Billboard Hot 100: 08/29/15 (#MESS)

[Deleted]

Aug 19, 2015 15:37:45 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Aug 19, 2015 14:44:57 GMT -5 felipe said:

How can Billboard double check if Soundscan is the one who provides the figures? Is they got the wrong figures to begin with, they can triple check and still come up with wrong results.

Has there been any explanation on the mistake? Have they addressed Soundscan's mess up?

Since Billboard's sales data is exclusively driven by Nielsen, you're right, they can't issue "corrected" data until they get it from Nielsen.

The gripe is related to the fact that Billboard actually reported that dubious 248K figure (and used it in chart calculations).  It's problematic due to some combination of the following:

1)  Why didn't they notice the likely mistake earlier (and alert Nielsen to assess the data)?  How did that number not immediately raise a red flag?

2)  Even if they trusted the validity of Nielsen's data, their independent tracking (I sure hope they're doing SOME sort of day-by-day tracking of key music metrics) + all the reader comments on the article confirmed that the number was unintuitive/unexpected.  To not inquire -- and look into whether the song did unusually well at Amazon or Google or something -- is lazy, irresponsible reporting. Trust reported the number as if there was nothing remotely surprising about it.

Consider, for instance, how preposterous it'll be if Billboard reports this week's huge "x" sales figure and doesn't acknowledge the $0.99 sale on Google Play.

3)  If they DID suspect the number of being errant and immediately report that to Nielsen (frankly, I'd hope the Billboard team had enough of a clue to to do so), why would they post it anyway (especially without fine print)?  They had no trouble delaying their entire set of charts by 24 hours -- surely they didn't need to rush-publish the Top 10 analysis/recap article?

I completely agree with you here, couldn't have said it better myself!

[felipe]

Aug 19, 2015 18:25:16 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

Aug 19, 2015 15:37:45 GMT -5 kanimal said:

Since Billboard's sales data is exclusively driven by Nielsen, you're right, they can't issue "corrected" data until they get it from Nielsen.

The gripe is related to the fact that Billboard actually reported that dubious 248K figure (and used it in chart calculations).  It's problematic due to some combination of the following:

1)  Why didn't they notice the likely mistake earlier (and alert Nielsen to assess the data)?  How did that number not immediately raise a red flag?

2)  Even if they trusted the validity of Nielsen's data, their independent tracking (I sure hope they're doing SOME sort of day-by-day tracking of key music metrics) + all the reader comments on the article confirmed that the number was unintuitive/unexpected.  To not inquire -- and look into whether the song did unusually well at Amazon or Google or something -- is lazy, irresponsible reporting. Trust reported the number as if there was nothing remotely surprising about it.

Consider, for instance, how preposterous it'll be if Billboard reports this week's huge "x" sales figure and doesn't acknowledge the $0.99 sale on Google Play.

3)  If they DID suspect the number of being errant and immediately report that to Nielsen (frankly, I'd hope the Billboard team had enough of a clue to to do so), why would they post it anyway (especially without fine print)?  They had no trouble delaying their entire set of charts by 24 hours -- surely they didn't need to rush-publish the Top 10 analysis/recap article?

I completely agree with you here, couldn't have said it better myself!

I agree with everything you said. My issue is that every week someone seems to mention that the top 10 or something is taking too long to be revealed because must be "double checking considering how close x and y are". But seriously, if they simply get the data from Soundscan, there's not much they can double check. All they can do is ask Soundscan to double check it themselves, and I don't think they ask Soundscan on a weekly basis "Are you guys sure these are the actual figures?" Well, neither do we, and maybe it took a huge mistake to get our attention, sice countless "minor" mistakes might have gone unnoticed before.

[85la]

Aug 19, 2015 21:27:23 GMT -5 felipe said:

Aug 19, 2015 18:25:16 GMT -5 @markg94 said:

I completely agree with you here, couldn't have said it better myself!

I agree with everything you said. My issue is that every week someone seems to mention that the top 10 or something is taking too long to be revealed because must be "double checking considering how close x and y are". But seriously, if they simply get the data from Soundscan, there's not much they can double check. All they can do is ask Soundscan to double check it themselves, and I don't think they ask Soundscan on a weekly basis "Are you guys sure these are the actual figures?" Well, neither do we, and maybe it took a huge mistake to get our attention, sice countless "minor" mistakes might have gone unnoticed before.

Streaming doesn't come from Soundscan. They have to cull data from all the various streaming sources. YouTube must especially be a headache, since they allow user-generated content, and if the Harlem Shake rule still holds, the content doesn't even have to feature the whole song. There could potentially be thousands of videos for the same song; I don't know how they do it. Maybe the clips have to reach a certain viewership threshold?

[Dylan :)]

Aug 20, 2015 10:45:29 GMT -5 85la said:

Aug 19, 2015 21:27:23 GMT -5 felipe said:

I agree with everything you said. My issue is that every week someone seems to mention that the top 10 or something is taking too long to be revealed because must be "double checking considering how close x and y are". But seriously, if they simply get the data from Soundscan, there's not much they can double check. All they can do is ask Soundscan to double check it themselves, and I don't think they ask Soundscan on a weekly basis "Are you guys sure these are the actual figures?" Well, neither do we, and maybe it took a huge mistake to get our attention, sice countless "minor" mistakes might have gone unnoticed before.

Streaming doesn't come from Soundscan. They have to cull data from all the various streaming sources. YouTube must especially be a headache, since they allow user-generated content, and if the Harlem Shake rule still holds, the content doesn't even have to feature the whole song. There could potentially be thousands of videos for the same song; I don't know how they do it. Maybe the clips have to reach a certain viewership threshold?

