Billboard Hot 100: 01/22/2022

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Jan 11, 2022 19:01:27 GMT -5 Choco said:

BTS is over.

that comment section tho

[kcdawg13]

Jan 11, 2022 19:16:38 GMT -5 Mayman said:

I mean, they could price their new single at $0.39 and have multiple versions available. Like original, instrumental, remixes, alt covers, etc. but it will still be harder. I think singles with big pushes like Dynamite and Butter could debut at #1 but having longevity will be more difficult in the future.

Yeah, the fans will push hard to debut at #1 but it's gonna be next to impossible to get the same run Butter got

[Xander]

Hopefully billboard will soon create a rule where only the most successful remix can count during a tracking week

[Choco]

Jan 11, 2022 19:31:40 GMT -5 Xander said:

Hopefully billboard will soon create a rule where only the most successful remix can count during a tracking week

Technically if the song is counted as one there is no reason why they wouldn't filter the remixes out as well. If it's counted as one for chart purposes it should be counted as one on the sales chart...

[Lukas]

Remixes are just going to get exploited harder to compensate for this.

Jan 11, 2022 19:31:40 GMT -5 Xander said:

Hopefully billboard will soon create a rule where only the most successful remix can count during a tracking week

I disagree with this. For some songs remixes breathe new life into them and they should be combined, such as with Save Your Tears, Savage, Whats Poppin, etc.

Really they should've just merged the Hot 100 sales policies with the Global 200 ones, but Global 200 doesn't count physicals so this is fine as is.

I'd also be ok if only the top 3 versions of a song or something counted, because we also don't need another Beat Box.

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Jan 11, 2022 19:31:40 GMT -5 Xander said:

Hopefully billboard will soon create a rule where only the most successful remix can count during a tracking week

or when the most popular version is actually credited on their YE charts: I Hope (solo), 34+35 (solo), Levitating (w DaB*by), Roses (w Imanbek), Savage (w Beyonce)...

[kcdawg13]

I like how BTS fans are trying to point out how radio is fraudulent but their "sales" aren't, neglecting to mention all the payola both Dynamite and Butter got on pop radio. Both tracks got radio deals then they still managed to reach the Top 10 and stick around for weeks despite the fact their call-out scores were abysmal. But you can only go so far when the general public doesn't like you, which is why every BTS song fails on radio while stuff like Blinding Lights and Easy On Me actually stick around.

[iHype.]

The fact we are only 2 years into this decade, and there is now half a year of weeks where the #1 Hot 100 song was earned through loopholes that are no longer allowed lmao.

The asterisk number-one weeks:
1. "The Scotts" first and only week #1
2. "Say So" first and only week #1
3. "Stuck With U" first and only week #1
4. "Savage" first and only week #1
5. "Rain On Me" first and only week #1
6. "Trollz" first and only week #1
7. "Cardigan" first and only week #1
8. "Watermelon Sugar" first and only week #1
9. "Dynamite" second week #1
10. "Dynamite" third week #1
11. "Franchise" first and only week #1
12. "Savage Love" first and only week #1
13. "Life Goes On" first and only week #1
14. "Willow" first and only week #1
15. "Butter" second week #1
16. "Butter" third week #1
17. "Butter" fourth week #1
18. "Butter" fifth week #1
19. "Butter" sixth week #1
20. "Butter" seventh week #1
21. "Butter" eighth week #1
22. "Butter" ninth week #1
23. "Butter" tenth week #1
24. "Permission to Dance" first and only week #1
25. "My Universe" first and only week #1
26. "Industry Baby" first and only week #1


I believe "Dynamite" and "Butter" would've gotten their debut weeks at #1 due to them actually having streams that week and the fact a much higher number of purchases those weeks were not bulk buying but people actually legit buying.

"Industry Baby", "Savage", and "Say So" are all double-asterisk #1s -- they went #1 due to the loopholes, but were also blocked in weeks by songs abusing the loopholes. So regardless, they would've still went #1 also.

The number ones if 2020s never had those loopholes...

