charts discussion HDD: Tidal manipulating chart for Meek Mill; 3rd time.

[QueenBLadyG]

59 minutes ago, Superpower said:

HDD clocked again  

"misinformation"  

Im expecting a new HDD article shading Billboard and Tidal before bed  

 

Living for this MESS. I don't use or support TIDAL, but this is hilarious!  

[DUA LIPA]

21 minutes ago, elemonated said:

 

Everyone signs up for Tidal when the albums are released, then cancels it.

 

They already count free trial streams, so this is not too different. 

 

It's not my logic, it's Billboard's. 

 

 

 

what is so hard to understand about how a free trial ≠ free streams 

if u subscribe to a premium service and get a trial that is free you're still using a premium kind of streaming service with your account being directly linked to your streams. these free streams on tidal could be done by anyone, an illiterate 2 year old child clicking on the link, your grandma from arkansas or paid bots and no one can prove/disprove this bc there's no account  directly linked to them. it's the equivalent of target buying 5m copies and giving them out in front of their stores, reporting they're all gone after 3 days.

[Pheromosa]

HDD lost 

[Kassi]

5 hours ago, Dark Poet said:

If you release it on a streaming network and it's not necessary to register nor even pay for service, it's same as giving away free copy of an album.

Have you heard of a little streaming service called YouTube? 

[Kassi]

Poor @iHype.. Billboard kinda clocked!

Had me out here thinking the Hot 100/200 was a revenue chart. I genuinely didn't know it was a consumption chart. 

 

If that's the case, then this whole HDD hit piece was a wash for misrepresenting Billboard's methodology in first place. 

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, Sunshine. said:

Poor @iHype.. Billboard kinda clocked!

Had me out here thinking the Hot 100/200 was a revenue chart. I genuinely didn't know it was a consumption chart. 

 

If that's the case, then this whole HDD hit piece was a wash for misrepresenting Billboard's methodology in first place. 

Why would the Hot 100 be a revenue chart when it includes airplay? That's kinda your fault for not putting obvious things together. 

 

The HDD article still makes complete sense. It's ridiculous of them to include streams without an account for the albums chart; there's so much possible tampering. 

 

And them saying they have a good system to weed out the streams is a lie when Jay-Z literally lied about his streams 2 weeks ago with obvious proof.

[Kassi]

1 minute ago, iHype. said:

Why would the Hot 100 be a revenue chart when it includes airplay? That's kinda your fault for not putting obvious things together. 

 

The HDD article still makes complete sense. It's ridiculous of them to include streams without an account for the albums chart; there's so much possible tampering. 

 

And them saying they have a good system to weed out the streams is a lie when Jay-Z literally lied about his streams 2 weeks ago with undeniable proof.

I mean, is the Hot 200 also a consumption chart? Cause if that's the methodology they've used since 2014, then I don't really see the issue. 

 

I'm a simple guy. I like clean, straightforward definitions and guidelines that everyone can approach at in their own way.  

 

Cause if we're going to split hairs on what's actually "fair", the entire streaming model would have to be re-evaluated for the fact that it's already double dipping when it counts singles towards albums sales. 

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, Sunshine. said:

I mean, is the Hot 200 also a consumption chart? Cause if that's the methodology they've used since 2014, then I don't really see the issue. 

 

I'm a simple guy. I like clean, straightforward definitions and guidelines that everyone can approach at in their own way.  

 

Cause if we're going to split hairs on what's actually "fair", the entire streaming model would have to be re-evaluated for the fact that it's already double dipping when it counts singles towards albums sales. 

Nobody is saying that it isn't the methodology they've been using. We're saying the methodology encourages manipulation and the methodology needs to be changed. 

 

And that's not double dipping. People use streaming to listen to singles, and to listen to albums. Why should it only count for 1? 

 

[Kassi]

5 minutes ago, iHype. said:

Nobody is saying that it isn't the methodology they've been using. We're saying the methodology needs to be changed. 

 

And that's not double dipping. People use streaming to listen to singles, and to listen to albums. Why should it only count for 1? 

 

I don't care either way. Whether the methodology stays or goes, that is. But given Billboard's guidelines, this is hardly "cheating" if the only they're doing is putting the album out to stream from behind a paywall. In practice, it's no different than everyone who listens to songs on YouTube with adblock. 

 

It's double dipping because an album is a unit. We saw that when Work kept Anti afloat on the BB200 chart for much longer than the actual album warranted in either sales or streams to its other tracks. Unless they weigh down big singles like the UK charts, novelty songs will inflate the popularity of album projects that no one is checking for. And, in the process, conflate what is a popular album with what is a popular song. 

