|
||||||||
How does the Billboard Hot 100 work? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
|
How does the Billboard Hot 100 work?
Title says it all, I've heard here its not just based on sales but on AirPlay & other factors?
Can someone confirm with me? I was thinking of starting a topic on the Hot 100 like the French Chart thread |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 397
|
Its very complicated its a mix of
Airplay sales streaming media Us views for you tube video http://www.billboard.com/articles/ne...g-to-platforms |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,155
|
Essentially, it's a hell of a lot harder to get a number one there than here. The song has to be the most bought, listened to and streamed to get the number one most weeks. It's why it's rare to see a song debut at one there while that is the case for most number ones here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,280
|
Link (article): http://www.thembj.org/2013/05/modernizing-the-hot-100/
Link (ATRL): http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?t=346149 Like the earlier responses, the Billboard Hot 100 comprises of sales, airplay and On-Demand/Streaming data. These three are combined into an overall points system for the week. As of 2013, this is how it's done: Sales points: number of sales for the week, divided by 12 Airplay points: The song's audience impressions for the week, which are in millions, divided by 7500 On-Demand/Streaming points: Total streaming and Youtube views for the week, divided by 450 Examples: Harlem Shake (sales) 262000 / 12 = 21,833 (airplay) 2,000,000 / 7,500 = 267 (overall streaming) 103,000,000 / 450 = 228,888 So, 21,833 + 267 + 228,888 = 250,988 total points Thrift Shop (sales) 412,000 / 12 = 34,333 (airplay) 111,000,000 / 7500 = 14,800 (overall streaming) 10,100,000 / 450 = 22,444 So, 34,333 + 14,800 + 22,444 = 71,577 total points |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ignoringtrollsville
Posts: 7,875
|
I've always though the way the Hot100 is calculated is ridiculous and open to fraud/dodgy dealings by the bucket load...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,280
|
I find Hot 100 to be ridiculous for two main reasons:
1. The idea that YouTube view counts can be added to the system opens the idea of teenage fans hitting "refresh" buttons and making a chart into one big joke. Adult contemporary artists could miss out on charting well. 2. For airplay, I was shocked to find out that some songs have a deal between record company and some "airplay company" to build massive AI numbers like steroids for one week, only to decrease heavily the week after. This is obviously to ensure the song can debut highly. If a song was to debut at pole position, based solely on sales (with virtually no help from airplay or streaming), a song would ideally have to sell over 600k for the week. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231
|
Why they take the time to do all the maths for 100+ songs is beyond me, jesus
EDIT: How is the YouTube count fair as above said people will hit refresh & people from outside the US watch like us? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
As a HUGE fan of Billboard (it's the only chart that I find interesting enough to check every week), I'm going to defend it
![]() As far as the YouTube rule goes, it's a fact that labels have found plenty of ways to actually earn money everytime the video plays. Whether it's one teenager refreshing the page 500 times or 500 actual people, it doesn't matter. The label will still get the money. Besides, although to a much lesser extent, the same applies to sales. If a single person is crazy enough to buy 50 copies of a record, the label will get the same amount of money they would get if 50 people bought one copy. And we all know stans often buy multiple copies, so does that mean we should exclude sales from the chart too? Now when it comes to radio deals, I respect the argument about the radio deals, but I have to say that a) these deals can only provide about 30-40 million AI at best and if a song doesn't sell well or isn't streamed enough, that amount of AI doesn't even suffice for a top 40 debut and b) Billboard has taken care of that by changing the cut off date for the airplay data. They track the airplay from Wednesday mornings to Tuesday nights, while they count sales/ stream from Tuesday mornings to Monday nights, so, since most radio deals are either on Mondays or Tuesdays, they barely help the artist at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
Why they take the time to do all the maths for 100+ songs is beyond me, jesus
EDIT: How is the YouTube count fair as above said people will hit refresh & people from outside the US watch like us? But it's probably not too much extra work to calculate a Hot 100 anyway, they just get all the big companies like Nielson, Youtube, Apple, Spotify, etc. to all send them the data each week and they put it in a spreadsheet and combine it all together to estimate the most popular songs. Even if the Hot 100 didn't exist, they'd be getting all that data for their other charts like Hot Digital Songs and the genre airplay charts anyway. Also, Youtube has precautions in place to prevent spamming views, same with other streaming services like Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. That said, combining all this stuff together makes for a very slow moving chart, the top 10 this week is exactly the same as last week. Quote:
1. The idea that YouTube view counts can be added to the system opens the idea of teenage fans hitting "refresh" buttons and making a chart into one big joke. Adult contemporary artists could miss out on charting well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,818
|
The Billboard chart has no credibility...it's simply a cynical piece of fluff for the industry. Only a sales chart has credibility and Billboard hasn't been that ever. The endless changes to its rules over the years means a hit in one decade isn't even comparable with a hit in another. Frequently the most popular song in America is nowhere near what the so-called 'hot 100' is saying. I don't know why anyone pays it any attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 5,220
|
Quote:
1. The idea that YouTube view counts can be added to the system opens the idea of teenage fans hitting "refresh" buttons and making a chart into one big joke. Adult contemporary artists could miss out on charting well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 4,942
|
Quote:
They do the maths for way more than 100 songs! Data for millions of songs are sent to them each week, and the songs with the 100 highest points make the Hot 100 (although it's not quite that, if a song has already been on the chart for 20 or more weeks, and doesn't have enough points to get in the top 50, then it doesn't get included).
