New Billboard Hot AC Chart recurrent rules

[musicfanpete]

As alluded to on another thread today, some interesting new recurrent rules took effect this week on the latest Billboard Hot AC chart:

Descending songs below No. 5 are moved to recurrent after 52 weeks on the chart. Descending songs below No. 10 are moved to recurrent after 26 weeks on the chart. Descending songs below No. 15 are moved to recurrent after 20 weeks on the chart.

It will be interesting to see if Mediabase follows suit with this. This definately makes the Billboard Hot AC chart even fresher now. This means that #9 "Light On" by David Cook, which is at 26 weeks now, will most likely be moved to recurrent status next week as it should be passed up by the two songs right beneath it.

Now if only AT40 would establish these rules for their show. What a joke that chart has turned into!

[Battle601]

What were the recurrent rules prior to today? I understood the #15/20 week rule was in effect, and I guess that songs that were in the top 10 moving down did not go recurrent until 52 weeks.

Indeed, this should help keep things fresh.

[musicfanpete]

Apr 15, 2009 22:19:43 GMT -5 Battle601 said:

What were the recurrent rules prior to today? I understood the #15/20 week rule was in effect, and I guess that songs that were in the top 10 moving down did not go recurrent until 52 weeks.

Indeed, this should help keep things fresh.

Before today the only other rule aside from the #15/20 week rule was a #10/52 week rule. Now #10 is dropped to 26 weeks, where before we did not even have a #5 rule.

These rules now line up with the AC chart even though the AC chart moves much slower. Therefore, I think you will rarely see use of the #5/52 week rule, but it's there just in case.

[Rumors]

Good rule changes for the HotAC chart.

[Hot AC Archiver]

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. IMHO, the 20 weeks below #15 is enough for the Hot AC chart. Recurrent rules are an unfortunate necessity so that the chart doesn't look like the wreck that is AT40 HAC, but too many rules is artificially changing the chart to appear "fresher". It becomes less and less accurate with every rule that added, since it's no longer reflecting the most played songs on the format. As long as HAC remains faster than the AC chart on its own, it doesn't need the extra rules. I hope Mediabase doesn't follow suit.

[musicfanpete]

Apr 17, 2009 16:14:16 GMT -5 Hot AC Archiver said:

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. IMHO, the 20 weeks below #15 is enough for the Hot AC chart. Recurrent rules are an unfortunate necessity so that the chart doesn't look like the wreck that is AT40 HAC, but too many rules is artificially changing the chart to appear "fresher". It becomes less and less accurate with every rule that added, since it's no longer reflecting the most played songs on the format. As long as HAC remains faster than the AC chart on its own, it doesn't need the extra rules. I hope Mediabase doesn't follow suit.

You know, I think I have to agree with you on this. I think the Hot AC chart has moved quite a bit lately because a lot of songs recently met the #15/20 week rule, along with one that met the #10/52 week rule. There will probably be a bit of a lull the next couple of weeks as most of those songs have been "purged" off the chart, but in a few weeks you will see the next bunch of songs being removed as these eligible songs lose their bullets and begin their decent down the chart.

As slow as the AC chart is these days, I looked at their chart and saw a Lionel Richie song at #10! Is any station actually playing this? Obviously there are some, but if I remember correctly, that #10 song received almost 2000 fewer spins than the #1 song! This is what the Mediabase Hot AC chart may turn into if these rules are instituted on their HAC chart.

The good thing about the new Billboard rules is that it will give a few pop crossovers a better chance to do well than the current rules allow. Maybe "Let It Rock" peaks at #13 instead of #16, and maybe "Circus" by Britney Spears touches the top 20 for a week or two. But as you stated Hot AC Guru, this makes for a more artificial chart, and though it may come closer to looking like the Canadian Hot AC chart (maybe that's Billboard's intent), getting rid a bunch of songs prematurely is probably not the way to do it.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything Mediabase will do in the near future.

[gin]

Okay, quick question about Mediabase and not Billboard. Where is Thriving Ivory on the Hot AC chart? Did they go recurrent with a bullet? Is that even possible? Just because it took them over 20 weeks to reach the top 20? ???

[Battle601]

Apr 17, 2009 22:19:23 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

Apr 17, 2009 16:14:16 GMT -5 Hot AC Archiver said:

I have to respectfully disagree on this one. IMHO, the 20 weeks below #15 is enough for the Hot AC chart. Recurrent rules are an unfortunate necessity so that the chart doesn't look like the wreck that is AT40 HAC, but too many rules is artificially changing the chart to appear "fresher". It becomes less and less accurate with every rule that added, since it's no longer reflecting the most played songs on the format. As long as HAC remains faster than the AC chart on its own, it doesn't need the extra rules. I hope Mediabase doesn't follow suit.

You know, I think I have to agree with you on this. I think the Hot AC chart has moved quite a bit lately because a lot of songs recently met the #15/20 week rule, along with one that met the #10/52 week rule. There will probably be a bit of a lull the next couple of weeks as most of those songs have been "purged" off the chart, but in a few weeks you will see the next bunch of songs being removed as these eligible songs lose their bullets and begin their decent down the chart.

As slow as the AC chart is these days, I looked at their chart and saw a Lionel Richie song at #10! Is any station actually playing this? Obviously there are some, but if I remember correctly, that #10 song received almost 2000 fewer spins than the #1 song! This is what the Mediabase Hot AC chart may turn into if these rules are instituted on their HAC chart.

