How would the Hot 100 go in 1999...

[rimetm]

Apr 21, 2022 7:23:17 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Was there a test chart made available the week Harlem Shake debuted at number one? Assuming that song has massive streaming the week before (when those streams weren’t eligible to contribute to the chart), then it’s basically the same situation of a rule change resulting in a new entry coming in at number one*.

(* dismissing the point made a few posts up about IYA likely being number one regardless of whether the rules were changed or not for that week. The point is is that the existence of the test chart deemed it ineligible for that ‘honour’ but in similar situations other times, it wasn’t the case.)

Not at the time, but it did leak a few years back thanks to the Chart Search feature. Apparently it would’ve debuted the week prior at #6. It indeed is a bit of a double-standard going on that only exists due to the differing transparency of the company.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 21, 2022 13:26:09 GMT -5 85la said:

One small caveat is that I believe Billboard did confirm that My Heart Will Go On would have been #1 on airplay alone for at least one additional week before its physical release (it was #1 for 4 weeks already on the airplay chart before it debuted at #1 on the Hot 100), so this might have taken weeks away or possibly eliminated the #1 runs of Nice & Slow and/or Together Again (which were #1 for 2 each of those 4 weeks), but this is the only case I believe, and everything else previously said about #1's not changing still stands.

Do you know when Billboard supposedly confirmed that because I've read all of the Hot 100 spotlights from that time, and it was not mentioned.

-"MHWGO" initially broke the impressions record in the February 7, 1998 issue. It was not mentioned there that it would have been #1 if eligible. The #1 song that week was "Together Again." The #2 airplay song was "Truly Madly Deeply" with 69 million impressions. "TMD" was #15 in sales and #4 on the Hot 100. Spice Girls sold 30k that week to be #17 on Hot 100 Sales, so "TMD" sold above that amount meaning its sales would have made up for the impressions gap with "MHWGO." If "TMD" was #4 on the Hot 100, I don't see how "MHWGO" would have been #1. "MHWGO" would have been #4 or #5.

-In the February 14, 1998 issue "Nice & Slow" sold over 100k and had 32 million impressions. "MHWGO" was not beating that total with airplay only. It likely wouldn't have beat "Together Again" at #2 either since it was noted that "N&S" was #1 by the equivalent of only 3,000 sales.

-In the February 21, 1998 issue "MHWGO" had 116 million impressions while "TMD" had 82 million impressions (and was in the 30s in sales) and was #3 on the Hot 100. That is likely been the closest "MHWGO" would have been to #1 off airplay only in terms of its position, but "Nice & Slow" had a sales bullet and an airplay bullet so it had even more chart points that week than the previous week. It also was again not stated that "MHWGO" would have been #1 if eligible.

[85la]

Apr 21, 2022 15:38:16 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Apr 21, 2022 13:26:09 GMT -5 85la said:

One small caveat is that I believe Billboard did confirm that My Heart Will Go On would have been #1 on airplay alone for at least one additional week before its physical release (it was #1 for 4 weeks already on the airplay chart before it debuted at #1 on the Hot 100), so this might have taken weeks away or possibly eliminated the #1 runs of Nice & Slow and/or Together Again (which were #1 for 2 each of those 4 weeks), but this is the only case I believe, and everything else previously said about #1's not changing still stands.

Do you know when Billboard supposedly confirmed that because I've read all of the Hot 100 spotlights from that time, and it was not mentioned.

-"MHWGO" initially broke the impressions record in the February 7, 1998 issue. It was not mentioned there that it would have been #1 if eligible. The #1 song that week was "Together Again." The #2 airplay song was "Truly Madly Deeply" with 69 million impressions. "TMD" was #15 in sales and #4 on the Hot 100. Spice Girls sold 30k that week to be #17 on Hot 100 Sales, so "TMD" sold above that amount meaning its sales would have made up for the impressions gap with "MHWGO." If "TMD" was #4 on the Hot 100, I don't see how "MHWGO" would have been #1. "MHWGO" would have been #4 or #5.