2020:
All I Want for Christmas - 3 weeks (+1)
Circles - 1 week
The Box - 11 weeks
Blinding Lights - 6 weeks (+2)
Gooba - 1 week
Toosie Slide - 1 week
Say So - 1 week
Savage - 1 week
Rockstar - 9 weeks (+3)
WAP - 7 weeks (+4)
Dynamite - 1 week
Positions - 1 week
Mood - 7 weeks (+1)

2021:
All I Want for Christmas - 2 weeks
Mood - 2 weeks
Drivers License - 8 weeks
What's Next - 1 week
Up - 1 week
Peaches - 1 week
Montero - 1 week
Leave The Door Open - 1 week
Rapstar - 2 weeks
Save Your Tears - 2 weeks
Good 4 U - 9 weeks (+8)
Industry Baby - 1 week
Way 2 Sexy - 1 week
Stay - 10 weeks (+3)
Easy On Me - 7 weeks
All Too Well - 1 week

[Abbaschand]

I'm still salty that Good 4 U is only a 1-week #1 song.

[gikem]

Jan 11, 2022 19:36:12 GMT -5 Lukas said:

I'd also be ok if only the top 3 versions of a song or something counted, because we also don't need another Beat Box.

Exactly. While I don't expect this to be the norm for simple TikTok hits like Beat Box, right now a major artist can still exploit this and inflate their numbers to be higher than they should be (though to be fair, this happens in other countries too - in the UK it's at least once a year).

And also this doesn't fix the ISRC issue that was brought up over the summer when BTS literally released versions of Butter that were the exact same as the original but with different single art, and that loophole may prove to be influential for other artists besides them if not closed soon.

[iHype.]

Jan 11, 2022 19:36:12 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Remixes are just going to get exploited harder to compensate for this.

It will only make a difference in close races for #1 where a few thousands of sales can make a difference of #1. Which is how it's always been with last minute remixes.

The main thing before was literally people would crowdfund money and 1 person would purchase like 5,000 copies through the webstore by themself.

Now with this new role, theoretically, if a song had 10 remixes available in store, 1 person would only be able to max out at 10 purchases per week. They'd have to get hundreds and hundreds of people involved in direct purchasing to have the same effect as before.

[Lukas]

Jan 11, 2022 19:52:37 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jan 11, 2022 19:36:12 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Remixes are just going to get exploited harder to compensate for this.

It will only make a difference in close races for #1 where a few thousands of sales can make a difference of #1. Which is how it's always been with last minute remixes.

The main thing before was literally people would crowdfund money and 1 person would purchase like 5,000 copies through the webstore by themself.

Now with this new role, theoretically, if a song had 10 remixes available in store, 1 person would only be able to max out at 10 purchases per week. They'd have to get hundreds and hundreds of people involved in direct purchasing to have the same effect as before.

Yeah it would still be a lot less sales. But let's not forget the time when they literally made an alternate cover of the song that was the exact same as the original and it still counted differently for chart purposes; maybe Billboard will crack down on that but as of now there's nothing stopping them from doing this for 10+ versions.

And honestly, until I see this go in practice I'm not celebrating a thing.

[gikem]

Jan 11, 2022 19:45:22 GMT -5 iHype. said:

2020:
All I Want for Christmas - 3 weeks (+1)
Circles - 1 week
The Box - 11 weeks
Blinding Lights - 6 weeks (+2)
Gooba - 1 week
Toosie Slide - 1 week
Say So - 1 week
Savage - 1 week
Rockstar - 9 weeks (+3)
WAP - 7 weeks (+4)
Dynamite - 1 week
Positions - 1 week
Mood - 7 weeks (+1)

2021:
All I Want for Christmas - 2 weeks
Mood - 2 weeks
Drivers License - 8 weeks
What's Next - 1 week
Up - 1 week
Peaches - 1 week
Montero - 1 week
Leave The Door Open - 1 week
Rapstar - 2 weeks
Save Your Tears - 2 weeks
Good 4 U - 9 weeks (+8)
Industry Baby - 1 week
Way 2 Sexy - 1 week
Stay - 10 weeks (+3)
Easy On Me - 7 weeks
All Too Well - 1 week

Unless I missed something (because I know its first week had some sales thing happen), LTDO should have 2 weeks at #1, not 1.

