|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 11, 2019 12:01:04 GMT -5
Adele is releasing an album November 8th. That will either add 2-3 Million in SPS on the Billboard 200 chart or simply 2 number 1 weeks, depending on how Billboard compiles the AOTD list.
I doubt they will use the point method a user has done here to update the albums on the all-time chart. The weighing factors there are mostly based on the turnover rates from the past and on how they compare to todays standards, to make it a more fair comparison.
|
|
WolfSpear
Gold Member
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 868
|
Post by WolfSpear on Oct 12, 2019 13:59:43 GMT -5
Can’t wait till those decade end chart become available in middle of next month.
The 10’s have been fun, but the 20’s will roar with change.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 12:33:40 GMT -5
Okay, so i checked how they have combined the hot 100 and the Billboard 200 in the 2000s decade. While multiplying the hot 100 points by 3 it wasn‘t enough for the hot 100 artists to fit into the list Billboard released. But taking 3,5 and i was undercutting the album artists. By using 3,3 pretty much for at least the big 10-15 artists it was very good fitting.
So here is how it would work out for the top10 2010s artists. Based on Daniel Collins hot 100 calculation‘s (thanks) on July 21, 2018 and the pure album sales chartdata posted on Twitter:
1. Taylor Swift 6,4*3,3+22,3= 43,4 2. Drake 8,4*3,3+11,3= 39 3. Adele 4,4*3,3+23,9= 38,5 4. Rihanna 8,2*3,3+6,2= 33,2 5. Bruno Mars 7,9*3,3+6,8= 32,9 6. Katy Perry 6,9*3,3+5,4= 28,2 7. Justin Bieber 4,8*3,3+12,1= 28 8. Maroon 5 5,2*3,3+6= 23,2 9. Lady Gaga 3,7*3,3+10= 22,2 10 Eminem 2,0*3,3+13,2= 19,8
Of course, this excludes touring and the social50, but we see in what direction this is going.
There is no other artist with a total higher than 19,8 so that would be tin he top10. Here are some other artists without ranking you may wonder how strong they are:
Nicki Minaj 4*3,3+3= 16,2 Ed Sheeran 3,8*3,3+5,2= 17,7 P!nk 2,6*3,3+4= 12,6 Ariana Grande 2,3*3,3+2= 9,6 The Weeknd 3,8*3,3+0,7= 13,2 One Direction 1,7*3,3+7,7= 13,3
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by strongerq on Oct 16, 2019 13:17:05 GMT -5
Shouldn't you be using this for Billboard 200 instead of only pure sales ?
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 13:58:56 GMT -5
Shouldn't you be using this for Billboard 200 instead of only pure sales ? This would mean to double count streams on the BB200 again what leads to and an unfair advantage.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Oct 16, 2019 14:24:34 GMT -5
tobichartmaster an unfair advantage how? The Billboard 200 chart switched from a strictly pure sales chart to an SPS chart at the end of 2014, so for half of the decade, it's been running as an SPS chart. You can't just disregard that because Billboard won't.
|
|
moonlite
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,185
|
Post by moonlite on Oct 16, 2019 14:34:05 GMT -5
tobichartmaster an unfair advantage how? The Billboard 200 chart switched from a strictly pure sales chart to an SPS chart at the end of 2014, so for half of the decade, it's been running as an SPS chart. You can't just disregard that because Billboard won't. Billboard doesn’t count SPS numbers for their weekly top Artists chart tho... just pure sales.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 14:40:03 GMT -5
tobichartmaster an unfair advantage how? The Billboard 200 chart switched from a strictly pure sales chart to an SPS chart at the end of 2014, so for half of the decade, it's been running as an SPS chart. You can't just disregard that because Billboard won't. Billboard doesn’t count SPS numbers for their weekly top Artists chart tho... just pure sales. Yes, the artist 100 chart never changed when Billboard switched the BB200 to SPS. If an artist is has huge streaming smashes on the hot 100 but produces less Album Equivalent units than lets say a veteran act selling a little more in pure albums, the streaming artist is displayed high on both charts, but the veteran act leads on the Artist 100 because he is consumed more.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 15:24:21 GMT -5
Think about it. In the non SPS era, artists had to fuel their singles with digital single sales and airplay to collect their hot 100 points. After that the consumption had no impact on the BB200, rightfully so, because an album consumption was not existent.
Now artists, some of them have problems with airplay, need their streams to collect their hot 100 points. The streams get weighted like the other artists in the non SPS era sold their singles.
You can now calculate a hot 100 decade end chart and a BB200 decade charts and use in both the streams.
But if you want to combine both charts to name the top artists of the decade, you can not count the consumption in the SPS era twice.
