American Top 40 (HOT AC) - May 8-9, 2010

[Battle601]

AT40 (HOT AC) – MAY 8-9, 2010

"I'm Yours" now ties "Love Song" for the longest run in the history of the AT40 (Hot AC) chart at 103 weeks. Seriously...

LW TW Wks Artist - Title
01 01 (13) Lady Antebellum - Need You Now (6th week at #1)
02 02 (32) Train - Hey, Soul Sister
03 03 (26) The Script - Breakeven
04 04 (22) Daughtry - Life After You
05 05 (25) Kris Allen - Live Like We're Dying
09 06 (24) OneRepublic - All The Right Moves
08 07 (10) Adam Lambert - Whataya Want From Me
07 08 (25) Lifehouse - Halfway Gone
06 09 (14) Orianthi - According To You
10 10 (22) Michael Bublé - Haven't Met You Met

13 11 (08) Colbie Caillat - I Never Told You
11 12 (18) John Mayer - Heartbreak Warfare
12 13 (15) Lady GaGa - Bad Romance
14 14 (05) Kelly Clarkson - All I Ever Wanted
19 15 (03) Nickelback - This Afternoon
15 16 (29) Rob Thomas - Someday
17 17 (12) Muse - Uprising
18 18 (08) Bon Jovi - Superman Tonight
22 19 (07) Lady GaGa Featuring Beyoncé – Telephone
20 20 (46) Kings of Leon - Use Somebody

16 21 (23) Shinedown - If You Only Knew
24 22 (40) The Black Eyed Peas - I Gotta Feeling
23 23 (35) Kelly Clarkson - Already Gone
26 24 (07) Theory Of A Deadman - All Or Nothing
BR 25 (01) Jason Derulo - In My Head
21 26 (14) Ke$ha - Tik Tok
25 27 (103) Jason Mraz - I'm Yours
27 28 (39) Michael Franti & Spearhead Featuring Cherine Anderson - Say Hey (I Love You)
29 29 (03) Taylor Swift - Today Was A Fairytale
28 30 (27) Owl City - Fireflies

31 31 (37) Uncle Kracker - Smile
33 32 (44) Colbie Caillat - Fallin' For You
35 33 (50) Pink - Please Don't Leave Me
36 34 (04) Snow Patrol - Just Say Yes
32 35 (49) Daughtry - No Surprise
30 36 (55) Shinedown - Second Chance
34 37 (42) Taylor Swift - You Belong With Me
37 38 (81) Katy Perry - Hot N Cold
40 39 (02) Melissa Etheridge - Fearless Love
EX 40 (01) Ryan Star - Breathe

Dropped from this week's chart:
38 (08) Barenaked Ladies - You Run Away
39 (05) Pearl Jam - Just Breathe


SEGMENTS
HOUR 1 (Guest: Audrina Partridge, "The Hills")
BREAKOUT (BR): V V Brown - Shark In The Water (between #32 and #31)
OPTIONAL EXTRA: Justin Timberlake - Cry Me A River

HOUR 2 (Guest: Mike Mitchell, "Shrek Forever After")
BREAKOUT (EX): Angel Taylor - Like You Do (between #22 and #21)
OPTIONAL EXTRA: Mary J. Blige - Be Without You

HOUR 3 (Guest: The Jonas Brothers)
OPTIONAL EXTRA: The All-American Rejects - Gives You Hell

HOUR 4 (Guest: Shakira)
OPTIONAL EXTRA: Cascada - Evacuate The Dancefloor

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

What a craptastic chart & show.

What's the over/under for "I'm Yours"? I am going to wager it makes it into 2011.

[David]

Hopefully Glitter In The Air makes in on soon!

[friday]

I'll bet on "I'm Yours" reaching 115 weeks... with "Hey, Soul Sister" eclipsing it in January 2012.

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

May 10, 2010 0:26:54 GMT -5 friday said:

I'll bet on "I'm Yours" reaching 115 weeks... with "Hey, Soul Sister" eclipsing it in January 2012.

