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

[Willy.]

53 minutes ago, alexanderao said:

The funny thing is that Meek Mill is not even affiliated with TIDAL. He wasn't part of the group of artists that went to that ridiculous launch event and he never did exclusives with them. He's essentially taking advantage of them to get a #1.

 

This is unacceptable behavior and there should be clear and severe repercussions. I agree that TIDAL streams shouldn't count for Nielsen anymore.

Meek's management is Roc Nation. 

[Samson]

ppl trying to defend this

[Artemisia]

4 minutes ago, iHype. said:

The only two artists to benefit from this so far: DJ Khaled, managed by Jay-Z. Meek Mill, friend of Jay-Z.

 

If this was a label thing, then it's really ironic the label is only doing it for Jay-Z's circle.

But no money is being paid out. Why would a label agree to that unless they wanted it to happen? You can't stream an album for free without the label's (the party that owns the album) consent. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Artemisia

[Blue Rose]

2 minutes ago, infrared said:

Just because it's not "illegal" doesn't mean it's shady and distasteful. I can't wait when Billboard stops the mess. 

Welcome to life  

But it's definitely not fair because it's giving Meek an advantage Lana doesn't have. Then again, some stores don't sell certain albums and some radio stations use payola to play certain songs and not others. 

If you think about it, the playing field is never even. 

People are only mad because Tidal is using this to built up their name. 

[Dark Poet]

5 minutes ago, RightAsRain said:

I do think tidal should be investigated. But you guys do the absolute most with tidal. What about Apple? Are they completely transparent? Also free streams?  Lol you mean like spotify and YouTube both of which impact the charts as well? Doing the absolute most.

Youtube is not counted for BB200, and on Spotify you have to pay or either listen to ads. 

 

On Tidal, in this case, you listen to album for FREE (no ads, not even registration is needed), and it's counted as SALE. By this logic, Youtube should be counted for BB200, and charts would be mess then. 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Dark Poet

[JCON]

Shawn The Scammer

[Blue Rose]

2 minutes ago, Artemisia said:

But no money is being paid out. Why would a label agree to that unless they wanted it to happen? You can't stream an album for free without the label's (the party that owns the album) consent. 

He absolutely has no idea. It's ok for him to dislike this practice but he's been reaching for a minute now 

 

[iHype.]

Just now, Artemisia said:

But no money is being paid out. Why would a label agree to that unless they wanted it to happen? You can't stream an album for free without the label's consent. 

 

Yeah a label has to agree to it, but whether the label, the artists, or anyone else is behind it the scheme shouldn't count either way if no money is being generated and it's completely free for everyone involved.

[Kassi]

10 minutes ago, iHype. said:

If HDD is posting articles calling it out and even Billboard staff wants the streams removed, then clearly it's implied they're free goods for both sides. You are serving TIDAL themself with these loopholes you're going through hun.

Gurl, HDD isn't infallible. Neither is Billboard. Like wasn't there a whole ordeal where Kworb washed them after they ****ed up Lana's chart numbers at one point? dd

 

Anyway, I'm only wary of their inexact information because they've had an anti-Tidal lean from the beginning. So if they're going to come, they better come correct, with specific and verifiable language. Hell, they can't even spell the album's name right. "No revenue" could mean a plethora of things and that's my ONLY issue. That's not "hoops", that's 1 valid question.  

 

I'll say it again: What is Meek getting out of this? 

 

Dats it. That's the only thing I want to know before I decide if Tidal is really jumping off a cliff with this one or if they're doing a limited free tier to draw in users like Spotify does on a wide commercial scale. 

[infrared]

Just now, Superpower said:

Welcome to life  

But it's definitely not fair because it's giving Meek an advantage Lana doesn't have. Then again, some stores don't sell certain albums and some radio stations use payola to play certain songs and not others. 

If you think about it, the playing field is never even. 

People are only mad because Tidal is using this to built up their name. 

You're right. I overlooked this. Music industry has always been tricks and schemes. Album sales were on of those things that were supposed to be untouchable, but over the years (and with BMG sales), it's been watered down by gimmicks. 

 

Back in the 90's Mariah inflated her weeks on BB Hot 100 by releasing songs WEEKS after they had been on radio 

 

It's just wrong to see artists getting cheated from their #1. 

