Do you think the Hot 100 is more accurate than ever?

[trustypepper]

In recent years, the addition of digital sales and streaming into the formula for the Hot 100 have made the chart quite different than it used to be.

Here's the question:
Do you think the Hot 100 accurately measures the most popular songs in the country better than it ever has before? Or do you think it was more accurate in the past? Curious to hear some opinions.

[bat1990]

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

[HolidayGuy]

At any given time, it's been as accurate as it could be, given what tools were at its disposal.

It's more fair now, if you will, given that there aren't any restrictions to keep a title off the chart (even if a track isn't available for streaming, like an Adele track, sales could still propel it- and in the case of "When We Were Young," airplay).

In a good portion of the 1990s, the requirement of a commercial single certainly didn't make the Hot 100 as accurate as it could be.

[Deleted]

Aside from what happened in the 90s, I always felt the charts were as accurate as they could be, given what era they were in.

[redrooster]

For the most part, I think it is currently the most accurate it has ever been. My only complaint is that viral songs shouldn't even be allowed on the Hot 100 unless they are able to cross over to other mediums.

Feb 10, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

They can't do that. Ultimately, all music is driven by radio.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

I agree, I think there should be a threshold for streaming that it will only count for the Hot 100 if other metrics are at a certain level. Let them chart on streaming songs, but if you literally have 99.9% of your chart points coming from a viral Youtube video, I dont see why you should be considered one of the most "popular songs". The video itself is what was popular, not the music in it. And if the music in it was a draw, then it would at least be getting some sales

I think the ratios in the formula need some adjustment, but there's always a growing period when a new format enters the arena. I think airplay should be minimized, since its the least accurate metric of the chart at this point. We have exact figures from Soundscan for digital sales and from the streaming services for streams, but radio AI is still just an estimation based the ratings for time of day and geographic reach of a radio station.

[Au$tin]

Feb 10, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

I don't agree with this. The Hot 100 is supposed to show industry workers which songs are performing the best in the country. Airplay is without a doubt a factor in that. The Hot 100 is not a conglomerate personal chart of the entire country. It indirectly showcases that, sure, but just because "Pillowtalk" is the number one song in the country right now does not mean it's the most beloved song in the country right now.

[redrooster]

Feb 10, 2016 16:16:50 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

I agree, I think there should be a threshold for streaming that it will only count for the Hot 100 if other metrics are at a certain level. Let them chart on streaming songs, but if you literally have 99.9% of your chart points coming from a viral Youtube video, I dont see why you should be considered one of the most "popular songs". The video itself is what was popular, not the music in it. And if the music in it was a draw, then it would at least be getting some sales

Here is what I would do.
A song should have to be able to make the Hot 100 based on its airplay and sales in order for any points garnered from Youtube to be allowed to count. This would keep purely viral songs like Gentleman, Chinese Food and Ew! off the Hot 100. It would not, however, have stopped Gangnam Style, Harlem Shake or The Fox because Gangnam Style was popular on all mediums and the other two made the digital songs top 10.
Only a song's official music video, official audio video and official lyric video should count when determining points from YouTube. This would keep songs from making the Hot 100 because a video (or several videos) of people dancing to the song or a commercial that used the song went viral. With this rule, We Might Be Dead by Tomorrow would never have made the Hot 100, Livin' On a Prayer and Only Time would not have randomly re-entered really high on the chart before falling off the following week, Wrecking Ball wouldn't have rebounded to #1 nine weeks after it initially fell from that position, and Harlem Shake wouldn't have charted as high. Before any says it, this would not be ruining the chances of any song that got its start from a commercial. They would still be allowed to chart, the song itself would actually have to become popular (think We Are Young, Renegades) for that to happen tho.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 10, 2016 12:42:03 GMT -5 redrooster said:

For the most part, I think it is currently the most accurate it has ever been. My only complaint is that viral songs shouldn't even be allowed on the Hot 100 unless they are able to cross over to other mediums.

Feb 10, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

They can't do that. Ultimately, all music is driven by radio.