[HolidayGuy]

With something like iTunes, one can only purchase a track once under one account, unless the track is available on more than one single or album, yes? So I guess this is more likely an answer to digital sales via an act's website. Though one person can have multiple iTunes accounts, I suppose. Not sure how it works on other digital outlet, like Amazon's mP3 store, for instance.

[iHype.]

Jan 11, 2022 19:56:21 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Jan 11, 2022 19:52:37 GMT -5 iHype. said:

It will only make a difference in close races for #1 where a few thousands of sales can make a difference of #1. Which is how it's always been with last minute remixes.

The main thing before was literally people would crowdfund money and 1 person would purchase like 5,000 copies through the webstore by themself.

Now with this new role, theoretically, if a song had 10 remixes available in store, 1 person would only be able to max out at 10 purchases per week. They'd have to get hundreds and hundreds of people involved in direct purchasing to have the same effect as before.

Yeah it would still be a lot less sales. But let's not forget the time when they literally made an alternate cover of the song that was the exact same as the original and it still counted differently for chart purposes; maybe Billboard will crack down on that but as of now there's nothing stopping them from doing this for 10+ versions.

And honestly, until I see this go in practice I'm not celebrating a thing.

I believe they are serious to crack down on bulk buying because

1. They specified "2 or more units purchased by a customer will not be counted." Which seems they are saying if there is multiple purchases, the transaction will now count as zero sales period instead of even being reduced to just one.

2. I believe they were vague with giving the parameters of what counts as a sale in a transaction because they wanted to prevent more loopholes again.

3. I think if they see huge numbers like 75,000 purchases from a webstore in a week while iTunes only reported 1,000 for the same song it'll get flagged and reviewed. Ala we saw "Levitating" sales get flagged even though it was miniscule in comparison to BTS's bulk buying because they were deliberately crossing the set policy of non-US buyers. They have deliberately put in place a policy of 1 purchase per person now. If they see evidence where it clearly is likely mass purchasing is happening and the new policies are deliberately crossed, then they can disregard those sales like they did with "Levitating".

[Lukas]

Jan 11, 2022 20:02:30 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jan 11, 2022 19:56:21 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Yeah it would still be a lot less sales. But let's not forget the time when they literally made an alternate cover of the song that was the exact same as the original and it still counted differently for chart purposes; maybe Billboard will crack down on that but as of now there's nothing stopping them from doing this for 10+ versions.

And honestly, until I see this go in practice I'm not celebrating a thing.

I believe they are serious to crack down on bulk buying because

1. They specified "2 or more units purchased by a customer will not be counted." Which seems they are saying if there is multiple purchases, the transaction will now count as zero sales period instead of even being reduced to just one.

2. I believe they were vague with what counts because they wanted to prevent more loopholes again.

3. I think if they see huge numbers like 75,000 purchases from a webstore in a week while iTunes only reported 1,000 for the same song it'll get flagged and reviewed. Ala we saw "Levitating" sales get flagged even though it was miniscule in comparison to BTS's bulk buying because they were deliberately crossing the set policy of non-US buyers. They have deliberately put in place a policy of 1 purchase per person. If they see evidence where it clearly is likely mass purchasing is happening and the new policies are deliberately crossed, then they can disregard those sales like they did with "Levitating".

That doesn't mean anything tbh; in the exact same article they specify the previous rule was "4 or less units counted" or something like this. Which isn't 4 overall, it was 4 per version. I think they would've specified remixes. And even if they didn't and that's the case, it's not like people will know a week after something significant happened.

[Lukas]

On a sidenote, it's funny how ARMY is mad because "artists will make less money now" like you literally couldn't just still purchase multiple copies if you ACTUALLY wanted to support the artist and give them more money. And let's not forget that they literally purchased copies for 69 cents each on the store, they should've purchased it for 129 cents each if that was the case.

[Envoirment]

Surely they could just bulk buy CD singles instead? I guess the only issue with that is that it isn't instant/there's a limited supply and possible shipping delays etc.

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

Jan 11, 2022 19:05:38 GMT -5 dovahduck said:

Actually, this is not such a big change given that this rule already applied for the first 4 weeks of an album's release and first 3 month's of a song's release. (Billboard Pricing Policy, Effective November 21, 2011). Basically, it extends the rule to the lifetime of a song or album.

[iHype.]

