Billboard Hot 100: 05/02/2020

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

I think anything that allows people to hear a song should be counted. That includes radio, streaming, downloads. That should also include TikTok, other social media apps, and going as far as tv advertisements, songs used in movies currently in theatres, and on and on. If people are hearing the song and it can be tracked, it should be included.

The challenge would be determining how much of the song needs to be heard and weighing how much each format should count for. I would say a song used in a film people watch in theatre is pretty impactful because the film has 100% audience attention, compared to a tv ad, or even radio, which could have less audience attention. But I've said for years songs heard in movies and tv ads should count.

[wrip]

Apr 22, 2020 21:50:35 GMT -5 sirskimask said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:20:12 GMT -5 wrip said:

I feel like out of all songs that could’ve done it, Circles definitely deserved it. Like those numbers don’t lie, and I feel like most people can agree it’s one of Post’s best songs. There’s just some other songs that I truly don’t understand how they lasted so long in the top ten

*cough* Girls Like You *cough*

The fact this was a longer top ten hit than so many other songs baffles me.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 22, 2020 21:54:54 GMT -5 annoymous1 said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:50:35 GMT -5 sirskimask said:

*cough* Girls Like You *cough*

That was because of the soccer moms and radio stations not letting it die.

Should soccer moms not count toward the end total? I'm confused as to why their inclusion is always brought up in this context as if their input shouldn't count.

[mzumii]

If only TikTok streams were counted when Joji's "Slow Dancing in the Dark" was charting :(

[wrip]

I think also so many people get their music from Tik Tok. I know for me, when I hear a song that sounds interesting on Tik Tok, I usually save it on my Spotify to listen to some more. Besides, it’s definitely helped to push a lot of songs to become hits, like Say So, Savage, etc.

[atg]

Apr 22, 2020 20:30:29 GMT -5 renaboss said:

Am I the only one who wishes for less longevity overall? Not hating on Post, I like "Circles", but I'd take faster turnover over stagnant top 10s any day. 34 weeks is an insane amount of time for ANY song to spend in the top 10, come on now.

I bet billboard will make some type of like ‘32 weeks in the top 10 max’ rule in the future, just like the 52/25 bs which still makes no sense to this day

[atg]

If circles is still in the top 15 on spotify (12) and if it’s still top 5 on radio (5), and as well with it making a small gain today, then people are actively choosing to listen/consume and make a it a smash hit even after 8 and half months. It’s crazy even thinking that if it hits 36 weeks, that would make it 9 months aka 3/4 of a year in the top 10 alone, and since its DEBUT as well!! That’s an amazing feat that bigger hits such as shape of you, uptown funk, sunflower and old town road couldn’t do (well to be fair 2/4 songs debuted out of the top 10 and had to build traction even if it was effortless for them)

[annoymous1]

Apr 22, 2020 22:03:39 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:54:54 GMT -5 annoymous1 said:

That was because of the soccer moms and radio stations not letting it die.

Should soccer moms not count toward the end total? I'm confused as to why their inclusion is always brought up in this context as if their input shouldn't count.

I didn't say it shouldn't count tho people should listen to what they want to listen to including the soccer moms music is subjective yeah?. I'm saying with those 2 components that was mainly the reason why GLY was #1 for 7 weeks and lasted long in the top 10.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Apr 22, 2020 21:54:54 GMT -5 annoymous1 said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:50:35 GMT -5 sirskimask said:

*cough* Girls Like You *cough*

That was because of the soccer moms and radio stations not letting it die.

Another place that people forget where it lasted a long time in the top 10 was YouTube, thanks in large part to the celebrity "Girls" featured in the video. It was in the top 10 of YouTube the tracking week for its 33rd week in the top 10.

[kimberly]

Apr 22, 2020 22:02:51 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think anything that allows people to hear a song should be counted. That includes radio, streaming, downloads. That should also include TikTok, other social media apps, and going as far as tv advertisements, songs used in movies currently in theatres, and on and on. If people are hearing the song and it can be tracked, it should be included.

The challenge would be determining how much of the song needs to be heard and weighing how much each format should count for. I would say a song used in a film people watch in theatre is pretty impactful because the film has 100% audience attention, compared to a tv ad, or even radio, which could have less audience attention. But I've said for years songs heard in movies and tv ads should count.

you make a good argument. but it's also easy to say movies and ads are not necessarily places people go to consume music, and they don't opt in to hear the song, so it doesn't measure a song's popularity among the public. like imagine if "Birdbox" original score was #1 because 40 million people watched the movie on Netflix in one week. or like the "We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow" song that hit #9 and dropped off because of the weird-ass strangers kissing for the first time video. 

