Do you like the 20-week rule on the Hot 100?

[trustypepper]

On the Hot 100, songs that have been on the chart for 20+ weeks drop out after falling below #50, unless the song shows performance gains (a rarity). Do you like or dislike this policy? Or do you prefer a system similar to the UK Chart, where songs commonly chart for well over a year despite sitting below #50?



Discuss.

[Deleted]

Yes. It keeps the chart from being too clogged. Now, if they took away the performance gains part of it, my answer would be different.

[Deleted]

Sept 29, 2015 19:00:00 GMT -5 @aaront said:

Yes. It keeps the chart from being too clogged. Now, if they took away the performance gains part of it, my answer would be different.

Had the exact same thought myself.

[H.]

Not at all. Should stay on the chart as long as it is popular.

[divasummer]

I've always thought they should keep songs on the Hot 100 as long as their popular.
In my opinion it should be the most popular 100 songs of the week.

Maybe they should do two different charts.
One with recurrents and the other without????

[Glove Slap]

The question could also read 'Do you care for practicality?'

Nobody should be voting no on this.

[surfy]

Oct 1, 2015 2:39:15 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

The question could also read 'Do you care for practicality?'

Nobody should be voting no on this.

It's an opinion, we can say we don't like it even if you (or Billboard) disagree.

I, personally, don't like the rule because the Hot 100 is supposed to list the top 100 most popular and revenue-generating songs of that certain week, and having this rule just seems to throw that off.

[Glove Slap]

Oct 1, 2015 14:57:06 GMT -5 surfy said:

Oct 1, 2015 2:39:15 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

The question could also read 'Do you care for practicality?'

Nobody should be voting no on this.

It's an opinion, we can say we don't like it even if you (or Billboard) disagree.

I, personally, don't like the rule because the Hot 100 is supposed to list the top 100 most popular and revenue-generating songs of that certain week, and having this rule just seems to throw that off.

Nope, your line of thought is not thought out enough.

The Hot 100 is supposed to show the top 100 revenue generating songs, in relation to each other, and it is meant to be a tool for labels to read the success of their releases in that same relation as well. Having 15-25 old songs on the chart goes against that. Labels strongly benefit from seeing their songs enter various charts. Especially for new acts, it's helpful as they try to grow their presence. Additionally, it's a tool for planning resource management. Songs that have more potential and inching higher are ones that could have possibility to go much further if the opportunity is seized. If there are 20 other old songs on the chart, ones that are not being promoted any longer holding the current single lower or off the chart, there is no real benefit to anyone. The removal of the song by Billboard allows the label to have the opportunity to showcase another release, while still getting residual income from the previous one.

Now if a song is being actively pushed and has charted for more than 20 weeks, that's a different issue, but it is one which is addressed by the exception that allows re-entry if they're gaining on formats.

So yeah, you can have an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right. This tactic is actually one of the most useful steps they've taken, and very useful for such a very large country with multiple internal markets.

[Daryl the Beryl]

This rule is necessary.

It prevents the chart from being too clogged up.

Simple as that.

[neverduplicated]

I like the rule, but it would be nice to see an alternative chart that does include the recurrent songs to see how they compare.

[Libra]

Oct 2, 2015 4:41:39 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

Nope, your line of thought is not thought out enough.

The Hot 100 is supposed to show the top 100 revenue generating songs, in relation to each other, and it is meant to be a tool for labels to read the success of their releases in that same relation as well. Having 15-25 old songs on the chart goes against that. Labels strongly benefit from seeing their songs enter various charts. Especially for new acts, it's helpful as they try to grow their presence. Additionally, it's a tool for planning resource management. Songs that have more potential and inching higher are ones that could have possibility to go much further if the opportunity is seized. If there are 20 other old songs on the chart, ones that are not being promoted any longer holding the current single lower or off the chart, there is no real benefit to anyone. The removal of the song by Billboard allows the label to have the opportunity to showcase another release, while still getting residual income from the previous one.

Now if a song is being actively pushed and has charted for more than 20 weeks, that's a different issue, but it is one which is addressed by the exception that allows re-entry if they're gaining on formats.

So yeah, you can have an opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right. This tactic is actually one of the most useful steps they've taken, and very useful for such a very large country with multiple internal markets.

When Billboard converted to the monitored airplay/piece-count-sales Hot 100 in 1991, the original rule was 20/20. Why they originally set the bar so much higher at #20, I'm not sure - I'd have to do some more digging on that one. But, when they changed to the still-current 50/20 effective the week of April 25, 1992, this was stated in the Hot 100 Singles Spotlight that week:

The rule for records moving to the recurrent chart has been modified. As a compromise between chart purists, who want records to stay on the Hot 100 for as long as they generate airplay and/or sales, and chart progressives, who prefer the Hot 100 to be a current chart, the top half of the Hot 100 is now "pure"--i.e., titles may stay on the top 50 for as long as they have enough points. The bottom half of the Hot 100 is "progressive"--i.e., all titles with 21 weeks or more move to the recurrent chart, as did "Teen Spirit" this week. This compromise allows for more new product to enter the bottom half of the chart, while keeping the top half "pure."

(Sidebar: It was also mentioned that if the entire Hot 100 had been "pure" that week, then there were 10 recurrents big enough that they'd still be showing on the chart rather than the actual 91-100 from that week.)

More-or-less a simplified version of what you've said here, but the larger point - for the rest of us - is that Billboard probably had at least a similar thought process in mind when even imposing the original rule (nevermind that #20 was awfully strange to start with for a 100-position chart, but that's another story).

[ry4n]

No, I prefer an accurate chart. And recurrency creates an inaccurate chart. Sure, songs in the 51-100 range may get more recognition, but they aren't actually charting at that position. A song may peak at #70 instead of #80, but recurrency just makes that new peak false. It wasn't truly the 70th most popular song of that week. I just don't get the logic that the most beneficial thing for the industry is to lie and pretend chart positions are different that what they actually are. I feel like that makes the Hot 100 less credible.

[lyhom]

I voted yes. frankly, most reasons I could give has been better said elsewhere in the thread.

that being said, frankly I find it much more accurate to have a few songs set higher peaks than they "should have" than to have songs that stopped being promoted months ago stay on the chart for even longer for no other reason than the fact that they're still selling a slight bit and "accuracy".

[insen_13]

Should've been extended...

20 weeks within Top 75
or
24 weeks within Top 50