dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 8:27:35 GMT -5
1,500 streams will be equal to an album sale. What in the world. I'm not opposed to including streaming in the chart, but that threshold is ridiculously low. No its not? 1500 streams is about $9.00 revenue, worked out at the industry streaming standard of $0.006 per stream. Thats enough to qualify for a TEA in my opinion. I wanted to quote everyone who said 1500 streams are too low/ or they just plucked out a random number. but i couldn't be bothered. I fully agree with adding streaming numbers to the mix, the way we consume music is changing and the charts should reflect that. Even better if they do do the methodology they use in Finland as mentioned above that seems like a better way to gauge popularity of an album. However i do not agree with this 10 track sales = one album sale to be included. I think it should be: BB 200 Album Sales + Streaming. BB H 100 Track Sales + Streaming + Radio. Hopefully the RIAA catches up now and dishes out certifications based on the new changes. we can see a return to getting platinum albums again!
|
|
kml567
Gold Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 972
|
Post by kml567 on Nov 20, 2014 8:28:29 GMT -5
Does Youtube views count as streaming to qualify for a TEA? I might be okay with it if they DON'T count Youtube, Pandora, etc. Only on-demand streaming should count.
In fact, I think the BB Hot 100 should also only count on-demand streaming. Counting Youtube (esp. viral videos) is totally ridiculous.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,616
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 20, 2014 8:40:31 GMT -5
I wanted to quote everyone who said 1500 streams are too low/ or they just plucked out a random number. but i couldn't be bothered. I fully agree with adding streaming numbers to the mix, the way we consume music is changing and the charts should reflect that. Even better if they do do the methodology they use in Finland as mentioned above that seems like a better way to gauge popularity of an album. The number of tracks needs to go with the regulation of album chart. If 5 track EP is an album according to Billboard then that should be factored in streaming too, meaning that 5 songs from an album is enough as a 1/1500 purchase. But yea, that figure 1/1500 is very interesting... that's too low for me. In the UK, 100 streams = 1 sale for singles chart.
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 8:43:56 GMT -5
I wanted to quote everyone who said 1500 streams are too low/ or they just plucked out a random number. but i couldn't be bothered. I fully agree with adding streaming numbers to the mix, the way we consume music is changing and the charts should reflect that. Even better if they do do the methodology they use in Finland as mentioned above that seems like a better way to gauge popularity of an album. The number of tracks needs to go with the regulation of album chart. If 5 track EP is an album according to Billboard then that should be factored in streaming too, meaning that 5 songs from an album is enough as a 1/1500 purchase. But yea, that figure 1/1500 is very interesting... that's too low for me. In the UK, 100 streams = 1 sale for singles chart. Why is the number too low? when it creates revenue of $9.00? which is about what an album sale creates?
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 8:44:43 GMT -5
Does Youtube views count as streaming to qualify for a TEA? I might be okay with it if they DON'T count Youtube, Pandora, etc. Only on-demand streaming should count. In fact, I think the BB Hot 100 should also only count on-demand streaming. Counting Youtube (esp. viral videos) is totally ridiculous. No it will only be on demand, no Youtube videos I believe.
|
|
jjose712
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 4,372
|
Post by jjose712 on Nov 20, 2014 8:46:51 GMT -5
I find the whole idea ridiculous. One thing is measuring the popularity of the songs (which sometimes it ended is something as ridiculous as the song that was top 10 some months ago due to a viral video that fall off the chart the next week), but this only seems to profit the most popular artist who doesn't sell that much albums.
