WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on Dec 9, 2014 18:46:50 GMT -5
So how did Now 52 get 9% of its units from TEA/SEA? All of those songs are available individually on their respective parent albums. Pitbull's "Fireball" hadn't been released on a Pitbull album yet; that album will debut on the upcoming chart. Not sure if Becky G has an album out either or some of the not-as-big hits tacked on at the end. So I guess it benefited from whatever few tracks hadn't been released on the individual artists' albums yet.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Aug 28, 2015 18:52:17 GMT -5
LOL at the HITS' shade: hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=297455Conspicuous “Consumption”We’re just gonna say it: Consumption charts suck. When you combine albums, singles and streams using mysterious conversion formulas, you tend to create meaningless numbers. Right now, with album sales declining, you can get a slightly higher consumption number by adding in singles and streams. So they take you from 83k to 87k equivalent-something on a title—so what? Apart from jerking everyone off by creating an artificially higher “total,” it’s not very informative. Let’s see a chart that separates sales and streams, so we can really see how things are changing. One thing that will become apparent is that, by and large, hits are hits, regardless of how they’re consumed. But where there are disparities—as we’ve seen with the huge streaming numbers achieved by certain hip hop titles—let’s look at them in isolation, so we can make apples-to-apples comparisons. Speaking of which, as Apple gets its first influx of subscription payments, we will know a lot more about where the streaming market is headed. But clearly this is the future of the business, and it is already significant to say, “I have a top-streaming record.” As album sales continue to fall away, it will be increasingly important to look at streams on their own, without any other noise factored in. We love streaming. We think that as consumers really begin to explore what’s possible in an all-you-can-eat, streaming subscription model, they’ll start to feel like kids in a candy store, just as we do. That makes us excited about the future. Now let’s give ourselves the tools to be ready for that future. And let’s take a proper look at how, and how fast, that future is evolving.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
Post by felipe on Aug 28, 2015 19:42:29 GMT -5
I don't really get the way streams and song downloads were incorporated to the Billboard 200. What's the point of adding 5 or 10k to a title? If the intention is to really represent music consumption, should the weigh for streams be so low? The current numbers make it seem like music consumption decreased greatly in the past decade, as if less people listen to music right now, and we know that couldn't be further from the truth. You either represent that, or keep it a straight-up sales chart.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Aug 28, 2015 19:46:46 GMT -5
SoundScan has the consumption chart for years before Billboard adapted it.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
Post by felipe on Aug 28, 2015 20:48:42 GMT -5
SoundScan has the consumption chart for years before Billboard adapted it. And it follows the same formula as Billboard's, therefore creating only slightly higher numbers than the sales-only chart?
|
|
kml567
Gold Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 972
|
Post by kml567 on Aug 28, 2015 22:35:34 GMT -5
I don't really get the way streams and song downloads were incorporated to the Billboard 200. What's the point of adding 5 or 10k to a title? If the intention is to really represent music consumption, should the weigh for streams be so low? The current numbers make it seem like music consumption decreased greatly in the past decade, as if less people listen to music right now, and we know that couldn't be further from the truth. You either represent that, or keep it a straight-up sales chart. Basically 1 album = 10 dollars = 1500 streams. Since artists earn very little money from streaming, I agree with Billboard's formula that 1500 streams = 1 album. It's interesting that Dr. Dre's "Compton" had 25 million streams (one of the highest ever in one week), but that translates to only 16.7k album sales. That just shows you how little money artists are making from streaming if 25 million streams earns about the same amount of money as selling only 16.7k copies of an album.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
Post by felipe on Aug 28, 2015 23:02:26 GMT -5
I get your point, but then Billboard's formula would be more of a money-making chart than of a consumption chart. It's just a matter of what it's supposed to represent.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Aug 28, 2015 23:29:18 GMT -5
Buried in Hits Daily Double's awkward rant is a valid recommendation. If we have the Top Album Sales subchart, there's no good reason for not having subcharts ranking albums based on Track Sales and Streams. We, after all, have subcharts for each of the major Hot 100 components (Digital, Radio, Streaming).
There would definitely be value in that as well. Right now, we're getting a very limited window into how albums are performing from track sales and streaming sales standpoints.
- That said, the Hits rant is hypocritical when you consider the fact that they regularly discuss albums in terms of a combined pure sales + TEA figure. Their quarterly marketshare reports, in fact, only post the sales + TEA figure; they don't segment based on traditional album sales and track sales.
Moreover, if consumption charts suck, why does Hits Daily Double use one? Its SPS mirrors the Billboard 200 format; what is stopping Hits from posting its own Track Sales and Top Album Streams charts?
|
|
|
Post by Daryl the Beryl on Aug 29, 2015 0:45:26 GMT -5
New rule sucked 8 months ago, still sucks now.
|
|