[alexanderao]

Originally posted by Ger-55

No, stop. I know there's math behind it but they're heavily high, in reality those numbers are not right. Just estimates coming from another random estimates

Regardless of how accurate the audience figures are, tens of millions of people are consuming music through radio every day.

Originally posted by FutureHive

Do u even know wat Soundcloud is or nah

How is that related to what he said?

[Ger-55]

Originally posted by alexanderao

Regardless of how accurate the audience figures are, tens of millions of people are consuming music through radio every day.

How is that related to what he said?

1. Right. That's why I don't think Airplay should be underestimated. Although it needs to weight way less maybe 15-20% of influence because a lot of people hear radio while driving, at home, etc and also it's a huge platform to promote a song.

2. You discover many of those artists there

[ashuduff]

Unbreakable spending its 5th week in the top 40

[iHype.]

Originally posted by Ger-55

No, stop. I know there's math behind it but they're heavily high, in reality those numbers are not right. Just estimates coming from another random estimates

I can understand why radio numbers would look unreasonable, but at the end of the day Nielsen spends thousands of dollars, if not millions, behind research and technology with radio. It's an entire industry. Their numbers are likely closest to what anyone else knows of radio listeners, and are more than just "math behind it" even if you don't think they're realistic.

[Retro]

Originally posted by alexanderao

In my opinion, this is just flat-out wrong.



Hundreds of millions of people tuning in to pop radio every week definitely fits the definition of "consumption."

Additionally, radio is consumer-driven in that radio stations frequently survey their listeners to see what they are liking and are getting tired of at the moment; the results of these surveys are aggregated and become callout scores. As simmn stated, a song's callout scores often correlate with the song's performance on radio. Furthermore, there are popular nationwide radio shows like Saturday Night Online that are extremely consumer-driven.

Radio programmers are the ones choosing the initial playlist of songs for a station, but this playlist is subsequently refined by listeners' reception of its songs. While I agree that airplay is the least consumer-driven metric of the three that count toward the Hot 100, I believe that it is still consumer-driven and that its current level of influence on the Hot 100 is optimal.

Yeah no, clearly the industry definition involves consumers actually taking initiative or the BB200 consumption chart would take radio into account. The only definition appropriate for this situation which gives any credence to the idea of radio listening as "consumption" is a definition by which economic consumption solely refers to the use of the service, rather than the more common connotation of paying for a good or service; this connotation is, for example, what the BB200 uses as its very basis.

To supercede the little Google card you pulled out, I'll offer this:

Consumption can be defined in different ways, but is best described as the final purchase of goods and services by individuals. The purchase of a new pair of shoes, a hamburger at the fast food restaurant or services, like getting your house cleaned, are all examples of consumption. It is also often referred to as consumer spending.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what...on-theory.html

(note the author is an MBA, perhaps more credible than Google)

It's not directly consumer driven, and that should be REALLY obviously the part I take issue with. Any consumer involvement is indirect, mitigated, insubstantial. You don't play those songs. You don't even request them but for about an hour's worth of play in each day. You and every other consumer have, collectively, a minimal effect on radio play, especially in comparison to the labels and the companies that own the stations.

I'll note the extreme disparity between the sales and streaming and the airplay of plenty of notable "hits." I'll also note that attempting to explain callout scores and the general process of how radio playlists are chosen is a little bit insulting when I've kind of been reading up on the charts and forming this opinion since you were, like, eleven.

I remain firm in my position that it's not true consumption, your opinion aside, and that radio should not count for the Hot 100.

I have this argument basically on a monthly basis with iHype, so don't think I'm some idiot who just came in to say this. I've got a pretty good grasp of the concepts and my stance will not change until the format changes (and it won't).

[iHype.]

Originally posted by Chanel.

Clearly the industry definition involves consumers actually taking initiative or the BB200 consumption chart would take radio into account.

Yeah, no. With this same logic, then prove why radio is included in Hot 100 and won't be leaving if they base the definition on taking initiative?

The same way you chose BB200 in favor of your definition, can be the same way H100 is used to disprove it as a definition.

