ry4n
7x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 7,201
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by ry4n on Nov 13, 2015 14:22:07 GMT -5
What if Adele breaks the record with SPS, but comes up short on pure album sales? That would be a mess.
|
|
jjose712
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 4,372
|
Post by jjose712 on Nov 13, 2015 14:27:02 GMT -5
Are the 2-2.5M guesses for Adele based on pure sales, or with TEA too? I would not be surprised if her pure album sales don't break the NSync record, but when TEA is included, she surges past. Which would make that a very asterisk-heavy record. HITS only does pure album sales estimates. They said they are over SPS and want Billboard to go back to album sales only. And i agree with them. One thing is using streaming to rate the popularity of a song and other very different is with albums. An album is not more popular because it has an smash hit on it (like Mark Ronson prove it). The new rule only benefit big artist promoted by labels. I know the numbers on pure charts are embarrasing compared to not so long ago (with a few exceptions) but i still think sales are the measure of the popularity of an album
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Nov 13, 2015 14:28:17 GMT -5
Why would it be a mess? She is guaranteed a record for sales + SPS anyway. You are only measuring against the other albums where this was tracked. In N Sync's day there was no measurement of this.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,880
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Nov 13, 2015 14:50:48 GMT -5
As the sales/TEA/streaming mumbo jumbo started in December 2014, of course Adele's album will have the highest total in that regard- goes without saying. The more important achievement will be the pure sales total, which is threatening to be one of the highest weekly sums since 1991.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,465
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 13, 2015 14:54:54 GMT -5
Rihanna has no hope to compete with Adele or Coldplay so they may as well do the tidal exclusive and then downplay however low sales are and pretend they don't care. Then regroup and come with a proper album this time next year
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Nov 13, 2015 15:01:30 GMT -5
As the sales/TEA/streaming mumbo jumbo started in December 2014, of course Adele's album will have the highest total in that regard- goes without saying. The more important achievement will be the pure sales total, which is threatening to be one of the highest weekly sums since 1991. Since it was being said, I thought I would point that out.-LOL
Sales + SPS will give a nice big number to look at that could very well be above the 2.4 million mark but as we are saying - not comparable
With Adele though, anything is possible. '25' will probably get the sales-only record anyway and this whole discussion of what if sales < 2.4M but sales+SPS > 2.4M would be moot.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,880
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Nov 13, 2015 16:10:14 GMT -5
^It's possible- at the least, it's looking like she will enjoy the biggest 1991-on debut for a female album.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Nov 13, 2015 16:19:59 GMT -5
And if Adele doesn't break 'N Sync's record, that will not be disappointing.
It's 2015. "25" is going to kick ass.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,509
|
Post by jenglisbe on Nov 13, 2015 18:30:56 GMT -5
HITS only does pure album sales estimates. They said they are over SPS and want Billboard to go back to album sales only. And i agree with them. One thing is using streaming to rate the popularity of a song and other very different is with albums. An album is not more popular because it has an smash hit on it (like Mark Ronson prove it). The new rule only benefit big artist promoted by labels. I know the numbers on pure charts are embarrasing compared to not so long ago (with a few exceptions) but i still think sales are the measure of the popularity of an album But how is using streaming of 1 song to help an album's position any different from people buying an album for 1 song? There are plenty of albums that sold millions of copies due to 1 hit (see Joan Osborne, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc). How is this any different? I really don't get HITS or anyone here trying to downplay streaming and take it out of the equation. In general album sales are dead. How can anyone see them as a pure measure of current popularity?