This doesn't make sense to me. You're discounting viral songs but urge emphasis on radio airplay. So, one measure is completely user driven and the other is only partially user driven. How does it make sense to let radio programmers dictate a song's popularity while audience usability not, even though the point of the Hot 100 as a whole is to measure audience interaction with individual songs on a weekly basis?

I think I understand the opposition to viral songs charting and I completely disagree with it. Reasons used include 'people watch the video for the video, not the song.' Ok. But they still hear the song, which is the exact same reason why radio airplay counts toward the chart, because people hear the song. When I listen to the radio and hear Uptown Funk for the billionth time, chances are, that isn't by choice. If I'm unable to change the station for whatever reason, my ears hearing that song still contribute, even in the smallest possible amount, to its placement on the chart through its radio airplay. That wasn't my choice but it happened. If I watch a viral video that happens to use Uptown Funk in a super clever way and I watch the whole video and hear the whole/most of the song, I've chosen to have my ears hear that song by association. Yes, I probably watched the video to see rather than to hear, but with a lot of these viral videos, the song plays a huge part in the video and therefore should be counted.

Feb 10, 2016 20:16:11 GMT -5 redrooster said:

Here is what I would do.
A song should have to be able to make the Hot 100 based on its airplay and sales in order for any points garnered from Youtube to be allowed to count. This would keep purely viral songs like Gentleman, Chinese Food and Ew! off the Hot 100. It would not, however, have stopped Gangnam Style, Harlem Shake or The Fox because Gangnam Style was popular on all mediums and the other two made the digital songs top 10.
Only a song's official music video, official audio video and official lyric video should count when determining points from YouTube. This would keep songs from making the Hot 100 because a video (or several videos) of people dancing to the song or a commercial that used the song went viral. With this rule, We Might Be Dead by Tomorrow would never have made the Hot 100, Livin' On a Prayer and Only Time would not have randomly re-entered really high on the chart before falling off the following week, Wrecking Ball wouldn't have rebounded to #1 nine weeks after it initially fell from that position, and Harlem Shake wouldn't have charted as high. Before any says it, this would not be ruining the chances of any song that got its start from a commercial. They would still be allowed to chart, the song itself would actually have to become popular (think We Are Young, Renegades) for that to happen tho.

Apparently, I REALLY disagree with you on the Hot 100 as I'm replying to another post here:

Counting only official music videos, lyric videos and audio videos from YouTube and other sources puts too much power in the label's hands. That's how the Hot 100 became so useless in the 90s. The labels dictate how songs were heard and limited them to push album sales. It already happens now that songs don't show on YouTube and any sign of them get removed already. That's the label's doing and they hurt the song's chances of doing well on the Hot 100 - but limiting a song's potential also limit's a song popularity so it's a fair representation. But when you have songs that aren't 'official' that get tons of views for some random reason, that's a spike in popularity that likely isn't a result of anything to do with a label. So, what you're suggesting, a song's popularity shouldn't count if it isn't endorsed by a label? That doesn't make much sense to me. If there's a new sudden craze for some reason, whether it lasts 7 months or a single week, that craze should still be reflected on the chart that determines the most well-known songs for that measured one-week period. If it doesn't, on the basis that it's not "official", the chart is no longer reflecting what it's supposed to. If I hear a song via a video from youtube, whether it's official or not isn't going to change how the song sounds. Whether I intentionally seek out a song or I look for a video that happens to use that song doesn't change the fact that I'm still hearing that song.

[redrooster]

Feb 10, 2016 20:33:30 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

This doesn't make sense to me. You're discounting viral songs but urge emphasis on radio airplay. So, one measure is completely user driven and the other is only partially user driven. How does it make sense to let radio programmers dictate a song's popularity while audience usability not, even though the point of the Hot 100 as a whole is to measure audience interaction with individual songs on a weekly basis?

