessarily that i like album bombs in the charts, but it makes sense to me. 

It has never been that way except now tho

and this still won't combat album bombs much tbh,but it will give more reassurance to the songs that have actually been pushed

[GoodGuyGoneGhetto]

22 minutes ago, Dreajae said:

Well radio has been dominate on the hot 100 since its inception. It's exactly how Elvis, Aretha and so many other old school legends broke chart records in their day.

 

Despite the plea for some sort of reform  they double down. It's tricky. I do think streaming should count more because it is now essentially free, accessible and reflects folks general taste . Not many people old or new are buying an individual single. That's almost strictly fandom based.

Exactly.

 

We’re here celebrating Swift occupying the entire top ten, due to streaming, but how do you think Elvis scored over 100 chart entries 5/6 decades ago which was also seen as an earth-shattering record? Radio. 

 

Aside from that, radio is important to overall American culture. 
 

There are many people across the entire United States who still listen to and follow radio profusely. 
 

Radio has been integral to the American chart system since the inception of Billboard and after they reformed the Hot 100 charts in 1958. 
 

It’s not going anywhere, especially when a song still hits an audience of 100M listeners.
 

PEOPLE NEED TO GET OVER IT!

 

24 minutes ago, simmnfierzig said:

Yes. It's disgusting

 

But I just checked the numbers again. Seems like radio is in the 25-30% range right now and will be 30-35% after this. Not quite as bad as I thought, but still

The wrong direction Billboard 

Radio isn’t going anywhere, not in the U.S.

 

It’s high-time except it. Even if by 2032, we’re literally streaming songs from micro-chip devices, radio will still count towards the charts. 
 

Edited November 1, 2022 by GoodGuyGoneGhetto

[istan4badgalriri]

14 minutes ago, InventedGays said:

Still though, mass purchasing and mass streaming is still a consumer CHOOSING to engage with an artists work.  A radio station being payed to play songs is in no way indicative of what the end user wants to be listening to, which is what the charts are supposed to show

At least the songs you hear on the radio are actually popular, meanwhile a bunch of songs that chart high on the Hot 100 due to mass buying from fans are literally unknown to/barely known by the general public lol

[#Beautiful]

35 minutes ago, RihFenty20 said:

Radio becomes the dominant metric for the hot 100.

mess

[Klein]

2 minutes ago, Rev8 said:

It has never been that way except now tho

I don't get that argument. Things were different before (not the same tracking possible, not the same reach of album tracks etc...), that doesn't mean charts should not be adjusted to reflect the best as they could the consumption of music now. 

[simmnfierzig]

8 minutes ago, istan4badgalriri said:

At least the songs you hear on the radio are actually popular, meanwhile a bunch of songs that chart high on the Hot 100 due to mass buying from fans are literally unknown to/barely known by the general public lol

Very, very, very few songs get mass bought.

It's almost all streaming

[RihFenty20]

13 minutes ago, InventedGays said:

Still though, mass purchasing and mass streaming is still a consumer CHOOSING to engage with an artists work.  A radio station being payed to play songs is in no way indicative of what the end user wants to be listening to, which is what the charts are supposed to show

I mean it’s not that simple tho. Auto play also plays a big part in manipulation. It’s one of the reasons I have Taylor blocked on Spotify. As soon as I listened to any pop song, she would play immediately after. Even during Renaissance release week, as soon as you finished the album, Break My Soul would play immediately after. Streaming is like radio in that sense where it can be manipulated if enough money is pumped into it.

12 minutes ago, Klein said:

I see where you are coming from. The thing is... I don't seem to agree with most people regarding album bombs. The reality is that in case of album bombs, the songs are actually the most consumed of the week. And Billboard should represent that: the consumption of the songs. It's not necessarily that i like album bombs in the charts, but it makes sense to me. 

 

I agree that every single metric can be manipulated. But at the very least, with sales and streaming, it is the actual consumers that are deciding which song(s) to support (playlisting aside). In the case of radio, the consumer is entirely passive, which is why I don't enjoy it that much. 

 

What I mean is that I don't think Billboard should stop counting radio in their charts (because there are still people that discover/listen to songs through radio), but they should weight less imo. 

If that was the case then every time an album sold a massive amount of pure you can also make the argument that they were also the most consumed song of the week during the digital/record era and should’ve dominated the top 10. Streams are double counted (songs and albums get certified from the same streams). Let’s apply the streaming rules for 25 by Adele. If we were to double count the sales. No song sold enough to compete with those sales (3M pure for each song would make them the most consumed of the week), but the rules were different so those songs did not flood the chart. Streaming allows for basically any song to be treated like a single while still driving the parent album. It’s not really fair to those who came before. They should make it so that only official singles are allowed to chart tbh. 

[JawBreaker]

RADIO SHOULD BE ABOLISHEDDD

 

Literally no one knows that Big Latto song be fr 

[Rev8]

18 minutes ago, Klein said:

I don't get that argument. Things were different before (not the same tracking possible, not the same reach of album tracks etc...), that doesn't mean charts should not be adjusted to reflect the best as they could the consumption of music now. 

Guess it depends on who u are. It is logical for the current most listened thing to reflect on the chart. However these changes just makes records and achievements of the past - pointless. I personally don't care, since charts lie a lot of the times, but it really is just another pov - which for stans is essential since they like comparing these stuff.  And at this point..aren't charts more important to stans instead of the gp?

Not pointing fingers, but not surprised that u as a swiftie would be for this since your fav just got a huge win.

 

Not that it's easy to preserve these older achievements tho..but I guess they can make another chart for just singles? Idk

[getback]

1 hour ago, simmnfierzig said:

Yes. It's disgusting

 

But I just checked the numbers again. Seems like radio is in the 25-30% range right now and will be 30-35% after this. Not quite as bad as I thought, but still

The wrong direction Billboard 

they are so backward  

tho it will benefit Carrie so I guess I will accept it gracefully  

[MrPeanut]

Radio still has its place IMO as a reflection of public consumption/exposure.

[50thStateofMind]

1 hour ago, spree said:

Mediabase has always been king.  What they SHOULD do is get rid of the irrelevant Pop Songs chart (that started in 1992), OR....retroactively count all Pop songs from Mediabase's inception in 1973.

YUCK, radio needs to DIE.