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,509
|
Post by jenglisbe on Nov 13, 2015 18:35:54 GMT -5
br- pure album sales would be the only comparison against past albums sales. Using other numbers would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. Except that album sales in general are way below any level we've seen since Soundscan came around (if not before), so it's not really fair to compare album sales now to past sales figures. To that end, there is no pure method of comparison.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Nov 13, 2015 18:41:24 GMT -5
And i agree with them. One thing is using streaming to rate the popularity of a song and other very different is with albums. An album is not more popular because it has an smash hit on it (like Mark Ronson prove it). The new rule only benefit big artist promoted by labels. I know the numbers on pure charts are embarrasing compared to not so long ago (with a few exceptions) but i still think sales are the measure of the popularity of an album But how is using streaming of 1 song to help an album's position any different from people buying an album for 1 song? There are plenty of albums that sold millions of copies due to 1 hit (see Joan Osborne, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc). How is this any different? I really don't get HITS or anyone here trying to downplay streaming and take it out of the equation. In general album sales are dead. How can anyone see them as a pure measure of current popularity? Because when you buy the album, you get all of the songs. You may only listen to that one song, but you still purchased the entire thing and own everything from it. Streaming? You play that one song. That's it. The others are there, but you ignore them. That's definitely not the same thing. There just doesn't seem like a realistic way to track streaming of an entire album. The only possible way that makes sense is to use the lowest streamed track. Using streaming to inflate "sales" of an album in order to make the album chart seem perkier does nothing for the music industry. We can already see individual streams for tracks, and it shows us which tracks are popular. It does not do the same for albums.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,509
|
Post by jenglisbe on Nov 13, 2015 18:47:43 GMT -5
But how is using streaming of 1 song to help an album's position any different from people buying an album for 1 song? There are plenty of albums that sold millions of copies due to 1 hit (see Joan Osborne, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc). How is this any different? I really don't get HITS or anyone here trying to downplay streaming and take it out of the equation. In general album sales are dead. How can anyone see them as a pure measure of current popularity? Because when you buy the album, you get all of the songs. You may only listen to that one song, but you still purchased the entire thing and own everything from it. Streaming? You play that one song. That's it. The others are there, but you ignore them. That's definitely not the same thing. There just doesn't seem like a realistic way to track streaming of an entire album. The only possible way that makes sense is to use the lowest streamed track. Using streaming to inflate "sales" of an album in order to make the album chart seem perkier does nothing for the music industry. We can already see individual streams for tracks, and it shows us which tracks are popular. It does not do the same for albums. But do you think pure album sales (i.e. sales only) are a true reflection of popularity at this point?
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Nov 13, 2015 18:48:56 GMT -5
Because when you buy the album, you get all of the songs. You may only listen to that one song, but you still purchased the entire thing and own everything from it. Streaming? You play that one song. That's it. The others are there, but you ignore them. That's definitely not the same thing. There just doesn't seem like a realistic way to track streaming of an entire album. The only possible way that makes sense is to use the lowest streamed track. Using streaming to inflate "sales" of an album in order to make the album chart seem perkier does nothing for the music industry. We can already see individual streams for tracks, and it shows us which tracks are popular. It does not do the same for albums. But do you think pure album sales (i.e. sales only) are a true reflection of popularity at this point? Albums aren't popular anymore, so yes.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,509
|
Post by jenglisbe on Nov 13, 2015 18:51:06 GMT -5
But do you think pure album sales (i.e. sales only) are a true reflection of popularity at this point? Albums aren't popular anymore, so yes. I don't follow your logic there. If they aren't popular anymore, how are they a reflection of popularity?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Nov 13, 2015 18:58:44 GMT -5
br- pure album sales would be the only comparison against past albums sales. Using other numbers would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. Album sales in 2015 compared to album sales in 2001 is hardly an apples to apples comparison either.
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Nov 13, 2015 18:59:34 GMT -5
Albums aren't popular anymore, so yes. I don't follow your logic there. If they aren't popular anymore, how are they a reflection of popularity? Exactly that. They don't because albums aren't a major component in the music industry anymore. Albums have essentially become playlists of an artist's songs that people can then purchase/play their favorite tracks while ignoring the ones they don't like. There is zero connection with the album as a whole, and the album chart should reflect the popularity of the album as a whole, not the individual tracks the album contains. The only true connection with the album as a whole is purchasing it or listening to the entire thing. We can only track one of those things with absolute certainty. The other we cannot. I would love for streaming to count towards the album chart in a way that makes sense. The way it is done right now is not that. Unfortunately, I don't really have an answer for the best way to do that other than what I mentioned before.
