Ty
Diamond Member
good vibes and R&B
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 12,791 
|
Post by Ty on Sept 21, 2019 7:47:32 GMT -5
So I've been updating my Spotify playlist weekly based on the Adult R&B chart data from Billboard. And this week I was frustrated to realize that Billboard has started to require a paid membership to access it.
I get that Billboard needs to find revenue somewhere when the magazine sales have dropped drastically, but a 10.99/month membership for the current chart data (not even archive)? It's insane, man.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 7:53:49 GMT -5
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,163
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Sept 21, 2019 8:23:23 GMT -5
A scam.
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Sept 21, 2019 9:08:38 GMT -5
As monthly music subscription services are mulling going above $10 a month (see this week's BB article), and most online news sources require subscriptions now, this seems… expected?
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 21, 2019 20:51:16 GMT -5
The "flagship" charts of the magazine are still free
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,952
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Sept 22, 2019 15:07:09 GMT -5
So they're just going back to the way it was in the early and mid 2000s. I'm not surprised, I knew this era of mostly free charts wouldn't last.
I'd rather have direct access to Soundscan numbers anyway.
|
|
ddlz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by ddlz on Sept 22, 2019 16:56:40 GMT -5
Imagine giving money to Billboard.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 22, 2019 20:59:10 GMT -5
As I have a subscription not that hard LOL
|
|
Jay D83
4x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2006
Posts: 4,505
|
Post by Jay D83 on Sept 23, 2019 6:32:16 GMT -5
These charts are their intellectual property. I don't know why people think they should be free.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 23, 2019 6:59:58 GMT -5
So they're just going back to the way it was in the early and mid 2000s. I'm not surprised, I knew this era of mostly free charts wouldn't last. I'd rather have direct access to Soundscan numbers anyway. You wonder if that's ever going to be a possibility. It's odd to me that the Soundscan #s and database are still hidden under lock and key. |
|
Ty
Diamond Member
good vibes and R&B
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 12,791
|
Post by Ty on Sept 23, 2019 7:43:45 GMT -5
These charts are their intellectual property. I don't know why people think they should be free. I didn't say it should be free. But when it had been free for years, users have the right to be frustrated at the sudden change. Also, I won't have that much of a problem if they offers more friendly pricing option to those of low income and non-industry music lovers. 10.99 per month is too much for me when I pay 5.99 (student pricing) for my streaming service. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 23, 2019 8:56:44 GMT -5
There once was a time when the only way to get this was to buy the magazine. An expensive subscription or find a music store that would sell it and pay full issue price for a single issue
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 23, 2019 9:53:05 GMT -5
What?!? 😲
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 23, 2019 10:14:39 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 10:50:08 GMT -5
Maybe Billboard wants to keep out the non-industry people. If the goal is to convert itself back to being a pure trade publication this is certainly the easiest way to do it.
But if the goal is simply to raise revenue, I think Billboard is going about it the wrong way. The money is in the archives; they should have kept all charts available for viewing the current week, but required subscription for viewing any previous weeks. Making only the top 10 or 20 of every chart viewable for free would also have been a decent option.
I also am surprised at how few people are mentioning (or even interested in?) alternatives. Billboard was certainly the most convenient way to view certain things, but now I'm just going to rely that much more on All Access/Mediabase, Spotify, and Apple rankings to give me a feel for component areas. Rolling Stone launched its new charts just a few months ago and I see no reason to not recognize those as valid. If HDD would stop cosplaying as bitter outsider and make a singles chart to complement their albums chart, they could compete. Billboard is comfortable because there's always been an impression that it has no competition, but once you get past the whole industry bible thing that's not entirely true.