Radio doesn't create hits, they play hits. Just because radio doesn't allow you to listen to whatever you want, whenever you want doesn't mean it's not user driven. When the radio plays Uptown Funk 100 times a day it's because most people who listen to radio WANT to hear Uptown Funk. You may not, but others do. Radio stations have to get this right or they lose a lot of money. It's why they can't just play Friday by Rebecca Black all day because everyone would just change the channel.

Feb 10, 2016 20:33:30 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Counting only official music videos, lyric videos and audio videos from YouTube and other sources puts too much power in the label's hands. That's how the Hot 100 became so useless in the 90s. The labels dictate how songs were heard and limited them to push album sales. It already happens now that songs don't show on YouTube and any sign of them get removed already. That's the label's doing and they hurt the song's chances of doing well on the Hot 100 - but limiting a song's potential also limit's a song popularity so it's a fair representation. But when you have songs that aren't 'official' that get tons of views for some random reason, that's a spike in popularity that likely isn't a result of anything to do with a label. So, what you're suggesting, a song's popularity shouldn't count if it isn't endorsed by a label? That doesn't make much sense to me. If there's a new sudden craze for some reason, whether it lasts 7 months or a single week, that craze should still be reflected on the chart that determines the most well-known songs for that measured one-week period. If it doesn't, on the basis that it's not "official", the chart is no longer reflecting what it's supposed to. If I hear a song via a video from youtube, whether it's official or not isn't going to change how the song sounds. Whether I intentionally seek out a song or I look for a video that happens to use that song doesn't change the fact that I'm still hearing that song.

What I'm saying is that 30-second videos of people dancing to a song or a commercial that uses part of a song shouldn't count towards the Hot 100. People are there for the video, not the song. And the Hot 100 is supposed to reflect which SONGS are currently popular. Like, in the 5 weeks that Harlem Shake was at #1 if you were to ask 1,000 people "What is the most popular song in the country right now?" Probably far more people would answer "Thrift Shop" than "Harlem Shake."

[bat1990]

Feb 10, 2016 12:42:03 GMT -5 redrooster said:

Feb 10, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

They can't do that. Ultimately, all music is driven by radio.

Feb 10, 2016 17:05:17 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Feb 10, 2016 8:23:26 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

I'm saying yes, but I think it could be even more accurate by reducing or removing airplay.

I don't agree with this. The Hot 100 is supposed to show industry workers which songs are performing the best in the country. Airplay is without a doubt a factor in that. The Hot 100 is not a conglomerate personal chart of the entire country. It indirectly showcases that, sure, but just because "Pillowtalk" is the number one song in the country right now does not mean it's the most beloved song in the country right now.

Radio is a great promotional tool BUT speaking for International Singles Charts, the US and Canada are the only two countries that factor airplay directly into the singles chart. All other countries do sales and streaming with a separate airplay chart to show what is big on radio at that moment. So if 20+ countries in Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific haven't needed airplay in the official national charts, I don't see why we need to keep it with the advent of streaming.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 10, 2016 21:34:36 GMT -5 redrooster said:

Radio doesn't create hits, they play hits. Just because radio doesn't allow you to listen to whatever you want, whenever you want doesn't mean it's not user driven. When the radio plays Uptown Funk 100 times a day it's because most people who listen to radio WANT to hear Uptown Funk. You may not, but others do. Radio stations have to get this right or they lose a lot of money. It's why they can't just play Friday by Rebecca Black all day because everyone would just change the channel.

Radio's job isn't so much to play songs that people want to hear as it is to not play songs people don't want to hear. That's why Friday didn't get played. I'm sure there were people who would have legitimately jammed to Friday if radio played it but being the polarizing song it was, radio would never play it. That's why radio doesn't take chances on songs as much because it's too risky to play a song that might lose listeners, hence why familiarity is such a big thing. People find comfort in the familiar. I might not want to hear Uptown Funk but if it came on the radio, I'm not as likely to change the station and that's what they bank on. In that respect, it's user driven but it's still not particularly active.