I think there's a case to be made for TikTok, but again, I could watch 12 TikToks with "say so" in it in the time it takes for a music listener to stream the song once. How does one account for that? I think TikTok is also very temporary and a trend that will die down at some point, and it's already influencing the music consumers by making them like certain songs and seek them out on music streaming platforms. I don't know if changing chart formula to count TikToks would be a wise move at this stage.

[Au$tin]

The problem with Tik Tok is it works just like Facebook videos. They start immediately when you scroll to them and the views are immediately counted for that. Sure a certain video may have 1 million views, but how many people actually watched more than 2 seconds? Also music isn't always accurately credited on Tik Tok. In fact, it pretty much rarely is unless the label or artist uploads a clip themselves to use. And much like the debate when Harlem Shake was #1, how many people are watching the skit for the song versus the meme? Then you have the issue of the clips being short. Most clips are shorter than 30 seconds, which wouldn't even register as a play for most streaming services.

There are quite a lot of logistics that need to be accounted for before Tik Tok is ever considered to be implemented into the chart.

[wrip]

I mean they could always track things like how many times a sound is used a week, how many views each Tik Tok gets with that sound and the interactions with the sound (likes, forwards, comments possibly). I don’t think it should be counted as much as other platforms, but I think because of how huge the app is I think it should count for something.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 22, 2020 22:26:15 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Apr 22, 2020 22:02:51 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think anything that allows people to hear a song should be counted. That includes radio, streaming, downloads. That should also include TikTok, other social media apps, and going as far as tv advertisements, songs used in movies currently in theatres, and on and on. If people are hearing the song and it can be tracked, it should be included.

The challenge would be determining how much of the song needs to be heard and weighing how much each format should count for. I would say a song used in a film people watch in theatre is pretty impactful because the film has 100% audience attention, compared to a tv ad, or even radio, which could have less audience attention. But I've said for years songs heard in movies and tv ads should count.

you make a good argument. but it's also easy to say movies and ads are not necessarily places people go to consume music, and they don't opt in to hear the song, so it doesn't measure a song's popularity among the public. like imagine if "Birdbox" original score was #1 because 40 million people watched the movie on Netflix in one week. or like the "We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow" song that hit #9 and dropped off because of the weird-ass strangers kissing for the first time video. 

I think there's a case to be made for TikTok, but again, I could watch 12 TikToks with "say so" in it in the time it takes for a music listener to stream the song once. How does one account for that? I think TikTok is also very temporary and a trend that will die down at some point, and it's already influencing the music consumers by making them like certain songs and seek them out on music streaming platforms. I don't know if changing chart formula to count TikToks would be a wise move at this stage.

Does it matter if people opt in to hear a song though? My argument is that if they hear the song, it's been heard and is no different than hearing a song on the radio, whether they are actively listening or not. Maybe the solution is giving less weight to songs in movies but still counting it. I'm just saying, we hear songs and music in places other than streaming and radio. So why limit which ones count and which ones don't?

I will also add that talking about song positions (something hitting #9 one week and off the chart the next) should never have any place in a discussion about chart accuracy. If you want something to measure something accurately and represent a particular period of time, how a song moves between weeks isn't important.

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Does the Canada Hot 100 count non-UGC streams? It’s dominated by TikTok songs

[wrip]

Also correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the view only count if it’s watched in full? Or does it count if a video is only watched for a minute?

[Au$tin]

Apr 22, 2020 22:40:12 GMT -5 wrip said:

Also correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the view only count if it’s watched in full? Or does it count if a video is only watched for a minute?

Just a single second is all that's needed to count as a view. (The videos can't be longer than a minute.)

[wrip]

Oops that was supposed to be “second” not minute

[kimberly]

Apr 22, 2020 22:38:10 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Apr 22, 2020 22:26:15 GMT -5 kimberly said:

you make a good argument. but it's also easy to say movies and ads are not necessarily places people go to consume music, and they don't opt in to hear the song, so it doesn't measure a song's popularity among the public. like imagine if "Birdbox" original score was #1 because 40 million people watched the movie on Netflix in one week. or like the "We Might Be Dead By Tomorrow" song that hit #9 and dropped off because of the weird-ass strangers kissing for the first time video. 

