How can we tweek the Billboard HOT 100 Formula?

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

How to compute a title's Hot 100 point total: Take a song's audience impressions, as compiled by BDS, and divide that number by 10,000 and add to SoundScan's retail sales and digital sales which are each divided by 5."

-- Billboard

That means that....

HOT 100 Points = (AI/10,000) + (Sales(digital & retail)/5)

How can we tweak this formula? Post your thoughts?

[Pulse]

Its fine the way it is formula wise. But add in sales of legally downloads music videos


HOT 100 Points = (AI/10,000) + (Sales(digital & retail)/5) is the same as what we do when we add impressions +sales(2) anyway

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

I agree. Video sales should count towards the song.

[Caviar]

Then people are going to want to include the 30-second song clips...

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

nauticaiu04 said:

Then people are going to want to include the 30-second song clips...

Its not the same thing as putting a whole video up for sale. That's not even comparable at all. People pay 1.99 or 2.99 for the video which is more than downloads are selling for. I will go as far as to say video downloads should count twice as much as regular downloads because the price is double that of regular downloads.

[Pulse]

I agree with Adonis. That analogy makes no sense. Don't forget DVD singles used to count too.

[CookyMonzta]

adonis said:

How to compute a title's Hot 100 point total: Take a song's audience impressions, as compiled by BDS, and divide that number by 10,000 and add to SoundScan's retail sales and digital sales which are each divided by 5."

-- Billboard

That means that....

HOT 100 Points = (AI/10,000) + (Sales(digital & retail)/5)

How can we tweak this formula? Post your thoughts?

Two words: Video airplay! I've been campaigning 12 years for Billboard to include airplay figures from all the music video stations in the country. For example, airplay from all of the MTV and VH1 stations could be tallied for the Hot 100, and airplay from stations like BET for the R&B charts.

[John77]

I'll give you one word...

IMPOSSIBLE...

The only way we will ever have a valid Billboard Hot 100 chart is if they tweak it and give less weight to the first week of release on songs and more on radio airplay for starters... album sales should also be factored in somehow... you would think with as large a staff as they have there that they could hire someone there that actually knew somthing about numbers, formulas and statistical analysis, but that is too much to ask I guess...

[Pulse]

I guess your beloved Mediabase charts are screwed up too, since they don't incorporate album sales either ;)

[Gorminako]

One problem is that Billboard uses disparate numerical regimes and acts as if they're equivalent. Take the Top 10 (or however many you want) songs in sales (whether physical or downloaded) and compare it with the Top 10 (or equivalent number) of songs in regards to airplay or audience impressions. The ratio of #1 to #10 in sales will normally be far greater than the ration between #1 and #10 in airplay. This accounts for the fact that a song can get to #1 on Billboard without you ever hearing it on the radio (like a single by one of the Idols), and yet a song that is the most played song on radio that hasn’t yet been released as a single might not even be in the Top 30 on Billboard. And a song that’s already played a lot on radio, once it is released, can shoot straight up from outside the Top 30 to #1, like “SOS” or “SexyBack”.

What is needed is some type of weight to make these 2 numerical regimes equivalent, such as taking a root (e.g. square root or cube root) or some logarithm (log 10 or ln=natural log) of the sales totals (or take the square or cube of the airplay totals) and then divide or multiply one accordingly in order to make the 2 lists equivalent numerically(or one twice as strong as the other, if that’s what you want). It’s hard to believe that after all this time, an industry leader such as Billboard hasn’t had anyone in their organization mathematically versed enough to point this out to them and show them the way to a more reasonable and accurate chart compilation.

Of course, another problem that I’ve decried a number of times is their too strong focus on urban and very young listeners. The age problem is more difficult but possible to deal with, but the urban problem would be alleviated by including more small-town stations, whose playlists are significantly different from those of major cities.

[singingsparrow]

john77 said:

I'll give you one word...

IMPOSSIBLE...