Feb 10, 2016 21:34:36 GMT -5 redrooster said:

What I'm saying is that 30-second videos of people dancing to a song or a commercial that uses part of a song shouldn't count towards the Hot 100. People are there for the video, not the song. And the Hot 100 is supposed to reflect which SONGS are currently popular. Like, in the 5 weeks that Harlem Shake was at #1 if you were to ask 1,000 people "What is the most popular song in the country right now?" Probably far more people would answer "Thrift Shop" than "Harlem Shake."

The Harlem Shake example is a tricky one because of the 30-second thing and that is definitely up for debate. But, if you were to ask that question to people, most might not have considered Harlem Shake a legit answer because they might not have been aware that it was an actual song - though it did make it to iTunes for a bit if I remember correctly.

The thing about getting input in the way you mention is that it's tough to evaluate one week's worth of songs while also excluding every week before that when asking for public input. If I were to ask people right now whether Pillowtalk or Sorry was the most popular song of the week, I bet most people would say Sorry, because most people wouldn't distinguish between weeks the way Billboard does. When Harlem Shake was going viral, the actual song played a pivotal role in the whole thing. The videos didn't make sense without the song. Also, being the type of song it was, it's unlikely most people would listen to it beyond the context of the video. The same might apply to something like My Heart Will Go On these days. I'm sure few people care to hear that song in its entirety anywhere except within the context of Titanic. Just because people aren't actively listening to the song on its own, doesn't mean the song ceases to exist as an actual song. For a brief period, Harlem Shake was the most popular piece of music in America. 5 weeks definitely was a bit much since the meme died down after maybe 2 or so. I think Billboard readjusted the formula since then anyway.

[ml7673]

Feb 10, 2016 20:33:30 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Feb 10, 2016 12:42:03 GMT -5 redrooster said:

For the most part, I think it is currently the most accurate it has ever been. My only complaint is that viral songs shouldn't even be allowed on the Hot 100 unless they are able to cross over to other mediums.

They can't do that. Ultimately, all music is driven by radio.

This doesn't make sense to me. You're discounting viral songs but urge emphasis on radio airplay. So, one measure is completely user driven and the other is only partially user driven. How does it make sense to let radio programmers dictate a song's popularity while audience usability not, even though the point of the Hot 100 as a whole is to measure audience interaction with individual songs on a weekly basis?

I think I understand the opposition to viral songs charting and I completely disagree with it. Reasons used include 'people watch the video for the video, not the song.' Ok. But they still hear the song, which is the exact same reason why radio airplay counts toward the chart, because people hear the song. When I listen to the radio and hear Uptown Funk for the billionth time, chances are, that isn't by choice. If I'm unable to change the station for whatever reason, my ears hearing that song still contribute, even in the smallest possible amount, to its placement on the chart through its radio airplay. That wasn't my choice but it happened. If I watch a viral video that happens to use Uptown Funk in a super clever way and I watch the whole video and hear the whole/most of the song, I've chosen to have my ears hear that song by association. Yes, I probably watched the video to see rather than to hear, but with a lot of these viral videos, the song plays a huge part in the video and therefore should be counted.

The difference is that in some cases, people aren't watching the video for the song, as it was with We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow

So every time a song was played in the background of tv show, should the views for that show count as streams for that song? It seems to be what Billboard is doing with YouTube

If Billboard were to do this, super bowl performances would count as 100 million views on streaming, and AOAL would probably suddenly rise to #1 then freefall later

Performances would also have a huge impact on the chart

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 11, 2016 1:31:59 GMT -5 ml7673 said:

The difference is that in some cases, people aren't watching the video for the song, as it was with We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow

So every time a song was played in the background of tv show, should the views for that show count as streams for that song? It seems to be what Billboard is doing with YouTube

If Billboard were to do this, super bowl performances would count as 100 million views on streaming, and AOAL would probably suddenly rise to #1 then freefall later

Performances would also have a huge impact on the chart

Short answer, yes I do.

