Updated Billboard Country Chart recurrent rule

[Zazie]

I went back and checked the charts. Garth would have charted for 15 weeks had the new rule been in effect when his song was current.

Melissa Lawson re-entered because Billboard updated its panel of stations, which it does 4 times a year. It just happens that, of the newly-added stations, a couple of them are playing Melissa more heavily than the panel as previously constituted.

Lee Brice went recurrent according to the rules, but then the song started gaining airplay again. Billboard wasn't psychic, so they didn't have a way to know this would happen ahead of time. When it did, they re-charted the song (as they did with Craig Morgan's Almost Home a few years back). I am favor of people and organizations admitting their mistakes when they make them -- it's not as if anybody is immune from making them.

[somebody60]

Nov 29, 2008 17:39:40 GMT -5 Zazie said:

I am (in) favor of people and organizations admitting their mistakes when they make them -- it's not as if anybody is immune from making them.

Truer words have never been spoken. (By the way, you also made a mistake in that sentence. You left out the "in". I fixed it for you in parentheses (thanks Zazie!) above, so even Zazie makes mistakes ;) )

[Ten Pound Hammer]

Zazie made a mistake? This is a first.

Anyway, I don't see the problem with this new rule. It cuts out songs that start plummeting before their 20 weeks are up. Even lower charting songs like "Somebody Said a Prayer" get off the charts faster since they're obviously not going higher, clearing out the 41-60 range so that people like Jeremy McComb can benefit.

As for Melissa Lawson, I'm pretty sure her chart run has been so schizophrenic because she's only getting <100 spins, but they're HUGE spins.

[dcowboy77]

i thought of another list this new rule will effect:

the billboard year end chart that ranks by audience which to me is the best year end chart because it ranks by audience which is what is used for rankings on the regular weekly chart, not spins.

with this new rule a song like "shouldve said no" would have lost about 6 weeks of extra audience counts it would have gotten after it fell off the to 10 which will then lower and falsely skew its year end ranking even though it was really still getting alot of airplay.

this is the chart im talking about:
1 WATCHING YOU Rodney Atkins Curb 556.8395
2 GOOD DIRECTIONS Billy Currington Mercury 530.2741
3 NEVER WANTED NOTHING MORE Kenny Chesney BNA 500.1528

[jenglisbe]

Nov 29, 2008 16:08:47 GMT -5 smack said:

I don't like the new rules. Why is the country chart the only one that has been targeted over and over and over?

Hasn't the AC chart made several changes over the years as well? The Hot 100 certainly has, too (allowing airplay-only tracks, recurrent rules, downloads and how much they count).

[Zazie]

Nov 29, 2008 20:24:49 GMT -5 @somebody60 said:

Nov 29, 2008 17:39:40 GMT -5 Zazie said:

I am (in) favor of people and organizations admitting their mistakes when they make them -- it's not as if anybody is immune from making them.

Truer words have never been spoken. (By the way, you also made a mistake in that sentence. You left out the "in". I fixed it for you in parenthesis above, so even Zazie makes mistakes ;) )

Funny! Now that you've identified it, I take full responsibility for my error. You should know that I get emails from posters whose anonymity I will protect when I mistype -- this one's offended when I put an "s" on the end of Jake or Randy Owen's name, that one doesn't care for my use of semicolons. Finding Zazie errors pays well, apparently, and is a full-employment act during these recessionary times.

That's "parentheses," somebody60. Plural form. I love this new board obsession. Watch out, Hammer. I owe you one.

I want to see if Josh Gracin, Justin Moore (though beloved of Hammer), and anybody else can manage to go recurrent this week under the new rules. Keith Anderson? Maybe, with this help, we can manage 25 Christmas songs, including numerous "official releases," this year. It's great to have Elvis back.

[kw9461]

Justin Moore gained audience last week although he was unbulleted, so I doubt he'll get pulled, but Gracin may be toast. I think Darryl Worley and either Julianne Hough or Anderson may also have gotten yanked.

[Marv]

Since 'Chicken Fried' & 'Let It Go' are now losing spins, it will be interesting to see which song goes recurrent first @ Billboard.

'Let It Go' could lose spins slower simply because Tim's two previous singles plunged substantially faster than any single he's released in over a decade.