LOL - I'm going to guess that "Hey, Soul Sister" will fall just a little short with a mere 101 weeks on the chart.

On the other hand, "All The Right Moves" could very well have the first 150-week run.

[†ealsünset]

May 9, 2010 23:42:23 GMT -5 David said:

Hopefully Glitter In The Air makes in on soon!

Yes! I'd be great to have Glitter in the Air replace Please Don't Leave Me, and Half of My Heart replace You Belong with Me. I don't think California Gurls will debut soon enough to replace Hot N Cold.

[dajross6]

Nobody will catch I'm Yours on this chart because it will get thrown in the trashcan by then (at least I'm hoping).

[musicfanpete]

May 10, 2010 12:50:09 GMT -5 dajross6 said:

Nobody will catch I'm Yours on this chart because it will get thrown in the trashcan by then (at least I'm hoping).

I'm kind of hoping this whole chart gets thrown in the trash can soon! ;)

[Battle601]

May 10, 2010 19:11:12 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

I'm kind of hoping this whole chart gets thrown in the trash can soon! ;)

Gosh, if this keeps up, I would not be surprised if this chart goes the same way we saw with Casey last year with both the AT10 & AT20 charts signing off the air.

There comes a certain point where you can have a song stay on the charts for only so long. It's hard to imagine that there are plenty of Hot AC stations still getting requests for songs like "I'm Yours" and "Hot N Cold" at this point. The only possible reasons I can think of are: The panel has a number of stations (AC?) that are out of place with the format and/or you've got AC stations that are also carrying the AT40 Hot AC edition to make up for the losses of the other AT charts.

I look at Rick's chart and where it's by far the strongest, is the bottom end where we see more of the newer songs reach higher peaks all thanks to the limits with recurrent songs. With AT40, it's more consistent in the Top 10 especially in following the official Mediabase charts. So in these respects, each chart has their strengths. Perhaps it's time to merge these two charts or something, I don't know.

The more I see these charts, the more I question their validity. The same goes for radio stations with their daily/weekly countdown shows. You listen to them regularly for a while and notice a pattern of hearing songs that get played under the guise of being "most requested" but at the same time it intends to fulfill the quota of having them played according to the schedule of their playlists. Throw in a little payola from the record companies pushing the stations to have certain songs played and that more or less contributes to how they rank on the charts.

I invite someone to correct me on this assessment for the purpose of constructive criticism.

For instance, on my radio station which shall remain nameless, I listen to its weekly Top 30 Countdown show and have seen just about all kinds of crazy moves from one week to the next. A song like "Halfway Gone" spends 7 straight weeks at #20 and has spent the better part of its run hovering near its peak of #15. Some songs will climb up one spot a week in the #20s then suddenly skyrocket to the Top 10. Then you have others that fall hard and then get stuck in the same position for about a month before taking forever to fall off long after they have reached their peak. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has witnessed this.

[musicfanpete]

May 10, 2010 21:08:28 GMT -5 Battle601 said:

May 10, 2010 19:11:12 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

I'm kind of hoping this whole chart gets thrown in the trash can soon! ;)

Gosh, if this keeps up, I would not be surprised if this chart goes the same way we saw with Casey last year with both the AT10 & AT20 charts signing off the air.

There comes a certain point where you can have a song stay on the charts for only so long. It's hard to imagine that there are plenty of Hot AC stations still getting requests for songs like "I'm Yours" and "Hot N Cold" at this point. The only possible reasons I can think of are: The panel has a number of stations (AC?) that are out of place with the format and/or you've got AC stations that are also carrying the AT40 Hot AC edition to make up for the losses of the other AT charts.

I look at Rick's chart and where it's by far the strongest, is the bottom end where we see more of the newer songs reach higher peaks all thanks to the limits with recurrent songs. With AT40, it's more consistent in the Top 10 especially in following the official Mediabase charts. So in these respects, each chart has their strengths. Perhaps it's time to merge these two charts or something, I don't know.