I think there's a case to be made for TikTok, but again, I could watch 12 TikToks with "say so" in it in the time it takes for a music listener to stream the song once. How does one account for that? I think TikTok is also very temporary and a trend that will die down at some point, and it's already influencing the music consumers by making them like certain songs and seek them out on music streaming platforms. I don't know if changing chart formula to count TikToks would be a wise move at this stage.

Does it matter if people opt in to hear a song though? My argument is that if they hear the song, it's been heard and is no different than hearing a song on the radio, whether they are actively listening or not. Maybe the solution is giving less weight to songs in movies but still counting it. I'm just saying, we hear songs and music in places other than streaming and radio. So why limit which ones count and which ones don't?

I will also add that talking about song positions (something hitting #9 one week and off the chart the next) should never have any place in a discussion about chart accuracy. If you want something to measure something accurately and represent a particular period of time, how a song moves between weeks isn't important.

yeah, but I think "40 million people heard the song in a blockbuster movie" shouldn't make a song #1 is what I'm saying. that isn't active listening and doesn't represent any sort of likeness or popularity of the song among consumers at all.

I disagree with you on the hearing a song vs. listening to/consuming a song part. The reason radio airplay is there is because listeners still have at least some sort of impact on what gets played on radio, whether they request a song, respond to a survey or are part of a focus group. People can switch stations. Charts aren't there to count how many times a song is heard but rather how many times it is consumed, in my opinion. "Star Spangled Banner" would re-enter every year after Super Bowl if that counted. "Strangers Thing Theme Song" would chart whenever a season dropped. Without people knowing the name of the track or who made it. Then labels could force music onto film industry just to get that exposure (I'm not saying they don't right now, but it would get intense imo). 

"Truth Hurts" became a hit off of a Netflix movie, but because people actually sought out the song, and I think that's what makes sense for movie/tv industry.

[kimberly]

Apr 22, 2020 22:45:19 GMT -5 wrip said:

Oops that was supposed to be “second” not minute

TikTok and Facebook are both notorious for hiking up video views by counting even a second it's on someone's screen, which would also be troubling.

[Henry Suárez]

Apr 22, 2020 22:24:12 GMT -5 Baby Yoda Hot100Fan said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:54:54 GMT -5 annoymous1 said:

That was because of the soccer moms and radio stations not letting it die.

Another place that people forget where it lasted a long time in the top 10 was YouTube, thanks in large part to the celebrity "Girls" featured in the video. It was in the top 10 of YouTube the tracking week for its 33rd week in the top 10.

Tbh I feel like some of the people that think the Hot 100 should be a replica of the Streaming/On-Demand chart (yikes) say Girls Like You was some kind of minor, lesser, undeserved hit  while the truth is the song was huge, truly one of the biggest ones of the past decade, the versions of the music video combined have more than 3 billion views, it was inescapable back in 2018.

[wrip]

True ^ about the view count

Either way I think when things are trending on Tik Tok, there’s a sort of cultural aspect to it where everyone seems to participate in the trend. For example, with Savage, people are watching people do the “dance” for it, while also participating in it. Because of its trendiness on Tik Tok, people have discovered it more and are listening to it on other services as well.

[imbondz]

Apr 22, 2020 22:48:29 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Apr 22, 2020 22:38:10 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Does it matter if people opt in to hear a song though? My argument is that if they hear the song, it's been heard and is no different than hearing a song on the radio, whether they are actively listening or not. Maybe the solution is giving less weight to songs in movies but still counting it. I'm just saying, we hear songs and music in places other than streaming and radio. So why limit which ones count and which ones don't?

I will also add that talking about song positions (something hitting #9 one week and off the chart the next) should never have any place in a discussion about chart accuracy. If you want something to measure something accurately and represent a particular period of time, how a song moves between weeks isn't important.

yeah, but I think "40 million people heard the song in a blockbuster movie" shouldn't make a song #1 is what I'm saying. that isn't active listening and doesn't represent any sort of likeness or popularity of the song among consumers at all.

I disagree with you on the hearing a song vs. listening to/consuming a song part. The reason radio airplay is there is because listeners still have at least some sort of impact on what gets played on radio, whether they request a song, respond to a survey or are part of a focus group. People can switch stations. Charts aren't there to count how many times a song is heard but rather how many times it is consumed, in my opinion. "Star Spangled Banner" would re-enter every year after Super Bowl if that counted. "Strangers Thing Theme Song" would chart whenever a season dropped. Without people knowing the name of the track or who made it. Then labels could force music onto film industry just to get that exposure (I'm not saying they don't right now, but it would get intense imo). 

