YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Mar 17, 2015 7:11:46 GMT -5
You're listening to a song not buying it. It's airplay not sales and shouldn't be counted towards a sales chart. I think the approach being taken now with determining popularity is with time spent rather than money. The Billboard 200 is no longer a sales chart just like the Hot 100 stopped being sales years ago. There are valid arguments for and against streaming being counted for the main albums chart but if counting popularity, streaming is a major method in how it's being measured. There's no way around that. But the new methodology is based on money, not time. The 10 download TEA and 1500 stream SEA is based on the revenue generation of those actions. The new methodology simply takes into account what iTunes brought to the industry 15 years ago, which is that the album as a whole and complete body of work is an antiquated method of music consumption. A la carte consumption isn't going away, and streaming is just another method of a la carte consumption.
|
|
Future Captain
4x Platinum Member
hi, i'm the visual representation of untreated mental illnesses
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 4,002
My Charts
|
Post by Future Captain on Mar 17, 2015 7:24:09 GMT -5
This whole discussion is a mess.
|
|
ILLUSION
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
"casually cruel in the name of being honest"
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 5,944
|
Post by ILLUSION on Mar 17, 2015 7:33:18 GMT -5
hitsdailydouble.com/rumor_millCHART MURMUR: MADGE ON TOP 3/16/15 Live Nation/Interscope's Madonna looks set to rule the HITS Building Album Sales Chart this week, while Twentieth Century Fox/Columbia's Empire ST is due to claim the #1 position on the SPS (Sales Plus Streaming) Chart. What about Luke Bryan's newest Spring Break and chart mainstays like Taylor, Sam and Drake? Stay tuned. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Billboard uses SPS so don't expect Madonna to be #1 on Billboard. Oops
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,688
|
Post by Gary on Mar 17, 2015 7:56:20 GMT -5
Nobody does that because there's literally no point ever. That's a horrible argument. I think the approach being taken now with determining popularity is with time spent rather than money. The Billboard 200 is no longer a sales chart just like the Hot 100 stopped being sales years ago. There are valid arguments for and against streaming being counted for the main albums chart but if counting popularity, streaming is a major method in how it's being measured. There's no way around that. When was the Hot 100 only sales??? ……So what we are discovering here is the unemployed with influence the album chart more than anyone since they have more time to just stream all day long! LOL The top 50 of the hot 100 was a sales only chart from 1968 to 1973
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Mar 17, 2015 8:16:48 GMT -5
Nobody does that because there's literally no point ever. That's a horrible argument. I think the approach being taken now with determining popularity is with time spent rather than money. The Billboard 200 is no longer a sales chart just like the Hot 100 stopped being sales years ago. There are valid arguments for and against streaming being counted for the main albums chart but if counting popularity, streaming is a major method in how it's being measured. There's no way around that. When was the Hot 100 only sales??? ……So what we are discovering here is the unemployed with influence the album chart more than anyone since they have more time to just stream all day long! LOL Classist, are we?
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Mar 17, 2015 8:35:32 GMT -5
Nobody does that because there's literally no point ever. That's a horrible argument. I think the approach being taken now with determining popularity is with time spent rather than money. The Billboard 200 is no longer a sales chart just like the Hot 100 stopped being sales years ago. There are valid arguments for and against streaming being counted for the main albums chart but if counting popularity, streaming is a major method in how it's being measured. There's no way around that. When was the Hot 100 only sales??? ……So what we are discovering here is the unemployed with influence the album chart more than anyone since they have more time to just stream all day long! LOL Except for that one person who streams through their computer at work. Because all UnE people have to do all day is stream music. Anyone who takes Billboard and their charts too seriously needs a reality check. Billboard constantly manipulates - think of the H100 and all the songs ineligible to chart (first it was 12" singles), airplay only, Xmas songs, etc. Then the weighting that has changed over the years. The B200 was only 'current' except for the five catalog albums Billboard liked to chart (Dark SIde of the Moon, Tapestry, etc.) Then that rule changed. Then we had 'exclusives' that were ineligible until the sales were too great to ignore, then Michael Jackson died and it changed the chart again. As far as the week's chart - Empire has been one of the hottest entertainment properties this winter (even if it directly lifting stories straight out of that 80s relic Dynasty). With no H100 single, the fact that RH is still in contention speaks volumes about M's enduring popularity. It should be fun to see how it unfolds this afternoon
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 17, 2015 9:04:47 GMT -5
I like the concept of the new chart methodology, but chart records should have started anew with the new set-up. Old peaks are based purely on sales, so to compare those records to this new way of tabulating results is entirely different. It would have been like if they could have known how much we listened to walkmans in the late '80s or something. At least with Soundscan and the pre-Soundscan era the chart was still sales-based (in theory). This is more than sales, though, as it's taking repeatability into account. Mmmm. It's mixing airplay with sales. makes no sense. I can buy an album and never listen to it. Still counts as a sales. If you just listen to something but never buy it, it shouldn't count towards BB200. Airplay isn't as directly consumer-driven as streaming is, though. To me those are a bit different as well. Really, it depends how you define "Billboard 200" and "popularity." I think what people actually listen to defines popularity. Heck, a lot of people don't even purchase music anymore. I love music and haven't bought an album since D'Angelo's release. I've listened to music probably every day in that time, though. Are you telling me I am not part of what's popular because I haven't bought music? In 5 years when the top album only sells 30k a week to adults who avoid technology, do you think that will be reflecting true popularity?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Mar 17, 2015 9:12:56 GMT -5
In 5 years when the top album only sells 30k a week to adults who avoid technology, do you think that will be reflecting true popularity? To be fair, in 2011, Amos Lee had a #1 album and only sold 40k.