Again, people don't listen to radio to seek out a particular song, they just hear the songs that radio plays. If people hear a song via a random video on YouTube, or even in a commercial, that goes toward so-called "audience impression" or the number of people who hear a song at that particular time. They still become familiar with a song by hearing it through other means besides radio, sales or label-support music videos.

Anyway, this is really my stance on the chart. I'm fine to agree to disagree because obviously people feel differently than I do. I don't necessarily think there's a right and wrong way either. I just happen to think that the way I see it better reflects the age we live in rather than sticking with the traditional sales and radio because that's how it's always been done. Things change and I think Billboard has been doing a decent job in keeping up with it the best way they can. Unfortunately, that does mean adjusting the %s every once in a while which results in inconsistencies but that's chart life, I guess. Radio-based charts recalibrate their numbers occasionally too, resulting in sudden shifts that otherwise wouldn't happen if they stayed the same.

[redrooster]

Feb 10, 2016 23:18:19 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

But, if you were to ask that question to people, most might not have considered Harlem Shake a legit answer because they might not have been aware that it was an actual song

Exactly!

Feb 10, 2016 23:18:19 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Also, being the type of song it was, it's unlikely most people would listen to it beyond the context of the video.

Egg... freaking... zactly!

Feb 11, 2016 1:31:59 GMT -5 ml7673 said:

The difference is that in some cases, people aren't watching the video for the song, as it was with We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow

So every time a song was played in the background of tv show, should the views for that show count as streams for that song? It seems to be what Billboard is doing with YouTube

If Billboard were to do this, super bowl performances would count as 100 million views on streaming, and AOAL would probably suddenly rise to #1 then freefall later

Performances would also have a huge impact on the chart

Basically this

Feb 11, 2016 1:47:12 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Again, people don't listen to radio to seek out a particular song, they just hear the songs that radio plays. If people hear a song via a random video on YouTube, or even in a commercial, that goes toward so-called "audience impression" or the number of people who hear a song at that particular time. They still become familiar with a song by hearing it through other means besides radio, sales or label-support music videos.

Not the same thing at all. When people listen to radio they may not be looking for a specific song but they are actively looking for music and have stations tailored to their tastes (pop, rock, rap, etc). When someone is on YouTube or watching T.V. they aren't looking for music. And if they are, they will look up a lyric video, not a commercial that uses the song.

[Deleted]

Eh. Billboard obfuscated the Hot 100 formula such that people in the Hot 100 threads have to guesstimate just about every week what it is when trying to predict the chart that week, and just when someone thinks he's nailed it something throws him off. That seems sign enough that we will never really know (nor does BB want us to know) how 'accurate' it is even for one chart, never mind a series of charts over a certain amount of time.

I guess I was spoiled; I got used to the formula (and any changes made to it) being a pretty transparent thing ever since I started following charts in the '90s, and it was a major buzzkill for me when that transparency ended. It also doesn't help that BB has on occasion made changes in the middle of a tracking year, thus making the year-end chart dubious no matter how they choose to weigh it up.

Discounting airplay is tricky. In an ideal world our Hot 100 would just be sales and on-demand streaming; I don't really have any use for passive components dictating what we think is popular. However, during the late '90s and early 2000s, US single sales all but disappeared, and of course streaming wasn't even a conceivable concept. So one had no choice but to rely on airplay. Now we do have sales and streaming, but if we took out airplay completely country and most urban music would almost entirely disappear from the chart. Country has always been a genre that moved albums more; and urban is a format that outside of five or six top sellers, honestly just doesn't sell that well when there is no crossover potential, but it is really strong when it comes to streaming.

I also think charts tend to be more accurate when they move somewhat slowly than when there is with rapid turnover at the top, give or take certain circumstances. But slow charts are boring as hell to follow so it's kind of a conundrum.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 11, 2016 1:56:56 GMT -5 redrooster said:

When people listen to radio they may not be looking for a specific song but they are actively looking for music and have stations tailored to their tastes (pop, rock, rap, etc). When someone is on YouTube or watching T.V. they aren't looking for music. And if they are, they will look up a lyric video, not a commercial that uses the song.