[someguy]

I wonder if they'll show some leniency given the time of year, and keep Julianne, Keith and Darryl on the charts throughout the holidays (unless they lose a significant percentage of their airplay).

[EmersonDrive13Rocks]

Nov 29, 2008 17:39:40 GMT -5 Zazie said:

I went back and checked the charts. Garth would have charted for 15 weeks had the new rule been in effect when his song was current.

Melissa Lawson re-entered because Billboard updated its panel of stations, which it does 4 times a year. It just happens that, of the newly-added stations, a couple of them are playing Melissa more heavily than the panel as previously constituted.

Lee Brice went recurrent according to the rules, but then the song started gaining airplay again. Billboard wasn't psychic, so they didn't have a way to know this would happen ahead of time. When it did, they re-charted the song (as they did with Craig Morgan's Almost Home a few years back). I am favor of people and organizations admitting their mistakes when they make them -- it's not as if anybody is immune from making them.

Billboard has done that several times if a song that looks done gets removed then bounces back and then put it back on the chart. It is a good policy.

[Ten Pound Hammer]

This rule should play out interestingly indeed. I could see some songs getting more grace weeks during the Christmas season. After all, I remember last year, "The More I Drink" dropped by about 3.5 million from #19 to #26, and was more than 20 weeks old but it stayed on. I guess with songs that are obviously done (Gracin et al.), they might just go early, freeing up more space for Christmas songs. Then come January, it'll look like the first weeks of 2000 all over again, where all but two songs below #35 are Christmas songs, and songs that were climbing get bumped back six to eight spaces just because Christmas songs jump over them.

[Zazie]

Dec 1, 2008 15:55:57 GMT -5 Ten Pound Hammer said:

This rule should play out interestingly indeed. I could see some songs getting more grace weeks during the Christmas season. After all, I remember last year, "The More I Drink" dropped by about 3.5 million from #19 to #26, and was more than 20 weeks old but it stayed on. I guess with songs that are obviously done (Gracin et al.), they might just go early, freeing up more space for Christmas songs. Then come January, it'll look like the first weeks of 2000 all over again, where all but two songs below #35 are Christmas songs, and songs that were climbing get bumped back six to eight spaces just because Christmas songs jump over them.

Billboard won't drop any songs, no matter how steep their losses and no matter how clear it is that Christmas isn't the reason, for one week every year, the week that includes Christmas Day. And then they stay on the next week too because everybody bullets. Or almost everybody.

Other weeks, they might or might not allow some grace into their calculation. That week, they always do it.

As for this week -- Worley had a bullet and a tiny audience gain on 11/29 so he should be safe this week. Anderson's at risk, although it does seem silly to pull his song. This isn't the reason they changed the rule. It's not clear this won't be a hit -- well, it's clear to me but I don't count. Julianne is in the same position as KA. They should wait -- after all, Otto went a couple of weeks without a bullet but now he's starting to catch on.

Justin Moore did gain audience, but in a week in which the panel size is increased by 10 stations that's not much of an achievement. We'll see if he gets spared. He's had 16 weeks to make his move, so pulling him at least makes some sense. He could re-bullet next week due to ACC spins -- would they re-add him?

I don't see the need to pull any of these songs near the bottom of the chart. The problem they're trying to address -- big hits that peak quickly and then drift down for 8 to 10 weeks though they will never again start to climb -- has nothing to do with Justin Moore, Darryl Worley, and Julianne Hough.

[leilamaurizia]

Nov 26, 2008 13:37:11 GMT -5 ericNY2002 said:

I got an e-mail back from Wade Jessen about the recurrent rule, starting this week there are 2 ways a song can go to recurrent status.
1) desecending songs will be moved to recurrent below #10 in spins or audience if the song is over 20 weeks old (same rule as before).

2)However, the new wrinkle is songs posting audience losses 3 consecutive weeks will be removed on the 3rd week REGARDLESS of # of weeks on chart if the song is under or falls below #10.(basically the mediabase rule, but the song has to fall out of the top 10 before going recurrent).

I didn't want to resurrect the "Just a Dream" thread so... anyway, I know that the song is past the 20-week mark but its audience impressions are still enough to keep it in the top 10, #8 in fact if it hadn't gone recurrent. Were its spins below top 10? I wasn't keeping track.