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Nov 13, 2015 19:46:22 GMT -5
br- pure album sales would be the only comparison against past albums sales. Using other numbers would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. Album sales in 2015 compared to album sales in 2001 is hardly an apples to apples comparison either. I remember a lot of NSA's sales were multiples to same people (one for car, one for home, etc.) - CD burning was just getting started. Also, BBB was not available as a single (like several major hits at the time). Streaming is a different way to consume albums, etc. I used to buy CD physical then digital - now I can't imagine buying a copy except for a very few artists. The vehicles may be different, but people continue to consume music in signifcant ways.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,880
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Nov 13, 2015 20:29:58 GMT -5
Tell acts like Taylor Swift and Adele that album sales are not popular anymore. :) Yes, they are exceptions, but, their performance shows that when people feel compelled to, they buy an album- in the first week and beyond.
Au$tin- true. And it's not even streaming that's making the BB 200 wonky at times, but rather TEA. I maintain that Billboard simply added TEA to the mix to plump up figures on that particular chart.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Nov 14, 2015 0:51:25 GMT -5
Wow, that is so exciting! Who would have thought that a giant A-List artist (Drake) would release an album on January 6?!?! A year or two ago, no major artist was dropping an album in the typical dumpzone for movies/music/tv. Now we have surprise albums coming all over the place. Very exciting time for music again.
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,011
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Nov 14, 2015 1:42:41 GMT -5
I read that the preorder was almost 500k. If so, then 2 million is very very possible.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Nov 19, 2015 22:49:29 GMT -5
hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=298624Thursday, November 19, 2015 THE RIHANNA ROLLOUT IS ONWith a $25m Samsung partnership in place it's time to tease us a little, and few are more masterful at it than Rihanna, who kicked off her ANTI campaign today by launching the website ANTIdiaRY. This is a mobile push, so accessing the website via your laptop is possible, but the welcome page immediately asks you to hit the website via your smartphone. Once you sign up, a message reading "You'll know when it's time" appears. But that's for iPhone users. Those with a Samsung device get to see a short (albeit rad) teaser video. Once fans sign up for the ANTIdiary — which will officially launch this Sunday, 11/22 at 8 p.m. EST, right at the start of the American Music Awards—they'll get exclusive access and information about her eagerly "anti"-cipated release. This all aligns with what our insiders tell is is the album arriving on Black Friday, 11/27 and available exclusively on TIDAL for a week before hitting stores and other digital retailers on Dec. 4.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,465
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2015 0:24:20 GMT -5
So did they actually settle on what to do with the $25 million deal? Coupons for the album or what?
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,583
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 20, 2015 2:56:47 GMT -5
Tidal exclusive will be a mess, no matter what, there's no way she'll make this album successful compared her past ones with that strategy.
Her own brand is a different story, but that's not what charts are about.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Nov 20, 2015 5:52:22 GMT -5
As the sales/TEA/streaming mumbo jumbo started in December 2014, of course Adele's album will have the highest total in that regard- goes without saying. The more important achievement will be the pure sales total, which is threatening to be one of the highest weekly sums since 1991. Were there higher weekly sums before 1991?
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Nov 20, 2015 5:58:02 GMT -5
But do you think pure album sales (i.e. sales only) are a true reflection of popularity at this point? Albums aren't popular anymore, so yes. But when you have a lot of people streaming or purchasing separately basically just every track off Bieber's or 1D's album, so can that not be a measure of the album's popularity? Those people are also consuming the album.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,465
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2015 7:07:46 GMT -5
She's going to be lucky to debut top 20 with a tidal exclusive. I honestly think part of making it exclusive for a week is so they can basically retcon it and act like it never happened, then come back with a real album next year that will be a "surprise"
|
|
bccole
New Member
Joined: August 2015
Posts: 57
|
Post by bccole on Nov 23, 2015 8:03:26 GMT -5
According to a tweet I got from Silvio last week, Billboard plans to change all of the genre album charts to SPS sometime in 2016. So SPS is here to stay, and Hits Daily Double either will or won't do their own thing.