|
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,588
|
Post by imbondz on Mar 17, 2015 9:29:41 GMT -5
Mmmm. It's mixing airplay with sales. makes no sense. I can buy an album and never listen to it. Still counts as a sales. If you just listen to something but never buy it, it shouldn't count towards BB200. Airplay isn't as directly consumer-driven as streaming is, though. To me those are a bit different as well. Really, it depends how you define "Billboard 200" and "popularity." I think what people actually listen to defines popularity. Heck, a lot of people don't even purchase music anymore. I love music and haven't bought an album since D'Angelo's release. I've listened to music probably every day in that time, though. Are you telling me I am not part of what's popular because I haven't bought music? In 5 years when the top album only sells 30k a week to adults who avoid technology, do you think that will be reflecting true popularity? I agree. I'm just old school and can't wrap my mind around top Albums in the country not having to do with sales. It'll make more sense the less and less sales become
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Mar 17, 2015 9:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
ss8
Gold Member
Dupe
Joined: August 2013
Posts: 851
|
Post by ss8 on Mar 17, 2015 9:51:50 GMT -5
I disagree. Sales defines how popular an album is. If you don't like an album enough to buy it, then you listening to part of it shouldn't matter. If anything it should decrease it's popularity because you don't like it enough to buy it. So.. if I listen to Tinashe's album 15 times on Spotify, that shouldn't count to any chart? Going to see her live tonight, hence the example.. but buying the album has never come to my mind. No cause u didnt BUY the album..so simple! lol Theres many, many songs I listen to and may not even care for that much (just end up in the background) so it should NOT count lol. It's such a basic simple concept/formula that Billboard etc...royally fked up. In 2007 they weren't originally gonna count The Eagles as the #1 selling album cause it was a Wal-Mart only exclusive then they did the right thing because it was the top SELLING album and as many remembered it denied Britney another #1 album at the last second. I'm totally a pro separate album/streaming sales chart but it should not be the main album chart like it is now (should be the reverse) :#
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Mar 17, 2015 9:57:42 GMT -5
-- Assuming Hits is correct, I feel like this should be a really easy-to-swallow edition of the best-selling album not being the #1 album. This isn't as superficially preposterous as Mark Ronson having a Top 20 album with a sales total you can count on one hand. We're talking about two albums selling a similar amount of copies but one selling a significantly greater number of tracks and/or driving a lot more streams. I can absolutely buy "Empire" as the "bigger" album in that circumstance.
The other interesting thing about all this is that the argumentation seems to go one way. We can rip Empire for relying on TEA & SEA to get ahead, but nobody seems to be ripping Madonna for NOT doing well in those metrics.
-- That all said, it's interesting that many here (including me in this thread) DEFEND the new Billboard system when Billboard itself doesn't truly believe in it. Billboard might refer to 1500 streams or 10 single sales as an 'album equivalent unit,' but it doesn't actually treat either as equivalent to the purchase of an album. If it did, there wouldn't be a need for a "Top Album Sales" chart -- and it would be reporting the Taylor Swift "1989" milestones in terms of Sales+TEA rather than in terms of only Sales.
