base talk Billboard gets clocked by prominent manager about chart manipulation

[SoldierofLove]

How Digital Album Sales Are Affecting the Race for No. 1 on the Charts

 

"People are keeping that ammo in the chamber: 'Let's save these four variants that we know we're going to have to drop at different times throughout this week,'" says one major-label A&R who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "Does it enhance the fan experience, or does it actually lessen it? I think it's manipulative."

 

When asked about this practice, another prominent manager would say only that "it's ironic that the institution which is allowing the problem to exist is reaching out for a quote." ("Billboard is always reviewing, in consultation with Luminate and the industry at large, what sales channels are included for chart eligibility, and has updated its policies when necessary based on market behavior," Silvio Pietroluongo, Billboard's executive vp of charts and data partnerships, said in a statement.) 

 

In more recent years, artists and labels have used hyper-aggressive price discounting, bundling albums with tickets or merchandise, box sets, vinyl variants and other techniques to try to jack up an album's chart position. (There are dissenters: "It's crazy how much time and energy is wasted on sh*t like this," says one former major label executive, practically eye-rolling through the phone, "instead of focusing on signing good artists and making good music.") When chart rules change, so do the industry's strategies for impacting them. 

 

"If there is exclusive music available in these variant releases, that can be a great strategy and a fun way to engage with your fan base," says Greg Hirschhorn, founder of the distribution company Too Lost. "If there is only a change in the track list or a different album artwork, I feel like the only real goal or outcome is chart manipulation."

 

https://radiox.cms.socastsrm.com/2024/09/06/how-digital-album-sales-are-affecting-the-race-for-no-1-on-the-charts/

https://www.billboard.com/pro/how-digital-album-sales-affecting-charts/

 

Which artist immediately comes to mind when reading that article?

 

Do we think Billboard will finally do something about this chaos?

Edited September 8 by SoldierofLove

[truthteller]

wouldnt it be a win win situation that they can sell more copies (aka more bonus or commission)

[AndThenTheCocaine]

I don't think Billboard will do anything tbh, their charts have always been a measure of revenue more than anything (hence why radio is still counted in the year of our Lord 2024 ) and variants bring in more money

[SoldierofLove]

3 minutes ago, truthteller said:

wouldnt it be a win win situation that they can sell more copies (aka more bonus or commission)

Sometimes it's hard to believe, but I do feel that there are music execs who actually care about the arts and not the charts.

 

It must feel degrading to some when they have to spend time and energy thinking about ways to boost sales inorganically when they could be doing better and more interesting things.

[BornUnbroken]

I really don't see the big deal with chart manipulation. Chart manipulation isn't anything new. The general public doesn't care what goes #1 or not, when a single or an album is actually a hit, it's a hit with or without variants, discounts, or other tactics. If Billboard doesn't like its own rules, they can just change them, it's not like they haven't done it countless times before.

[Rihinvention]

7 hours ago, SoldierofLove said:

Which artist immediately comes to mind when reading that article?

I know the answer you're looking for is Taylor Swift, but my first thought was actually K-Pop artists.

 

Maybe that's because the Hot 100 is more exciting to me than the Billboard 200. Albums are pretty much always front-loaded and based on artist popularity. The Hot 100 reflects what the General Public is actually listening to, and how we'll remember these years/decades in the future.

 

Taylor's undeniably huge and her variants are just her trying to break records. Whether she gets those records or not, it doesn't change the fact that she's objectively the biggest artist of our lifetime.

 

Whereas with K-Pop, their chart results don't accurately reflect what's happening amongst US listeners.

 

It feels like a niche interest for some people in the US, like being into anime or gaming. But it's also being skewed by K-Pop fans in South Korea, which I've always found weird. It's like…why do you care so much about another country's charts?

 

It's one thing to sit on Twitter and be like, "yes! So-and-so went #1 in the U.S! They're conquering the world!" — but if you walk onto a random college campus in America, show a student a picture of a K-Pop artist and ask "who is this?" (or simply ask them "who is X?"), and they respond with "no idea…", then is K-Pop's success on the US charts *really* a reflection of what's happening in US culture?

 

I just think the charts should accurately reflect what's happening in each country's culture, and whether or not Taylor is going crazy with releasing variants, the fact of the matter is: she's objectively huge in the US right now.

 

When I think of "rigging the charts in a way that's not accurately reflecting what's happening America", my first thought is K-Pop, not Taylor.

 

But regardless of "who's" doing it, I agree that chart manipulation needs to stop. The charts should accurately reflect listener behaviour, not extreme stanning, because that's how society will actually remember 2024. 