The more I see these charts, the more I question their validity. The same goes for radio stations with their daily/weekly countdown shows. You listen to them regularly for a while and notice a pattern of hearing songs that get played under the guise of being "most requested" but at the same time it intends to fulfill the quota of having them played according to the schedule of their playlists. Throw in a little payola from the record companies pushing the stations to have certain songs played and that more or less contributes to how they rank on the charts.

I invite someone to correct me on this assessment for the purpose of constructive criticism.

For instance, on my radio station which shall remain nameless, I listen to its weekly Top 30 Countdown show and have seen just about all kinds of crazy moves from one week to the next. A song like "Halfway Gone" spends 7 straight weeks at #20 and has spent the better part of its run hovering near its peak of #15. Some songs will climb up one spot a week in the #20s then suddenly skyrocket to the Top 10. Then you have others that fall hard and then get stuck in the same position for about a month before taking forever to fall off long after they have reached their peak. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has witnessed this.

You are for the most part right, with one exception. The AT40 chart is for all intents and purposes the Mediabase (recurrents included) Hot AC chart. If you subscribe to Allaccess.com (free subscription), click on the Hot AC chart and then click on the right hand pulldown menu and choose C/R. This would give you the Mediabase Hot AC chart with the recurrents left in. If you scan down, you will see "I'm Yours" still ranked in the mid to upper 20's based on actual airplay.

The reason recurrents get stuck in this area is really quite simple. Let's suppose you have a newer song rising up the charts with 1000 plays a week as an example. The next song is a major hit recurrent on the way "down" also with around 1000 plays. The rising song is probably only being played on 40 of the roughly 100 Hot AC reporters, while the recurrent is probably still being played on most of the panel. If 40 stations average 25 plays for the rising song, you will most likely have almost 100 stations averaging 10 spins for the recurrent, the typical recurrent rotation for an average Hot AC station.

Therefore, it's much harder for a major hit in recurrent status to lose spins quickly because most stations will play the song once a day for years. But let's say the rising song in this example stalls out at around 1000 plays, most stations will completely dump the song rather quickly since it is a bust and over half the stations never jumped on the song to begin with. Hence you have newer songs on AT 40 that spend 4 or 5 weeks or less on the chart and quickly drop out, while songs like "I'm Yours" and "Love Song" literally spend years on the chart!

The problem with AT40 using actual Mediabase data is that their charts don't move quickly at all, though their CHR chart does move faster, but not that much faster. But the old charts back in the 80's used playlists that were called in by each station, and based on whatever whim the PD wanted to call a legitimate playlist. In other words, the PD could make up any playlist they wanted, irregardless of how many times a song would actually be played on the station. I remember the old WLS-FM in Chicago in the 80's and their old WLS Music Surveys that ranked songs in a completely random order, that did not even come close to matching up with the order that the songs were actually played on the station! Therefore, with these random playlists, the charts moved a lot quicker, and a lot of that also had to do with the willingness of each station to take a chance on more new music.

Now, which chart comes the closest to using the "old school" method? Obviously the Rick Dees chart. I don't believe for a second that he actually compiles requests or uses official airplay charts for his countdown since the songs move linearly up and then down the chart for the most part. But Rick is more willing to add new songs to his countdown, far quicker than his counterparts at AT40. And even if some of these songs are "quick hitters" so to speak, at least they keep his chart fresh, and at the same time exposes newer artists to some well deserved airplay.

I can see AT40 running into problems if they don't speed up their Hot AC chart in the near future. There's no reason why they can't remove songs after the 52 or even 60 week mark. This would still give songs more time to remain on the chart if they remain strong, but at the same this rule would remove songs before they spend so much time on the chart it becomes a complete joke. That is why Mediabase and BDS instill recurrent rules to begin with, albeit a little too aggressive, but at least with good intentions.