I know that Billboard is trying to ease people into the model, but there's no denying that it is sending mixed messages right now. You can't get mad at people for not treating TEA and SEA as identical to sales if you, yourself, are not doing so.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,535
|
Post by jenglisbe on Mar 17, 2015 10:43:50 GMT -5
I think the issue with Billboard is trying to equate streaming to a sale. There is no need to do that so directly. In terms of the Hot 100 Billboard doesn't talk about airplay or streams as they relate to sales, so why do it with albums? Maybe treating them as the separate entities they are would help.
To get back to the popularity thing; my issues with a chart being based on sales only is that chart is more so about "new" popularity only. For instance, if I buy an album the day it's released, in terms of a sales-only chart that is my only contribution to its popularity. So, if I love it and listen to it all the time, that is meaningless. If I hate it and never listen to it again, that is also meaningless. So, sales only represent people who want to buy an album in that moment/week. Streaming helps us see what people genuinely like and what they continue to listen to.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,688
|
Post by Gary on Mar 17, 2015 10:58:31 GMT -5
The streaming and track sales standards are based on revenue. How many streams will bring in revenue EQUIVALENT to an the average cost of an album. How many tracks bring in the EQUIVALENT to an average cost of an album. In other words this isn't some thing that Billboard just pulled out of a hat.
The Top Album Sales chart is still relevant because that measures sales only. Taylor Swifts accomplishments are relevant because we are comparing current sales accomplishments to past sales accomplishments
As we move along we will have more data from SEA and TEA to compare to
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Mar 17, 2015 11:07:14 GMT -5
The streaming and track sales standards are based on revenue. How many streams will bring in revenue EQUIVALENT to an the average cost of an album. How many tracks bring in the EQUIVALENT to an average cost of an album. In other words this isn't some thing that Billboard just pulled out of a hat. The Top Album Sales chart is still relevant because that measures sales only. Taylor Swifts accomplishments are relevenat because we are comparing current sales accomplishments to past sales accomplishments As we move along we will have more data from SEA and TEA to compare to The TEA and SEA calculations were derived from revenue. You're absolutely right that they were not "pulled out of a hat." But that's not really relevant to this discussion. The Billboard 200 is a unit-based chart, not a revenue-based chart. As far as Billboard is concerned, an album purchase at $5.99 = an album purchase at $13.99. And an album purchase at $5.99 counts for MORE than $9 worth of single sales revenue. Revenue tells us why it's 10 single sales = 1 album sale and not 27 single sales = 1 album sale. It doesn't have any further, day-to-day impact on the Billboard 200 chart. As for the Taylor Swift one, you just did a better job than I did of exposing the issue with Billboard's approach. You're saying that you can't compare the Album Equivalent Unit total for "1989" to the sales totals of "Fearless," "Speak Now," etc. Yet Billboard conflates and compares chart achievements on the current Billboard 200 with achievements on the previous, sales-only Billboard 200. No, it doesn't compare them numerically, but it compares them positionally. And I thus don't think you can fault people for taking issue with that.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,688
|
Post by Gary on Mar 17, 2015 11:18:22 GMT -5
Not taking a posotion on whether people are right or wrong with their opinion.
The Billboard 200 is now technically based on revenue.
The chart is derived from AVERAGES. So although yes, saying a 5.99 album = a 13.99 album is wrong, at the end of the day they are saying, the average cost of an album is 9.99. Streaming is derived from revenue and tracks are dereived from revenue as compared to average revenue brought in from 1 album sale. These are then converted to units for publication.
What Billboard writes or doesn't write is done I think to draw in readers, not because of one reason or another,
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Mar 17, 2015 11:51:10 GMT -5
Stolen from Facebook:
It's like when Gore had the most votes but Bush became president
|
|
badrobot
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,350
|
Post by badrobot on Mar 17, 2015 12:06:54 GMT -5
As a Madonna fan who really likes her new album, I still think the new system is a better one, even if it means Madonna loses the top spot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 12:12:06 GMT -5
Stolen from Facebook: It's like when Gore had the most votes but Bush became president That's hilarious!
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
🗣 NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Mar 17, 2015 12:13:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Black Bird on Mar 17, 2015 12:59:31 GMT -5
In this new system, veteran artists will suffer the most, that's for sure. Barbra Streisand, for example, will not have many #1's albums from now on, if any.
|
|
|
Post by cause_for_celebration on Mar 17, 2015 13:12:37 GMT -5
As a Madonna fan who really likes her new album, I still think the new system is a better one, even if it means Madonna loses the top spot. Same here!
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Mar 17, 2015 13:17:07 GMT -5
If an act is No. 1 on Top Album Sales, but not on the BB 200, Billboard should regard it as a No. 1 album, albeit with an asterisk. That goes for any act who manages to score this feat. Just as Michael Jackson should be credited with seven No. 1 albums, given that Number Ones as the top-selling album for a few weeks in 2009.
