spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Sept 16, 2006 17:42:38 GMT -5
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. QFT
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Sept 17, 2006 8:50:51 GMT -5
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. QFT NQFT. ;) The same applies for movies though. I know some people like to see movies again, but I dont think most people do. Similarly, you will have some people who will download the song over and over again.
|
|
mst3k
New Member
Peese shut mouf.
Back from a 12 year hiatus.
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 347
|
Post by mst3k on Sept 17, 2006 17:56:54 GMT -5
Touché. :) Although I'd consider that comparison as apples to oranges... or at least tangerines to oranges. ;) With a song, you download it once and can listen to it as many times as you like without shelling out more money. If you want to see a movie more than once, you have no choice but to buy another ticket to it (at least until it comes out on DVD).
My point wasn't really to say the Sales chart is meaningless or inaccurate, just that people need to really look at what it represents and not consider it to be the sole measure of a song's popularity.
|
|
drock89
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2007
Posts: 10,985
|
Post by drock89 on Sept 17, 2006 22:27:05 GMT -5
Give it a 3-way weight. Radio, album sales, downloads. They are about equal in a song's popularity, and you can still climb without the full support of one of the mediums.
|
|
John77
Diamond Member
Carrie Pass
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 11,149
|
Post by John77 on Sept 25, 2006 23:25:01 GMT -5
NQFT. ;) The same applies for movies though. I know some people like to see movies again, but I dont think most people do. Similarly, you will have some people who will download the song over and over again. It's a lot less expensive to download a .99 (or .88) cent single over again, then to shell out $15 a shot for an album... it's VERY easy to manipulate digital download sales... yet another reason why the Hot 100 needs to significantly decrease the weight of digital sales.
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Sept 26, 2006 0:31:32 GMT -5
John, as usual, you're ignorant on your facts. No, you can't download a single over and over again. IP numbers and credit cards are checked. However, you can buy an album over and over again and return it later. Pictures recently surfaced of a bunch of Clay Aiken fans buying multiple copies of his new CD. Given the way Idol works, I wouldnt be surprised if your beloved Carrie has had her sales under a similar effect ;)
|
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Sept 26, 2006 10:46:50 GMT -5
I think it would be a bit naive to ignore that there are hardcore fans of most artists who probably buy multiple copies of material that artist puts out.
This isn't directed to your post, just a general comment as there seems to have been a trend here lately of people trying to point this action as a negative reflection of certain artists sales.
Anyway, as with airplay, sales could also be manipulated to achieve chart status. Whether it is the potential for direct sales manipulation or timing of sales (i.e. holding back a single for months), there are ways and I'm sure record companies know of them all.
Airplay may not be the most accurate template for popularity, but I don't believe sales are as well. The digital market is far too new to effectively defend against all practices of manipulation. A good balance between the two indicators is the best gauge of a song's success.
|
|
juhn
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 659
|
Post by juhn on Sept 26, 2006 11:33:25 GMT -5
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 Huh???!! The Hot 100 is a chart that is designed to measure mass appeal - the "most popular songs in the country". You want it to do what now?
|
|
Gorminako
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 3,596
|
Post by Gorminako on Oct 4, 2006 21:04:19 GMT -5
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. I've thought of a way to incorporate albums into the mix. There is good reason for including albums, since many people will buy the album instead of the single, especially for an album that is known to have many other good songs on it, or is by an act that has a reputation for making good albums. Since albums these days tend to sell the most during their first couple weeks, it would tip the scale even more towards the period immediately after an album comes out to count weekly sales. A song you like on the album may come out as a single after you've bought the album, and most likely you wouldn't buy the single. And there's a good point that even though you still like a song or an album, you're not going to keep on buying it every week once you already have it, whereas radio airplay supposedly indicates continued popularity of a song (maybe for the DJ or radio programmer more than the audience, but that's another story). So I would use cumulative album sales, and divide the points gained from sales figures according to relative airplay of the album's songs on radio (e.g. if song A has 60% of the radio airplay from songs on an album, and song B has 35%, then song A would earn 60% of the points from sales, and song B 35%). I think the more factors that indicate song popularity that are included in the data compiled for a chart, the better. So weekly sales of digital and physical singles, cumulative sales of albums, radio airplay, compilations of personal charts, radio requests, and surveys measuring the like or dislike of various songs by respondents can all be factored in (not necessarily equally) in some way, with appropriate weights on the differing arrays of figures to make them comparable. Also there should be some way to even somewhat the demography of the audience surveyed, which takes in much more data from younger and urban than from other groups.