Besides, Billboard is bigger than HDD, so why should anyone expect BB to be bossed around by a smaller website that already admits they hate BB. HDD saying what they want BB to do and expecting that to happen would be like Irving, TX saying it's now the power in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, so Dallas better listen or it'll be in trouble with Irving's Mom lol. Giving in to the wants of a smaller competitor would be a stupid and ridiculous move for BB to make.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,465
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 23, 2015 9:01:38 GMT -5
But how is using streaming of 1 song to help an album's position any different from people buying an album for 1 song? There are plenty of albums that sold millions of copies due to 1 hit (see Joan Osborne, Eagle Eye Cherry, etc). How is this any different? I really don't get HITS or anyone here trying to downplay streaming and take it out of the equation. In general album sales are dead. How can anyone see them as a pure measure of current popularity? Because when you buy the album, you get all of the songs. You may only listen to that one song, but you still purchased the entire thing and own everything from it. Streaming? You play that one song. That's it. The others are there, but you ignore them. That's definitely not the same thing. There just doesn't seem like a realistic way to track streaming of an entire album. The only possible way that makes sense is to use the lowest streamed track. The way the UK charts weight streaming for albums is better than how BB does IMO. They take the top 2 songs from an album and weight them down to the number of streams of the 3rd most streamed song. So say an artist with a huge single is getting 30 million streams of that one song, but the rest of the album is only getting 1 million streams for all of the other songs combined, instead of getting a 20k unit "sales" boost, it would be getting like a 1k unit sales boost
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 23, 2015 12:14:36 GMT -5
According to a tweet I got from Silvio last week, Billboard plans to change all of the genre album charts to SPS sometime in 2016. So SPS is here to stay, and Hits Daily Double either will or won't do their own thing. Besides, Billboard is bigger than HDD, so why should anyone expect BB to be bossed around by a smaller website that already admits they hate BB. HDD saying what they want BB to do and expecting that to happen would be like Irving, TX saying it's now the power in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex, so Dallas better listen or it'll be in trouble with Irving's Mom lol. Giving in to the wants of a smaller competitor would be a stupid and ridiculous move for BB to make. As I've mentioned before, Hits' stance annoys me for two reasons. A) The "album sales" figures they regularly report tend to actually be Pure Album Sales + Track Sales. If they're okay incorporating TEA, I don't understand why they're so averse to SEA. B) They still have a "sales plus streaming" chart, so they're not actually combating the consumption movement. And, your broader point is correct. Hits' reporting style is tantamount to a blowjob to label executives/power players. They identify all artists by their label. They write stories crediting management (rather than the artists) for success (in a way beyond that done by any other industry trade). That buys them a lot of respect + a lot of scoops (their sales data seems to be coming from a label/labels). But at the end of the day, it's a fairly small website and publication pretty much only known by chart junkies and music business people who like the blowjob treatment. Someone like a Scott Borchetta or Charlie Walk may re-Tweet a Hits Daily Double article, but labels throw parties, take out ads, launch press releases, and make multi-million dollar decisions based on what Billboard says. Moreover, I was always under the impression that "consumption" is a label-driven thing. Just as TV networks are starting to get mad at ratings websites for focusing on live+same-day ratings (since they feel Tweets + On-Demand + DVR + Streams are big indicators), labels were upset at publications for focusing only on (declining) album sales, especially as it relates to star artists who are still amassing a lot of consumption through track sales and streams.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Nov 23, 2015 12:18:31 GMT -5
What if Adele breaks the record with SPS, but comes up short on pure album sales? That would be a mess. Doesn't look like that will be an issue
|
|