"Truth Hurts" became a hit off of a Netflix movie, but because people actually sought out the song, and I think that's what makes sense for movie/tv industry.

Good points. Star Spangled Banner would go to #1 every year. Or whatever songs are sung at halftime of super bowl would all enter the top 5.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 22, 2020 22:48:29 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Apr 22, 2020 22:38:10 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Does it matter if people opt in to hear a song though? My argument is that if they hear the song, it's been heard and is no different than hearing a song on the radio, whether they are actively listening or not. Maybe the solution is giving less weight to songs in movies but still counting it. I'm just saying, we hear songs and music in places other than streaming and radio. So why limit which ones count and which ones don't?

I will also add that talking about song positions (something hitting #9 one week and off the chart the next) should never have any place in a discussion about chart accuracy. If you want something to measure something accurately and represent a particular period of time, how a song moves between weeks isn't important.

yeah, but I think "40 million people heard the song in a blockbuster movie" shouldn't make a song #1 is what I'm saying. that isn't active listening and doesn't represent any sort of likeness or popularity of the song among consumers at all.

I disagree with you on the hearing a song vs. listening to/consuming a song part. The reason radio airplay is there is because listeners still have at least some sort of impact on what gets played on radio, whether they request a song, respond to a survey or are part of a focus group. People can switch stations. Charts aren't there to count how many times a song is heard but rather how many times it is consumed, in my opinion. "Star Spangled Banner" would re-enter every year after Super Bowl if that counted. "Strangers Thing Theme Song" would chart whenever a season dropped. Without people knowing the name of the track or who made it. Then labels could force music onto film industry just to get that exposure (I'm not saying they don't right now, but it would get intense imo). 

"Truth Hurts" became a hit off of a Netflix movie, but because people actually sought out the song, and I think that's what makes sense for movie/tv industry.

Well I mean, songs wouldn't necessarily hit #1 because 40 million people heard it in the latest Avengers movie. The points wouldn't necessarily count that much. I'm simply saying, I believe films and other things should be included.

And of course, the Star Spangled Banner argument doesn't exactly work because it would still have to be a piece of recorded (and registered) music. Otherwise, we may as well combine all versions of Circles, Yesterday, and every other version of every song and forget the artist(s). And again, you're referring to things like chart positions and how they compare week by week. When discussing measurements and accuracy, that doesn't even matter lol. So what if a song returns each year? If it's an accurate measurement, why is it wrong because it's not following the standard up-peak-down trajectory we're used to seeing in music charts? We need to stop thinking in that frame of mind for these types of discussions.

The part about hearing vs. consuming confuses me though. What does that mean and what is the difference?

I guess my argument is that ever since Billboard started including streaming and YouTube and other means into the mix, the chart became less about sales and more about trying to measure the most listened to songs of the week. Yet, you can have some songs that people hear through various means (a live performance, for example) that gets EVERYONE talking, but because it wasn't heard through the approved means (radio, spotify, etc), it doesn't count toward anything. I guess the discussion is really what we think Billboard is trying to (or should be) measuring.

[kimberly]

Apr 22, 2020 23:06:20 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Apr 22, 2020 22:48:29 GMT -5 kimberly said:

yeah, but I think "40 million people heard the song in a blockbuster movie" shouldn't make a song #1 is what I'm saying. that isn't active listening and doesn't represent any sort of likeness or popularity of the song among consumers at all.

I disagree with you on the hearing a song vs. listening to/consuming a song part. The reason radio airplay is there is because listeners still have at least some sort of impact on what gets played on radio, whether they request a song, respond to a survey or are part of a focus group. People can switch stations. Charts aren't there to count how many times a song is heard but rather how many times it is consumed, in my opinion. "Star Spangled Banner" would re-enter every year after Super Bowl if that counted. "Strangers Thing Theme Song" would chart whenever a season dropped. Without people knowing the name of the track or who made it. Then labels could force music onto film industry just to get that exposure (I'm not saying they don't right now, but it would get intense imo). 

"Truth Hurts" became a hit off of a Netflix movie, but because people actually sought out the song, and I think that's what makes sense for movie/tv industry.