-In the February 14, 1998 issue "Nice & Slow" sold over 100k and had 32 million impressions. "MHWGO" was not beating that total with airplay only. It likely wouldn't have beat "Together Again" at #2 either since it was noted that "N&S" was #1 by the equivalent of only 3,000 sales.

-In the February 21, 1998 issue "MHWGO" had 116 million impressions while "TMD" had 82 million impressions (and was in the 30s in sales) and was #3 on the Hot 100. That is likely been the closest "MHWGO" would have been to #1 off airplay only in terms of its position, but "Nice & Slow" had a sales bullet and an airplay bullet so it had even more chart points that week than the previous week. It also was again not stated that "MHWGO" would have been #1 if eligible.

I"m not exactly sure when Billboard confirmed that (searched around but couldn't find anything), but I'm pretty sure I found out about it through a post in these threads, so someone here must be able to provide that info. I'm also thinking that claim might have come out quite a bit after the time MHWGO hit #1 (especially if you're saying you couldn't find it in the highlights then), maybe around the rule change in Dec 1998, or sometime in 1999, when people might have been wondering what songs previously could have topped the chart if their new rule had been implemented earlier.

I actually had a pretty in-depth discusion about this with iHype in their thread about Airplay-Only hits charting: pulsemusic.proboards.com/post/7082742/thread

(it's overall a great thread too with a lot of info that relates to this general topic)

I guess I'm just not really sure, the more and more I look over these statistics it seems indeed that it just doesn't add up, and I might have been mistaken and mis-characterizing some other statistic I came across, or Billboard themselves were wrong and misrepresented their own statistics.

[Skibidi Bop Bop]

Were Lately by Divine Luckily hit the Spot between strong number 1's.The luckiest number 1 of All Time.

[leoapp]

Nov 28, 1998, Lately by Divine was no.2 sales and no. 32 airplay.

So, what song was the no. 1 sales that week? That no. 1 sales definitely did worse on airplay compared to Lately.

[Gary]

Sales #1 was Nobody's Supposed To Be Here

[85la]

I didn't hear Divine's Lately until just a couple years ago, though I was old enough to know about it when it came out; a really great song! All the more suprising it hit #1 before it's R&B airplay counted with the rule change in Dec '98 (hence it's airplay ranking being only #32 when it was #1, with just pop and rhythmic play. It would later peak at #8 when its r&b play was added).

Lately's discrepancy between its pop and R&B play though wasn't nearly as much as Nobody's Supposed to Be Here, which was probably the most lop-sided mega R&B hit of all time in that regard. It topped the R&B airplay chart for 10 weeks starting 11-28-98, a week before its 8-week run at #2 on the Hot 100, and was even named Billboard's 5th biggest R&B Hit of all time in their 2017 ranking, but it only peaked at #32 in pop airplay, and not even entering that chart until February of the next year for just a few weeks, well after its peak. It didn't even appear on the airplay chart at all until 12-5-98, when R&B airplay started to count, and eventually peaked at #6 there, but almost solely off its R&B play (even on rhythmic it only peaked at #12 and not till February there as well). And especially surprising that it managed to get such high sales that largely fueled its 8 weeks at #2, because usually hits that almost exclusively do well only on R&B radio don't get very high sales.

[leoapp]

What position Nobody was, on Hot 100 Airplay during Lately's lucky no. 1 Hot 100 peak?
Was it that low???

[jenglisbe]

leoapp Skibidi Bop Bop Yeah, "Lately" shows how sales were still the best way to get high on the charts, and more so how having a physical single was a huge advantage. Still, it was also misleading in all those years where R&B and other airplay didn't count. "Lately" did ultimately get into the top 15 at Top 40 radio, whereas "Nobody's Supposed to Be Here" peaked much lower (as 85la noted).

The week "Lately" hit #1 it scanned 82,000 units to be #2 in sales (and it had 27 million impressions to be #32 in airplay). "Doo Wop" was a limited single so its sales were falling. It sold 64,000 units to be #3 in sales. It was #13 in airplay, so the race for #1 must have been fairly close as it had a decent airplay lead. As was mentioned, "NSTBH" was #1 in sales, but it wasn't even on the Airplay chart so it was suffering badly there.