I think I will stay with Rick Dees or even Randy Jackson as long as they exist. I can't take the AT40 Hot AC chart, or the lack of actual music knowledge for that matter, and I think AT40 could be on it's last legs if they don't at least instill one or two common sense recurrent rules to make the chart a bit more fresh.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm more than happy to explain why these charts differ. Hope this explains things. :)

[Battle601]

Regardless of how long your post was, that was actually some great insight and explanation. I really appreciate it! :)

[musicfanpete]

May 10, 2010 22:21:25 GMT -5 Battle601 said:

Regardless of how long your post was, that was actually some great insight and explanation. I really appreciate it! :)

No problem! :)

Again all AT40 really needs to do is to remove songs below the top 20 that have been around for over a year. This would make the chart fresher without going overboard like Mediabase and BDS have done, i.e. removing songs that fall out of the top 10 after 26 weeks. The Hot AC chart is a slower chart, and many songs still have "shelf life" after only six months. So something down the middle like a one year recurrent rule would be a good middle ground.

One of these days I may just go through all the previous AT40 charts posted here and try "implementing" that rule just to see how the old charts would look, especially if I have nothing better to do.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I think maybe these shows may get pressure from individual
stations for having newer songs at the bottom of their chart that they haven't added to their panel yet. Having fouroe five songs in the first hour that a listener is unfamiliar with on a format like hot ac could. Lose listeners so having a countdown show like at40 instead weens the listener onto new songs by introducing them slowly. I almost wonder if that was a factor in reformatting the show when Ryan took it over.

[musicfanpete]

May 11, 2010 15:10:45 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think maybe these shows may get pressure from individual
stations for having newer songs at the bottom of their chart that they haven't added to their panel yet. Having fouroe five songs in the first hour that a listener is unfamiliar with on a format like hot ac could. Lose listeners so having a countdown show like at40 instead weens the listener onto new songs by introducing them slowly. I almost wonder if that was a factor in reformatting the show when Ryan took it over.

I never understood that theory. I agree that you are right max that this is probably the reason AT40 does this, but are the stations really hurt that bad if they, perish the thought, actually play a few newer songs for just one hour a week?

The Mix in Chicago blows that theory out of the water by playing new music during the 9 to 10 PM hour seven days a week, with some songs that don't even fit the Hot AC format! The last time I checked, this show was not hurting them in the ratings!

As far as individual stations pressuring AT40 to introduce new songs slowly, I can understand their position, but this is too slow, even for this format.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

A lot of the new songs that graze the bottom of the chart might never get added by most Hot AC stations or at least not until months later. I think stations now are probably feeling more pressure to stay within their regular rotation of songs, which sucks but mainstream radio is all about familiarity and comfort level for their listeners. That's how it works. Anything that stands out too much doesn't work and anything that doesn't feel familiar to the listener doesn't work. That's why new artists without heavy outside promo get added during nighttime rotation first.

I think it's understand that if people want new music, they'll just go to the internet.

[Hervard]

May 10, 2010 21:48:36 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

The problem with AT40 using actual Mediabase data is that their charts don't move quickly at all, though their CHR chart does move faster, but not that much faster. But the old charts back in the 80's used playlists that were called in by each station, and based on whatever whim the PD wanted to call a legitimate playlist. In other words, the PD could make up any playlist they wanted, irregardless of how many times a song would actually be played on the station. I remember the old WLS-FM in Chicago in the 80's and their old WLS Music Surveys that ranked songs in a completely random order, that did not even come close to matching up with the order that the songs were actually played on the station! Therefore, with these random playlists, the charts moved a lot quicker, and a lot of that also had to do with the willingness of each station to take a chance on more new music.

I totally hear you about WLS. I have many of those playlists and you're right - they were completely random. And the Z95 playlists of the late-80s - you can tell those were completely fabricated. With a few exceptions, songs generally rose no higher than eight spots during the years that the lists went down to 40 (late 1986 through late 1987), and for pretty much the remainder of the station's existence (or through the summer of 1990, when the playlists were no longer printed out and they no longer did their own station countdown), when the charts went down to 30, there seemed to be a policy in which no song could rise more than six spots. In several cases, there were about eight or so songs moving up six spots, and no songs moving any faster. That couldn't be right (unless they were fudging around with airplay to make sure that these songs were actually attaining such chart movement, which I doubt).