[kw9461]

^ Yep. She was like 14th or 15th in spins on Mediabase.

[leilamaurizia]

Thanks.

I was wondering if there was some new nuance to the recurrent rule I wasn't getting. Below top 10 in spins is old-style though.

I'm still a bit iffy with the new rule.

[drock89]

Dec 3, 2008 11:36:27 GMT -5 leilamaurizia said:

Thanks.

I was wondering if there was some new nuance to the recurrent rule I wasn't getting. Below top 10 in spins is old-style though.

I'm still a bit iffy with the new rule.

Yeah, but if you think about it, should Billboard have based its recurrent rule on audience (which I admit it is strange - chart based on audience, recurrent based on spins), so many songs would hang around the top 20 -- songs even from 2007. It makes sense to base the rule off of spins. Carrie has a case where her spins get her big audience, that's why the proportion between audience/spins is so great.

I'm also still in the air about the new rule, but the way I see it, with the industry ever-changing, Billboard is wise to be fluid and adjust its rules/panels periodically.

[city5705boy]

Looks like Billboard went crazy with the recurrent rule again. Love Story is already re-current.

[Ten Pound Hammer]

Dec 10, 2008 18:18:59 GMT -5 city5705boy said:

Looks like Billboard went crazy with the recurrent rule again. Love Story is already re-current.

I don't think it's going crazy. Other songs have gone recurrent only one or two weeks after being #1. These are a few I know from the past couple years:

*It Just Comes Natural (1-4-recurrent)
*Settlin' (1-2-7-recurrent)
*Lucky Man (1-3-7-recurrent)
*These Are My People (1-2-2-recurrent)
*Love Me If You Can (1-2-5-recurrent)

And there were four in a row at the end of 2007 into 2008:
*Free & Easy (1-4-8-recurrent)
*So Small (1-10-11-recurrent)
*Our Song (1-5-6-recurrent)
*Letter to Me (1-3-3-recurrent)

[smack]

12 weeks on the chart for taylor...absolutely ridiculous...I hope it changes again

[kw9461]

Dec 10, 2008 22:46:41 GMT -5 smack said:

12 weeks on the chart for taylor...absolutely ridiculous...I hope it changes again

So you would rather she waste space on the charts for the next 8 weeks like All I Want To Do and Should've Said No did? There's no reason that a former #1 should be clinging to charts in the mid-20's, which is where this song would've ended up. I agree that this rule isn't perfect (I still think a 15-15 would be best), but it's much better than the old one, and hopefully it will encourage stations to turn over their playlists a little quicker.

[Marv]

'Love Story' lost over 1,100 spins last week; as consultant Jaye Albright mentioned in 'Country Aircheck' a couple of months ago, the current crop of new female vocalists aren't making music which the format's core audience (women 35/44) can relate to, which is why only four female vocalists this entire year (Miranda/Carrie/Heidi/Taylor) have reached the top ten this year, the lowest number this decade.

Ms. Swift told Kix Brooks two weeks ago on 'ACC' that 'the two things I write about the most are boys and relationships'; hence the very high 'burn rate' on songs by females as opposed to males, accoding to Ms. Albright.

In an industry driven by research, testing and consultants, this is no surprise.

If you look as 2008's projected national year-end top twenty, you'll find only three female-based acts (Lady Antebellum/Taylor Swift/Carrie Underwood) with songs on that list.

[Zazie]

Dec 11, 2008 1:01:44 GMT -5 Marv said:

'Love Story' lost over 1,100 spins last week; as consultant Jaye Albright mentioned in 'Country Aircheck' a couple of months ago, the current crop of new female vocalists aren't making music which the format's core audience (women 35/44) can relate to, which is why only four female vocalists this entire year (Miranda/Carrie/Heidi/Taylor) have reached the top ten this year, the lowest number this decade.

Ms. Swift told Kix Brooks two weeks ago on 'ACC' that 'the two things I write about the most are boys and relationships'; hence the very high 'burn rate' on songs by females as opposed to males, accoding to Ms. Albright.

In an industry driven by research, testing and consultants, this is no surprise.