But it's probably not too much extra work to calculate a Hot 100 anyway, they just get all the big companies like Nielson, Youtube, Apple, Spotify, etc. to all send them the data each week and they put it in a spreadsheet and combine it all together to estimate the most popular songs. Even if the Hot 100 didn't exist, they'd be getting all that data for their other charts like Hot Digital Songs and the genre airplay charts anyway. Also, Youtube has precautions in place to prevent spamming views, same with other streaming services like Spotify, Rhapsody, etc. That said, combining all this stuff together makes for a very slow moving chart, the top 10 this week is exactly the same as last week. Yeah, since they started adding Youtube, I noticed there's a lot less adult contemporary in the chart now. I was also expecting Youtube to hurt the country songs, but they're actually continuing to do well. But maybe it's more accurate that way? I don't know. There's still other adult contemporary charts though, like the airplay one. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
They've cheapened their own charts counting video views, makes you wonder how songs like 'Blurred Lines' and 'Harlem Shake' would've fared before the rule change.
Harlem Shake wouldn't have got #1 if it was just sales and airplay (although it did get #1 on iTunes, but it's airplay was extremely low, Thrift Shop would've been #1 instead of it). Their old formula wasn't as good at measuring popularity, since Gangnam Style missed #1, when it was obviously more popular than One More Night. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
Quote:
Yeah, since they started adding Youtube, I noticed there's a lot less adult contemporary in the chart now. I was also expecting Youtube to hurt the country songs, but they're actually continuing to do well. But maybe it's more accurate that way? I don't know. There's still other adult contemporary charts though, like the airplay one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
As far as the YouTube rule goes, it's a fact that labels have found plenty of ways to actually earn money everytime the video plays. Whether it's one teenager refreshing the page 500 times or 500 actual people, it doesn't matter. The label will still get the money.
Of course, that was the companies. I'm not sure what would have happened if a rabid fan took it upon themselves to buy lots of vinyl copies in order to "help" their favourite band. (***) Presumably they couldn't punish the band/company for something *they* didn't do, but they would still have to disregard the suspicious sales. And IMHO, that's what they could- and should- do for YouTube views if they don't already, because it's more likely to happen there. Of course, they shouldn't penalise (e.g.) the Lady Ga Ga song because some halfwitted thirteen-year-old in Iowa reloaded it 300 times, but they *can* ignore those clicks, and it should be trivial to spot suspicious patterns. (*) Apparently it happened a lot before this, but they cracked down on it more from the 80s onwards. (**) Even a moderate number of sales could have a significant effect at the lower reaches of the top 40. (***) There's a scene in the Comic Strip's 1988 mockumentary "More Bad News" where the band themselves go into a record shop and buy lots of copies of their own single. Shortly afterwards the record company exec breaks it to them that they've been banned from the charts because apparently "some idiot" went into a shop and bought a massive number of copies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
|
Quote:
Even if it's legitimate to consider the two as being equivalent, the "a sale's a sale regardless" reasoning *didn't* always apply back then. Even in the 80s (*) records could be banned from the charts if a company was caught "hyping" it (i.e. buying up lots of copies (**) with the intent of achieving a better chart placing). This was typically caught via suspicious-looking sales patterns.
