What do you want to see happen with the 25/52 rule?

[phieaglesfan712]

As you know, the 25/52 rule was instituted in early 2016. However, this has not slowed down the number of songs reaching 52 weeks on the charts. What, if any, modifications would you like to see with this rule?

[Clode]

Personally I feel that no changes need to be made to this Recurrent Rule. Since the 25/52 Rule has been implemented only 6 Songs have managed to remain in the Top 25 after their 52nd week on the Hot 100, (I will not be including Uptown Funk since that song technically spent a 53rd week on the Hot 100 when the 25/52 Recurrent Rule did not exist) Those songs of course being Shape of You, Perfect, Sunflower, Circles, I Hope & now currently Blinding Lights.

[mikerivera]

If you’re gonna do anything with the recurrent rules, make the 20/50 a hard cutoff and maybe add a 40/40 rule

[🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾]

They should change it so that songs are not removed if they are falling and/or have been there for a certain time already. That may mean older songs hang around longer, but the chart should be an accurate representation of what's really popular right now. If a 2 year old song is still that popular, it should be on the charts.

[85la]

Jul 6, 2021 19:59:06 GMT -5 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 said:

They should change it so that songs are not removed if they are falling and/or have been there for a certain time already. That may mean older songs hang around longer, but the chart should be an accurate representation of what's really popular right now. If a 2 year old song is still that popular, it should be on the charts.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but this is the exact reason for the implementation of recurrent rules - to remove older songs that have already been on the charts for a while and that are also declining in popularity. It wouldn't make sense to remove newer songs that are rising in points and position. Or are you saying that there should be no recurrent rules at all?

As of now, I wouldn't change the 25/52 rule, because it seems to balance the chart out pretty well, however if many more songs are increasingly outlasting it, maybe change it to removal after 52 weeks and dropping below the top 10 or top 15.

[🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾]

Jul 6, 2021 20:51:23 GMT -5 85la said:

Jul 6, 2021 19:59:06 GMT -5 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 said:

They should change it so that songs are not removed if they are falling and/or have been there for a certain time already. That may mean older songs hang around longer, but the chart should be an accurate representation of what's really popular right now. If a 2 year old song is still that popular, it should be on the charts.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but this is the exact reason for the implementation of recurrent rules - to remove older songs that have already been on the charts for a while and that are also declining in popularity. It wouldn't make sense to remove newer songs that are rising in points and position. Or are you saying that there should be no recurrent rules at all?

As of now, I wouldn't change the 25/52 rule, because it seems to balance the chart out pretty well, however if many more songs are increasingly outlasting it, maybe change it to removal after 52 weeks and dropping below the top 10 or top 15.

There should be no rules for this sort of thing.

[85la]

Jul 6, 2021 21:23:06 GMT -5 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 said:

Jul 6, 2021 20:51:23 GMT -5 85la said:

Maybe I'm not understanding, but this is the exact reason for the implementation of recurrent rules - to remove older songs that have already been on the charts for a while and that are also declining in popularity. It wouldn't make sense to remove newer songs that are rising in points and position. Or are you saying that there should be no recurrent rules at all?

As of now, I wouldn't change the 25/52 rule, because it seems to balance the chart out pretty well, however if many more songs are increasingly outlasting it, maybe change it to removal after 52 weeks and dropping below the top 10 or top 15.

There should be no rules for this sort of thing.

Ok I guess I did misunderstand a little, thanks for clarifying your opinion.

[trustypepper]

Get rid of it and go back to how it was prior.

[jodakyellow]

Jul 6, 2021 19:59:06 GMT -5 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 said:

They should change it so that songs are not removed if they are falling and/or have been there for a certain time already. That may mean older songs hang around longer, but the chart should be an accurate representation of what's really popular right now. If a 2 year old song is still that popular, it should be on the charts.

I agree! Maybe that's not helpful to the industry stakeholders who the charts are really for, but it's always been my preference.

[Deleted]

I don't think the 25/52 rule was intended to slow down the number of songs reaching 52 weeks; it was meant to slow down the number of songs exceeding 52 weeks. The 26-50 section would be a perpetual logjam of old songs that radio and/or streamers refuse to let go of otherwise. Blinding Lights would probably not leave until 2026 without a 25/52 lol.