Jan 11, 2022 20:06:32 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:02:30 GMT -5 iHype. said:

I believe they are serious to crack down on bulk buying because

1. They specified "2 or more units purchased by a customer will not be counted." Which seems they are saying if there is multiple purchases, the transaction will now count as zero sales period instead of even being reduced to just one.

2. I believe they were vague with what counts because they wanted to prevent more loopholes again.

3. I think if they see huge numbers like 75,000 purchases from a webstore in a week while iTunes only reported 1,000 for the same song it'll get flagged and reviewed. Ala we saw "Levitating" sales get flagged even though it was miniscule in comparison to BTS's bulk buying because they were deliberately crossing the set policy of non-US buyers. They have deliberately put in place a policy of 1 purchase per person. If they see evidence where it clearly is likely mass purchasing is happening and the new policies are deliberately crossed, then they can disregard those sales like they did with "Levitating".

That doesn't mean anything tbh; in the exact same article they specify the previous rule was "4 or less units counted" or something like this. Which isn't 4 overall, it was 4 per version. I think they would've specified remixes. And even if they didn't and that's the case, it's not like people will know a week after something significant happened.

?? I think that with Nielsen/MRC they get sales reports in a very detailed manner and so they are able to audit stuff if red flags are raised. Like with "Levitating" sales I think they were able to review the associated IP addresses, home addresses included on the purchases, location of credit cards, or something similar to give away it had a few thousand non-US purchases. That stuff is automatically saved with a purchase so even once the tracking week has ended they can still look at it before finalizing the numbers and charts.

With this new policy I think they're being vague on what is pinged off as bulk purchases so they have more discretion with what they can discard if needed. Even if one person managed to buy a song 5,000 times in individual transactions I think something like the same credit card or IP for every single one would still be something that could be caught in an audit and flagged. Obviously we will have to see how it actually plays out once BTS release something. 

[jayhawk1117]

We'll be back to the Pre-Dynamite era for BTS chart runs 💀. Good ol "8-33-57-Out"

[Lukas]

Jan 11, 2022 20:29:05 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:06:32 GMT -5 Lukas said:

That doesn't mean anything tbh; in the exact same article they specify the previous rule was "4 or less units counted" or something like this. Which isn't 4 overall, it was 4 per version. I think they would've specified remixes. And even if they didn't and that's the case, it's not like people will know a week after something significant happened.

?? I think that with Nielsen/MRC they get sales reports in a very detailed manner and so they are able to audit stuff if red flags are raised. Like with "Levitating" sales I think they were able to review the associated IP addresses, home addresses included on the purchases, location of credit cards, or something similar to give away it had a few thousand non-US purchases. That stuff is automatically saved with a purchase so even once the tracking week has ended they can still look at it before finalizing the numbers and charts.

With this new policy I think they're being vague on what is pinged off as bulk purchases so they have more discretion with what they can discard if needed. Even if one person managed to buy a song 5,000 times in individual transactions I think something like the same credit card or IP for every single one would still be something that could be caught in an audit and flagged. Obviously we will have to see how it actually plays out once BTS release something. 

You're missing the point entirely and I don't know why I'm still arguing with you.

Credit card/IP bulk sales were always filtered and will continue to be. The problem with Levitating was VPN sales with accounts like dlipahungary among others promoting them.

I doubt they're cracking on remixes anyways. There are lots of legitimate remixes like Savage and Whats Poppin that I doubt that's an actual rule. What I do think they are doing is strengthening their ISRC policies so that alternate covers can't be loopholed like it was with Butter one week. It's ridiculous to think that they mean one copy among all versions.

[jayhawk1117]

Jan 11, 2022 20:08:04 GMT -5 Lukas said:

On a sidenote, it's funny how ARMY is mad because "artists will make less money now" like you literally couldn't just still purchase multiple copies if you ACTUALLY wanted to support the artist and give them more money. And let's not forget that they literally purchased copies for 69 cents each on the store, they should've purchased it for 129 cents each if that was the case.

right nothing's stopping them from buying 80 copies a piece 🙄. They're Literally telling on themselves 💀. "WHY WOULD WE BUY 100K COPIES IF THEY MEAN NOTHING?!" But I thought sales were the only legit way to track popularity

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Eh, some of those ‘fraud’ weeks at the top would’ve made it anyway (“say so” for example, iirc). idk how accurate we can get w the close weeks in particular (“butter” weeks 2-10 is clear, “savage” v “say so” less so)

Comments like these are fucked up to me. Im sorry I’m over sensitive, but like………there is a line.