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by strongerq on Oct 16, 2019 15:55:28 GMT -5
You are only looking at the situation from one side. A) If a song from and album is charting on the Hot 100 and the album itself is charting on BB200 the streams from the song shouldn't be counted twice. -Seems reasonable. But you are ignoring this: B) RandomAlbumName is charting on BB200 and is in top 30, so in the charting week it has 15K SPS all coming from streaming. 0/15 songs from RandomAlbumName are charting on the Billboard Hot 100 so the streams from the songs are counted ZERO times but they should be counted because the album is charting on the BB200.
This is why pure sales only isn't perfect.
|
|
moonlite
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,185
|
Post by moonlite on Oct 16, 2019 16:00:15 GMT -5
They’ll probably just do inverse points, no?
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by strongerq on Oct 16, 2019 16:03:15 GMT -5
They’ll probably just do inverse points, no? A lot of people on this forum are saying that and it makes the most sense. I was just replying to tobi about the method he used to calculate the possible AOTD results.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,016
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Oct 16, 2019 16:03:53 GMT -5
Considering the huge change with sales peaking and dying, streaming, Youtube, etc... I think inverse points would be the easiest and probably fairest way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 16:43:49 GMT -5
You are only looking at the situation from one side. A) If a song from and album is charting on the Hot 100 and the album itself is charting on BB200 the streams from the song shouldn't be counted twice. -Seems reasonable. But you are ignoring this: B) RandomAlbumName is charting on BB200 and is in top 30, so in the charting week it has 15K SPS all coming from streaming. 0/15 songs from RandomAlbumName are charting on the Billboard Hot 100 so the streams from the songs are counted ZERO times but they should be counted because the album is charting on the BB200.
This is why pure sales only isn't perfect.
Point was made! ANY stream that leads to a single consumption that is not charted on the hot100 and counts towards and album on the Billboard 200 chart, needs to be added as Album Equivalent units on the Billboard 200 chart.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Oct 16, 2019 17:05:19 GMT -5
Considering the huge change with sales peaking and dying, streaming, Youtube, etc... I think inverse points would be the easiest and probably fairest way to do it. I've been saying this since the start of the thread, lol. It's the only way to account for both the dominant sales era and the present streaming era without showing any special preference to any specific era. There are artists who dominated during the pure sales era who are struggling in the streaming era and artists who are now dominating in the streaming era, but will never move as many pure sale units as the former acts because they came up in a climate where pure sales are dead. Inverse chart points considers and addresses both situations fairly enough, I think.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 17:24:39 GMT -5
Album Random is out, an artist sells in the non SPS era singles worth of 15k SPS, the singles are on the album. Also this album would not chart. The singles are not charting. In this case, it is unfair that the album is not charting. Billboard would count the consumption/performance as ZERO.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 17:45:35 GMT -5
Singles not displayed from any album in the non SPS had never an impact on anything. ZERO consumption. Even if 20+ tracks from the same album sold a huge bunch of album equivalent units in digital sales/streams, if they were all not on the hot 100, there was no impact. So why now in the SPS era this should change just because a bunch of bubbling under songs produce an album equivalent worth of charting on the BB200.
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,481
|
Post by strongerq on Oct 16, 2019 17:58:31 GMT -5
Album Random is out, an artist sells in the non SPS era singles worth of 15k SPS, the singles are on the album. Also this album would not chart. The singles are not charting. In this case, it is unfair that the album is not charting. Billboard would count the consumption/performance as ZERO. You are missing the point ! ! !
Before 2014 the rule 10 tracks = 1 album-equivalent unit didn't exist. So the album won't chart because BB200 counted only pure sales before 2014.
After Dec. 3rd 2014 streaming and tracks count for the BB200.
You in your calculations weren't using streams because of your convenience (Billboard uses it in BB200).
The situation you stated is unrealistic ! ! !
15K units = 150,000 track sales
How realistic is it for songs from an album to sell so much and the album not to sell a copy ?
Only possible thing is a song is used in a movie or something and a song sells 150K copies. But then the song will chart on the Hot 100 because the recurrent rules were different before 2015.
This is realistic !
Astroworld - #15 BB&B - #17 Scorpion - #25 This are streaming heavy albums that have 0 charting singles on the Hot 100 but are top 25 on BB200
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 16, 2019 18:07:53 GMT -5
Album Random is out, an artist sells in the non SPS era singles worth of 15k SPS, the singles are on the album. Also this album would not chart. The singles are not charting. In this case, it is unfair that the album is not charting. Billboard would count the consumption/performance as ZERO. You are missing the point ! ! !
