Is It Fair For Labels To Repress Downloads?

[atlantaboy]

Hey just came across this article...I had heard about repressed downloads, but didn't really understand how widespread this practice had become - according to the guy who wrote this, Mariah's label basically cheated her way to gettin #1s on the Hot 100 (guessin so she could break the record...) - he also says Rihanna did the same thing - just wonderin what you all think (someone had also posted on another site that her label had done the same thing with cassette/CD singles in the late 90s with songs like Thank God I Found You - not sure if other people did too)...

jcole77.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/fixing-the-billboard-hot-100-part-iii

[TYRONE™]

There is no smoke and mirrors with #1 hits.

The charts are a game. Whether her label repressed sales or not, people still bought it, and it went to #1.

No illegal moves were made.

[Glove Slap]

ROFLMAO!!!!



You do know who wrote that right?

[Deleted]

Muh muh muh muh. No you can't read my gayyyy faaaace.

[atlantaboy]

Jun 5, 2009 15:03:57 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

ROFLMAO!!!!



You do know who wrote that right?

No way....... :o I knew some of that sounded familiar - this is the most hysterical thing I've ever seen (Was also wondering where that guy went)

[weaver]

It's not cheating, lol. If they didn't want repressed downloads, the chart formula would not be as it is. It's ridiculous to call Mariah out on this. She's done it with precisely one single, Touch My Body. Practically every number one hit in the past two years got to the top this way.

Yes, it was done with singles too, but so what? If there wasn't enough demand, they could repress and discount til they are blue in the face and the song wouldn't hit #1. Haven't we has this discussion once or twice before? How Mariah's #1s "don't all really count"? So stupid. If Billboard counts them, they count. Period.

[atlantaboy]

Jun 5, 2009 20:16:23 GMT -5 weaver said:

Practically every number one hit in the past two years got to the top this way.

If this is true, and practically every #1 on the Hot 100 of the past two years got there through repressed downloads, the Hot 100 IMO doesn't deserve to be published...sorry just can't see anything legit about a manipulated chart

[atlantaboy]

Jun 5, 2009 20:16:23 GMT -5 weaver said:

Yes, it was done with singles too, but so what? If there wasn't enough demand, they could repress and discount til they are blue in the face and the song wouldn't hit #1.

This is just really gettin at me (sorry just had no idea it was done this much)...sure the demand has to be there, but in effect it's compacting what would be a #10 hit (with say 25 weeks on the chart) to a #1 hit (with say 15 weeks on the chart), just so the artist (whoever it is) can brag about how many #1s they have...what's really important here? music or a freakin competition...

[sunpeach]

Well Rihanna's songs have deserved itr- I don't know if she cheated or not. People have been cheated on this stuff forever so it doesn't matter. They all take advantage of the rules. I remember there was a hubbub about Michael Jackson not reporting his first-week sales of Invincible and did them in a lump for two weeks for Invincible I think for it to be #1- people have been getting around the rules forever.

[TYRONE™]

Can someone justify how repressing downloads is cheating?

[Pulse]

Not by any means. And LOL @ John writing it

[Skip To The End]

For my if i cant download a song legally it give my the right to download the song illegally,so Mariah my fool on the billboard but she didn't get my money

[atlantaboy]

Jun 6, 2009 1:51:58 GMT -5 TYRONE™ said:

Can someone justify how repressing downloads is cheating?

Yeah actually guess it's not cause you're not actually getting any more total downloads...just that IMO when people start counting #1s rather than looking at total chart runs it gives off the impression that you're a lot more popular than you really are

Lol that I thought this was an article and it was a page from John's personal blog

[seanblain]

Artist with the most Hot 100 #1's this decade(2000-2009):

Usher 7
Beyonce 5
Rihanna 5
Mariah Carey 4
Nelly 4
50 Cent 4
Ludacris 4
Justin Timberlake 4

[Deleted]

Why do people believe that "repressing" songs has anything at all to do with a #1 hit?

There still ha sto be be demand for the song. People still have to come up with the money to buy it.

If an artist sells more than any other in a given week, they are more popular for that week and hence will get a higher chart ranking.

Repression of downloads could very easily result in a lower chart ranking as well.

[Oprah]

How is this any different from when physical single CDs were still popular?

[Deleted]

Since the beginning of time, those that sell the most singles in a given week will get the higher chart position. You have to be popular to do it.

Marketing gimmicks could just as easily work against you as well.

The statement Repressed downloads = #1 hit, which many here want to believe is incorrect

[Jayden]

Wow......really??

[weaver]

Jun 5, 2009 21:50:32 GMT -5 atlantaboy said:

Jun 5, 2009 20:16:23 GMT -5 weaver said:

Practically every number one hit in the past two years got to the top this way.

If this is true, and practically every #1 on the Hot 100 of the past two years got there through repressed downloads, the Hot 100 IMO doesn't deserve to be published...sorry just can't see anything legit about a manipulated chart

Realize this- just because a lot of songs get to the top of the chart with download repression, doesn't mean that EVERY song can employ this technique and score #1. Plently of songs are repressed and soar into maybe the top 20 and just fall from there. So, like someone else said, regardless of chart formula, if the demand for a song isn't there, it isn't going to hit #1.

[weaver]

Jun 6, 2009 16:57:21 GMT -5 @2m said:

Since the beginning of time, those that sell the most singles in a given week will get the higher chart position. You have to be popular to do it.