I do believe stations that play in public places are counted toward AI. So that means, if you're at a mall, or doctor's office, or anywhere that plays music publicly, you're hearing music that you wouldn't necessarily hear otherwise. This is no different than a commercial on TV. You're still being exposed to a song, regardless of where it comes from. If a car commercial or Apple advertisement uses an up-and-coming song, that commercial can be the one to break the song into spotlight, leading to sales and other means of measured popularity, in the same way hearing a new song on the radio leads to sales and other means of measured popularity. The only difference is, radio is also already measured. So, in theory, a new song by a new group could come out, get a bunch of airtime on television, leading to a bunch of people knowing what it is and wanting to buy/stream it, but for some reason, it isn't available. Does that song cease to exist?

People use YouTube to listen to music actively. That's why there are playlists on there. I know people who play music through YouTube and leave it playing while going to another tab to browse the internet. It's a thing.

[JOJO SIWA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME]

I think it is pretty accurate for now but there have been times when they were slow to change up the structuring of the different components like when digital sales had not been added in or how long they waited to incorporate streaming. It was a crazy time in the 90s when many songs were airplay only due to no commercial single being issued and they had zero representation on the hot 100 but then they allowed those ones to chart if I had a certain minimum of airplay but that led to labels issuing the vinyl only single so then they did not need the minimum airplay to charge because it had a physical thing out just you could not find it. Then they were very slow to add in the digital sales until it became more of the force which I can understand but commercial singles had not been a thing for several years at that time and it just felt weird that they waited as long as they did.

[redrooster]

Rose basically admitted that viral songs like Harlem Shake shouldn't be allowed on the Hot 100 when she said that a lot of people didn't know it was an actual song and would never have listened to it beyond the context of those videos.
Anyway, radio is the only medium where you can honestly say that any song that any song that makes the top 10 on radio songs is definitely considered a hit. You can't say that about streaming songs (Harlem Shake, We MIght Be Dead by Tomorrow) or even really about Digital songs (Focus, Diana).

[Deleted]

I'm curious - Harlem Shake was originally released in 2012 as a SONG, single, and the video they made got shelved. Then obviously homemade video clips of people dancing to the song went viral... and eventually the SONG (SINGLE) was rereleased in 2013 and sold large amounts of digital copies.

I understand the big thing is that BB changed the rules to include video streams which propelled HS to #1... but it's not like it wasn't an actual single put out by a label. Why should it matter how, when or why it became popular (eventually garnering radio airplay and 2x platinum digital sales in the US alone) or how people are exposed to and/or consuming it?  Why does it matter if radio breaks a song, or a movie breaks a song, or if Youtube video(s) break a song, etc?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with including all 30 second clips of the video in the streaming metric... but I am saying that I think its a little crazy to me for it to matter so much. Without an official music video, people watched homemade videos in droves.  How is that different from watching a really popular official video over and over again?  Pre-streaming, were people buying/consuming Macarena video for the song or learning the dance - or both? Does it matter? How do we really know?  In both cases, clearly people liked the songs on some level, and weren't all just watching the videos for the dancing or they wouldn't have bought the song.  And who cares if they were? The song is being actively consumed either way.

i don't really wanna get too involved as clearly we all have our own feelings on this... I just think Harlem Shake isn't the best example - albeit the #1 example and most high-profile - when it comes to this particular issue when I really break it down and consider the big picture in retrospect.  

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Feb 25, 2016 14:44:20 GMT -5 redrooster said:

Rose basically admitted that viral songs like Harlem Shake shouldn't be allowed on the Hot 100 when she said that a lot of people didn't know it was an actual song and would never have listened to it beyond the context of those videos.

No I didn't. I basically said that because people didn't know the song in any other context, they might not have been aware that it was a complete song available in other mediums (like iTunes) by an established DJ. It'd be no different than hearing a snippet of a song in a commercial on tv and not knowing whether it's a song by a band or a jingle.