If you look as 2008's projected national year-end top twenty, you'll find only three female-based acts (Lady Antebellum/Taylor Swift/Carrie Underwood) with songs on that list.

If the people doing the "research" and deciding what the female listeners wanted to hear weren't mostly men, I suspect country radio would sound very different. And, granting that I'm not female and don't speak for any listener but myself, I still suspect the women singers would outnumber the teenage girl wannabe-singers by a lot.

Whoever decided that, once you're past 30 (and female, and not named Reba) you have nothing to contribute? In the meantime, if the new recurrent rule moves the trendy stuff off faster, more power to Billboard.

[drock89]

Well I definitely the new rules (I say rules because ever since 2002 it seems to be like this) promote a 'come in, get out' feel at country radio. We just don't have big hits that stay around like they used to in the 90s. I think of "You're Still the One," "How Do You Like Me Now?" "Where The Green Grass Grows," "This Kiss".... songs that still get good play today. Songs like anything from Garth's catalog from the early 90s. In fact, he's a great example; you don't hear "Beer Run," "Wrapped Up In You," or even really "More Than A Memory" much today. I bet "Friends In Low Places," "The Thunder Rolls," and "Unanswered Prayers" all get more play than "More Than A Memory."

I would bet in 10 years we won't be hearing "Love Story" or "Chicken Fried" or even "So Small" or "Just Got Started Loving You." The current radio scene does not promote songs moving to gold airplay at all... the only songs I think, recently, that might fit the bill are "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue," "Somebody Like You," "Like Like You Were Dying," and "As Good As I Once Was." You might be able to include "Jesus, Take The Wheel" and "Redneck Woman," but even those, I don't think, will be songs that we think of in 20 years, like "Islands in the Stream" and "He Stopped Loving Her Today"

[smack]

Radio will definitely change over the next 20 years...think about it, even now, people with the power of the internet can listen to virtually any station they want via that station's web site. So, think 10 years from now. Every station will be available worldwide, stations will have to cater to what the mass wants, or people will turn away and listen to other stations with the technology that is available. We very well could have a "jack" station that plays a little bit of everything yet covers not one single format shortly. There could be a "lite" and a "heavy" one right now for all I care...I'd listen to them. Imagine, hearing some Aerosmith & some heavier country songs on the same station...gee, just like people's playlists on their computers now. For all I know, radio could be dead as we know it in less than 20 years. However, we should start a separate thread if this continues. This is simply to cover the new bb recurrent rules

[Marv]

I agree 100% with you, Zazie; the format definitely skews female, and the fact that Lady Antebellum, Taylor & Carrie were the only three female (or female-inclusive) acts to place songs within the year-end top 20 @ Mediabase tells me that the men who are programming the overwhelming majority of the 2,000+ country stations out there are too fixated on the male stars of the format, judging by their domination of the 'power gold' chart on top of the weekly & yearly charts.

Aside from Ms. McEntire, women over 30 don't appear to be welcome at the format, and that's pathetic.

Ms. Womack & Ms. Yearwood, as well as Patty Loveless have arguably been the three most-respected female country vocalists out there over the past 15-20 years, but they are almost totally ignored despite releasing some very exhilirating music over the past 18 months.

I do like BBs modification of the recurrent rule, but Mediabase's absurd requirement that country stations only need to play 25% current music to become eligible for the reporting panel also clogs up the charts; that number should be much higher.

[Zazie]

Marv, I'll go along with including Lady A when they release a song with a female lead and it proves successful. Remember what happened when LBT tried that.

Thanks for reminding me about the 25% rule. You are right, it's a contributing factor in the mess that is today's mainstream country radio.

I do like the new BB recurrent rule but I can't see how it will have an impact on the programming decisions I'm objecting to. So I'll admit that smack is right and I am helping take this thread o/t.

[Ten Pound Hammer]

I just realized something about this rule. Gretchen Wilson's "All Jacked Up" would've had a ridiculously short run. Think about it, this was the trajectory:

21-15-10-11-12-11-9-8-8-9-17-23-32-32-38-40-37-39-41

If I recall correctly, the week it fell 10-11 was actually a loss of bullet. She was probably slipping somewhere around that second week at #8, if not sooner.