Before 2014 the rule 10 tracks = 1 album-equivalent unit didn't exist. So the album won't chart because BB200 counted only pure sales before 2014.
After Dec. 3rd 2014 streaming and tracks count for the BB200.
You in your calculations weren't using streams because of your convenience (Billboard uses it in BB200).
The situation you stated is unrealistic ! ! !
15K units = 150,000 track sales
How realistic is it for songs from an album to sell so much and the album not to sell a copy ?
Only possible thing is a song is used in a movie or something and a song sells 150K copies. But then the song will chart on the Hot 100 because the recurrent rules were different before 2015.
This is realistic !
Astroworld - #15 BB&B - #17 Scorpion - #25 This are streaming heavy albums that have 0 charting singles on the Hot 100 but are top 25 on BB200
Damn, this stuff is complicated. Ok, i gave up, there is just no way we can calculate who is the artist of the decade and how the top10 looks like. We have to wait and predict.
|
|
Lukas
2x Platinum Member
Joined: February 2019
Posts: 2,760
|
Post by Lukas on Oct 16, 2019 22:05:36 GMT -5
Keep in mind that, for the last decade (2000s), Billboard specifically stated that most of the decade end lists would be on real point performance.
But they stated that some of the decade end lists would be inverse points based because of many formula changes over the 10 years and stuff (in other words, if would be highly inconsistent with real points).
If what happened last decade means anything, we will be seeing an inverse points based decade end list for charts such as the Hot 100, BB200, Streaming, etc. for both songs and artists.
|
|
|
Post by cemetrygate on Oct 17, 2019 3:28:10 GMT -5
The points that came from Billboard 200 of last decade's AOTD are from ACTUAL SALES. Eminem probably wouldn't be the AOTD if it was based on an inverse point system.
He sold 30 million albums during the 2000s. Britney was #2 with 10 million less. That's how he managed to be the Artist of the Decade without being on the top 10 Hot 100 Artists.
|
|
|
Post by cemetrygate on Oct 17, 2019 3:38:07 GMT -5
Billboard stated this last decade:
"Because of changes in Billboard chart methodology during the decade. some rankings are based on a point system, instead of aggregated sales or airplay compiled during a chart run. All recaps for the Billboard Hot 100, R%B Songs and Country Songs utilize an inverse point system, with weeks at No. 1 earning the greatest value and weeks at the lower end of the chart earning the least."
So, inverse point system for Hot 100. Aggregated sales for Billboard 200.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Oct 17, 2019 4:10:40 GMT -5
The points that came from Billboard 200 of last decade's AOTD are from ACTUAL SALES. Eminem probably wouldn't be the AOTD if it was based on an inverse point system. He sold 30 million albums during the 2000s. Britney was #2 with 10 million less. That's how he managed to be the Artist of the Decade without being on the top 10 Hot 100 Artists. Yeah, but that was 10 whole years ago, before Billboard considered several other metrics. This decade alone, they now have a Social 50 chart, Artist 100 chart and they just announced a chart specifically focused on touring that'll kick off in time for the 2020's decade. I don't think the 2010's artist of the decade will be determined as easily as who sold the most albums. Also, the 2000's decade only had to consider physical/pure sales for the Billboard 200 chart. That changed halfway into the 2010's decade so Billboard has to account for that. We can't just assume they'll use the exact same rules they used for 2000's decade for the 2010's decade.
