The Billboard Hot 100 formula is a controversial topic due to it not being a sales-only chart. Incorporating airplay and particularly streaming have never been particularly approved of but assuming the Hot 100's aim (to be a popularity chart as opposed to a sales chart) is not inherently incorrect, do we think the Hot 100 succeeds?

 

This week we had the first significant "streaming hit" since 'Harlem Shake', when Soko débuted at #9 with virtually no airplay or sales to speak of. There were a lot of complaints when 'Harlem Shake' became a monster hit but does streaming still play too big a role? And what of airplay?

Personally I'm liking the balance right now and I'm actually not against the significance streaming currently has. My own personal problem with the chart is how the streaming segment of the chart is implemented. The Soko thing really should not be on the chart, considering it's just background music for an entirely unrelated thing. You may as well count Miranda Sings' cover of 'Starships' for the chart - in fact, that'd probably have more merit. It may be true that people are hearing the song but the Hot 100 hasn't yet declared itself a chart of which songs are currently the most well-known and I don't think the Soko thing can truly be called "popular".

 

Otherwise however, I'm ok with it. It's been a while since we had the awful "static top 9" run and streaming (or at least on-demand) streaming is imo a really logical measure of popularity (certainly more so than airplay ever was) so I'm glad it's a part of the chart now.

 

If it wasn't for Soko, the highest new entry would have ended up being at #48.

 

At least these viral campaigns get people talking about the Hot 100, although when Miley went back to #1 because of that parody, that was just wrong IMO (I have nothing against Miley).

 

But for the most part, it's ok.

 

If streaming ever denies someone #1 who really deserved it, I guarantee Billboard will tweak the formula :lol:

 

 

 

Something else that some here have had to remind others many times over (but it bears repeating once more), is that Harlem Shake reached #1 on the back of thousands of videos uploaded by people featuring the same clip from the song. In one sitting one might have watched five or six (or more) different videos featuring the song which cranked up the view counts and chart points. Also I think I remember hearing that 30 seconds is the minimum length a song must be played to count and the Harlem Shake videos clocked in at something like 0:31 (or did I make this up?). Either way it was an incredibly unusual occurrence and I think we could see YEARS pass before another song reaches #1 on the strength of streaming/Youtube alone. The fact that Harlem Shake's debut coincided to the WEEK with the rollout of the new chart rules only added to the strangeness of it all.

The fact that Harlem Shake's debut coincided to the WEEK with the rollout of the new chart rules only added to the strangeness of it all.

 

I can almost guarantee you this was not a coincidence.

 

I have always thought (and will always continue to think) airplay has literally no role in 'popularity' and the way that YouTube streaming is affecting the chart is making it even worse recently. A lot of people hearing a song does NOT make it 'popular'. It just makes it well-known. What makes a song popular is if people hear it *and like it*. Sales reflect this and streaming of the actual song (not a viral video that features a song) reflect this. These are the only 2 factors that should be in the Hot 100.

Isn't people streaming a song for reasons other than to hear it an exception to the rule, though?

I can almost guarantee you this was not a coincidence.

 

Perhaps you know more than me but I would be astonished if Billboard could have come up with the plan and implemented it (which means tracking youtube video counts, which must be complicated if not labor intensive) within the handful of days between those videos taking off the the issue release. What we heard was that the change was in response to Gangnam Style's failure to reach #1 back in 2012.

 

I have always thought (and will always continue to think) airplay has literally no role in 'popularity' and the way that YouTube streaming is affecting the chart is making it even worse recently. A lot of people hearing a song does NOT make it 'popular'. It just makes it well-known. What makes a song popular is if people hear it *and like it*. Sales reflect this and streaming of the actual song (not a viral video that features a song) reflect this. These are the only 2 factors that should be in the Hot 100.

 

I pretty much agree. But as I said earlier this week in another thread, I'm much less offended by the inclusion of youtube streaming than many on this forum because at least it's a step closer to representing actual popularity than radio airplay. So Soko got to #9 this week, who cares? I am so much more offended by Maroon 5 clocking 9 DREADFUL weeks with "One More Night" in 2012 because radio would not stop f***ing playing that f***ing song even weeks after sales dropped off a cliff.

 

'One More Night' was definitely one of the biggest failures the Hot 100 has had in recent years in terms of measuring popularity. I swear that song was still top 10 when it wasn't even top 50 on iTunes. I'm glad we haven't really had a radio-based #1 since then.