At least Z95's year-end lists were somewhat accurate, with songs in rank order according to peak position and weeks charted. That's more than I can say for WLS's year-enders. Some songs that only peaked in the lower reaches of the chart were ranked high on the year-end list while certain songs that made the Top Ten were absent. The most glaring of this oversight was "The Stroke" by Billy Squier, which spent three weeks at #1 in the summer of 1981, yet it was nowhere to be found on the Big 89 of 1981.

[musicfanpete]

May 11, 2010 16:32:38 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

A lot of the new songs that graze the bottom of the chart might never get added by most Hot AC stations or at least not until months later. I think stations now are probably feeling more pressure to stay within their regular rotation of songs, which sucks but mainstream radio is all about familiarity and comfort level for their listeners. That's how it works. Anything that stands out too much doesn't work and anything that doesn't feel familiar to the listener doesn't work. That's why new artists without heavy outside promo get added during nighttime rotation first.

I think it's understand that if people want new music, they'll just go to the internet.

That's another dumb tactic that Hot AC radio (and other formats for that matter) use: dayparting. Unless it's a borderline CHR song, no songs should ever be dayparted on a Hot AC station. Most of their core listeners don't listen during the late evening and overnight hours, so how do the PD's know that their core listeners won't like a particular song if they don't at least attempt playing it in all dayparts?

Not a good tactic in my opinion.

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

[/quote]
I can't take the AT40 Hot AC chart, or the lack of actual music knowledge for that matter, [/quote]

I think this is the #2 issue I have with Seacrest. I can maybe buy why stations don't play new music (although frankly it's f..ing idiotic, but I don't want to rant), but the fact that Ryan is more concerned with talking about the likes of Paris Hilton and Kristen Stewart or whoever it takes to pander to the masses than talking about the actual songs is pretty disturbing.

I have tried on a couple of occasions to sit through the show, and I just can't do it. On the other hand, another station plays AT40 from the 1970's, and I have to disclipine myself to do something else... those shows were packed to the hilt with information, and averaged 4-5 new songs a week - I highly doubt listeners would turn away if they heard something that was unfamiliar.

But then again, there were a lot fewer choices in the 1970's - so what do I know.

[musicfanpete]

May 11, 2010 17:55:11 GMT -5 Hervard said:

At least Z95's year-end lists were somewhat accurate, with songs in rank order according to peak position and weeks charted. That's more than I can say for WLS's year-enders. Some songs that only peaked in the lower reaches of the chart were ranked high on the year-end list while certain songs that made the Top Ten were absent. The most glaring of this oversight was "The Stroke" by Billy Squier, which spent three weeks at #1 in the summer of 1981, yet it was nowhere to be found on the Big 89 of 1981.

You're absolutely right about the WLS year-end surveys Hervard. I remember listening to many of those and saying to myself, "how did THAT song rank so high on the chart??? I never even heard it played on the station?!" ??? Totally random on their part.

That almost sounds like Lady Gaga not showing up on this past year's Rick Dees year-end Hot AC top 40 chart, too!

[musicfanpete]

May 11, 2010 18:44:04 GMT -5 MostInterestingManInTheWorld said:

I can't take the AT40 Hot AC chart, or the lack of actual music knowledge for that matter, [/quote]

I think this is the #2 issue I have with Seacrest. I can maybe buy why stations don't play new music (although frankly it's f..ing idiotic, but I don't want to rant), but the fact that Ryan is more concerned with talking about the likes of Paris Hilton and Kristen Stewart or whoever it takes to pander to the masses than talking about the actual songs is pretty disturbing.

I have tried on a couple of occasions to sit through the show, and I just can't do it. On the other hand, another station plays AT40 from the 1970's, and I have to disclipine myself to do something else... those shows were packed to the hilt with information, and averaged 4-5 new songs a week - I highly doubt listeners would turn away if they heard something that was unfamiliar.

But then again, there were a lot fewer choices in the 1970's - so what do I know.