I think i will skip the billboard top 200 from now on and will watch the album sales album instead
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,616
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 20, 2014 8:47:34 GMT -5
The number of tracks needs to go with the regulation of album chart. If 5 track EP is an album according to Billboard then that should be factored in streaming too, meaning that 5 songs from an album is enough as a 1/1500 purchase. But yea, that figure 1/1500 is very interesting... that's too low for me. In the UK, 100 streams = 1 sale for singles chart. Why is the number too low? when it creates revenue of $9.00? which is about what an album sale creates? From that point of view, then it maybe makes sense.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Nov 20, 2014 10:44:17 GMT -5
1,500 streams will be equal to an album sale. What in the world. I'm not opposed to including streaming in the chart, but that threshold is ridiculously low. No its not? 1500 streams is about $9.00 revenue, worked out at the industry streaming standard of $0.006 per stream. Thats enough to qualify for a TEA in my opinion. I wanted to quote everyone who said 1500 streams are too low/ or they just plucked out a random number. but i couldn't be bothered. I fully agree with adding streaming numbers to the mix, the way we consume music is changing and the charts should reflect that. Even better if they do do the methodology they use in Finland as mentioned above that seems like a better way to gauge popularity of an album. However i do not agree with this 10 track sales = one album sale to be included. I think it should be: BB 200 Album Sales + Streaming. BB H 100 Track Sales + Streaming + Radio. Hopefully the RIAA catches up now and dishes out certifications based on the new changes. we can see a return to getting platinum albums again! It's not so much the revenue issue that bothers me - it's the way Billboard is allocating the revenue. That's $9.00 of *single* revenue - not $9.00 of album revenue. If a track gets streamed 1500 times, I'm sort of fine with that counting as 8 or 9 single buys (and I'm fine with RIAA's single certifications including streams), but don't tell me that's the same as buying an entire album. If you want to tell me that streaming is indicative of sales interest in the *album,* you need a mechanism for telling me that the person's streaming is a substitute for a full album purchase - not the purchase of a select few singles. (I don't know what the answer to that is - I just know it's not what Billboard is proposing) I also don't see this as an era-contingent argument. "Singles artists" were a thing long before streaming took flight; there was never a guarantee that an artist with a hot single would also be a hot album seller. So why are we *now* choosing to conflate the two? Why are we now suggesting that an Avicii or Flo Rida album with one or two streaming-friendly singles was "bought" by more people than a country or standards album that people actually wanted to buy and consume in full? This rule change is actually changing the valuation of albums artists vs. singles artists - and it's using the guise of "keeping up with the times" to do so. There's also the unique user dilemma. When I physically buy an album, that's the end of my "transaction." Now matter how many times I play the song from the hard drive of my phone, load up the CD in my car or spin the vinyl in my house, I only made one purchase -- unless I choose to buy another copy. So only one sale counts. Broadly treating streams as "purchases," however, backdoors "consumption" into the sales chart. Whereas someone who bought a vinyl and listened to it once is counted the same as someone who bought it and did so 100 times from a "sales" standpoint, that's not the case in the streaming world. True, it's doubtful any individual person will stream an album's tracks more than 1500 times, but it's still logically inconsistent to suggest that one's listening habits should impact his contribution to sales when that ISN'T the case with legitimate album purchases.
|
|
forg
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,355
|
Post by forg on Nov 20, 2014 10:54:48 GMT -5
For now I don't like this change but I know in time I'll get over it when it becomes the norm
Well at least the Billboard 200 as we know it ended on a good note with such strong sales from 1989
|
|
kmbgs
7x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 7,244
|
Post by kmbgs on Nov 20, 2014 10:56:05 GMT -5
This is going to be
ONE
GIANT
MESS
|
|
kmbgs
7x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 7,244
|
Post by kmbgs on Nov 20, 2014 10:59:39 GMT -5
What I don't like about this is that it's giving an upper hand to artists with a hit single - single - on the album chart. The entire purpose of the album chart is to demonstrate the popularity of the work of an album as a whole. Now, when Rihanna or Katy or like someone pointed out, a viral video of someone dancing to Billie Jean, has a huge week of streaming, even if no one is buying their album or listening to any other song on the album via streaming, they'll see a huge bump on the ALBUM chart. This makes no sense!!!
|
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,079
|
Post by Juanca on Nov 20, 2014 11:11:02 GMT -5
Also agree with the issue of eliminating the difference between album and singles artists. I guess Rihanna and Katy Perry will be super happy with this change too. An effort like Taylor's or Beyonce's will be sort of minimized now
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,643
|
Post by jenglisbe on Nov 20, 2014 11:13:54 GMT -5
Billboard is a joke. Why do they insist on mixing apples, oranges and pears in their charts? Keep in mind Billboard is a trade magazine. Record labels probably wanted this change because streaming is where the industry is heading (well, it's there already). Will this also affect album certifications? Cuz Iggy's The New Classic TEA is over a million That's an RIAA question/issue, not Billboard.