[iHype.]

Just now, Sunshine. said:

I don't care either way. Whether the methodology stays or goes, that is. But this is hardly "cheating" if the only they're doing is putting the album out to stream from behind a paywall. In practice, it's no different than everyone who listens to songs on YouTube with adblock. 

 

It's double dipping because an album is a unit. We saw that when Work kept Anti afloat on the BB200 chart for much longer than the actual album warranted in either sales or streams to its other tracks. Unless they weigh down big singles like the UK charts, novelty songs will inflate the popularity of album projects that no one is checking for. And, in the process, conflate what is a popular album with what is a popular song. 

1

I said last night it wasn't cheating.

On 7/26/2017 at 8:42 PM, iHype. said:

It's not cheating since it's allowed now, but it's obviously a loophole and allowing manipulation. 

 

Jay-Z's first week numbers were straight up faked and he didn't even have this tactic, so I can imagine how likely Meek's numbers will be manipulated with them using a clear loophole. 

 

It's not double dipping, because you guys fail to note that also applies with album sales. Work being a huge hit did keep the album's streaming afloat, correct. However Work being a huge hit also drove a good amount of it's sales. If Work completely flopped at #100 and never became a hit, then Anti would've sold a fraction of what it did, as it would've also been streamed a fraction as much.

 

You guys completely overlook that hits drive album sales just as much as they do streams. 

 

[Kassi]

26 minutes ago, iHype. said:

I said last night it wasn't cheating.

Jay-Z's first week numbers were straight up faked and he didn't even have this tactic, so I can imagine how likely Meek's numbers will be manipulated with them using a clear loophole. 

 

It's not double dipping, because you guys fail to note that also applies with album sales. Work being a huge hit did keep the album's streaming afloat, correct. However Work being a huge hit also drove a good amount of it's sales. If Work completely flopped at #100 and never became a hit, then Anti would've sold a fraction of what it did, as it would've also been streamed a fraction as much.

 

You guys completely overlook that hits drive album sales just as much as they do streams. 

 

Okay, I see that. And I agree, it is manipulation. It is, however, clear within bounds. 

 

On the singles: your reasoning still doesn't negate the point on double dipping. In fact, it only accentuates it. Because now the single stream is getting counted for the single charts, the album chart, and it's driving people to buy the album. If the single is going to drive album sales, then that should be it. Let it drive album sales. Counting it again (or a non-proportional amount of times to how much the other album tracks are streamed) is effectively counting the single twice. 

 

Meanwhile, the album is still a unit. And not just the one successful single. 

[GokuRed]

1 hour ago, Sunshine. said:

Have you heard of a little streaming service called YouTube? 

Except YouTube doesn't count for the BB200, just as this free album shouldn't

 

It's different when you NEED AN ACCOUNT to play and when you are IN FRONT OF A PAYWALL. Meek literally can have bots streaming his album - Spotify/etc. don't have that   It's Billboard's mistake, though, for deciding to count ALL free streams even though they don't count albums sold below $3.99/free albums

[sadnews]

well. isn't billboard hot 100 and RIAA count youtube views prior login, no account? that' same issue as this.

there're many grey area in streams right now.

I don't think they shouldn't count this.. but hey.. billboard has been mess for long time.

I guess we have to wait and see his first week stream number. If it's in other rapper numbers, then okay.

 

[iHype.]

40 minutes ago, Sunshine. said:

Okay, I see that. And I agree, it is manipulation. It is, however, clear within bounds. 

 

On the singles: your reasoning still doesn't negate the point on double dipping. In fact, it only accentuates it. Because now the single stream is getting counted for the single charts, the album chart, and it's driving people to buy the album. If the single is going to drive album sales, then that should be it. Let it drive album sales. Counting it again (or a non-proportional amount of times to how much the other album tracks are streamed) is effectively counting the single twice. 

 

Meanwhile, the album is still a unit. And not just the one successful single. 

Weighing down or not including single's streams goes against your previous stance. You yourself said: Billboard 200 is a consumption chart, just that. It shows a clear view of how things were consumed.

 

If an album was streamed 50 million times, it was streamed 50 million times. Weighing certain songs to a different amount, not counting streams for singles, and etc would be a non-clear view of how a project was consumed overall and therefore hindering showing full consumption, correct?

 

[VilsonMuqa]

Can someone shoot Jay-Z in his uglee face so we can stop ending our faves careers for this bs?