[Zazie]

Dec 23, 2008 14:57:02 GMT -5 Ten Pound Hammer said:

I just realized something about this rule. Gretchen Wilson's "All Jacked Up" would've had a ridiculously short run. Think about it, this was the trajectory:

21-15-10-11-12-11-9-8-8-9-17-23-32-32-38-40-37-39-41

If I recall correctly, the week it fell 10-11 was actually a loss of bullet. She was probably slipping somewhere around that second week at #8, if not sooner.

She lost about 100k of audience the 10-11 week but she still had a bullet. (I can't believe I went back to look. But I did.)

While I'm at it -- she had no bullet when she advanced 9-8 but then the 8-8 week she regained it. That was it for the bullets, so she would have had an 11-week run, being pulled the week after her fall to #17. Which, when I look at it, seems like the perfect time to have pulled the song -- the rest of its run was not interesting in my judgment. You're certainly right about that being a short run.

I wonder how long Garth would have charted with Your Song or whatever the name of that one was.

[Marv]

Some of the format's megastars have had singles spend less than fifteen weeks on the charts, yet still spend 3-6 weeks at #1 and wind up #1 for the year, so the fact that 'Love Story' spent just twelve weeks on the charts shouldn't really matter since it reached #1.

I certainly agree with Zazie (again!!!) that there aren't nearly enough female PDs at country radio; Meg Stevens (formerly @ WGAR/Cleveland, now PD at WPOC/Baltimore and WMZQ/Washington DC), Becky Brenner (KMPS/Seattle), and Beverlee Brannigan (KFDI/Wichita) are all very successful PDs, but it's really insulting that there are very few female PDs at country radio, and especially in the top 50-75 markets.

If Mediabase would tweak their recurrent rule to something on the order of five successive weeks of declines in spins and audience and ranked below #1 (the current rule is three weeks), that would certainly make more sense to me; as I've stated before, the fact that a song that can be #1 one week and off the charts and countdown shows a mere three weeks later is pretty abrupt.

Billboard's tweaking of that rule (and their reporting panels) is fine with me; too many stations lean far too heavily on their libraries, and the format is also plagued by too many PDs who use the national charts to program their stations, and won't let go of a recent smash when a new single gets released, as Phil Vassar and especially Rodney Atkins found out this year.

[Ten Pound Hammer]

Dec 23, 2008 19:43:21 GMT -5 Zazie said:

I wonder how long Garth would have charted with Your Song or whatever the name of that one was.

"It's Your Song", perhaps the least played Top 10 hit ever, only because it was over so fast. 33-10-9-10-11-17-20-27-35-35-fell below #40 and never came back. I'd say six, seven weeks at the most. Of course, given that some songs were dancing around the 20-24 range forever before going recurrent by this point (Just to See You Smile for one), the 1998-2003 range would've looked markedly different had the current rules been in place sooner. All those artists whose debut singles peaked in the 20s or 30s (you know, guys like Keith Harling) probably would've been hitting much more desirable numbers without so many former Top 10s in their way, and having much higher peaking debuts MIGHT have led to at least marginally careers for these underlings.

Getting back to It's Your Song, the week it went 33-10 (November 21, 1998), there was a serious clearing out of the Top 10, with Husbands & Wives, Someone You Used to Know, Let Me Let Go, You're Easy on the Eyes, and Right on the Money all jumping into T10 at the same time as Garth, with all but Collin eventually making #1. Conversely, some of the drops from T10 were huge: How Do You Fall In Love (3 to 11), You Move Me (5-16), the wretched Forever Love (4-17), I Wanna Feel That Way Again (9-23). I don't think my stations played I Wanna Feel That Way Again at all. I also know that We Really Shouldn't Be Doing This did a lot of bouncing around within T10 (7-4-5-8-6-5-10) around the same time. Any idea what all this nonsense was about? Was this just a freak coincidence of timing that led to 7 songs entering the Top 10 at once, and/or ended up coming insanely close to each other in audience? Panel change? Ripple effect from Garth? Soft charts?

If it was just a case of chart softness, it might explain why I haven't heard stuff like Let Me Let Go, Husbands & Wives, Wrong Again, No Place That Far, and just about every #1 between Where the Green Grass Grows and Amazed in ages. "Soft" #1's tend to be fairly low on the recurrent ladder.