Billboard Hot 100: 03/02/13

[imbondz]

Feb 22, 2013 11:23:23 GMT -5 Codex said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:21:27 GMT -5 imbondz said:

I rarely if ever watch videos at Youtube

Cool, but 2 billion people do monthly. So... A lot of people nowadays listen to music on Youtube, by minimizing the video and just listening to the song itself.

I understand 2 billion people are watching videos at Youtube. But...that makes no sense they're listening as you say....unless you can make playlists at Youtube. Why would you go to Youtube, find a song, minimize video, listen to song, then when it's over, search for another song, minimalize video, listen...

[Deleted]

... But you can make playlists on Youtube. ???

[imbondz]

Feb 22, 2013 11:31:17 GMT -5 Codex said:

... But you can make playlists on Youtube. ???

oh cool. didn't know that. Still seems like a weird way to play music tho

[Deleted]

I think it's a simple way for people who don't mind medium quality audio, and are too poor to buy but too lazy to download illegally.

Feb 22, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -5 nighttime said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:28:53 GMT -5 imbondz said:

I understand 2 billion people are watching videos at Youtube. But...that makes no sense they're listening as you say....unless you can make playlists at Youtube. Why would you go to Youtube, find a song, minimize video, listen to song, then when it's over, search for another song, minimalize video, listen...

It's not my primary way of listening to music, but I do that a lot actually when I'm on the computer browsing the internet. There's also a lot of stuff I enjoy listening to occasionally for a short period of time, mostly present top 40 singles, but don't want in my iTunes.

I do it a lot too with older songs that I don't have on iTunes

[nighttime]

Feb 22, 2013 11:28:53 GMT -5 imbondz said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:23:23 GMT -5 Codex said:

Cool, but 2 billion people do monthly. So... A lot of people nowadays listen to music on Youtube, by minimizing the video and just listening to the song itself.

I understand 2 billion people are watching videos at Youtube. But...that makes no sense they're listening as you say....unless you can make playlists at Youtube. Why would you go to Youtube, find a song, minimize video, listen to song, then when it's over, search for another song, minimalize video, listen...

It's not my primary way of listening to music, but I do that a lot when I'm on the computer browsing the internet actually. There's also a lot of stuff I enjoy listening to occasionally for a short period of time, mostly present top 40 singles, that I don't want in my iTunes.

[imbondz]

Feb 22, 2013 11:34:02 GMT -5 Codex said:

I think it's a simple way for people who don't mind medium quality audio, and are too poor to buy but too lazy to download illegally.

Feb 22, 2013 11:34:21 GMT -5 nighttime said:

It's not my primary way of listening to music, but I do that a lot actually when I'm on the computer browsing the internet. There's also a lot of stuff I enjoy listening to occasionally for a short period of time, mostly present top 40 singles, but don't want in my iTunes.

I do it a lot too with older songs that I don't have on iTunes

you need Spotify!

[Deleted]

It's not available in my country :( Plus it would cost money anyway and I don't really have a problem with using Youtube for that purpose, since I like having visuals with my audio.

[thebops]

Feb 22, 2013 11:23:23 GMT -5 Codex said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:21:27 GMT -5 imbondz said:

I rarely if ever watch videos at Youtube

Cool, but 2 billion people do monthly. So... A lot of people nowadays listen to music on Youtube, by minimizing the video and just listening to the song itself.

Which is why I think so many people seem to be generally favorable to the idea but just opposed to the 30 second clips counting. If people liked the song, then they would play the official 3 minute and change version. So count those plays. Heck count *any* video that included the song in its entirety. But when 30 second clips are generating hundreds of thousands of views then it is obvious that the reason people are playing them is for the video portion of the clip, not the audio portion.

[Deleted]

I don't know about everyone else but I spent a lot of time playing those 30 second clips on repeat listening to the audio because I was lazy to search for the full version, lol.

[Deleted]

Feb 22, 2013 11:45:30 GMT -5 thebops said:

Feb 22, 2013 11:23:23 GMT -5 Codex said:

Cool, but 2 billion people do monthly. So... A lot of people nowadays listen to music on Youtube, by minimizing the video and just listening to the song itself.

Which is why I think so many people seem to be generally favorable to the idea but just opposed to the 30 second clips counting. If people liked the song, then they would play the official 3 minute and change version. So count those plays. Heck count *any* video that included the song in its entirety. But when 30 second clips are generating hundreds of thousands of views then it is obvious that the reason people are playing them is for the video portion of the clip, not the audio portion.

Not really. It is the 30 second clip and not the full video that sent this song to its current position on itunes. I think the 30 second clip in this case is the main popularity driver.

Now is that going to be the case for all songs? Not likely

This is why I think we ought to just wait and see

[Ballroom Blitzed]

It seems unlikely that Billboard would admit they fucked up about the thirty second thing.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Feb 22, 2013 11:13:37 GMT -5 @2m said:

The clear motivation for this change appears to be 'Gangnam Style'. Clearly more popular than 'One More Night' but due to the methodology in place was stuck at #2. This change should hopefully fix that

I agree that "Gangnam Style" should have been #1 instead of "One More Night" (and I loathed the former and liked the latter, but fair is fair).