The only way we will ever have a valid Billboard Hot 100 chart is if they tweak it and give less weight to the first week of release on songs and more on radio airplay for starters... album sales should also be factored in somehow... you would think with as large a staff as they have there that they could hire someone there that actually knew somthing about numbers, formulas and statistical analysis, but that is too much to ask I guess...

I very strongly disagree with you here, with all respect.

Molding the album and single charts together would drastically homogenize the singles chart as we know it. Like I said in another thread, it's true that veteran favorites like Bob Dylan, Barry Manilow and Jimmy Buffett would benefit from something like that and score new Hot 100 placings like nowadays they'd almost never be able to do, but otherwise the top placements of the Hot 100 would always be crammed with established staple artists, which would keep aspiring artists needing far more than a prayer to breakthrough and make placements on the chart.

The Hot 100 remains imperfect, no question about that, but I believe as of late, in terms of reform, the chart has been moving in the right direction following a period where the Hot 100 had a blatant CHR/Rhythmic-leaning bias and it proved exceptionally difficult for artists of other genres to even make the Top 10. Now with digital downloads being included, the Hot 100 has become far more democratic than it was, where people's musical tastes play a far more influential role than the late 90's and first half of this decade in how the chart is compiled.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Honestly, I've thought about somehow applying album sales into singles because people will buy an album based on a single... most of the time. But the only way to do this accurately, and not just based on mathematical speculation, is to poll people that buy the album and ask why they bought it, whether it was the artist or a song and if a song, which one.

Really, the album sales and single sales are different entities.
I think the only real accurate way to determine song popularity is to just have every released song be available to purchase on its own. None of this delayed business or no-single-release at all bullcrap. Until then (or since then), complete accuracy in the Billboard Hot 100 just won't happen. If you want accuracy, find a website that compiles as many personal charts as possible to find out the most well liked songs.

[Pulse]

themaxonline said:

Until then (or since then), complete accuracy in the Billboard Hot 100 just won't happen. If you want accuracy, find a website that compiles as many personal charts as possible to find out the most well liked songs.

You want personal charts to affect the Hot 100? :o

[banet2001]

The Hot 100 remains imperfect, no question about that, but I believe as of late, in terms of reform, the chart has been moving in the right direction following a period where the Hot 100 had a blatant CHR/Rhythmic-leaning bias and it proved exceptionally difficult for artists of other genres to even make the Top 10. Now with digital downloads being included, the Hot 100 has become far more democratic than it was, where people's musical tastes play a far more influential role than the late 90's and first half of this decade in how the chart is compiled.

I agree with that sentiment. The Hot 100 was appallingly bad for several years in the late 1990's to early 2000's.

I feel the sales should weigh very heavily on the Billboard Hot 100, especially after digital sales were added to the formula. As far as I am concerned, sales means that people actually like the songs and like it well enough to buy it.

Radio airplay, on the other hand, can mean a lot of things. It could mean big record execs are using their influence on strategic radio stations to get their artists on the air. It could mean payola. It could mean that the artists are a personal favorite of a big exec of a radio monopoly like Clear Channel entertainment. It could mean a lot of things that don't necessarily measure popularity of a song. The fairest measure of popularity of songs is sales and thus, they should be a large portion of the Hot 100 formula.

[spooky21]

Given that the commercial "single" has made a comeback, the charts should be eventually augmented to reflect a slightly lower sales impact. Rather than a 2 to 1 ratio for sales vs airplay, I would prefer a 1.5 to 1 with sales still leading the charge but with an appropriate margin to prevent the industry from going back to the days when sales were being manipulated to secure a high first week debut or chart growth.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

thepulse said:

themaxonline said:

Until then (or since then), complete accuracy in the Billboard Hot 100 just won't happen. If you want accuracy, find a website that compiles as many personal charts as possible to find out the most well liked songs.

You want personal charts to affect the Hot 100?  :o

No, I meant the only real way to have a chart compiled with complete accuracy is to actually ask the people what songs it is they like most. I think a personal charts chart is as accurate as the Hot 100 in some cases.