[alexanderao]

Originally posted by Chanel.

Yeah no, clearly the industry definition involves consumers actually taking initiative or the BB200 consumption chart would take radio into account. The only definition appropriate for this situation which gives any credence to the idea of radio listening as "consumption" is a definition by which economic consumption solely refers to the use of the service, rather than the more common connotation of paying for a good or service; this connotation is, for example, what the BB200 uses as its very basis.

To supercede the little Google card you pulled out, I'll offer this:



http://study.com/academy/lesson/what...on-theory.html

(note the author is an MBA, perhaps more credible than Google)

It's not directly consumer driven, and that should be REALLY obviously the part I take issue with. Any consumer involvement is indirect, mitigated, insubstantial. You don't play those songs. You don't even request them but for about an hour's worth of play in each day. You and every other consumer have, collectively, a minimal effect on radio play, especially in comparison to the labels and the companies that own the stations.

I'll note the extreme disparity between the sales and streaming and the airplay of plenty of notable "hits." I'll also note that attempting to explain callout scores and the general process of how radio playlists are chosen is a little bit insulting when I've kind of been reading up on the charts and forming this opinion since you were, like, eleven.

I remain firm in my position that it's not true consumption, your opinion aside, and that radio should not count for the Hot 100.

I have this argument basically on a monthly basis with iHype, so don't think I'm some idiot who just came in to say this. I've got a pretty good grasp of the concepts and my stance will not change until the format changes (and it won't).

Firstly, I apologize if I came across as insulting or as disrespectful of you. All I was trying to do was justify my belief in radio as a valid component of the Hot 100 instead of just shouting "I think you're wrong."

What I took from your post is that you believe that "consumption," as it should be reflected in Billboard's charts, is defined as paying for a song or album with an intent to listen to it. If so, then I'm curious to hear your viewpoint on viral videos' influence on the Hot 100. As we all know, there have been numerous viral videos in the past featuring a song in the background, and that with a lot of these videos most people weren't watching the video to hear the song. Billboard, though, chooses to count the streams of such videos towards that song's streaming; in what way does this scenario differ from listening to the radio with regards to consumption?

In fact, viral video viewers have zero influence over what songs they hear in a video, while radio listeners do have some influence, albeit small compared to the other metrics of popularity. Thus, I don't understand how one can support streams of a viral video with a song in it affecting the Hot 100 if you don't support that song's airplay affecting the chart as well.

Furthermore, I don't see how you can conclude that the definition of "consumption" that you described is the "industry definition" of consumption. If so, then why isn't it used for the Billboard 200 as well? As far as I know, there isn't any internal conflict at Billboard over the definition of the word.

[brianc33616]

Airplay should count for about 20% of the points on the Hot 100. Ideally I'd like for sales and streaming to each count as 40%, or a combined 80% of the Hot 100 formula. However, unless the current trends reverse relating to sales and streaming, any attempt to keep them both at around 40% would be short-lived at best.

[MusicTalker]

I think it will/should become 25% sales, 25% radio, and 50% streaming.

[brianc33616]

Billboard doesn't want any one metric dominating the Hot 100, which is why in the "Golden Era" of digital sales BB cut down on how much the sales would contribute to the chart. BB had a 90%+ Airplay Hot 100 prior to the complete introduction of digital sales into the mix in 2005 (which started in a very minor way in 2004), so I know BB doesn't want any one metric ever being that dominant again on the Hot 100.

[Ger-55]

50% Streaming 35% Sales 15% Airplay

[brianc33616]

Originally posted by Ger-55

50% Streaming 35% Sales 15% Airplay

42.5% Streaming, 42.5% Sales. 15% Airplay

[Tylerbv]

Honestly I'd be okay with 50% sales, 25% airplay and 25% streaming, but streaming is gonna be worth like 60% soon.

[Mattyboy]

Sales should count like they did in 2010-2011 where an artist is guaranteed to debut #1 with ~350-400k sales.