If they had not lessened the impact of sales and increased the impact of radio airplay, "Gangnam Style" would have enjoyed several weeks at #1. I personally would treat viewing a music video somewhat less than on-demand streaming but more than radio airplay. I would also only include the full-length music video, not clips. Say, 1,000 video streams per chart point. A music video that was streamed 8 million times in a week would receive 8,000 points equivalent to 96,000 downloads or 60 million AI.

When it comes to passive measures of popularity such as radio airplay, or watching Youtube, where one does not know if a person actually likes the song, it is very difficult to come up with a methodology that everyone can agree upon.

In my ideal world of music charts, only sales and on-demand streaming would count. But in my ideal world a lot of other things would be different! :)

[popstop]

I can only imagine how long this thread would be if it had been implemented two years ago. Friday would have beaten Born This Way.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Feb 22, 2013 12:37:11 GMT -5 popstop said:

I can only imagine how long this thread would be if it had been implemented two years ago. Friday would have beaten Born This Way.

People keep mentioning the song "Friday" by Rebecca Black (?). I have never listened to the song, but if it is as bad as people say, I think I will deny myself the pleasure. I have lived through too many bad pop songs (many of which hit #1) to listen to one more.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Feb 22, 2013 12:02:19 GMT -5 Ballroom Blitzed said:

It seems unlikely that Billboard would admit they f**ked up about the thirty second thing.

I don't really think that is the issue. I think the issue is that 100million youtube views is more than 100million in airplay and worth more than 100k in actual record sales.

[damazz09]

What's really bothering me about this thread is that people are acting a song like Harlem Shake is going to get 100+ million every week and it's going to be a song that radio barely touches. I think it's pretty obvious that this song is an outlier (meaning that it happens very infrequently for those that don't seem to understand). The weight of youtube seems pretty fair to me. I think that a normal week that has a #1 video is going to get 8-15 million views and when you factor that in, it will make sense.

People need to understand that this is not going to happen every week and to chill out. If you don't like the Hot 100 then there are plenty of other charts that specialize in sales, airplay and just streaming. The Hot 100 is a subjective chart and it's not going to make everyone happy. But if Billboard is going to a Hot 100, it better be the most comprehensive chart out there which does include sales, airplay, streaming, youtube and etc etc.

Example, lets say Billboard only included airplay for many years then all of a sudden they decide to include sales. The week they debut a Hot 100 with sales incorporated is a new Lady Gaga song that gets 1,000,000 downloads in a week but has very small airplay, maybe 10-20 million, debuts at #1 on Hot 100. The people that are outraged by this youtube addition would be outraged about sales. They would be saying how can a song that has so little airplay comparatively debut a #1. How can 1 million sales be worth more than 200 million radio impressions and that they need to reduce the weight of sales because it's way too much. But 1 million sales in one week is such a rare occurrence and most weeks sales won't outweigh airplay as much, it just happens to be when sales are astronomical, they are going to weigh more.

Apply that example with the youtube addition and that's what is happening. 103 million will not be the norm.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Billboard has a monopoly on measuring the popularity of music in the US (and in Canada for that matter), so it has an obligation to get it right.

I don't think many of us are thinking that what happened this week will be a common occurence. But Billboard cannot afford to have off weeks, it's methodology has to make sense in order for it to maintain its' reputation. By all means have "Harlem Shake" debut at #1 based on sales, youtube streaming etc., but when the margin of victory is greater than all but maybe 3 weeks in the past 55 years ("Candle In The Wind 1997" had at least 3 weeks), it better be defensible.

[jebsib]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it is so funny how - like the recurrent rule - these changes appeared with no prior announcement (unlike every other policy changes of the last 22 years) - seemed rushed (the recurrent rule chart was released VERY late on Wednesday as was this weeks') and both occurred on special weeks (Whitney's death spurred IWALY's top 10 reentry, the Harlem phenom). It feels like these guys are last-minute scrambling to accommodate these anomalies.

[Linnethia Monique]

Feb 22, 2013 15:20:07 GMT -5 jebsib said:

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it is so funny how - like the recurrent rule - these changes appeared with no prior announcement (unlike every other policy changes of the last 22 years) - seemed rushed (the recurrent rule chart was released VERY late on Wednesday as was this weeks') and both occurred on special weeks (Whitney's death spurred IWALY's top 10 reentry, the Harlem phenom). It feels like these guys are last-minute scrambling to accommodate these anomalies.

And that right there is the issue. The same could be applied to The Eagles and Britney Spears fiasco. These spur of the moment changes that have a MAJOR effect on everything.

[Au$tin]

Just heard this song on the radio. Kind of fitting.

[Enyasurvivor]

Feb 22, 2013 12:27:37 GMT -5 Quixotic Music Lover said:

When it comes to passive measures of popularity such as radio airplay, or watching Youtube, where one does not know if a person actually likes the song, it is very difficult to come up with a methodology that everyone can agree upon.