Well I mean, songs wouldn't necessarily hit #1 because 40 million people heard it in the latest Avengers movie. The points wouldn't necessarily count that much. I'm simply saying, I believe films and other things should be included.

And of course, the Star Spangled Banner argument doesn't exactly work because it would still have to be a piece of recorded (and registered) music. Otherwise, we may as well combine all versions of Circles, Yesterday, and every other version of every song and forget the artist(s).

The part about hearing vs. consuming confuses me though. What does that mean and what is the difference?

I guess my argument is that ever since Billboard started including streaming and YouTube and other means into the mix, the chart became less about sales and more about trying to measure the most listened to songs of the week. Yet, you can have some songs that people hear through various means (a live performance, for example) that gets EVERYONE talking, but because it wasn't heard through the approved means (radio, spotify, etc), it doesn't count toward anything. I guess the discussion is really what we think Billboard is trying to (or should be) measuring.

Hearing and consuming are different in my book. I could "hear" a 10-second clip of a song as I walk pass the Neiman Marcus store, but that, to me, isn't consumption. Similarly, you could hear Lizzo's "Truth Hurts" in Someone Great, but that 1 minute section that pairs with the visual and the story arc isn't music consumption. That's my definition though.

I think they need to start counting live performance uploads on Youtube at the very least, and even medleys should be separated into the songs performed if each song is sung more than 30 secs long. Movie trailers could also be considered, as they are fit for musical consumption (makes me think of Beyoncé's sexed-up Crazy In Love remix for 50 Shades of Gray, for instance, or "Shallow")

EDIT: I think charts need to have some sort of stability in that one song shouldn't be #1 one week and leave the next and then come back 10 weeks later randomly because it's in a YouTube ad. That is someone paying money to push the song in the algorithm (that's how ads work -- the more you pay, the more eyeballs you get), which would be completely against the "popularity" rhetoric.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Apr 22, 2020 23:12:24 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Apr 22, 2020 23:06:20 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Well I mean, songs wouldn't necessarily hit #1 because 40 million people heard it in the latest Avengers movie. The points wouldn't necessarily count that much. I'm simply saying, I believe films and other things should be included.

And of course, the Star Spangled Banner argument doesn't exactly work because it would still have to be a piece of recorded (and registered) music. Otherwise, we may as well combine all versions of Circles, Yesterday, and every other version of every song and forget the artist(s).

The part about hearing vs. consuming confuses me though. What does that mean and what is the difference?

I guess my argument is that ever since Billboard started including streaming and YouTube and other means into the mix, the chart became less about sales and more about trying to measure the most listened to songs of the week. Yet, you can have some songs that people hear through various means (a live performance, for example) that gets EVERYONE talking, but because it wasn't heard through the approved means (radio, spotify, etc), it doesn't count toward anything. I guess the discussion is really what we think Billboard is trying to (or should be) measuring.

Hearing and consuming are different in my book. I could "hear" a 10-second clip of a song as I walk pass the Neiman Marcus store, but that, to me, isn't consumption. Similarly, you could hear Lizzo's "Truth Hurts" in Someone Great, but that 1 minute section that pairs with the visual and the story arc isn't music consumption. That's my definition though.

I think they need to start counting live performance uploads on Youtube at the very least, and even medleys should be separated into the songs performed if each song is sung more than 30 secs long. Movie trailers could also be considered, as they are fit for musical consumption (makes me think of Beyoncé's sexed-up Crazy In Love remix for 50 Shades of Gray, for instance, or "Shallow")

EDIT: I think charts need to have some sort of stability in that one song shouldn't be #1 one week and leave the next and then come back 10 weeks later randomly because it's in a YouTube ad. That is someone paying money to push the song in the algorithm (that's how ads work -- the more you pay, the more eyeballs you get), which would be completely against the "popularity" rhetoric.

That’s fair. But then what about radio? So much of radio accounts for people who happen to hear a song because that station is playing in a public venue.

Regarding stability. That doesn’t make sense. We don’t adjust weather temperatures to fit a linear trend so why should charts, which are essentially a periodical measurement, be fixed to be like that? If a song has a brief yet powerful impact, it should be measured no matter how short or long its impact is. If we want to worry about longterm impacts, that’s what larger range charts (year, decade, all time) are for. If the concern is label impact, well, it’s too late for that.