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 11:34:23 GMT -5
I agree with the singles artist vs. albums artist debate it does take away from that.
They should do what spoil me harder said, impose those rules on the streaming matter.
In one weeks period if a person streams 5 or more songs from an album then class that as an 'album point'.
in this case an album would need 300 'album points' to be classed as a sale of an album.
5 songs = 1 album point. 300 album points x 5 songs = 1500 plays in total.
This way it is more showing of an albums popularity rather than just one single.
|
|
RockaByeBaby
6x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 6,325
|
Post by RockaByeBaby on Nov 20, 2014 11:46:09 GMT -5
Billboard is a joke. Why do they insist on mixing apples, oranges and pears in their charts? Keep in mind Billboard is a trade magazine. Record labels probably wanted this change because streaming is where the industry is heading (well, it's there already). Will this also affect album certifications? Cuz Iggy's The New Classic TEA is over a million That's an RIAA question/issue, not Billboard. Yea I know but since they also changed the singles certifications rules to include streaming I was wondering if they've mentioned anything regarding albums too yet considering this announcement
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,346
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Nov 20, 2014 11:48:31 GMT -5
So if a person streams ONE song from an album 1,500 times, it will be considered 1 WHOLE album sale?
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,473
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2014 11:54:16 GMT -5
So if a person streams ONE song from an album 1,500 times, it will be considered 1 WHOLE album sale? In theory, yes. But in practice it's basically impossible. Take Trumpets by Jason Derulo, for example. If you really wanted to get him an album sale out of that song, you would have to listen to that one song for 90 hours and 30 minutes. That's almost 4 straight days of nothing but streaming that one song. Keep in mind for it to count as a sale, you'll need 1500 streams within the same tracking period. And 1 or 2 sales on the margin are not effecting anybody's totals in a meaningful way.
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 12:08:40 GMT -5
So if a person streams ONE song from an album 1,500 times, it will be considered 1 WHOLE album sale? In theory, yes. But in practice it's basically impossible. Take Trumpets by Jason Derulo, for example. If you really wanted to get him an album sale out of that song, you would have to listen to that one song for 90 hours and 30 minutes. That's almost 4 straight days of nothing but streaming that one song. Keep in mind for it to count as a sale, you'll need 1500 streams within the same tracking period. And 1 or 2 sales on the margin are not effecting anybody's totals in a meaningful way. yes but if 1500 people stream it once, then that counts as an album sale.
|
|
dzjx
Gold Member
Joined: August 2011
Posts: 933
|
Post by dzjx on Nov 20, 2014 12:10:35 GMT -5
Perhaps they should go back to using raw $ to certify and chart albums? like how movies are charted based on how much $ they take in?
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,346
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Nov 20, 2014 12:24:09 GMT -5
So if a person streams ONE song from an album 1,500 times, it will be considered 1 WHOLE album sale? In theory, yes. But in practice it's basically impossible. Take Trumpets by Jason Derulo, for example. If you really wanted to get him an album sale out of that song, you would have to listen to that one song for 90 hours and 30 minutes. That's almost 4 straight days of nothing but streaming that one song. Keep in mind for it to count as a sale, you'll need 1500 streams within the same tracking period. And 1 or 2 sales on the margin are not effecting anybody's totals in a meaningful way. That's still weird though...the fact that that is not a real representation of someone buying a whole album. That's just a song being stream and it should only count as such. MESS.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,473
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2014 12:56:54 GMT -5
In theory, yes. But in practice it's basically impossible. Take Trumpets by Jason Derulo, for example. If you really wanted to get him an album sale out of that song, you would have to listen to that one song for 90 hours and 30 minutes. That's almost 4 straight days of nothing but streaming that one song. Keep in mind for it to count as a sale, you'll need 1500 streams within the same tracking period. And 1 or 2 sales on the margin are not effecting anybody's totals in a meaningful way. That's still weird though...the fact that that is not a real representation of someone buying a whole album. That's just a song being stream and it should only count as such. MESS. It's a representation of someone contributing the equivalent of the revenue from an album sale to the project. The BB200, at its base, is and always has been a consumption chart. When LPs were the only way to consume an artist's music, that is where the revenue was generated. If I bought an album 15 years ago, it was because I liked the first single. Eagle Eye Cherry sold a million copies of his album in the late 90s because he had a hit single. Did any of those million+ people who bought his album care about any of the other songs? No. But he still has a platinum album because of it.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,346
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Nov 20, 2014 13:00:42 GMT -5
^eh, that's all in theory. It's still not the same thing no matter how you slice it.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,616
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 20, 2014 13:01:41 GMT -5
We need a clear clarification where everything has been written down on bullet points...
