DS Forums

 
 

How does the Billboard Hot 100 work?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-08-2013, 17:29
BRITLAND
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,231

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
BRITLAND is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-08-2013, 17:48
chrisqc
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
chrisqc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 18:10
antero
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.
antero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 18:35
paltonz
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
paltonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 18:46
konebyvax
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...
konebyvax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 18:55
paltonz
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.
paltonz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 21:00
BRITLAND
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?
BRITLAND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 23:26
O.Michel
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.
O.Michel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2013, 23:41
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
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?
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.

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.
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.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 00:50
vauxhall1964
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.
vauxhall1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 02:06
mrkite77
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 5,220
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.
You would have to listen to a song on youtube 37.5 times in order to count the same as 1 sale.
mrkite77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 02:22
Fashion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 4,942
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.
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.
Fashion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 04:45
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
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.
Blurred Lines would still have been #1 all this time. It's got the highest airplay EVER, and it's also looking to become the best-selling digital song of all-time (overtaking I Gotta Feeling at the rate it's selling). Infact, streaming is hurting it if anything. It only got #2 on the Streaming chart, blocked by Miley Cyrus's song.

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.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 08:14
O.Michel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
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.
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.
O.Michel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 20:43
Kodaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
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.
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.
Kodaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 22:58
O.Michel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,000
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.
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. Besides, even if Billboard were more precise to the data of sales and streams and took the time to count people who buy and stream rather than sales and streams themselves, there will still be problems.

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.
O.Michel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2013, 23:07
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
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.
I agree. The inclusion of On-Demand streaming (Spotify, etc.) helped hip hop and alternative artists. The first ever top 5 on the chart was Somebody That I Used to Know, We Are Young, Rack City, Niggas in Paris and Take Care. Then the inclusion of Youtube streaming helped urban stars even more. And even though songs of that genre don't tend to sell much, I do still think they are popular.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 18:57
fkinhell
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.
fkinhell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 19:09
Kodaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
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.
And also because the song doesn't have much value without the visuals (*), being a second-rate knockoff of "Pump Up the Jam" in a language most people can't speak.

(*) 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
Kodaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 19:20
Kodaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
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.
Are you sure about that? It should be easier to process the sales data and spot patterns with computer technology, and online views should be directly accessible. (In addition to which, this thread implies that it was quite common *before* the 80s, when Gallup cracked down on it).

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.
Kodaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 20:18
Honestweegie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,112
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.
Meaning that Blurred Lines was only No.1 cause of the video?
Honestweegie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 20:20
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,167
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.
Aye, but with each company and sub company doing it, it ends up evening out at the top, but making it nigh on impossible for anyone not willing to spend millions on aggressive marketing campaigns to "break through".

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.
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-08-2013, 23:28
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,124
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.
Yeah, exactly. So their formula before they added Youtube was clearly not the best at ranking popularity, if a song as huge as Gangnam Style was getting #1.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:59.