The top 5 on Hot 100 Airplay that week:
1. "Iris" - no commercial single
2. "Thank U" - no commercial single
3. "One Week" - #58 in sales that week, had been a limited single
4. "Lullaby" - no commercial single
5. "Save Tonight" - no commercial single

[leoapp]

Wow, Nobody's could've been the first ever Hot 100 no. 1 that didn't chart on Hot 100 Airplay!!!!

I heard a story that even Billboard called Natalie Imbruglia's label/team to give Torn limited CDs for sale, seeing how massive Torn's radio airplay...

[Skibidi Bop Bop]

Apr 22, 2022 7:55:05 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

leoapp Skibidi Bop Bop Yeah, "Lately" shows how sales were still the best way to get high on the charts, and more so how having a physical single was a huge advantage. Still, it was also misleading in all those years where R&B and other airplay didn't count. "Lately" did ultimately get into the top 15 at Top 40 radio, whereas "Nobody's Supposed to Be Here" peaked much lower (as 85la noted).

The week "Lately" hit #1 it scanned 82,000 units to be #2 in sales (and it had 27 million impressions to be #32 in airplay). "Doo Wop" was a limited single so its sales were falling. It sold 64,000 units to be #3 in sales. It was #13 in airplay, so the race for #1 must have been fairly close as it had a decent airplay lead. As was mentioned, "NSTBH" was #1 in sales, but it wasn't even on the Airplay chart so it was suffering badly there.

The top 5 on Hot 100 Airplay that week:
1. "Iris" - no commercial single
2. "Thank U" - no commercial single
3. "One Week" - #58 in sales that week, had been a limited single
4. "Lullaby" - no commercial single
5. "Save Tonight" - no commercial single

Wow. Can't believe that chart week is pretty random and unpredictable. 82k is not bad. Airplay in 90's is pretty weak I guess. Nonetheless, this is the most interesting era for me. Not for the music but for the data.

[jenglisbe]

Apr 22, 2022 22:13:30 GMT -5 Skibidi Bop Bop said:

Apr 22, 2022 7:55:05 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

leoapp Skibidi Bop Bop Yeah, "Lately" shows how sales were still the best way to get high on the charts, and more so how having a physical single was a huge advantage. Still, it was also misleading in all those years where R&B and other airplay didn't count. "Lately" did ultimately get into the top 15 at Top 40 radio, whereas "Nobody's Supposed to Be Here" peaked much lower (as 85la noted).

The week "Lately" hit #1 it scanned 82,000 units to be #2 in sales (and it had 27 million impressions to be #32 in airplay). "Doo Wop" was a limited single so its sales were falling. It sold 64,000 units to be #3 in sales. It was #13 in airplay, so the race for #1 must have been fairly close as it had a decent airplay lead. As was mentioned, "NSTBH" was #1 in sales, but it wasn't even on the Airplay chart so it was suffering badly there.

The top 5 on Hot 100 Airplay that week:
1. "Iris" - no commercial single
2. "Thank U" - no commercial single
3. "One Week" - #58 in sales that week, had been a limited single
4. "Lullaby" - no commercial single
5. "Save Tonight" - no commercial single

Wow. Can't believe that chart week is pretty random and unpredictable. 82k is not bad. Airplay in 90's is pretty weak I guess. Nonetheless, this is the most interesting era for me. Not for the music but for the data.

Keep in mind that at that point Hot 100 Airplay at that time didn't include R&B, country, etc. Despite that limited focus, songs were still getting 80-100 million impressions when in the top 2-3 of airplay. They just wouldn't have been #1 on the Hot 100 because 80-100k in sales with any airplay at all is going to outrank a song with no sales at all.

[brady47]

Torn would've been massive. At the time, it broke the record for most weeks in airplay top 10 with 32 weeks (yes - more than No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and "Iris") and that wasn't broken until Ed's "Shape of You" almost 20 years later

[leoapp]

why did Whitney's Heartbreak Hotel fail to no. 1? Low sales or low airplay,?