|
|
EmersonDrive13Rocks
5x Platinum Member
Buy COUNTRIFIED today!!!!! Includes #1 HIT "MOMENTS" as well as "A Good Man" and "You Still Own Me"!
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 5,313
|
Post by EmersonDrive13Rocks on Oct 5, 2006 2:40:23 GMT -5
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. I've thought of a way to incorporate albums into the mix. There is good reason for including albums, since many people will buy the album instead of the single, especially for an album that is known to have many other good songs on it, or is by an act that has a reputation for making good albums. Since albums these days tend to sell the most during their first couple weeks, it would tip the scale even more towards the period immediately after an album comes out to count weekly sales. A song you like on the album may come out as a single after you've bought the album, and most likely you wouldn't buy the single. And there's a good point that even though you still like a song or an album, you're not going to keep on buying it every week once you already have it, whereas radio airplay supposedly indicates continued popularity of a song (maybe for the DJ or radio programmer more than the audience, but that's another story). So I would use cumulative album sales, and divide the points gained from sales figures according to relative airplay of the album's songs on radio (e.g. if song A has 60% of the radio airplay from songs on an album, and song B has 35%, then song A would earn 60% of the points from sales, and song B 35%). I think the more factors that indicate song popularity that are included in the data compiled for a chart, the better. So weekly sales of digital and physical singles, cumulative sales of albums, radio airplay, compilations of personal charts, radio requests, and surveys measuring the like or dislike of various songs by respondents can all be factored in (not necessarily equally) in some way, with appropriate weights on the differing arrays of figures to make them comparable. Also there should be some way to even somewhat the demography of the audience surveyed, which takes in much more data from younger and urban than from other groups. Finally a sensable post on how to adjust the Hot 100. The Hot 100 will never be perfect though but it could definitely be improved.
|
|
Rumors
3x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
Post by Rumors on Oct 8, 2006 1:23:14 GMT -5
Interesting thread...I don't have much to contribute except to add something that I thought of while reading through all the posts. It seems that most people feel that sales are a more accurate measure of a song's popularity than airplay. I think I disagree with this. I'm thinking of how high some of the AI singles have debuted without much airplay. To me a song really can't be that popular if very few people are actually hearing the song.
Someone mentioned that smaller stations should also be monitored. I agree with that point.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 8, 2006 17:04:47 GMT -5
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. Excellent & Interesting point!!!!! I was looking at this sales be all end all issue from a radio stations point of view. Stations get advertising dollars so they have an interest in playing what people want to hear. Radio stations get paid based on how many times a song is played and musicians and artists get their royalites based on how many times a song is played on the radio.... sooo .... sales probably should not be the be all end all in terms of popularity.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 8, 2006 17:26:30 GMT -5
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. I've thought of a way to incorporate albums into the mix. There is good reason for including albums, since many people will buy the album instead of the single, especially for an album that is known to have many other good songs on it, or is by an act that has a reputation for making good albums. Since albums these days tend to sell the most during their first couple weeks, it would tip the scale even more towards the period immediately after an album comes out to count weekly sales. A song you like on the album may come out as a single after you've bought the album, and most likely you wouldn't buy the single. And there's a good point that even though you still like a song or an album, you're not going to keep on buying it every week once you already have it, whereas radio airplay supposedly indicates continued popularity of a song (maybe for the DJ or radio programmer more than the audience, but that's another story). So I would use cumulative album sales, and divide the points gained from sales figures according to relative airplay of the album's songs on radio (e.g. if song A has 60% of the radio airplay from songs on an album, and song B has 35%, then song A would earn 60% of the points from sales, and song B 35%). I think the more factors that indicate song popularity that are included in the data compiled for a chart, the better. So weekly sales of digital and physical singles, cumulative sales of albums, radio airplay, compilations of personal charts, radio requests, and surveys measuring the like or dislike of various songs by respondents can all be factored in (not necessarily equally) in some way, with appropriate weights on the differing arrays of figures to make them comparable. Also there should be some way to even somewhat the demography of the audience surveyed, which takes in much more data from younger and urban than from other groups. You have excellent points...but... the reason billboard doesn't include albums into the mix of things is because it is impossible to tell why people are buying the albums. I know alot of people who buy based on name value of the artists not popularity of the singles. I also know alot of people who buy based on the fact that they like the album tracks rather than the singles. If people only like the single then that's what they'll download and/or buy.