Jan 11, 2022 19:14:49 GMT -5 kcdawg13 said:

Somebody find meg and make sure to take away all sharp objects from her

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Jan 11, 2022 20:08:04 GMT -5 Lukas said:

On a sidenote, it's funny how ARMY is mad because "artists will make less money now"

the ONLY artists getting these sales in bulk are already super rich lmao does Lil Nas X need more money? Does Nicki? Does Taylor? Does SUGA?

Go buy some music from independent artists through bandcamp or something if you’re THAT concerned, THEY need the money, not Jimin. This is all faux outrage, but we knew that already

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

I assume BTS will continue with their gazillion remix strategy.

[iHype.]

Jan 11, 2022 20:38:52 GMT -5 Lukas said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:29:05 GMT -5 iHype. said:

?? I think that with Nielsen/MRC they get sales reports in a very detailed manner and so they are able to audit stuff if red flags are raised. Like with "Levitating" sales I think they were able to review the associated IP addresses, home addresses included on the purchases, location of credit cards, or something similar to give away it had a few thousand non-US purchases. That stuff is automatically saved with a purchase so even once the tracking week has ended they can still look at it before finalizing the numbers and charts.

With this new policy I think they're being vague on what is pinged off as bulk purchases so they have more discretion with what they can discard if needed. Even if one person managed to buy a song 5,000 times in individual transactions I think something like the same credit card or IP for every single one would still be something that could be caught in an audit and flagged. Obviously we will have to see how it actually plays out once BTS release something. 

You're missing the point entirely and I don't know why I'm still arguing with you.

Credit card/IP bulk sales were always filtered and will continue to be. The problem with Levitating was VPN sales with accounts like dlipahungary among others promoting them.

I doubt they're cracking on remixes anyways. There are lots of legitimate remixes like Savage and Whats Poppin that I doubt that's an actual rule. What I do think they are doing is strengthening their ISRC policies so that alternate covers can't be loopholed like it was with Butter one week. It's ridiculous to think that they mean one copy among all versions.

.....Nobody is arguing. What the hell are you mad about? LMAO

I'm being optimistic that the rule will be executed well and you somehow have an issue with that. What even.

Ofcourse they are not cracking down on remixes. Two versions of a song can be legitimately popular. However the issue was that a consumer likely is not purchasing two versions of a song in 2021, let alone during the same week for any reason other than chart gaming. So if they went as far as disqualifying two+ sales for a song period (or reducing to 1) even with differing versions/remixes I still think that would actually be logical. 

They probably didn't go that far, but they should. 

No person needs to have their 3 purchases of Willow count in one tracking week, even if they happened to genuinely like all 3 remixes. 1 purchase of a song should be the cap counted for someone even including different versions. 

[𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤]

Jan 11, 2022 20:44:31 GMT -5 𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕖𝕓𝕤 said:

Jan 11, 2022 20:08:04 GMT -5 Lukas said:

On a sidenote, it's funny how ARMY is mad because "artists will make less money now"

the ONLY artists getting these sales in bulk are already super rich lmao does Lil Nas X need more money? Does Nicki? Does Taylor? Does SUGA?

Go buy some music from independent artists through bandcamp or something if you’re THAT concerned, THEY need the money, not Jimin. This is all faux outrage, but we knew that already

LIKE HERE 😭😭😭😭 PFFTFTFTFT DONT you pretend you’re mass-buying for f**king Left at London or Lauren Spencer-Smith or something I’m screaming

“Not all the GP will be aware of this rule” NO ONE will be aware because they DO. NOT. CAAAAARE

[JukeboxJacob]

why were 4 sales per customer per week counted in the first place??

[iHype.]

Jan 11, 2022 20:53:20 GMT -5 JukeboxJacob said:

why were 4 sales per customer per week counted in the first place??

Once upon a time gifting physical music used to be popular. 

Those rules should have never translated to digital music though. I don't see how someone would justify needing the same file 4 times on 1 computer in any instance....