*I still don't get this Artist 100 thing or why they keep trying to peddle that as a 'main' chart but maybe I'm just too old to get it.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,952
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Sept 23, 2019 11:25:05 GMT -5
I wish Rolling Stone would backfill their charts.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 23, 2019 11:32:37 GMT -5
Maybe Billboard wants to keep out the non-industry people. If the goal is to convert itself back to being a pure trade publication this is certainly the easiest way to do it. But if the goal is simply to raise revenue, I think Billboard is going about it the wrong way. The money is in the archives; they should have kept all charts available for viewing the current week, but required subscription for viewing any previous weeks. Making only the top 10 or 20 of every chart viewable for free would also have been a decent option. I also am surprised at how few people are mentioning (or even interested in?) alternatives. Billboard was certainly the most convenient way to view certain things, but now I'm just going to rely that much more on All Access/Mediabase, Spotify, and Apple rankings to give me a feel for component areas. Rolling Stone launched its new charts just a few months ago and I see no reason to not recognize those as valid. If HDD would stop cosplaying as bitter outsider and make a singles chart to complement their albums chart, they could compete. Billboard is comfortable because there's always been an impression that it has no competition, but once you get past the whole industry bible thing that's not entirely true. *I still don't get this Artist 100 thing or why they keep trying to peddle that as a 'main' chart but maybe I'm just too old to get it. I think it might just be subscription revenue as certain articles are also being blocked. Other newspaper sites also put a cap on what you can and can't view so this isn't exactly revolutionary, this is just the trend that the newspaper/magazine industry is following it seems. Not sure the money is in the archives. The only people that read those would be the people that post here(and similar forums) Billboard has always had competition but they have 80 years of chart history - no one else has that. |
|
ddlz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by ddlz on Sept 23, 2019 11:39:34 GMT -5
I'm still hoping that Billboard gets a legitimate competitor, someone who would stick to raw data and wouldn't use gimmicks to inflate it and ruin the credibility of the chart. Sadly Rolling Stone turned out to be just another BuzzAngle Music.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 13:52:52 GMT -5
Gary if that is the case (that it's just subscription revenue and articles drive more views) it actually makes it more mystifying that they would paywall the charts. Paywall the articles, if they think that is what people are checking for. All that chart history is exactly why I think the money is in the archives. Let's be real here, Billboard itself caters to an industry-specific, niche interest. The casual music fan isn't going to pay for any of this stuff regardless. I will say that $12.99 a month for digital/$19.99 a month for digital + print isn't an awful price point (am I on crack btw or did this just go up in the past couple of days? Could have sworn it was $10.99 for the digital and $16.99 for the digital + print). The issue there is that the biggest 'sell' in their package is the priority access to their industry events, and that is something the 'average' reader can't or won't ever use. This is why I think it might be a trade move. I wish they would have considered offering a less expensive charts-only plan for the rest of us plebes. $4.99 a month would still arouse some complaints but it would also still bring in money from people who figure 'eh, that's a cup of coffee at Starbucks, I can deal with it.' ddlz What's wrong with BuzzAngle? I don't really know much about them other than them being Not Soundscan (SS is only ever going to give its numbers to BB for chart use so that is what it is).
|
|
ddlz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by ddlz on Sept 23, 2019 14:15:43 GMT -5
ddlz What's wrong with BuzzAngle? I don't really know much about them other than them being Not Soundscan (SS is only ever going to give its numbers to BB for chart use so that is what it is). Having access to SoundScan numbers is the key, just like you noted. As long as Soundscan stays faithful to Billboard, we're not moving anywhere. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 14:36:22 GMT -5
ddlz What's wrong with BuzzAngle? I don't really know much about them other than them being Not Soundscan (SS is only ever going to give its numbers to BB for chart use so that is what it is). Having access to SoundScan numbers is the key, just like you noted. As long as Soundscan stays faithful to Billboard, we're not moving anywhere. Billboard's parent company just acquired Soundscan, so I think it's safe to say Soundscan will be forever faithful lol |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 23, 2019 14:42:29 GMT -5
Gary if that is the case (that it's just subscription revenue and articles drive more views) it actually makes it more mystifying that they would paywall the charts. Paywall the articles, if they think that is what people are checking for. All that chart history is exactly why I think the money is in the archives. Let's be real here, Billboard itself caters to an industry-specific, niche interest. The casual music fan isn't going to pay for any of this stuff regardless. My point was that this at heart a magazine/entertainment news site. They would not be the first to do this to drive up subscribers and probably not the last. I don't know what they should or should not do I understand why the 'we can't get it for free' people are upset. I also understand the business side a little too. |
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,952
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Sept 23, 2019 19:47:14 GMT -5
Thinking about this more, I guess if you wanted to ignore airplay, like singles charts in the other 15+ countries with singles charts, it's possible to use the following Billboard charts:
- Hot Single Sales, March 1991-2002
- Hot Single Sales + Hot Digital Tracks 2003-2004
- Digital Songs 2005-2011
- Digital Songs + Streaming Songs 2012-present
|
|
Ty
Diamond Member
good vibes and R&B
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 12,791
|
Post by Ty on Sept 25, 2019 9:54:08 GMT -5
It appears that if you "stop loading" a chart page at the right time, you could prevent the paid membership thing from popping up.
I got the chart data I needed this morning in this way. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Sept 25, 2019 15:43:29 GMT -5
More exciting changes at Billboard.com
They gave the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 a more "basic" look
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2019 16:41:11 GMT -5
More exciting changes at Billboard.com They gave the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 a more "basic" look Ok, this is actually a useful improvement (I'm only looking at the Hot 100 chart right now but assume the BB 200 is the same). The simplified visual is much cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing, and there is now a sort function for the last week/peak/weeks on columns. Those keeping track of stats like oldest song on the chart or number of previous #1s still charting should appreciate that. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 17:10:19 GMT -5
I actually lost interest in specialist charts when airplay was not so important in their calculations and on urban chart some pop songs started to dominate.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,952
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Sept 27, 2019 7:41:08 GMT -5
^It is true that only the airplay charts are truly genre specific.
Once Billboard created a genre charts for downloads and streaming, each of those is basically a filtered version of the Hot 100 with subjective criteria.
e.g. Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Getting Back Together" charting on the Country Songs and Rihanna's pop songs hitting the R&B/Hip Hop chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoocoochoocoo on Sept 28, 2019 12:06:13 GMT -5
More exciting changes at Billboard.com They gave the Hot 100 and Billboard 200 a more "basic" look I'll never understand why they changed the format online and on paper of the way the charts appear. For me, the best layout was the one used in years like 1989, 1990 and so on. |
|