[Artemisia]

Just now, iHype. said:

Yeah a label has to agree to it, but whether the label, the artists, or anyone else is behind it the scheme shouldn't count either way if no money is being generated and it's completely free for everyone involved.

I absolutely agree these shouldn't be counted if indeed no revenue is being generated. I think we're on the same page - I'm just hypothesizing how this came about. 

[Saeju]

49 minutes ago, Kim Kardashian said:

It's not ad-supported though like YT and Spotify streams.

It goes against Billboard rules.

But even Spotify's web player is free AND has no ads (if there are ads then they're very rare).

Edited July 27, 2017 by Saeju

[elemonated]

Apple isn't innocent themselves. There were articles about them giving Drake added streams. Spotify is the only one that makes their streams public knowledge and I applaud them for that.

[Kassi]

That said, I find it hard to believe that Meek was uncompensenated. 

 

So we're gonna need proof of that. 

[iHype.]

Just now, Sunshine. said:

Gurl, HDD isn't infallible. Neither is Billboard. Like wasn't there a whole ordeal where Kworb washed them after they ****ed up Lana's chart numbers at one point? dd

 

Anyway, I'm only wary of their inexact information because they've had an anti-Tidal lean from the beginning. So if they're going to come, they better come correct, with specific and verifiable language. "No revenue" could mean a plethora of things and that's my ONLY issue. That's not "hoops", that's 1 valid question.  

 

I'll say it again: What is Meek getting out of this? 

 

Dats it. That's the only thing I want to know before I decide if they're really jumping off a cliff with this one or if they're doing a limited free tier to draw in users like Spotify does on a wide commercial scale. 

3

If HDD/Billboard were openly accusing them of not paying for the streams and they wrong, TIDAL would respond. 

 

If they literally said the streams are not being counted in the pay wall, how would he be earning money from the streams?  

[Nutitle]

Ban it!

 

[Holiest Dreams]

People defending this 

[Artemisia]

A label might be willing to sacrifice a bit of revenue if it gets them the bragging rights of a #1 album. 

 

But Tidal shouldn't be compliant in that strategy which basically amounts to cheating. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Artemisia

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, Artemisia said:

I absolutely agree these shouldn't be counted if indeed no revenue is being generated. I think we're on the same page - I'm just hypothesizing how this came about. 

 

Probably just them realizing there was a loophole to get #1. The only times it's been done:

 

DJ Khaled in a battle for #1 with Imagine Dragons by less than 5K

Meek in a battle for #1 with Lana by less than 5K. 

 

They haven't done it any other situations, so it's obvious it's just to get #1's. Further initiative for a rule to be created.

[Kassi]

5 minutes ago, iHype. said:

If HDD/Billboard were openly accusing them of not paying for the streams and they wrong, TIDAL would respond. 

 

If they literally said the streams are not being counted in the pay wall, how would he be earning money from the streams?  

Tidal doesn't respond to anything nowadays. Like when Lemonade dropped and people were saying one thing or the next about its 1st week streams. Same with Anti sales, and Pablo streams. That's not a valid rebuttal. 

 

The same way Spotify free tier streams are subsidized from another revenue source. The artist gets their lunch always and it's up to the streaming company to make up that loss on their end (hence why Spotify has yet to break a profit). It's not really a great business model, but that's the price of hosting the music. Same with Tidal. It may not be the most financially beneficial to them to pay Meek to use his music for promo, but it's the price of hosting the music.  

[Yassin512]

Why are people defending this mess still?  I mean how can someone be this delusional?

The whole thing screams conflict of interest from the moment that live stream charade happened  

This is the same service that reported that Kanye had 250m streams in 10 days ffs.

[Blue Rose]

currently streaming Lana on Tidal and Meek

on Apple Music #RebeAgainstTheSystem 

 

[phreshprince]

Only the gays on this site would care lol

[Kassi]

Anyway, its getting circular. The only thing that matter here is if Meek was paid for his music by Tidal.

 

And until we have that answer, this article is one giant nothingburger. Pure speculation and I can't rule either way. 

[Energy]

43 minutes ago, stronger23 said:

Who gives a **** . This doesn't benefit me either way . I still gotta do my 8 hour shift tonight .

Bitch, me.  Like anyways.