Why radio should have less power on the Hot 100.

[aubryskinnygoddess]

Just look at the streaming top 50 and consider it the official chart since that’s what y’all want

[Michael1973]

I confess to knowing very little about streaming music or exactly how it's used to calculate the charts. One reason I tend not to like it is that anybody can stream the same song twenty times in a row and each time would count towards the charts. Assuming that's accurate, then a small number of devoted fans can stream a certain song to death and it will chart well.

Regardless of my "dinosaur" thinking regarding how charts are compiled, you'll never get me to agree that re-charting 60-year-old Christmas songs every year makes sense. Yes, they are widely listened to during December, but they were equally popular in December 1985 and December 1995 and they didn't chart then.

[lurker2]

That's actually not true- they make YouTube, Spotify, etc. filter out excessively repeated streams. One number I've heard is that past ten streams a day all are thrown out, although I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. But we do know that Spotify cuts down a lot of streams, espescially on big debuts, because of this.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Nov 21, 2020 23:32:20 GMT -5 walt91 said:

Nov 21, 2020 14:08:49 GMT -5 Michael1973 said:

I'm not a big fan of counting streaming towards the charts. I feel like it should be strictly based on radio airplay and digital sales. The way I see it, streaming drastically skews the numbers. It's the equivalent of going back to the 1980s and not only tracking record sales but calling every American every day and asking how many times they played the record. Just because it's easy to track streaming doesn't mean it should be included.

literally no one except people on pulse and soccer moms listen to the radio or use digital sales mediums anymore, they're becoming more and more obsolete everyday. nearly all music in America is consumed via streaming platforms so it makes sense that they should be given more weight. not saying radio shouldn't be considered at all, there's still (mostly older) people who use radio as their primary music source, but it's definitely going the way of the dinosaurs and eliminating streaming makes zero sense

I agree that eliminating streaming makes zero sense but why are we diminishing entire demographics and calling them obsolete again?

[walt91]

^ in my experience younger generations, who tend to be the driving force behind new songs getting big, are less likely to listen to the radio. it’s definitely correct that there’s still a notable radio audience, but I see that number declining going forward

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Nov 23, 2020 0:09:36 GMT -5 walt91 said:

^ in my experience younger generations, who tend to be the driving force behind new songs getting big, are less likely to listen to the radio. it’s definitely correct that there’s still a notable radio audience, but I see that number declining going forward

Yeah but why discount other demos?

[JukeboxJacob]

I think sales have been the biggest problem this year. I don’t think they should even influence the charts anymore, or at least have minimal influence.

[Michael1973]

Nov 23, 2020 20:39:09 GMT -5 JukeboxJacob said:

I think sales have been the biggest problem this year. I don’t think they should even influence the charts anymore, or at least have minimal influence.

I've always felt like sales had too much influence, most notably in the 1990s when massive hit songs failed to chart due to not being available as singles.

[Henry Suárez]

I think radio SHOULD have more power on the Hot 100 tbh.

[lazer]

Nov 25, 2020 13:03:33 GMT -5 Henry Suárez said:

I think radio SHOULD have more power on the Hot 100 tbh.

That's a hilarious joke!

[tanooki]

Nov 22, 2020 0:36:34 GMT -5 aubryskinnygoddess said:

Just look at the streaming top 50 and consider it the official chart since that’s what y’all want

not capable of doing lol, since Billboard cut UGC and doesn't count guest views on YouTube

[Private Dancer]

Well, tbh I do think radio should have less power because today radio isnt as huge as it was back then. You could show someone the top ten back in the 2000s and ask them if they know these songs and they would say yes to about 6 or 7 of them. Today, a lot of people do not know any songs in the top ten maybe 1 or 2. Radio is still popular to a certain extent but I see it dying because people listen to their own favorite music in the car. It's not like back in the day whatever came on you had to deal with it or turn it off. Today you have the option of bluetooth and headphones which kills the audience impressions. But radio is dying surely but slowly.

[Private Dancer]

Also look at the spins from back in the day today a song needs like 18000 spins to get a audience impression of around 77M whereas in 2000s when radio was still huge you only needed around 7k or 8k to make that audience peak on the MT40.

[phieaglesfan712]

I have always found radio to be the most reliable metric, being the most difficult to manipulate, but even I have to admit that there are some problems with radio. Like with sales, there are some radio formats, such as country radio, that have way too much influence on the Hot 100. I think downweighing these formats (along with sales), and maybe adding UGC back to the formula, would give a Hot 100 with a more accurate picture on what the most popular songs in the United States.

[rimetm]

The problem is that all formats' contributions in audience are based on dynamic estimates per station per timeslot. By saying a format should be downweighed, you're basically saying that the listeners to that format are inherently worth less than the others, which...well, I'll let you figure out the implications of that notion. When a format gains favor after a recalibration, what it means is that more of the format's stations' slots had boosts in audience relative to the rest (or fewer losses in situations like when the market got bearish during the pandemic).

[Naos]

Jul 31, 2021 10:21:05 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

I have always found radio to be the most reliable metric, being the most difficult to manipulate, but even I have to admit that there are some problems with radio. Like with sales, there are some radio formats, such as country radio, that have way too much influence on the Hot 100. I think downweighing these formats (along with sales), and maybe adding UGC back to the formula, would give a Hot 100 with a more accurate picture on what the most popular songs in the United States.

Downweighing a specific genre is kinda dumb. It's like "let's downweight streaming for hip-hop only."

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Jul 31, 2021 10:21:05 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

I have always found radio to be the most reliable metric, being the most difficult to manipulate, but even I have to admit that there are some problems with radio. Like with sales, there are some radio formats, such as country radio, that have way too much influence on the Hot 100. I think downweighing these formats (along with sales), and maybe adding UGC back to the formula, would give a Hot 100 with a more accurate picture on what the most popular songs in the United States.

That’s like saying, let’s count some people’s vote as being less valuable than others because we don’t like who they vote for.