Marketing gimmicks could just as easily work against you as well.

The statement Repressed downloads = #1 hit, which many here want to believe is incorrect

Thank you. It's just shrewd marketing, along with awareness of how Billboard compiles the chart. If 300k people buy a single in one week, and it hits number one, then it's number one. Was it "cheating" back when American Idol released physical singles for their artists after the win, and they were #1 based on sales and no airplay? Of course not.

It's such a silly thing to say, and even more ridiculous to call out Mariah specifically. If Billboard felt that labels were "cheating" they'd change their chart methodology.

[₫anny Jerz ♔]

So

[Jayden]

Well Itunes has only been around since what...2005? So technically even if she is, she would still have the most #1s by a female artist.

[weaver]

Jun 6, 2009 17:47:28 GMT -5 Jayden said:

Well Itunes has only been around since what...2005? So technically even if she is, she would still have the most #1s by a female artist.

If she "is" what? Cheating? Please read the rest of the posts. It's marketing, not cheating. Bye Bye was repressed too. Didn't hit #1, did it? If Mariah/IDJ "cheated" couldn't they have "cheated" that one to the top too? lol.

For the record, TMB had over 100m audience impressions and was already in the top 20 of the Hot 100 when it went to #1. That's not outlandish at all, seeing as artists are going from like #99 to #1 these days. It was already a solid hit.

[Jayden]

Jun 6, 2009 17:54:41 GMT -5 weaver said:

Jun 6, 2009 17:47:28 GMT -5 Jayden said:

Well Itunes has only been around since what...2005? So technically even if she is, she would still have the most #1s by a female artist.

If she "is" what? Cheating? Please read the rest of the posts. It's marketing, not cheating. Bye Bye was repressed too. Didn't hit #1, did it? If Mariah/IDJ "cheated" couldn't they have "cheated" that one to the top too? lol.

For the record, TMB had over 100m audience impressions and was already in the top 20 of the Hot 100 when it went to #1. That's not outlandish at all, seeing as artists are going from like #99 to #1 these days. It was already a solid hit.

I was trying to defend Mariah not offend Mariah. My entire statement was based on accusations.

[atlantaboy]

Jun 6, 2009 15:31:40 GMT -5 @2m said:

Why do people believe that "repressing" songs has anything at all to do with a #1 hit?

There still ha sto be be demand for the song. People still have to come up with the money to buy it.

It costs $0.99

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2009 18:17:54 GMT -5 atlantaboy said:

Jun 6, 2009 15:31:40 GMT -5 @2m said:

Why do people believe that "repressing" songs has anything at all to do with a #1 hit?

There still ha sto be be demand for the song. People still have to come up with the money to buy it.

It costs $0.99

LOL - yeah so ($1.29 now btw)

Let's put it this way, If for example, hypothetically, Kevin Federline put out a song on itunes, originally scheduled for tomorrow but, at the last second decided to withhold it until July instead, would he be guaranteed a #1 hit?

[atlantaboy]

Jun 6, 2009 17:47:28 GMT -5 Jayden said:

Well Itunes has only been around since what...2005? So technically even if she is, she would still have the most #1s by a female artist.

(Not saying either way) but people were saying she used to do it with physical CD/cassette singles

[atlantaboy]

Jun 6, 2009 18:23:24 GMT -5 @2m said:

Jun 6, 2009 18:17:54 GMT -5 atlantaboy said:

It costs $0.99

LOL - yeah so ($1.29 now btw)

Let's put it this way, If for example, hypothetically, Kevin Federline put out a song on itunes, originally scheduled for tomorrow but, at the last second decided to withhold it until July instead, would he be guaranteed a #1 hit?

Yeah (talk is) it only works with artists that already have huge fanbases...so (think you posted about this before) huge #1 first-week sales def. mean the artist is popular, but doesn't mean the song is well-liked (all the fans could buy it and hate it)

Lol about the price -

[Jayden]

Jun 6, 2009 18:24:08 GMT -5 atlantaboy said:

Jun 6, 2009 17:47:28 GMT -5 Jayden said:

Well Itunes has only been around since what...2005? So technically even if she is, she would still have the most #1s by a female artist.

(Not saying either way) but people were saying she used to do it with physical CD/cassette singles

Yeah, so its a win win right? lol jk

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2009 18:27:37 GMT -5 atlantaboy said:

Jun 6, 2009 18:23:24 GMT -5 @2m said:

LOL - yeah so ($1.29 now btw)

Let's put it this way, If for example, hypothetically, Kevin Federline put out a song on itunes, originally scheduled for tomorrow but, at the last second decided to withhold it until July instead, would he be guaranteed a #1 hit?

Yeah (talk is) it only works with artists that already have huge fanbases...so (think you posted about this before) huge #1 first-week sales def. mean the artist is popular, but doesn't mean the song is well-liked (all the fans could buy it and hate it)

Lol about the price -

Enough counter-examples out there to refute the statement

Download repression = guaranteed #1 hit

Even for popular artists. Popular artists don't stay popular forever. Even when popular, artists have been known to release crap, that did not go to #1, regardless of download repression

The song still has to be good,or at least considered good by enough people to send 200,000 people to itunes to spend $1.29

Doesn't work everytime and I still say, repression of downloads and #1 hits are independent events.

Simply because more things have to go into that other than moving the release date out a month.