In my ideal world of music charts, only sales and on-demand streaming would count. But in my ideal world a lot of other things would be different! :)

I have to ask, how id on-demand streaming different from youtube streaming? I use both YouTube and Spotify to stream songs to decide whether I like them enough to buy them on iTunes. So, people can stream songs they don't actually like on Spotify as much as they can on YouTube.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Feb 22, 2013 14:26:47 GMT -5 damazz09 said:

What's really bothering me about this thread is that people are acting a song like Harlem Shake is going to get 100+ million every week and it's going to be a song that radio barely touches. I think it's pretty obvious that this song is an outlier (meaning that it happens very infrequently for those that don't seem to understand). The weight of youtube seems pretty fair to me. I think that a normal week that has a #1 video is going to get 8-15 million views and when you factor that in, it will make sense.

People need to understand that this is not going to happen every week and to chill out. If you don't like the Hot 100 then there are plenty of other charts that specialize in sales, airplay and just streaming. The Hot 100 is a subjective chart and it's not going to make everyone happy. But if Billboard is going to a Hot 100, it better be the most comprehensive chart out there which does include sales, airplay, streaming, youtube and etc etc.

Example, lets say Billboard only included airplay for many years then all of a sudden they decide to include sales. The week they debut a Hot 100 with sales incorporated is a new Lady Gaga song that gets 1,000,000 downloads in a week but has very small airplay, maybe 10-20 million, debuts at #1 on Hot 100. The people that are outraged by this youtube addition would be outraged about sales. They would be saying how can a song that has so little airplay comparatively debut a #1. How can 1 million sales be worth more than 200 million radio impressions and that they need to reduce the weight of sales because it's way too much. But 1 million sales in one week is such a rare occurrence and most weeks sales won't outweigh airplay as much, it just happens to be when sales are astronomical, they are going to weigh more.

Apply that example with the youtube addition and that's what is happening. 103 million will not be the norm.

given the complications of youtube like, the fact that its not a song but a video, or that its part of a mashup etc...I think it should count as much as airplay at best.

[superbu]

Feb 22, 2013 12:27:37 GMT -5 Quixotic Music Lover said:

If they had not lessened the impact of sales and increased the impact of radio airplay, "Gangnam Style" would have enjoyed several weeks at #1. I personally would treat viewing a music video somewhat less than on-demand streaming but more than radio airplay. I would also only include the full-length music video, not clips. Say, 1,000 video streams per chart point. A music video that was streamed 8 million times in a week would receive 8,000 points equivalent to 96,000 downloads or 60 million AI.

When it comes to passive measures of popularity such as radio airplay, or watching Youtube, where one does not know if a person actually likes the song, it is very difficult to come up with a methodology that everyone can agree upon.

In my ideal world of music charts, only sales and on-demand streaming would count. But in my ideal world a lot of other things would be different! :)

Will you marry me? ;)

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Will you marry me?


You are making me blush.

I was thinking, if I posted a video on YouTube of me lip-synching "You Light Up My Life" by Debbie Boone in drag, and it got 30 million views in one week (assuming I got permission to use the song), would it chart on the HOT 100?

[Verisimilitude]

Yes. And a possibility a chance to participate on RuPaul's Drag Race.

[HolidayGuy]

When people talk of impacting the charts and their personal faves with YouTube, are they serious or just taking the piss? To me, the idea is kinda absurd-. In any event, these instances that take off in a HUGE way aren't planned- they just sorta happen, and it's usually with unknowns.

[Envoirment]

Feb 24, 2013 15:36:55 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

When people talk of impacting the charts and their personal faves with YouTube, are they serious or just taking the piss? To me, the idea is kinda absurd-. In any event, these instances that take off in a HUGE way aren't planned- they just sorta happen, and it's usually with unknowns.

Serious. And to some extent it's true. A lot of Alternative/Rock acts will likely suffer. It could also hurt newer acts trying to breakthrough because they don't have the video budget of more established acts. Although I don't think it would be a big problem, as you can have videos with lots of views but a low budget (Adele - RITD, Carly Rae Jepsen - CMM, Gotye - STIUTK ect). It just means that people will have to start taking music videos more seriously.

[Deleted]

Random events may occasionally go viral and impact the charts. However, in most cases the sames songs that rule now will rule in the future, skewed a bit to the teen crowd (One Direction, etc.)

[superbu]

This is all why I really pay very little attention to any chart except Hot Digital Songs anymore. The composition of the Hot 100 can change on a whim. Hot Digital Songs is just cold, hard facts.

[Quixotic Music Lover]

Feb 24, 2013 15:45:44 GMT -5 @2m said:

Random events may occasionally go viral and impact the charts. However, in most cases the sames songs that rule now will rule in the future, skewed a bit to the teen crowd (One Direction, etc.)

I hope you are right, and songs going viral like GS and HS are rare. Based on what I see on YouTube's Top10 videos, teen pop and hip-hip dominate. Sadly, the music I like best, Alternative, is not helped. Thus, "Radioactive" which is doing well on the digital sales and on-demand charts, took a tumble last week.