[John77]

gorminako said:

One problem is that Billboard uses disparate numerical regimes and acts as if they're equivalent.  Take the Top 10 (or however many you want) songs in sales (whether physical or downloaded) and compare it with the Top 10 (or equivalent number) of songs in regards to airplay or audience impressions.  The ratio of #1 to #10 in sales will normally be far greater than the ration between #1 and #10 in airplay. This accounts for the fact that a song can get to #1 on Billboard without you ever hearing it on the radio (like a single by one of the Idols), and yet a song that is the most played song on radio that hasn’t yet been released as a single might not even be in the Top 30 on Billboard.  And a song that’s already played a lot on radio, once it is released, can shoot straight up from outside the Top 30 to #1, like “SOS” or “SexyBack”. 

What is needed is some type of weight to make these 2 numerical regimes equivalent, such as taking a root (e.g. square root or cube root) or some logarithm (log 10 or ln=natural log) of the sales totals (or take the square or cube of the airplay totals) and then divide or multiply one accordingly in order to make the 2 lists equivalent numerically(or one twice as strong as the other, if that’s what you want).  It’s hard to believe that after all this time, an industry leader such as Billboard hasn’t had anyone in their organization mathematically versed enough to point this out to them and show them the way to a more reasonable and accurate chart compilation.

Of course, another problem that I’ve decried a number of times is their too strong focus on urban and very young listeners. The age problem is more difficult but possible to deal with, but the urban problem would be alleviated by including more small-town stations, whose playlists are significantly different from those of major cities.

An EXTREMELY well thought out post... the only people that truly understand this kind of stuff are those that know a little about math and formulas, and you seem to have a good handle on both... maybe the two of us can figure it out!!!

[Pulse]

OMG. John, stop acting so pompous like you're Jesus Christ or something.  We know formulas and math too, but the chart doesnt need fixing in that area.

The two components do not need to be equal. People forget that Airplay used to outpace sales when downloads first started, and the #1 song in airplay usually had more points than #1 sales up until recently. Your beloved Mediabase charts are based on audience impressions too. I'm just confused by these inconsistent stances. The probelms you have with the Hot 100 are also problems of Mediabase! LOL

Let's be real here. When people complain about the Hot 100, most of the time, the truth is that they're just unhappy with how their favorite music is doing. Urban fans are pissed off now because urban songs arent doing as well, and pop and rock fans were pissed before downloads got incorporated.

But country still gets screwed over. Is that the case? That makes sense I suppose. You're biased to that line of thinking since someone like Carrie Underwood has good album sales, but will probably never go Top 10. Hmm, well, I guess I understand where you're coming from now, but if you want Carrie to go Top 10, her music needs to be more mainstream. She needs a song that can appeal to more people (a la Rascal Flatts or Shania ;))

[COW COW COW COW COW COW COW]

The Hot 100 is a singles chart...Often singles don't have music videos, especially from independent companies. Videos can be easily payed for, and already pretty much are. If those countdown shows were voted by people why would each channel's be so drastically different?
Music videos are sometimes made for an album-only track, not a single.

Personally, because of rigged airplay...I think that the Hot 100 should not count airplay, only sales...
Music videos counting towards the chart would be stupid and wouldn't help in changing the way it is right now at all...Obviously. Seeing that the major artists are the ones with videos...

[Pulse]

What singles dont have music videos nowadays? There are always exceptions now and then, but most of them have music videos. What music videos were made for album tracks?

I guess I could understand not wanting to count videoplay along the lines of radioplay, but what about video sales on iTunes? I mean if its in the iTunes 100, chances are it probably has a music video.

[juhn]

leigy said:

Personally, because of rigged airplay...I think that the Hot 100 should not count airplay, only sales...

Why do people keep saying this?

The Hot 100 was set up specifically to count both sales and airplay. There's already a chart that counts only sales - Hot 100 Singles Sales.

If you suggesting not to count airplay, then you're actually suggesting to discontinue The Hot 100.