[Kassi]

20 minutes ago, iHype. said:

You yourself said: Billboard 200 is a consumption chart, just that. It shows a clear view of how things were consumed.

 

If an album was streamed 50 million times, it was streamed 50 million times. Weighing certain songs to a different amount, not counting streams for singles, and etc would be a non-clear view of how a project was consumed overall and therefore hindering showing full consumption, correct?

 

If a song is streamed 50 million times, the song was streamed 50 million times. NO questions there. 

 

Now, if a song is streamed 50 million times, has the album really been streamed 33,000 times?* 

 

*I know they do it in terms of revenue generated, so like 1500 streams of a song = 1 album.

 

But yeah, I guess that's the equivalence that needs to be work out. Because, in my view, a song is not an album. An album is sold as a unit, in digital and brick retail spaces alike, so it doesn't make sense for 1 song to function as an indicator that people are consuming an album unit. Cause, in that case, the consumption model of the Billboard Album Chart is mostly charging the consumption of a song toward an album, not necessarily quantifying to what degree people are interested in consuming the rest of it.  

 

Taking it to the extreme real quick just to highlight the point, if Work was streamed 1 billion times and the rest of the songs on the album were streamed 0 times...could we then say the album was streamed 700,000 times (that's 1,000,000,000÷1500)? 

[Daddy]

Jay Z is such a shady and horrible person. I need him to go AWAY! 

[iHype.]

1 minute ago, Sunshine. said:

If a song is streamed 50 million times, the song was streamed 50 million times. NO questions there. 

 

Now, if a song is streamed 50 million times, has the album really been streamed 33,000 times?* 

 

*I know they do it in terms of revenue generated, so like 1500 streams of a song = 1 album.

 

But yeah, I guess that's the equivalence that needs to be work out. Because, in my view, a song is not an album. An album is sold as a unit, in digital and brick retail spaces alike, so it doesn't make sense for 1 song to function as an indicator that people are consuming an album unit. Cause, in that case, the consumption model of the Billboard Album Chart is mostly charging the consumption of a song toward an album, not necessarily quantifying to what degree people are interested in consuming the rest of it.  

 

Taking it to extreme real quick just to highlight the point, if Work was streamed 1 billion times and the rest of the songs on the album were streamed 0 times...could we then say the album was streamed 700,000 times (that's 1,000,000,000÷1500)? 

1

The album amassed 1 billion streams. Work is apart of the album.

The ability to stream and buy songs individually killed album sales hard. Why? Because back then lots of people only bought albums for 1-2 songs, not because they were interested in the album. Which is why even Baha Boys, certified one hit wonders, were going multi-platinum. Once again one hit drives album sales as much as it drives an album's streams, which is why it's important to not remove those streams.

This blog post is a good read and perfectly explains why TEA+SEA even of one song should count.

http://chartmasters.org/2017/07/understanding-the-ravaging-impact-of-download-sales-2004-2014/

[Brunette Ambition]

people just don't want to see a black man succeed

[GokuRed]

3 minutes ago, Brunette Ambition said:

people just don't want to see a black man succeed

But 1/4 of us on ATRL are rooting for Tyler (a black man) to debut at #1 and another like two people are hoping for Meek (a black man) to debut at #1

 

Race =/= Tidal ****ery (and I didn't question Jay's, Kanye's etc. #s. This is the first time I've been like wtf @ Tidal)

[Destroun]

[lonnie]

58 minutes ago, Brunette Ambition said:

people just don't want to see a black man succeed

No Jay Z is just a fraud with Tidal.

 

I need Tidal to go away, he can sell it or something.

[Dreajae]

So Meeks album is currently #1 on Apple Music. Jay is #4, Tyler #3 and Lana #6. Meek and Jay's albums are also above Tyler and Lana on itunes. Where HDD's article questioning these artists popularity on the "legit" charts?

[ontherocks]

29 minutes ago, Dreajae said:

So Meeks album is currently #1 on Apple Music. Jay is #4, Tyler #3 and Lana #6. Meek and Jay's albums are also above Tyler and Lana on itunes. Where HDD's article questioning these artists popularity on the "legit" charts?

first of all, Lana is #4 on iTunes now, Jay Z #5 and Meek #7. Aside from that, the tracking week is over. A new one has started. 

[Dreajae]

14 minutes ago, ontherocks said:

first of all, Lana is #4 on iTunes now, Jay Z #5 and Meek #7. Aside from that, the tracking week is over. A new one has started. 

But the way yall put it, Jay and Meek had to get a billion bots to produce roughly the same popularity "Lana Del God's" $3.50 album has.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Dreajae