Of course, that was the companies. I'm not sure what would have happened if a rabid fan took it upon themselves to buy lots of vinyl copies in order to "help" their favourite band. (***) Presumably they couldn't punish the band/company for something *they* didn't do, but they would still have to disregard the suspicious sales. And IMHO, that's what they could- and should- do for YouTube views if they don't already, because it's more likely to happen there. Of course, they shouldn't penalise (e.g.) the Lady Ga Ga song because some halfwitted thirteen-year-old in Iowa reloaded it 300 times, but they *can* ignore those clicks, and it should be trivial to spot suspicious patterns. (*) Apparently it happened a lot before this, but they cracked down on it more from the 80s onwards. (**) Even a moderate number of sales could have a significant effect at the lower reaches of the top 40. (***) There's a scene in the Comic Strip's 1988 mockumentary "More Bad News" where the band themselves go into a record shop and buy lots of copies of their own single. Shortly afterwards the record company exec breaks it to them that they've been banned from the charts because apparently "some idiot" went into a shop and bought a massive number of copies. ![]() Airplay makes up 40% of Billboard and, except for radio deals, which I find rather harmless, there are still many examples of payola, which means a label pays a group of radio stations to play a certain song. So, no matter what measures Billboard take, the chart will ALWAYS have its flaws and unfair elements. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
On the other hand, the rule change has saved the urban industry. Artists like Kendrick Lamar, J Cole and A$AP Rocky wouldn't be able to chart high without the rule change. Not to mention Ciara's top 30 hit. Every rule change benefits and damages one group of artists. I'm personally glad urban artists are the ones being benefited, because adult contemporary artists get radio support from 3 radio formats and reach out to an audience that actually BUYS records.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: My London Bunker
Posts: 461
|
They weren't supporting YouTube at the time Gangnam Style was around. The reason it didn't get#1 was because it wasn't getting played enough on the radio because the stations can't understand Korean.
The official video for the Harlem Shake only has about 12 million views on YouTube. It was other people's HS videos that helped it debut at #1. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
They weren't supporting YouTube at the time Gangnam Style was around. The reason it didn't get#1 was because it wasn't getting played enough on the radio because the stations can't understand Korean.
(*) To be fair, the lyrics could be witty as heck in Korean, but most people outside Korea don't speak it so "Pump Up the (Unintelligible) Jam" it is |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
You're right about everything you said, but I'd just like to point out that spotting those "suspicious sales patterns" has progressed from difficult to impossible over the years, which is why most examples of banning songs from the chart come from before the 90's.
Perhaps banning fell after the 80s because record companies knew they would get caught, stopped trying and resorted to other techniques instead. Like how record shops (such as Virgin) were able to sell many singles at £1.99 for the CD the first week, and then the next week- once it had entered the chart- it went up to £4. (*) Or the "release multiple versions with different bonus tracks for the fans to buy twice or more", a staple of the CD single era. (*) I understand that this was due to the record companies subsidising it. Also, the "regular" £4 price which seemed ******* expensive even then would be £6.51 in today's money. Yeah, CD singles sucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,112
|
Quote:
They've cheapened their own charts counting video views, makes you wonder how songs like 'Blurred Lines' and 'Harlem Shake' would've fared before the rule change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,167
|
Quote:
I find Hot 100 to be ridiculous for two main reasons:
1. The idea that YouTube view counts can be added to the system opens the idea of teenage fans hitting "refresh" buttons and making a chart into one big joke. Adult contemporary artists could miss out on charting well. 2. For airplay, I was shocked to find out that some songs have a deal between record company and some "airplay company" to build massive AI numbers like steroids for one week, only to decrease heavily the week after. This is obviously to ensure the song can debut highly. If a song was to debut at pole position, based solely on sales (with virtually no help from airplay or streaming), a song would ideally have to sell over 600k for the week. Thanks to the internet though, most charts have lost all use as people are exploring far more than any chart can contain. I would also argue that being "mainstream" can hurt some bands these days, with the way money works and what not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
|
Quote:
They weren't supporting YouTube at the time Gangnam Style was around. The reason it didn't get#1 was because it wasn't getting played enough on the radio because the stations can't understand Korean.
The official video for the Harlem Shake only has about 12 million views on YouTube. It was other people's HS videos that helped it debut at #1. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:59.



Yeah, CD singles sucked.