 

Edited September 8 by Rihinvention

[Paddy]

All charts should prohibit bundling, they did it with ticket bundles, they should prohibit that with items that can't be purchased separately too, especially if they only way to get signed album is by spending ridiculous money on a bundle with record, cd and cassette etc. 

 

They can't blame the artists for having XYZ amount of variants if all the artists do is play the system. Limit the amount of variants eligible for charts, and you'll see sudden drop in variants and no more of 10 versions of the same album.

 

But Billboard and others won't do that because it's great for everyone when artist come out with huge massive forst week sales and when they stick at the top for a very long time. But what they should do is stop the manipulation of forcting people to buy bundles. 

[Junipero]

I think the problem with the current charts is that album sales "leak" into the Hot 100.

In the digital sales era, if you bought and album, it would not affect the Hot 100 as an album would go towards the Hot 200 chart. A single sale would go into the Hot 100.

 

Now, in the streaming era, you have to stream the songs of an album for it to go to the Hot 200(only if you are counting streams), so the songs end up on the Hot 100 as a album bomb and also end up on the Hot 200 in the first week; however, are the songs from a first week bomb on the Hot 100 reflective of music consumption trends in the USA? There needs to be a rule that would remove songs that chart as a result of an album bomb for like 1st week of sales, and only singles that were already Top 20 can appear for that tracking week, with the exception of 1 song extra(to make room for a new single that also appears week 1)

[blown away]

1 hour ago, Junipero said:

I think the problem with the current charts is that album sales "leak" into the Hot 100.

In the digital sales era, if you bought and album, it would not affect the Hot 100 as an album would go towards the Hot 200 chart. A single sale would go into the Hot 100.

 

Now, in the streaming era, you have to stream the songs of an album for it to go to the Hot 200(only if you are counting streams), so the songs end up on the Hot 100 as a album bomb and also end up on the Hot 200 in the first week; however, are the songs from a first week bomb on the Hot 100 reflective of music consumption trends in the USA? There needs to be a rule that would remove songs that chart as a result of an album bomb for like 1st week of sales, and only singles that were already Top 20 can appear for that tracking week, with the exception of 1 song extra(to make room for a new single that also appears week 1)

Exactly. Although I'd instead opt to make the Hot 100 a singles chart again, like it was until 1998. Singles count for the Hot 100 and not for the Billboard 200, album tracks can't chart on the Hot 100 but count for the album's placement on the Billboard 200.

 

A song would be a single once it's actively promoted to radio and from that point on will not count for album units on the Billboard 200 anymore.

[Cruel Summer]

10 minutes ago, blown away said:

Exactly. Although I'd instead opt to make the Hot 100 a singles chart again, like it was until 1998. Singles count for the Hot 100 and not for the Billboard 200, album tracks can't chart on the Hot 100 but count for the album's placement on the Billboard 200.

 

A song would be a single once it's actively promoted to radio and from that point on will not count for album units on the Billboard 200 anymore.

This would mean that many independent, new artists without label support would miss out on the opportunity to chart at all if they manage to get a viral hit. Further, it would exclude hypothetical viral hits that aren't actively promoted by labels to radio because they're already performing well on their own and don't need radio - remember that radio is a promotional tool, not a revenue stream like streams and sales are. Locking the Hot 100 to singles alone just isn't compatible with the realities of modern music consumption.

[blown away]

19 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

This would mean that many independent, new artists without label support would miss out on the opportunity to chart at all if they manage to get a viral hit. Further, it would exclude hypothetical viral hits that aren't actively promoted by labels to radio because they're already performing well on their own and don't need radio - remember that radio is a promotional tool, not a revenue stream like streams and sales are. Locking the Hot 100 to singles alone just isn't compatible with the realities of modern music consumption.

Fair point, my definition of a single is perhaps too narrow. Although I'd still say a song charting on the Hot 100 should not count towards the m album units on the Billboard 200.

Edited September 8 by blown away

[KKCuteCat]

37 minutes ago, blown away said:

Fair point, my definition of a single is perhaps too narrow. Although I'd still say a song charting on the Hot 100 should not count towards the m album units on the Billboard 200.

I agree. That brings a lot of disadvantages for album artists whose singles often don't perform as well as their album sales. 

 

Remember once we called Katy Perry a single artist because her album's sales are dwarf compared to her singles' success. And now Teenage Dream went diamond due to the repeated streams. I mean, it makes artists focus on few hit songs instead of a whole album like in the past.