[/quote]

Thank god no one airs the Hot AC version of AT40 around here in Chicago! We do get the CHR version, and at least the CHR chart moves faster. But the "wealth" of music information is completely nonexistent on the CHR show too, which would make more sense since that show plays more teen pop.

But why the same useless info is spoon fed to the adult listeners of the Hot AC show is beyond me!

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

May 11, 2010 17:57:52 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

May 11, 2010 16:32:38 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

A lot of the new songs that graze the bottom of the chart might never get added by most Hot AC stations or at least not until months later. I think stations now are probably feeling more pressure to stay within their regular rotation of songs, which sucks but mainstream radio is all about familiarity and comfort level for their listeners. That's how it works. Anything that stands out too much doesn't work and anything that doesn't feel familiar to the listener doesn't work. That's why new artists without heavy outside promo get added during nighttime rotation first.

I think it's understand that if people want new music, they'll just go to the internet.

That's another dumb tactic that Hot AC radio (and other formats for that matter) use: dayparting. Unless it's a borderline CHR song, no songs should ever be dayparted on a Hot AC station. Most of their core listeners don't listen during the late evening and overnight hours, so how do the PD's know that their core listeners won't like a particular song if they don't at least attempt playing it in all dayparts?

Not a good tactic in my opinion.

Well, it's a way to test songs to an audience that they can take more risks with. And perhaps people that stay up late at night anyway are also the type that are more willing to hear songs that are out of the ordinary. It's probably more of a gradual process than anything.

But yeah, Hot AC is just naturally a slower moving format and it's probably not going to get anymore faster while at the same time will likely get more limiting.

[musicfanpete]

May 12, 2010 3:22:47 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Well, it's a way to test songs to an audience that they can take more risks with. And perhaps people that stay up late at night anyway are also the type that are more willing to hear songs that are out of the ordinary. It's probably more of a gradual process than anything.

But yeah, Hot AC is just naturally a slower moving format and it's probably not going to get anymore faster while at the same time will likely get more limiting.

But here's the thing Max. Aren't they taking an even bigger risk by not exposing their core audience to more music while potentially driving away even more of their audience due to repetition and burnout? I mean I don't expect the Hot AC format to become the new Triple AAA format by adding 10 to 15 new songs a week. But they can be a little more aggressive by allowing all dayparts to hear the new music they play. Just my thought.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I think unlike CHR/Pop, which probably has more of a limited playlist due to average listeners tuning in for just minutes at a time (hence their ability to replay songs sometimes within the hour), I think Hot AC relies more on familiarity over a longer period of time. Not to the extent of AC but I think listeners tune in to Hot AC to hear songs they know they can rely on for knowing. So having too many unfamiliar songs would be a turn-off for them.
So Hot AC has the overplay of songs, but unlike CHR/Pop, it's over a longer period of time. So a station might play a hit song on Hot AC hundreds of times but it's over the period of a few months rather than a few weeks like on a CHR station.

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

I have often thought that the pre-PPW methodology for chart making might actually have been superior, if not very accurate. Stations would play a countdown, notice that a song would be moving up the chart, and play said song. That in turn led to a more natural flow of stations playing new material.

[musicfanpete]

May 12, 2010 19:30:07 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think unlike CHR/Pop, which probably has more of a limited playlist due to average listeners tuning in for just minutes at a time (hence their ability to replay songs sometimes within the hour), I think Hot AC relies more on familiarity over a longer period of time. Not to the extent of AC but I think listeners tune in to Hot AC to hear songs they know they can rely on for knowing. So having too many unfamiliar songs would be a turn-off for them.
So Hot AC has the overplay of songs, but unlike CHR/Pop, it's over a longer period of time. So a station might play a hit song on Hot AC hundreds of times but it's over the period of a few months rather than a few weeks like on a CHR station.

Good points, though I still believe Hot AC listeners are sophisticated enough to be able to take on more new music than the record companies and radio believes they can handle. But I do understand that familiarity is the name of the game as the Hot AC chart moves pretty slowly compared to the CHR chart.