[kimberly]

Apr 22, 2020 23:22:50 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Apr 22, 2020 23:12:24 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Hearing and consuming are different in my book. I could "hear" a 10-second clip of a song as I walk pass the Neiman Marcus store, but that, to me, isn't consumption. Similarly, you could hear Lizzo's "Truth Hurts" in Someone Great, but that 1 minute section that pairs with the visual and the story arc isn't music consumption. That's my definition though.

I think they need to start counting live performance uploads on Youtube at the very least, and even medleys should be separated into the songs performed if each song is sung more than 30 secs long. Movie trailers could also be considered, as they are fit for musical consumption (makes me think of Beyoncé's sexed-up Crazy In Love remix for 50 Shades of Gray, for instance, or "Shallow")

EDIT: I think charts need to have some sort of stability in that one song shouldn't be #1 one week and leave the next and then come back 10 weeks later randomly because it's in a YouTube ad. That is someone paying money to push the song in the algorithm (that's how ads work -- the more you pay, the more eyeballs you get), which would be completely against the "popularity" rhetoric.

That’s fair. But then what about radio? So much of radio accounts for people who happen to hear a song because that station is playing in a public venue.

Regarding stability. That doesn’t make sense. We don’t adjust weather temperatures to fit a linear trend so why should charts, which are essentially a periodical measurement, be fixed to be like that? If a song has a brief yet powerful impact, it should be measured no matter how short or long its impact is. If we want to worry about longterm impacts, that’s what larger range charts (year, decade, all time) are for. If the concern is label impact, well, it’s too late for that.

Radio, while currently somewhat out of touch with the reality, is still run by a lot of people and listener's interests. Ad placements are bought. As much as stans like to joke about it, payola is illegal -- you can't pay to get a push on airplay. There would need to be strict rules and governing re: movies and tvs, and ads are literally bought and forced onto people.

[sirskimask]

Apr 22, 2020 22:24:12 GMT -5 Baby Yoda Hot100Fan said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:54:54 GMT -5 annoymous1 said:

That was because of the soccer moms and radio stations not letting it die.

Another place that people forget where it lasted a long time in the top 10 was YouTube, thanks in large part to the celebrity "Girls" featured in the video. It was in the top 10 of YouTube the tracking week for its 33rd week in the top 10.

Nice For What was the far superior video with celebrity girls 

[degen]

Where’s next weeks thread? Who is projected for #1?

[degen]

Apr 22, 2020 23:26:52 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Apr 22, 2020 23:22:50 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

That’s fair. But then what about radio? So much of radio accounts for people who happen to hear a song because that station is playing in a public venue.

Regarding stability. That doesn’t make sense. We don’t adjust weather temperatures to fit a linear trend so why should charts, which are essentially a periodical measurement, be fixed to be like that? If a song has a brief yet powerful impact, it should be measured no matter how short or long its impact is. If we want to worry about longterm impacts, that’s what larger range charts (year, decade, all time) are for. If the concern is label impact, well, it’s too late for that.

Radio, while currently somewhat out of touch with the reality, is still run by a lot of people and listener's interests. Ad placements are bought. As much as stans like to joke about it, payola is illegal -- you can't pay to get a push on airplay. There would need to be strict rules and governing re: movies and tvs, and ads are literally bought and forced onto people.

Honestly I think that’s going overboard. Counting songs that appear in trailers would be ridiculous, Billboard would need more than a week to compile all these metrics.

But with that being said i hate how inconsistent Billboard has been with 3rd party involved audio/visuals. For example why weren’t music videos on MTV/vh1 in the 80s counted, but then in the 2010s they adapted Youtube music video views into their data. Imagine a music video like “Thriller” in the 80s, that single would’ve, without a doubt, been a #1 hit on the Hot 100 had they counted music videos then.

[Deleted]

Apr 22, 2020 22:15:14 GMT -5 atg said:

If circles is still in the top 15 on spotify (12) and if it’s still top 5 on radio (5), and as well with it making a small gain today, then people are actively choosing to listen/consume and make a it a smash hit even after 8 and half months. It’s crazy even thinking that if it hits 36 weeks, that would make it 9 months aka 3/4 of a year in the top 10 alone, and since its DEBUT as well!! That’s an amazing feat that bigger hits such as shape of you, uptown funk, sunflower and old town road couldn’t do (well to be fair 2/4 songs debuted out of the top 10 and had to build traction even if it was effortless for them)

I wouldn't be surprised if Circles is still charting in 2021.