I've never liked the airplay element. The chart has never reflected popularity only sales can do that because USA radio is controlled and formatted by the same powers that ddecide what the public needs to hear rather than what they want to hear.

 

Mega corporations love to have control over product. I say if they can't persuade buyers to buy tough! Sales are high we don't need elements adding to slow charts down and reduce New entrees-

'One More Night' was definitely one of the biggest failures the Hot 100 has had in recent years in terms of measuring popularity. I swear that song was still top 10 when it wasn't even top 50 on iTunes. I'm glad we haven't really had a radio-based #1 since then.

 

Fully agreed. Wikipedia claims it sold 4 million copies but I can't find it in the RIAA site and I consider this claim dubious. Even if it did, compare it to 2012's other long-running #1s and it's not even close (Call Me Maybe and Somebody That I Used to Know sold well over 7 million and We Are Young sold nearly that much).

Fully agreed. Wikipedia claims it sold 4 million copies but I can't find it in the RIAA site and I consider this claim dubious. Even if it did, compare it to 2012's other long-running #1s and it's not even close (Call Me Maybe and Somebody That I Used to Know sold well over 7 million and We Are Young sold nearly that much).

 

It crossed 4 million a year ago

 

I remember I was in the US on a family holiday at the time it was still huge on radio. It became a joke for us when we were travelling around because we couldn't escape the damn song no matter how many times we switched radio stations!

Apparently all four of the songs featured in Lady Gaga's new video can benefit separately from the video's streaming as they're all over 30 seconds long :blink:.

I've never liked the airplay element. The chart has never reflected popularity only sales can do that because USA radio is controlled and formatted by the same powers that ddecide what the public needs to hear rather than what they want to hear.

 

Mega corporations love to have control over product. I say if they can't persuade buyers to buy tough! Sales are high we don't need elements adding to slow charts down and reduce New entrees-

The only thing I will say about the airplay element is that I think it's overstated how much the industry controls it. Sure, illegal payola has been a thing in the past, legal payola is a thing in the present (on a small scale for major artists) and the radio decide what they want to play *but* the public opinion of a song is the single most important factor on what they play so it's not like the public has no power in that area. Compare Katy Perry's 'Roar' to 'Unconditionally' - there's a reason the latter performed so poorly on radio in comparison to the former despite being a very radio friendly song.

 

Plus radio helps songs on formats that don't tend to sell much digitally, particularly urban. Kelly Rowland's 'Motivation' was a hugely popular song but it sold very little for a song as popular as it was. It was thanks to its huge popularity on urban radio that the Hot 100 recognised its popularity. Stuff like that makes the airplay component of the chart a bit more valid than some give it credit for, in my opinion.

The only thing I will say about the airplay element is that I think it's overstated how much the industry controls it. Sure, illegal payola has been a thing in the past, legal payola is a thing in the present (on a small scale for major artists) and the radio decide what they want to play *but* the public opinion of a song is the single most important factor on what they play so it's not like the public has no power in that area. Compare Katy Perry's 'Roar' to 'Unconditionally' - there's a reason the latter performed so poorly on radio in comparison to the former despite being a very radio friendly song.

 

Plus radio helps songs on formats that don't tend to sell much digitally, particularly urban. Kelly Rowland's 'Motivation' was a hugely popular song but it sold very little for a song as popular as it was. It was thanks to its huge popularity on urban radio that the Hot 100 recognised its popularity. Stuff like that makes the airplay component of the chart a bit more valid than some give it credit for, in my opinion.

 

I take your points and true, the public has the power to get radio to drop unpopular tracks, but since advertising rules US radio also takes few chances and it has a herd-mentality doing it's best to avoid listeners tuning off rather than trying to convince them to tune in. This has often tended to make the Hot 100 more bland and dull than the UK charts. Payola I don't think is too important, it's more spotting which companies own which radio stations or have links. The US media has lots of vested interests with fingers in various pies.

 

I have no problem with airplay charts at all, or streaming charts, but they just aren't as interesting or exciting as sales charts to me. In the UK if radio audience were allowed to influence the sales chart Radio 2 would have enormous power, which in my opinion would make the chart more varied, but much less accurate because Radio 2 listeners are more likely to buy albums rather than singles.