I think 30 seconds of it must be watched to count as a view, but that depends on video length (e.g. if it is less than 30 seconds)

[areyoureadytojump]

Thanks to Charter2000 for these sales estimates!

SONGS WEEK 33

01 - 5,14 - UPTOWN FUNK - Mark Ronson
02 - 3,63 - THINKING OUT LOUD - Ed Sheeran
03 - 3,42 - SEE YOU AGAIN - Wiz Khalifa
04 - 3,07 - SUGAR - Maroon 5
05 - 2,56 - SHUT UP AND DANCE - WALK THE MOON
06 - 2,39 - LOVE ME LIKE YOU DO - Ellie Goulding
07 - 2,22 - TRAP QUEEN - Fetty Wap
08 - 2,16 - BAD BLOOD - Taylor Swift
09 - 2,12 - HONEY, I'M GOOD. - Andy Grammer
10 - 2,10 - EARNED IT - The Weeknd
11 - 1,99 - TAKE ME TO CHURCH - Hozier
12 - 1,95 - CHEERLEADER - Omi
13 - 1,90 - FOURFIVESECONDS - Rihanna and Kanye West and Paul McCartney
14 - 1,79 - GDFR - Flo Rida
15 - 1,71 - BLANK SPACE - Taylor Swift
16 - 1,70 - FIGHT SONG - Rachel Platten
17 - 1,59 - STYLE - Taylor Swift
18 - 1,58 - WANT TO WANT ME - Jason Derulo
19 - 1,58 - GIRL CRUSH - Little Big Town
20 - 1,54 - TAKE YOUR TIME - Sam Hunt

21 - 1,45 - HEY MAMA - David Guetta
22 - 1,43 - LIPS ARE MOVIN - Meghan Trainor
23 - 1,40 - WORTH IT - Fifth Harmony
24 - 1,37 - CENTURIES - Fall Out Boy
25 - 1,33 - SHAKE IT OFF - Taylor Swift
26 - 1,32 - TALKING BODY - Tove Lo
27 - 1,29 - TIME OF OUR LIVES - Pitbull & Ne-Yo
28 - 1,27 - WATCH ME - Silento
29 - 1,19 - CHAINS - Nick Jonas
30 - 1,18 - WHERE ARE Ü KNOW - Skrillex & Diplo
31 - 1,18 - CAN'T FEEL MY FACE - The Weeknd
32 - 1,10 - DEAR FUTURE HUSBAND - Meghan Trainor
33 - 1,06 - SOMEBODY - Natalie La Rose
34 - 1,04 - ALL ABOUT THAT BASS - Meghan Trainor
35 - 1,02 - LEAN ON - Major Lazer
36 - 0,98 - I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE - Sam Smith
37 - 0,97 - ELASTIC HEART - Sia
38 - 0,97 - LAY ME DOWN - Sam Smith
39 - 0,93 - YOU KNOW YOU LIKE IT - DJ Snake & AlunaGeorge
40 - 0,93 - THE HILLS - The Weeknd

[Glove Slap]

Very impressive sales for Elastic Heart this year.

[85la]

Aug 20, 2015 12:05:56 GMT -5 Dylan :) said:

Aug 20, 2015 10:45:29 GMT -5 85la said:

Streaming doesn't come from Soundscan. They have to cull data from all the various streaming sources. YouTube must especially be a headache, since they allow user-generated content, and if the Harlem Shake rule still holds, the content doesn't even have to feature the whole song. There could potentially be thousands of videos for the same song; I don't know how they do it. Maybe the clips have to reach a certain viewership threshold?

I think 30 seconds of it must be watched to count as a view, but that depends on video length (e.g. if it is less than 30 seconds)

I was actually referring to the number of views that each video gets, not viewing length. So for example, if the viewership threshold is 1000, and Video Version A of a song only gets 800 views, Billboard won't count it, but if Video Version B of a song gets 2000 views, then it would count. It's a massive amount of work enough to comb through every single video that users post for a song and to determine whether it fits their criteria for adequately featuring the song (whatever that is), but using a threshold for weeding out clips that aren't that popular and most likely won't lead to a huge position difference on the chart would cut down that work at least somewhat.

[areyoureadytojump]

2015 YEAR TO DATE SALES STATS

Category - 2015 - 2014 - Change


Digital Tracks - 646,233,000 - 715,565,000 - -9.7%
Store Singles - 2,062,000 - 1,536,000 - +34.2%

[rimetm]

What stores sell singles anymore? It was a genuine surprise to me when I found a single for Buy Me a Boat at a local Target, and it was still the only single that I saw.

[Dylan :)]

Aug 21, 2015 19:03:44 GMT -5 rimetm said:

What stores sell singles anymore? It was a genuine surprise to me when I found a single for Buy Me a Boat at a local Target, and it was still the only single that I saw.

I was searching for the Animals CD single over the weekend (after looking last year for Maps), and was told that single CDs have been completely discontinued in Ireland (and we are usually behind the US)

[HolidayGuy]

Best Buy had a CD single advertised (a country act) in this past week's circular. I also recall seeing "Lips Are Movin'" as a CD single in Best Buy.

This may sound odd to ask, but do "Store Singles" also count digital two-track-or-more singles, purchased as one single? You'd think not, but sales of those are applied to the Singles Sales chart.

[imbondz]

To whoever changed the title of this thread...Lol!

[lyhom]

for some reason I remember "buy me a boat" being the #1 on the physical singles chart so that doesn't surprise me too much

[85la]

I would guess the uptick in store single sales are due to vinyl.