There's just so much jargon around this..
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,473
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2014 13:06:22 GMT -5
^eh, that's all in theory. It's still not the same thing no matter how you slice it. When only 1 single was ever released from the album in the United States from a totally unknown Swedish singer, there's a pretty good bet that that was the only reason anybody bought his album.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,616
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 20, 2014 13:13:30 GMT -5
The "singles artist" and "album artist" issue is pure just now because people can actually CHOOSE if they only want to listen to one song, not even a single with a B side, just one song. Vanilla Ice wouldn't be an album artist now but somehow he spent 16 weeks at number one in the early 90s and has never charted since.
|
|
Keelzit
Diamond Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,815
|
Post by Keelzit on Nov 20, 2014 13:54:42 GMT -5
I'm sure Taylor Swift has something to do with this as she'll probably block One Direction from the top spot under this new methodology.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,473
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Nov 20, 2014 14:08:13 GMT -5
I'm sure Taylor Swift has something to do with this as she'll probably block One Direction from the top spot under this new methodology. You're aware it isn't starting this week right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 14:27:01 GMT -5
DAMMIT I was trying to quote whoever pointed out that 1500 streams earns about as much money as one album sale does, but I hit the wrong post quote button and im on my phone so I can't go back without losing everything i just typed. Well this post is a response to that just so you know.
Actually that kind of hits on the true problem i have with this...even before seeing your post my first thought was, they must have picked the number of streams that earn the label the same amount of money. Good to see that theory proven correct, but then that means they are basing this new chart at least partially on revenue - NOT on popularity as some insist the charts are supposed to measure. So which is it? We don't know, Billboard doesn't know, and even the labels might not know even though they're probably the ones who pushed for this. This brings to question what can truly be called 'popular.' just speaking personally the way i feel about people and songs that i only like enough to stream is not nearly as deep as how i feel about people and songs that i like so much that i want to buy them. Other people may feel differently. Im sure the artists involved think there's a difference between a stream and a purchase, especially since that 1500: 1 ratio doesn't seem to factor in THEIR revenue at at all. There's no consistent way to add it in.
I know this was inevitable but frankly it's too many moving parts and will always be too messy to regard as an accurate measure of anything other than the labels' bottom line. And you know, i could live with that if they would just admit that is what it is meant to do. When they try to pass it off as a true aggregate of poplarity they just sound full of shit to me.
|
|
popstop
6x Platinum Member
Pulse's Summer Intern
Advancing the Mountain Time Zone for all mankind
|
Post by popstop on Nov 20, 2014 14:32:17 GMT -5
That's still weird though...the fact that that is not a real representation of someone buying a whole album. That's just a song being stream and it should only count as such. MESS. It's a representation of someone contributing the equivalent of the revenue from an album sale to the project. The BB200, at its base, is and always has been a consumption chart. When LPs were the only way to consume an artist's music, that is where the revenue was generated. If I bought an album 15 years ago, it was because I liked the first single. Eagle Eye Cherry sold a million copies of his album in the late 90s because he had a hit single. Did any of those million+ people who bought his album care about any of the other songs? No. But he still has a platinum album because of it. I understand what you're saying, but isn't the H100 or singles streaming chart for that? If we want to know how much revenue a single is pulling in, we have charts for those. Why does it need to infringe on the album chart? Anyhow, we can't compare sales in the 90s today - singles were barely a thing in the late 90s, so you had to buy the album. Today, you buy an album because you want to hear other songs from the artist, not just the single - because why else would you? I'm sure I'll get used to this, but I think it's sad. The album as an artist's concept is in its death throes already, and Billboard takes another knife to it by catering to streaming individual tracks.
|
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,079
|
Post by Juanca on Nov 20, 2014 15:22:38 GMT -5
I remember the days when I'd go to a record store, grab an album of interest, request the staff to play snippets of songs and then decide to buy based on it... Although I usually already had an idea in mind
|
|