[musicfanpete]

May 12, 2010 20:30:39 GMT -5 MostInterestingManInTheWorld said:

I have often thought that the pre-PPW methodology for chart making might actually have been superior, if not very accurate. Stations would play a countdown, notice that a song would be moving up the chart, and play said song. That in turn led to a more natural flow of stations playing new material.

True, though researching more tightly regulated playlists came about long before the PPW went into effect. This more or less stems from the era of radio deregulation that forced stations to really tighten playlists up in order not to lose their listeners, and hence advertisers in order for the big radio companies to pay off their bills.

Too bad all of the radio alternatives (Ipods, Pandora, etc.) have not forced many stations to expand their playlists, though there are exceptions here and there.

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

May 12, 2010 21:22:41 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

May 12, 2010 19:30:07 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think unlike CHR/Pop, which probably has more of a limited playlist due to average listeners tuning in for just minutes at a time (hence their ability to replay songs sometimes within the hour), I think Hot AC relies more on familiarity over a longer period of time. Not to the extent of AC but I think listeners tune in to Hot AC to hear songs they know they can rely on for knowing. So having too many unfamiliar songs would be a turn-off for them.
So Hot AC has the overplay of songs, but unlike CHR/Pop, it's over a longer period of time. So a station might play a hit song on Hot AC hundreds of times but it's over the period of a few months rather than a few weeks like on a CHR station.

Good points, though I still believe Hot AC listeners are sophisticated enough to be able to take on more new music than the record companies and radio believes they can handle. But I do understand that familiarity is the name of the game as the Hot AC chart moves pretty slowly compared to the CHR chart.

Of course, this calls to mind the Murrow quote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people". But I'm with you - I do think the audience can handle, and in fact to a certain extent demand, new music once in awhile.

A defensive strategy in determining playlists is ultimately a losing one for everybody involved. Too bad most companies can't look beyond the here and now.

[MostInterestingManInTheWorld]

May 12, 2010 21:26:38 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

May 12, 2010 20:30:39 GMT -5 MostInterestingManInTheWorld said:

I have often thought that the pre-PPW methodology for chart making might actually have been superior, if not very accurate. Stations would play a countdown, notice that a song would be moving up the chart, and play said song. That in turn led to a more natural flow of stations playing new material.

True, though researching more tightly regulated playlists came about long before the PPW went into effect. This more or less stems from the era of radio deregulation that forced stations to really tighten playlists up in order not to lose their listeners, and hence advertisers in order for the big radio companies to pay off their bills.

Too bad all of the radio alternatives (Ipods, Pandora, etc.) have not forced many stations to expand their playlists, though there are exceptions here and there.

Another tactic that could be tried (but not by Seacrest as he really doesn't care about the music) would be for the charts to be 'true' to the greatest extent possible (that is, no or limited recurrent rules), but with the countdown shows effecting their own strategies about weeding out old songs. This is kind of what Dees and Jackson do.

But again, ultimately we need a host to actually talk about the artists involved.

[Hervard]

May 11, 2010 21:29:06 GMT -5 musicfanpete said:

You're absolutely right about the WLS year-end surveys Hervard. I remember listening to many of those and saying to myself, "how did THAT song rank so high on the chart??? I never even heard it played on the station?!" ??? Totally random on their part.

Another that I remember was on 1984's year-end chart. "Taking It All Too Hard" by Genesis was way up in the teens and as I recall, it peaked somewhere in the 30s. Yet, "Sunglasses At Night" by Corey Hart somehow didn't make it, even though it peaked in the Top Ten.

And what was up with the 1985 year-end charts? The printed surveys were totally different from the one they counted down on New Year's Eve. On the latter, "The Power Of Love" was number one. Yet, on the printed survey, "Sussudio" was number one.

(And I seem to recall that a few album cuts, which didn't chart beyond the "Extras" mysteriously made the list(s). Seems that someone at the station made a list of all the songs that charted on WLS through the year (even songs that fell off the chart after the first chart of the year - explaining how 1984 songs like "Hard Habit To Break" were included) and picked out their 89 favorite songs and ranked them in order of their preference.