The albums chart has always been driven by one component, unlike the Hot 100. And, note that there's no chart showing what the Hot 100 would look like without streaming/TEA- but there is for albums.
Older acts releasing new material are hindered because they do not sell tracks like their younger counterparts, nor do they get streamed as much. Unless an act does a gimmicky duets album, re-recording their old hits, or whatever, which is appealing to consumers, as we've seen, this new system is not fair to the acts who've been around for decades.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,688
|
Post by Gary on Mar 17, 2015 13:23:09 GMT -5
If an act is No. 1 on Top Album Sales, but not on the BB 200, Billboard should regard it as a No. 1 album, albeit with an asterisk. That goes for any act who manages to score this feat. Just as Michael Jackson should be credited with seven No. 1 albums, given that Number Ones as the top-selling album for a few weeks in 2009. The albums chart has always been driven by one component, unlike the Hot 100. And, note that there's no chart showing what the Hot 100 would look like without streaming/TEA- but there is for albums. Older acts releasing new material are hindered because they do not sell tracks like their younger counterparts, nor do they get streamed as much. Unless an act does a gimmicky duets album, re-recording their old hits, or whatever, which is appealing to consumers, as we've seen, this new system is not fair to the acts who've been around for decades. 5 years ago or 10 years ago, I agree with everything you just said. The biggest selling album in the country should be the most popular and crowned #1. However, 5 or 10 years ago, the only way to listen to an album was to buy it yourself or to borrow it from someone who paid for it (via in person or perhaps file sharing sites). Now you can listen to it without buying it. So we have introduced a popularity measurement that did not exist before and I no longer agree personally that the Top Album Sales #1 is the "most popular"
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Mar 17, 2015 13:41:00 GMT -5
^That is true- it may not necessarily be "the most popular." But, it hasn't just been in the last five years that people have been able to listen to albums without buying them. There's just no denying that TEA and streaming hinders older acts- that's the key point. That's also true on the Hot 100, but the albums chart was an outlet where the older acts at least had a much better shot at reaching No. 1.
|
|
jjose712
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 4,372
|
Post by jjose712 on Mar 17, 2015 13:48:38 GMT -5
Sorry, but i don't agree. The new system is a simple invention of labels that want their hottest new artist on top of the chart.
Mark Ronson is a perfect example, the album is not selling at all, but it has a monster hit so the album ends always high on the chart. Sorry, the album is not popular, it's UF the one that it's popular.
Single's chart is one thing, because the measure of popularity came from different points, and i'm not sold on youtube, one think is the official video or lyrics video counting for the chart, and other absurd viral videos making a song that nobody cares end being a top 10 hit, but in albums sales it's what it matters
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Mar 17, 2015 14:18:33 GMT -5
Sorry, but i don't agree. The new system is a simple invention of labels that want their hottest new artist on top of the chart. Mark Ronson is a perfect example, the album is not selling at all, but it has a monster hit so the album ends always high on the chart. Sorry, the album is not popular, it's UF the one that it's popular. Single's chart is one thing, because the measure of popularity came from different points, and i'm not sold on youtube, one think is the official video or lyrics video counting for the chart, and other absurd viral videos making a song that nobody cares end being a top 10 hit, but in albums sales it's what it matters Labels have been using TEA/SEA for years, billboard is the one playing catch up by switching their chart methodology to be in line with what the industry looks at. It's important to remember that Billboard is first and foremost a trade magazine. It's not geared to the average music fan that wants to track the stats of their fave. In recent years, they've shifted more towards a consumer focus because they need page views on Billboard.com but they are still writing and producing charts for the industry, not for the consumer.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,688
|
Post by Gary on Mar 17, 2015 14:27:26 GMT -5
Yes the TEA/SEA thing has been around a while. It is only just recently into the main chart.
Hardly anyone noticed or cared when Now 53 debuted at #2 not too long ago as the best selling album of the week.
I understand why it is an issue now though.
To me though, it makes the chart more interesting
|
|
Carlitoz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 2,691
|
Post by Carlitoz on Mar 17, 2015 14:27:52 GMT -5
Madonna 116,472 vs. Empire 107,140
Now how much can streaming change these numbers?
|
|
Safado
2x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 2,803
|
Post by Safado on Mar 17, 2015 14:29:30 GMT -5
So with a 100% Madonna is on top, so everything has been factored in??
|
|