|
|
Lukas
2x Platinum Member
Joined: February 2019
Posts: 2,760
|
Post by Lukas on Oct 17, 2019 10:44:43 GMT -5
The points that came from Billboard 200 of last decade's AOTD are from ACTUAL SALES. Eminem probably wouldn't be the AOTD if it was based on an inverse point system. He sold 30 million albums during the 2000s. Britney was #2 with 10 million less. That's how he managed to be the Artist of the Decade without being on the top 10 Hot 100 Artists. Yeah, but that was 10 whole years ago, before Billboard considered several other metrics. This decade alone, they now have a Social 50 chart, Artist 100 chart and they just announced a chart specifically focused on touring that'll kick off in time for the 2020's decade. I don't think the 2010's artist of the decade will be determined as easily as who sold the most albums. Also, the 2000's decade only had to consider physical/pure sales for the Billboard 200 chart. That changed halfway into the 2010's decade so Billboard has to account for that. We can't just assume they'll use the exact same rules they used for 2000's decade for the 2010's decade. Exactly. Thank you. Honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised if they decided to make all of their decade end lists off of an inverse points system, since how we consumed music 9 years ago is literally incomparable to how we consume music today.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatdivine on Oct 17, 2019 11:42:25 GMT -5
Yeah, but that was 10 whole years ago, before Billboard considered several other metrics. This decade alone, they now have a Social 50 chart, Artist 100 chart and they just announced a chart specifically focused on touring that'll kick off in time for the 2020's decade. I don't think the 2010's artist of the decade will be determined as easily as who sold the most albums. Also, the 2000's decade only had to consider physical/pure sales for the Billboard 200 chart. That changed halfway into the 2010's decade so Billboard has to account for that. We can't just assume they'll use the exact same rules they used for 2000's decade for the 2010's decade. Exactly. Thank you. Honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised if they decided to make all of their decade end lists off of an inverse points system, since how we consumed music 9 years ago is literally incomparable to how we consume music today. Plus, I feel like if the industry introduced streaming in like late 2018, it would still make a lot of sense to prioritize pure/physical sales and wait till the next decade to consider streaming into their metric calculations, but we're in the middle of streaming being the primary means of music consumption. Pure sales has been seeing yearly declines since 2014/2015 while streaming has been experiencing massive growth. The biggest artists who used to move tons of pure/physical units can't do that easily anymore and those that can only manage to do so with bundling. It'd be silly for Billboard to look at a music industry that is currently and will continue to be ruled by streaming and then decide to prioritize pure/physical sales when it's been dying out quickly since halfway into the decade. I also think inverse points is the easiest way to calculate their decade-end lists, especially for the Hot 100 and the Billboard 200. Doing it any other way will have people asking loads of questions that Billboard won't have satisfactory answers to. They still have the choice of deciding what metrics matter/weigh more than the next, but I really just hope the artists of the decade honor is a true reflection of the artists that dominated this decade.
|
|
Myth X
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Myth X on Oct 17, 2019 12:32:44 GMT -5
They should just do the Artist decade end chart based on Nielsen Soundscan numbers
For example an album/song doesn't stop selling / getting streams after they leave the Billboard charts
The Billboard Hot 100 could be based on chart runs but the Overall Artist chart should be based on overall Soundscan numbers (with touring included)
By the way do they include Worldwide touring on the US Billboard Artist charts? Because it didn't make any sense when Take That charted on the Billboard year-end Artist chart of 2011 because of touring when they didn't tour in the US.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Oct 17, 2019 12:46:09 GMT -5
They should just do the Artist decade end chart based on Nielsen Soundscan numbers For example an album/song doesn't stop selling / getting streams after they leave the Billboard charts The Billboard Hot 100 could be based on chart runs but the Overall Artist chart should be based on overall Soundscan numbers (with touring included) By the way do they include Worldwide touring on the US Billboard Artist charts? Because it didn't make any sense when Take That charted on the Billboard year-end Artist chart of 2011 because of touring when they didn't tour in the US. They have included worldwide Boxscore data into their year end artist chart. One Direction 2014 year-end hot 100: #17 Billboard 200: #3 Social 50: #9 Tour Gross: 290 Million $ Overall: #1
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,677
|
Post by 85la on Oct 18, 2019 1:58:11 GMT -5
I think they'll most likely use inverse chart points as well, however a case against that is, opposed to last decade, streaming has in many ways counter-balanced the fluctuations of digital and physical record sales at least to some degree, so there's the possibility Billboard might view these raw chart points as more fair and accurate than inverse chart points (note how I use the words "more" fair and accurate, but not "completely" fair and accurate, as both methods are probably imperfect).
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,677
|
Post by 85la on Oct 18, 2019 2:09:37 GMT -5
They should just do the Artist decade end chart based on Nielsen Soundscan numbers For example an album/song doesn't stop selling / getting streams after they leave the Billboard charts The Billboard Hot 100 could be based on chart runs but the Overall Artist chart should be based on overall Soundscan numbers (with touring included) By the way do they include Worldwide touring on the US Billboard Artist charts? Because it didn't make any sense when Take That charted on the Billboard year-end Artist chart of 2011 because of touring when they didn't tour in the US. Good idea and it seems like that might make more sense, however Billboard has been very clear since the advent of Nielsen/Soundscan in 1991, that in compiling all year-end, decade-end, and all-time charts, they only include points from weeks when songs, albums, and artists appeared on the charts, so I doubt they'd change that now.
|
|
|
Post by tobichartmaster on Nov 1, 2019 4:02:11 GMT -5
Billboard‘s official top10 artists of the 2010‘s
1. Drake 2. Taylor Swift 3. Bruno Mars 4. Rihanna 5. Adele 6. Ed Sheeran 7. Justin Bieber 8. Katy Perry 9. Maroon 5 10. Post Malone
Congratulations to our defining and biggest artists of the decade.
|
|