I do wish there was a comprehensive (i.e. recurrentless) song chart. It doesn't have to be the 'main' Hot 100 chart, but I've always been befuddled as to why Billboard has never had one and seems to have zero interest in having one. If BB would ever launch a comprehensive singles chart, then I'd be okay with a hard 52-and-done rule on the Hot 100. But until then, leave the 25/52 rule as is.

[phieaglesfan712]

Mood and my ex's best friend charting the last 6-7 weeks is proof that the 25/52 rule should be modified to 25/40. I feel like Mood and MEBF are no longer impacting anything, and are just taking up spots on the chart. Under the 25/40 rule, Mood would have fallen off on 5/29, while MEBF would have fallen off the following week.

I wouldn't mind an eventual implementation of a 15-52 rule, but it needs to be Top-10 protected (that is, a Top 10 song is protected from recurrency if it falls in the 16-25 range one week, but needs to return to the Top 15 the week after to continue charting). In this way, we prevent a scenario where the Soko record is broken artificially. Case in point is Blinding Lights charting at #7 on 12/19, but falling to #18 the following week. The Top 10-protected rule allows BL to chart at #18 that week, and avoid recurrency due to the 15/52 rule.

[¤ Matthea ¤]

The rule is fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed just because some old songs are super strong.

[Gary]

The 25/52 is doing what it is supposed to do. Cap songs at 52 weeks except in occurrences where it is popular enough to stay longer


Not sure the problem.

[atg]

If there was no 25/52 rule, imagine how much longer BL would stay on the charts. We’d be looking at early-mid 2022 when it’ll finally make its departure.

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 7, 2021 8:08:33 GMT -5 Gary said:

The 25/52 is doing what it is supposed to do. Cap songs at 52 weeks except in occurrences where it is popular enough to stay longer


Not sure the problem.

I personally think 52 weeks is too many. I think the cap should be at 40 weeks. Just ask yourself if you’d rather see Mood and MEBF on the charts the last 6-7 weeks (and possibly the next 5-6), or if you’d rather see 2 fresh songs in their place.

[Gary]

Personally I would rather see the 100 most popular songs each week regardless of age. But that won’t happen


The 25/52 rule caps most songs at 52 weeks. Only a few have exceeded that since so it is accomplishing what they wanted

[rihannabiggestfan]

Hmm, the 25/40 argument is tempting

[Choco]

What do I want to see happen with the 25/52 rule?

Nothing.

Good day.

[thabb]

leave as is
It works pretty well. Mood and Blinding Lights are anomalies; personally, I think that we don't have songs that linger that much that often to justify 15/40.

[phieaglesfan712]

Jul 7, 2021 17:50:29 GMT -5 Choco said:

What do I want to see happen with the 25/52 rule?

Nothing.

Good day.

This is surprising coming from you. Based on your previous comments about songs clogging up the charts with extra weeks in the 45-49 range, I thought you'd most likely be in favor of a 25/40 rule.

[Groovy]

Yay, let's make the Hot 100 even more inaccurate than it already is.

[Choco]

Jul 9, 2021 8:33:38 GMT -5 phieaglesfan712 said:

Jul 7, 2021 17:50:29 GMT -5 Choco said:

What do I want to see happen with the 25/52 rule?

Nothing.

Good day.

This is surprising coming from you. Based on your previous comments about songs clogging up the charts with extra weeks in the 45-49 range, I thought you'd most likely be in favor of a 25/40 rule.

Mmm no? I like seeing songs get to 52 weeks. The list of songs that reach that mark is quite strong, and I like how all of them feel legitimately like huge hits. But I also like the way it's capped at a year and goodbye (except for cases like BL or "Perfect" that avoid the #25 cutoff for a couple weeks, but tbh those are also huge songs and it feels very deserving). Regardless of how Billboard tallies their all time chart (I don't agree that songs that go recurrent should stop gaining points), 10 more weeks of, say, "Shape of You" at #40 do not contribute much more to an already monster chart-run; meanwhile there are some songs just below #100 that could benefit from the exposure of entering.

As for songs around #46 spending weeks on end on the chart? As long as they are gone by week 52, it's fine.

[Henry Suárez]

There shouldn't be recurrent rules but whatever.

[moonbow]

As long as the new songs are weighed down in all time chart rankings to compensate for the fact that streaming has dramatically increased song lengths for hit songs, I'm fine with 25/52 being left untouched.