And speaking of year-end charts, Z95's Top 95 of 1990 was completely weird. It was totally inconsistent with the Z95 Top 30 charts, with songs that hit the Top Five on that not making the chart, yet songs that did not even chart on the Z95 chart were included. Seemed more like a slightly rearranged version of the national year-end charts. But yeah, I tuned in, looking forward to hearing all the songs that never made the AT40 or Casey's Top 40 charts (as well as the ones that charted low on those countdowns), only to be disappointed and confused as to what the deal was. (And, of course, that was the last Z95 year-ender, as the station flipped to simulcast with its AM sister WLS, which by now was talk radio). Oh well, the station had become pretty much a joke by them, making a lame attempt to hurt B96's arbitron ratings by adopting a rhythmic Top 40 format as well. Had Z95 stayed a regular Top 40 station, it might not have died as fast as it did.

[musicfanpete]

May 14, 2010 11:33:44 GMT -5 Hervard said:

Another that I remember was on 1984's year-end chart. "Taking It All Too Hard" by Genesis was way up in the teens and as I recall, it peaked somewhere in the 30s. Yet, "Sunglasses At Night" by Corey Hart somehow didn't make it, even though it peaked in the Top Ten.

And what was up with the 1985 year-end charts? The printed surveys were totally different from the one they counted down on New Year's Eve. On the latter, "The Power Of Love" was number one. Yet, on the printed survey, "Sussudio" was number one.

(And I seem to recall that a few album cuts, which didn't chart beyond the "Extras" mysteriously made the list(s). Seems that someone at the station made a list of all the songs that charted on WLS through the year (even songs that fell off the chart after the first chart of the year - explaining how 1984 songs like "Hard Habit To Break" were included) and picked out their 89 favorite songs and ranked them in order of their preference.

And speaking of year-end charts, Z95's Top 95 of 1990 was completely weird. It was totally inconsistent with the Z95 Top 30 charts, with songs that hit the Top Five on that not making the chart, yet songs that did not even chart on the Z95 chart were included. Seemed more like a slightly rearranged version of the national year-end charts. But yeah, I tuned in, looking forward to hearing all the songs that never made the AT40 or Casey's Top 40 charts (as well as the ones that charted low on those countdowns), only to be disappointed and confused as to what the deal was. (And, of course, that was the last Z95 year-ender, as the station flipped to simulcast with its AM sister WLS, which by now was talk radio). Oh well, the station had become pretty much a joke by them, making a lame attempt to hurt B96's arbitron ratings by adopting a rhythmic Top 40 format as well. Had Z95 stayed a regular Top 40 station, it might not have died as fast as it did.

I think I remember that 1985 chart too. The printed copy was not the same as the one they used on the radio, which was stupid in that no one could follow along with the printed copy. I guess they wanted to mix up the order in order to keep people listening, though it did not matter because as you said, songs that probably weren't even released made those year end charts! Maybe they went by record sales only which sometimes differ significantly from what is played. But even as a 15 year old, I new when I was getting gyped!

Ah yes! The last days of Z95. What "fun" days those were! You knew a station was in big trouble when they renamed themselves "Hell" 94.7! I remember they brought in the same "consultant" who programmed the old "Power Pig" CHR station in Tampa, Florida. How that station dominated the ratings there is beyond me! Hell 94.7 basically resorted to rude deejays (a problem even before 94.7 literally went to "Hell"!), attacking B-96, ripping off their rhythmic playlist. Their ratings plummeted from an already low 2.0 to a disasterous 1.3, even after they dropped the name Hell and went to Hot 94.7. And just the fact that they catered to 12 year olds did not fulfill their objective of being a mass appeal station, and the listeners in Chicago thankfully did not fall for this train wreck of a station.

You just had to love this sort of "humor":

Station announcer: "Tune in for a big announcement at 7:20 this morning."
Deejay at 7:20: "B96 still sucks!"

Uhhh, yeah.