The US charts have always had a huge element of injustice in them, especially since they never relied on sales only, first it was airplay included, now audio streaming and video streaming, which are making the charts more about buzz than about music....

The charts should only include paid data, whether it's sales or paid streaming, free streaming should in no way be included since people are only listening to a song or viewing a video because it's been heavily advertised by internet giants like Spotify and YouTube... this method really harms indie music and new artists in their quest for mainstream success...

That's why I think the recent addition of free Streaming especially YouTube streaming have harmed the BB Charts credibility since we now have songs entering the top 10 just because they were featured in a viral video not because people willingly wanted to listen to a song... what next?? artists reaching number 1 by including their songs in porn videos??

these rules should be revised, otherwise, the US charts will no longer reflect people's music taste and that's what charts should be all about...

In reference to the earlier discussion about Youtube being added the same week Harlem Shake blew up, I agree that it wasn't a coincidence.

 

I think Billboard had been planning to add Youtube for a while before then (probably largely because of One More Night blocking Gangnam Style), and a strong thing that supports this was the creation of the "Streaming Songs" chart. That chart was created a few weeks before Harlem Shake blew up. At first I was a bit perplexed at the chart, since it was almost identical to the On-Demand chart, but after Youtube got added it became clear to me that they started up the chart to accommodate for the future inclusion of Youtube. I imagine they probably weren't intending to add it to the formula so soon, but after Harlem Shake happened they rushed and added it earlier than intended.

 

To answer the original question, they're never going to be able to get a perfect formula, but I think it's okay as it is. Youtube honestly provides the most interest in the chart now. In the UK we're spoilt a bit in terms of "random" new entries and old songs re-entering, but the US really didn't have any of that before Youtube.

In reference to the earlier discussion about Youtube being added the same week Harlem Shake blew up, I agree that it wasn't a coincidence.

 

I think Billboard had been planning to add Youtube for a while before then (probably largely because of One More Night blocking Gangnam Style), and a strong thing that supports this was the creation of the "Streaming Songs" chart. That chart was created a few weeks before Harlem Shake blew up. At first I was a bit perplexed at the chart, since it was almost identical to the On-Demand chart, but after Youtube got added it became clear to me that they started up the chart to accommodate for the future inclusion of Youtube. I imagine they probably weren't intending to add it to the formula so soon, but after Harlem Shake happened they rushed and added it earlier than intended.

 

To answer the original question, they're never going to be able to get a perfect formula, but I think it's okay as it is. Youtube honestly provides the most interest in the chart now. In the UK we're spoilt a bit in terms of "random" new entries and old songs re-entering, but the US really didn't have any of that before Youtube.

At the time I thought the inclusion of streaming on the perfect week for it was very suspect, as Billboard have history of changing chart rules just when they're going to affect something major (see Britney's Blackout being denied #1 due to some weird rule about disqualifying certain album sales being reversed on the exact week she was heading to #1) but you are probably right, something like this takes some time to work out anyway so I'm not sure they would have been able to set it up so quickly.

Another example: the rule that allowed Whitney Houston to re-enter the Hot 100 after her death was also announced the very week that it happened. I'm sure it was planned some time after Michael Jackson's death but not implemented until it really made a difference to do so, similar to what happened to "Harlem Shake" a year later.

 

I like the Hot 100 not as a popularity chart but as a sales/airplay chart. The weight of each component has changed, and so has the technology, but for the most part Pharrell is #1 with the same 'formula' that put Ace of Base at #1 20 years ago, The Beatles at #1 50 years ago, etc. In fact the original formula included a third component of 'jukebox plays', which you could argue was the closest equivalent to streaming at the time! Removing airplay from the formula might make a better representation of popularity, but it also ruins that historical aspect where it's really not the same chart anymore. Not that there's any chance of that happening anyway. In any case, I would like to see a separate chart of just sales and streaming...Billboard already has about 100 charts so they might as well!

 

 

Apparently all four of the songs featured in Lady Gaga's new video can benefit separately from the video's streaming as they're all over 30 seconds long :blink:.

Didn't Billboard deny this?

Didn't Billboard deny this?

 

Surely that'd be fair though? "ARTPOP" has 2 minutes, "Venus" 1.5 minutes, "G.U.Y." in full and "MANiCURE" in full.