|
|
juhn
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 659
|
Post by juhn on Oct 9, 2006 10:36:31 GMT -5
1. Albums and singles are as different as... roast beef and carpets. Please keep them separate.
2. Cumulative sales is an interesting concept. But every week, the chart measures sales and airplay for that particular week only. Why should it count last week's sales? The year-end chart is for cumulative sales.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 10, 2006 0:48:51 GMT -5
I actually think sales should go by the dollar value. That keeps CD that are priced at a normal maxi-cd single price from getting #1 on the album charts. I think it shows the popularity of an album better if people are willing to spend more for an album. It should go by number of albums sold times the price people paid for the album.
|
|
|
Post by bubblepop15 on Oct 10, 2006 5:02:06 GMT -5
I actually think sales should go by the dollar value. That keeps CD that are priced at a normal maxi-cd single price from getting #1 on the album charts. I think it shows the popularity of an album better if people are willing to spend more for an album. It should go by number of albums sold times the price people paid for the album. Hmmm I never thought of that. It does make sense.
|
|
John77
Diamond Member
Carrie Pass
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 11,149
|
Post by John77 on Oct 13, 2006 0:18:28 GMT -5
Interestingly, since "Before He Cheats" came out as a single, Carrie Underwood's "Some Hearts" album has gone from moving 23K units a week to it's present 32K units a week... a 40% or so increase... Someone with half a math sense should get with Billboard and help them figure out a way to include album sales in their singles charts... it's VERY obvious from this and a gazillion other cases that SINGLES DRIVE ALBUM SALES.
|
|
Pulse
Diamond Member
I'm feelin' for a Pulse
Joined: November 2005
Posts: 12,890
|
Post by Pulse on Oct 13, 2006 0:21:54 GMT -5
Not really. Of course singles drive album sales, but no one knows exactly who it applies to and to what degree.
Like, I could be on the fence with Carrie's four singles, and not really be feeling them too much individually, but as a package I'm willing to take a shot.
|
|
|
Post by dperkins on Oct 13, 2006 1:59:51 GMT -5
^^^Exactly!
|
|
juhn
Gold Member
Joined: September 2006
Posts: 659
|
Post by juhn on Oct 13, 2006 20:19:39 GMT -5
For the last time, album sales are driven by numerous factors (tours, TV appearances, etc.) and not solely due to the current single. Single sales are due solely to you liking the single enough to buy it at the price it's being sold for.
If I buy the single, it's because I like the song. If I buy the album, it doesn't say anything about how much I like the current single. I might not even like the current single.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 14, 2006 0:22:05 GMT -5
I actually think sales should go by the dollar value. That keeps CD that are priced at a normal maxi-cd single price from getting #1 on the album charts. I think it shows the popularity of an album better if people are willing to spend more for an album. It should go by number of albums sold times the price people paid for the album. Hmmm I never thought of that. It does make sense. Alot of stars give half of their songs away and sell the album for 6.99 or 7.99.... Record companies are in the business to make money.
|
|