[85la]

Apr 25, 2022 14:53:30 GMT -5 brady47 said:

Torn would've been massive. At the time, it broke the record for most weeks in airplay top 10 with 32 weeks (yes - more than No Doubt's "Don't Speak" and "Iris") and that wasn't broken until Ed's "Shape of You" almost 20 years later

According to the aforementioned thread which contains all the hypothetical chart peaks on the Hot 100 if airplay-only songs counted pre-1999 (https://pulsemusic.proboards.com/post/7079644/thread), Torn would have peaked at #5 and been in the top 10 for about 17 weeks.

Apr 25, 2022 21:15:12 GMT -5 leoapp said:

why did Whitney's Heartbreak Hotel fail to no. 1? Low sales or low airplay,?

The same reason any song doesn't reach a certain position, it just didn't have enough points overall to get there. In Heartbreak Hotel's case, its sales peak (#2) was higher than its airplay peak (#5), therefore it would have been easier to get to #1 if its sales were a little higher and/or if it were charting during more favorable conditions, as it was kept in the runner up slot for three weeks when Cher's Believe was #1, the top song of the year.

[Private Dancer]

Apr 21, 2022 5:00:57 GMT -5 iHype. said:

I'm Your Angel not being a #1 debut makes absolutely no sense, and if Billboard re-evaulated that today it certainly would be a #1 debut.

Those test charts do not get referenced in chart history in any form for chart runs/achievements, nor did they reference any other test charts with unveilings of other new formulas. Harlem Shake, for example, would also likely not be a #1 debut, if they were to reference a test chart from the week prior with YouTube. That song had 100 million streams when it officially debuted, it likely was very well getting notable streams the week prior that would've also had it high on a test chart including YouTube.

As for how the charts would've looked in 1999 with airplay-only tracks still excluded
- No #1 songs would've changed, as the first song airplay-only track to go #1 wasn't until Summer 2000
- No Scrubs would have been a #1 debut
- Save Tonight, Hands, Iris, Lullaby, Slide, All Star, and Steal My Sunshine would've not charted and thus not been top 10 hits.
- Taking Everything would've been the only song to be a top 10 hit that was not excluding airplay-only tracks every week.

The 1999 chart was still pretty heavily sales influenced in the upper reaches actually. The top 10 usually was songs with relatively high sales ratios. Below top 20 was then when you started seeing most tracks charting from airplay.

How would No Scrubs be a #1 debut? How did it do sales and airplay wise it's first week?

[jenglisbe]

Feb 15, 2023 2:34:11 GMT -5 Private Dancer said:

Apr 21, 2022 5:00:57 GMT -5 iHype. said:

I'm Your Angel not being a #1 debut makes absolutely no sense, and if Billboard re-evaulated that today it certainly would be a #1 debut.

Those test charts do not get referenced in chart history in any form for chart runs/achievements, nor did they reference any other test charts with unveilings of other new formulas. Harlem Shake, for example, would also likely not be a #1 debut, if they were to reference a test chart from the week prior with YouTube. That song had 100 million streams when it officially debuted, it likely was very well getting notable streams the week prior that would've also had it high on a test chart including YouTube.

As for how the charts would've looked in 1999 with airplay-only tracks still excluded
- No #1 songs would've changed, as the first song airplay-only track to go #1 wasn't until Summer 2000
- No Scrubs would have been a #1 debut
- Save Tonight, Hands, Iris, Lullaby, Slide, All Star, and Steal My Sunshine would've not charted and thus not been top 10 hits.
- Taking Everything would've been the only song to be a top 10 hit that was not excluding airplay-only tracks every week.

The 1999 chart was still pretty heavily sales influenced in the upper reaches actually. The top 10 usually was songs with relatively high sales ratios. Below top 20 was then when you started seeing most tracks charting from airplay.

How would No Scrubs be a #1 debut? How did it do sales and airplay wise it's first week?

"NS" set the Hot 100 Airplay record the week it hit #1 with 121 million impressions and was of course #1 on Hot 100 Airplay (it increased for a few more weeks, I believe, so it kept increasing its record). It then also sold 132,000 copies to debut at #1 on Hot 100 Sales. So, yeah, if airplay-only singles had still been excluded in 1999, then "No Scrubs" would have debuted at #1. (It was #8 on the Hot 100 the previous chart, based solely on its airplay.)