The good thing about the new Billboard rules is that it will give a few pop crossovers a better chance to do well than the current rules allow. Maybe "Let It Rock" peaks at #13 instead of #16, and maybe "Circus" by Britney Spears touches the top 20 for a week or two. But as you stated Hot AC Guru, this makes for a more artificial chart, and though it may come closer to looking like the Canadian Hot AC chart (maybe that's Billboard's intent), getting rid a bunch of songs prematurely is probably not the way to do it.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything Mediabase will do in the near future.

Now that I understand more the whole extent of the situation, we'll have to wait and see what the chart will be like under the new rules, but based on what Hot AC Guru was saying, it seems like I have mixed feelings about it now as well.

As much as I would like to see a chart that appears "fresh", that would, in the long run, defeat the purpose of having a Hot AC chart with its own set of recurrent rules and make it more like AC.

I'll admit that Mediabase has been quite accurate with their Hot AC charts under the present recurrent rules, maintaining a balance in both keeping songs current and retaining those bound to go recurrent until they've fulfilled the requirements. Therefore, I hope that Mediabase continues with this same approach they have worked with so far.

[Battle601]

Apr 17, 2009 22:54:38 GMT -5 gin said:

Okay, quick question about Mediabase and not Billboard. Where is Thriving Ivory on the Hot AC chart? Did they go recurrent with a bullet? Is that even possible? Just because it took them over 20 weeks to reach the top 20? ???

Thriving Ivory did indeed go recurrent. Although they were in the Top 20, they were reaching 21 weeks on the chart when it finally happened. Whether they had a bullet or not, it would seem that they were not gaining any more spins at that point, and eventually they would start moving down so Mediabase made the call to move them to recurrent status.

I should point out that on Hot AC, the rules are different from CHR. Whereas a song that is below #20 and has spent 20 weeks inside the Top 40 will go recurrent on CHR, in Hot AC, a song that is below #15 and has spent at least 20 weeks on the chart will go recurrent. And again, this only applies to songs that begin to lose spins just as they become eligible for recurrency. This happened with both Kevin Rudolf and Missy Higgins.

The exception here is that if a song below #15 spending 20 or more weeks on the chart keeps gaining spins and maintains a positive bullet, then it's safe from recurrency until it peaks (in spins) and appears to move downward.

[gin]

Apr 18, 2009 0:22:37 GMT -5 Battle601 said:

Apr 17, 2009 22:54:38 GMT -5 gin said:

Okay, quick question about Mediabase and not Billboard. Where is Thriving Ivory on the Hot AC chart? Did they go recurrent with a bullet? Is that even possible? Just because it took them over 20 weeks to reach the top 20? ???

Thriving Ivory did indeed go recurrent. Although they were in the Top 20, they were reaching 21 weeks on the chart when it finally happened. Whether they had a bullet or not, it would seem that they were not gaining any more spins at that point, and eventually they would start moving down so Mediabase made the call to move them to recurrent status.

I should point out that on Hot AC, the rules are different from CHR. Whereas a song that is below #20 and has spent 20 weeks inside the Top 40 will go recurrent on CHR, in Hot AC, a song that is below #15 and has spent at least 20 weeks on the chart will go recurrent. And again, this only applies to songs that begin to lose spins just as they become eligible for recurrency. This happened with both Kevin Rudolf and Missy Higgins.

The exception here is that if a song below #15 spending 20 or more weeks on the chart keeps gaining spins and maintains a positive bullet, then it's safe from recurrency until it peaks (in spins) and appears to move downward.

Thank you. I understand now, but what was confusing me was the fact that AotM keeps moving up on the Rick Dees HAC chart, so I thought it may still be gaining spins.

[Adam (UTR)]

Posted on Mediabase today:

NEW HOT AC RECURRENT RULE: Downtrending songs below No. 10 are removed from the chart after 30 weeks. Downtrending songs below No. 15 are removed from the chart after 20 weeks. Songs that have not peaked top 15 are removed from the chart after 20 weeks if they have had two consecutive down weeks in spins.

[musicfanpete]

Apr 22, 2009 15:04:17 GMT -5 Adam (UTR) said:

Posted on Mediabase today:

NEW HOT AC RECURRENT RULE: Downtrending songs below No. 10 are removed from the chart after 30 weeks. Downtrending songs below No. 15 are removed from the chart after 20 weeks. Songs that have not peaked top 15 are removed from the chart after 20 weeks if they have had two consecutive down weeks in spins.

Well, I had a feeling Mediabase would follow suit with something similar to BDS, and they now indeed have, though with a #10/30 week rule instead of the BDS #10/26 week rule. I guess they wanted to be different! ;)

I'm waiting to hear from Hot AC Guru on this. I don't think he'll be too happy about this rule change!

[Hot AC Archiver]

How did you know?! :)

Yes, this sucks! >:( At least songs get 4 more weeks than on Billboard...

[musicfanpete]

Apr 22, 2009 15:31:33 GMT -5 Hot AC Archiver said:

How did you know?! :)

Yes, this sucks! >:( At least songs get 4 more weeks than on Billboard...

That was a quick response! :) Yeah, based on your earlier post, I knew you would be "thrilled" by what took place today!

But things could be worse. There's still always the AT40 chart! ;)

[Libra]

Come to think of it...the Mediabase change only seems like a small change at best. It seems like songs that are old enough to get removed once they fall past #10 would just get removed a couple weeks later anyway by passing 15. And songs hanging in the 11-15 range for great long times doesn't seem all that common here...or is it?

Honestly, the Mediabase change would seem greater if it came accompanied with a change at #5.

[folkfan]

The higher up they push the recurrency number, the less the chart reflects reality. What's the use of keeping the chart "fresh" if the music is not changing along with it?

God knows that harsher recurrency rules have not caused AC to move much faster.