[COW COW COW COW COW COW COW]

Then the Hot 100 should be discontinued. We should only have the Hot 100 Singles Sales Chart, granted downloads counted - but I don't think that they do....

[juhn]

leigy said:

Then the Hot 100 should be discontinued.

That's kinda selfish. Why would you want to deprive people who like the Hot 100 the enjoyment of looking at that chart? Now we have 3 charts - so there's something for everybody - Hot 100, Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 Sales. Nothing is stopping you from looking at the sales chart only and ignoring the Hot 100. You don't have to click on it if you don't want to.

[Girls, girls, girls, girls...]

banet2001 said:

The Hot 100 remains imperfect, no question about that, but I believe as of late, in terms of reform, the chart has been moving in the right direction following a period where the Hot 100 had a blatant CHR/Rhythmic-leaning bias and it proved exceptionally difficult for artists of other genres to even make the Top 10. Now with digital downloads being included, the Hot 100 has become far more democratic than it was, where people's musical tastes play a far more influential role than the late 90's and first half of this decade in how the chart is compiled.

I agree with that sentiment. The Hot 100 was appallingly bad for several years in the late 1990's to early 2000's.

I feel the sales should weigh very heavily on the Billboard Hot 100, especially after digital sales were added to the formula. As far as I am concerned, sales means that people actually like the songs and like it well enough to buy it.

Radio airplay, on the other hand, can mean a lot of things. It could mean big record execs are using their influence on strategic radio stations to get their artists on the air. It could mean payola. It could mean that the artists are a personal favorite of a big exec of a radio monopoly like Clear Channel entertainment. It could mean a lot of things that don't necessarily measure popularity of a song. The fairest measure of popularity of songs is sales and thus, they should be a large portion of the Hot 100 formula.

*applauds* That's what I'm talking about! At least, with sales you know that people do like that song 'cause if they didn't, they wouldn't download it and spend their money on it. If a song is being played on the radio, does it mean that people really like it? Not always.
And besides, you must remember that you can't have it all. In the UK, they have this kind of thing called 'album-oriented artists'. Carrie Underwood IS an album-oriented artist. Does she really care that she still doesn't have a real mainstrem hit? I don't think so 'cause that's not the market she's aiming at. And besides, when you sell that many albums, do you think that having no top10 hits matters at all? ;)

[EmersonDrive13Rocks]

Exactly. Carrie doesn't really need a top 10 Hot 100 hit because she is having success on country airplay and is selling albums.

[Pulse]

Whether Carrie is selling her albums well or not is not the issue though. People like Hilary Duff and Norah Jones have great album sales and not so great Hot 100 resumes.

[Girls, girls, girls, girls...]

thepulse said:

Whether Carrie is selling her albums well or not is not the issue though. People like Hilary Duff and Norah Jones  have great album sales and not so great Hot 100 resumes.

AND that is why we have to keep those two charts (Hot 100 and Top200) separate ;)

[lullaby]

I personally think the hot 100 should stay as it is but with an airplay points system that gives all genres equal weighting - that way a popular genre song whether it be r&b, country, rock, pure pop stands a chance at the top 10.

Artists shouldnt have to imo weaken their music to make it mass appeal just to have success in this area imo

I do agree that country artists for example probably couldnt care less how they do on this chart.

[mst3k]

thepulse said:

Your beloved Mediabase charts are based on audience impressions too.

Most of the Mediabase charts are ranked by spins, not audience. Country is the only oddity, since its not ranked strictly by either spins or audience.

[mst3k]

As far as Sales being the be-all and end-all measure of a song's popularity, there's some cracks in that logic too. Say I like a song, and purchase a download of it today (so it counts toward the next chart). Next week, I still like the song, but am I going to buy it again? Probably not... so technically, the Sales chart isn't accurately reflecting the song's popularity, is it? I still like the song as much as I did last week, maybe even more, but unless I download the song from iTunes every week until I start getting sick of it, my "liking the song" only showed up on the Sales chart for one week.