[brianc33616]

Originally posted by Mattyboy

Sales should count like they did in 2010-2011 where an artist is guaranteed to debut #1 with ~350-400k sales.

When sales were at these levels in 2006-2007, Billboard divided the download totals by 5. However, with three main facets factoring into the Hot 100 now, reducing the divisor to 5 is probably too much, I would say BB should reduce the sales divisor to 7.5 or 8 (from 10), increase the airplay divisor to 10,000 (from 8,400), and increase the streaming divisor to 100 (from I think 77.5). These would be fairly minor changes overall. I would honestly prefer to have ODS be divided by 100 and VS by 250 or 300, but I doubt BB will weigh those streams differently.

[simmnfierzig]

Originally posted by dussymob

So you only listen to songs once they become a hit?

I only listen to songs from Artists I don't like who are in genres I'm not a big fan of when they become hits, yes. That's pretty normal I would think.

[simmnfierzig]

Originally posted by Chanel.

rather than the more common connotation of paying for a good or service; this connotation is, for example, what the BB200 uses as its very basis.

Something like 80% of streams that count for both Hot 100 and BB200 are not payed for by the consumer. Video streams are never payed for (and don't count for the BB200,yes) and only a small percentage of on-demand streams is payed for by the consumer.

How is radio differnt in the money aspect from free Spotify? Both models are based on adverts and for such a model to work you need a lot of customers, so clearly the goal of radio stations has to be to get more listeners. Even if we say payola exists they still need listeners, cause why would a label pay to have a song being played on a station nobody listens to.

Originally posted by Chanel.

I'll also note that attempting to explain callout scores and the general process of how radio playlists are chosen is a little bit insulting when I've kind of been reading up on the charts and forming this opinion since you were, like, eleven.

And yet you still think the listeners have no (or little) influence on the playlists
I don't see how that makes any sense, but please explain.

The most general example of how listeners influence radio is still the size of the different genres. Pop radio stations have more average listeners, because more people like what is played on pop radio.
Not that many people like what is played on Rythmic radio so those stations have less listeners.

[umich]

40% streaming
30% sales
20% airplay
10% last.fm

[popmusic]

45% - streaming
35% - sales
20% - airplay

but total points are not sum but geometric mean

for example:
Song A is strong in all components
Sales points: 300
Streaming points: 300
Airplay points: 300

Traditional sum: 900 points
Geometric mean: (300*300*300)^(1/3) = 300 points

Song B has strong streaming component because of viral parody
Sales points: 150
Streaming points: 700
Airplay points: 50

Traditional sum: 900 points
Geometric mean: (50*150*700)^(1/3) = 174 points

Song A > Song B
Multiformat hit always wins

[FanOfPop]

Most Weeks in Top 10 in 2015 So Far

28 Uptown Funk (31 overall)
25 Trap Queen
22 Thinking Out Loud (23 overall)
21 Sugar
19 See You Again & Can't Feel My Face
18 Earned It (Fifty Shades Of Grey) & Shut Up And Dance & Watch Me
16 Cheerleader
15 Love Me Like You Do
14 The Hills
13 Bad Blood
12 Take Me To Church (20 overall) & Blank Space (17 overall) & 679
11 Good For You
10 Lips Are Movin (12 overall) & Lean On & Locked Away & What Do You Mean?
9 I'm Not The Only One (14 overall) & FourFiveSeconds & Style & Want To Want Me & Fight Song
8 Hey Mama & Hotline Bling
7 Jealous (10 overall) & Shake It Off (24 overall) & G.D.F.R. & Wildest Dreams
6 Stitches
5 All About That Bass (25 overall)
4 Time Of Our Lives & Nasty Freestyle & My Way
3 Animals (14 overall) & Honey I'm Good & Where Are U Now
2 Love Me Harder (7 overall) & Centuries & Somebody & Hello & Sorry
1 Lay Me Down & Drag Me Down & Photograph & Perfect & Focus & Like I'm Gonna Lose You

So this makes:
53 weeks for The Weeknd
48 weeks for Taylor Swift
41 weeks for Fetty Wap