A Pop Chart for Web Era Challenges Billboard’s

[Wolfy]

Eminem, Rihanna Top New Ultimate Chart
'Love the Way You Lie' is #1 on BigChampagne's chart, which factors Internet popularity into its rankings.
www.mtv.com/news/articles/1644128/20100721/eminem.jhtml
www.ultimatechart.com/

For half a century, the Billboard Hot 100 has been thought to be the most accurate bellwether of what the biggest songs are. Every week, it takes into account radio airplay and singles sales, puts those numbers into a complicated formula and determines which tracks are becoming ubiquitous and which ones are falling off.

But in the modern era, a song's airplay and sales numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story, as songs are streamed on YouTube, watched on MTV, posted to Facebook, downloaded through countless blogs and searched for on Google. With that in mind, BigChampagne — an organization that has spent years tracking music on the Internet — has come up with the Ultimate Chart, a listing that synthesizes the statistics from all the various places you can hear music and determines which songs are truly the biggest in the virtual world.

The chart itself is the result of hard statistics and human analysis. "The Ultimate Chart is a chart for the 21st century, based on a scalable technology platform developed over more than ten years," reads the introduction on the site. "We collect billions of points of data, online and off. Our machines are very clever but our analysts are too. Real people grade the computers' work to ensure accuracy. We collect more relevant information from more sources than anyone ever has, by our count."

The big winners on the new chart include Eminem and Rihanna, whose "Love the Way You Lie" (from Eminem's Recovery) is listed as the #1 song, just ahead of Katy Perry's "California Gurls" (which has had a stranglehold on the Billboard chart for more than a month). Shakira also fares extremely well, as her "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)" comes in at #3. That track is an excellent example of how a song can transcend the normal parameters of the other chart, because while the radio airplay for Shakira's tune wasn't great, it was still streamed online and searched for around the world due to its connection to the World Cup.

A lot of the usual suspects are still represented on the Ultimate Chart. For example, Justin Bieber rules just as he does on the Hot 100, though his highest-charting tune on the Ultimate Chart remains "Baby," even though "Somebody to Love" is finishing higher on the Billboard version. It wouldn't be shocking if "Baby" earned that spot due to the surge in YouTube views of the video. Bieber's YouTube rival Lady Gaga is also well represented on the Ultimate Chart, with three songs ("Alejandro," "Bad Romance" and "Telephone") all in the top 20.

The Ultimate Chart also tracks the most ubiquitous artists based on airplay, streams, searches and social-network followers and friends. Eminem tops that chart as well, followed by Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Shakira and Drake, which is a deadly accurate assessment of the pop music landscape.

What do you think of the Ultimate Chart? Do you agree with its results? Let us know in the comments!

[Wolfy]

That Ultimate Chart is a great idea because The Billboard Hot 100 is controlled by mostly radio airplay, which is just one way people listen to music nowadays. The Ultimate Chart seems much more accurate for what's going on currently. I personally never listen to the radio nowadays. I listen to either playlists on my ipod/ipod or online radio stations on my ipod/iphone. That chart actually uses what people nowadays use to listen to music. Very few people listen to the radio nowadays.

[Rodze]

Well, it's not gonna replace Billboard because it seems to use worldwide data.

But it is a nice way to measure an interest on the songs over the internet.

[pnobelysk]

only problem is that if it catches on fans will go crazy getting songs to number one by spamming on fb and stuff like that

[Wolfy]

A Pop Chart for Web Era Challenges Billboard’s
www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/arts/music/22singles.html?_r=1

Billboard’s charts of albums and singles, published in their current form since the 1950s, are the last word in music rankings. But has the magazine’s methodology kept pace with changes in technology and music consumption?

This week BigChampagne, a company that tracks online media, announced the Ultimate Chart, a challenger that it says measures music’s popularity more fully by counting not only sales and airplay (as Billboard does) but also online streams and an array of social-networking services.

“We’re rewriting the top of the charts for the new music business and enlisting the help of its chief architects to surface the most popular music that the charts have overlooked,” Eric Garland, BigChampagne’s chief executive, said in a statement on Tuesday after announcing the chart at the New Music Seminar industry conference in New York.

BigChampagne has long been the music industry’s go-to source for information about unauthorized file sharing. But the company has said that the Ultimate Chart will measure only legitimate services, like YouTube, MySpace, Last.fm, Twitter and Facebook.

Supplanting Billboard’s chart authority would be a difficult task for any new media-measurement service. But BigChampagne’s announcement taps into a common frustration in the music industry about how success can be measured at a time when streaming, ring tones and licensing for television commercials may have a bigger effect on the bottom line than record sales do.

And while rankings proliferate all over the Internet — on iTunes’ list of its top downloads, for example, and smaller services like Next Big Sound, which monitors bands’ Web presence — no one has pulled them all together.

“We need to be informed and have insight into all forms of data that isn’t being tracked by any one entity,” said Tom Corson, general manager of the RCA Music Group. “It’s reflective of the disruption and fragmentation in this business.”

The first Ultimate Chart, covering singles, was released on Tuesday. And aside from the top two slots, it differs significantly from Billboard’s comparable chart, the Hot 100.

For the week that ended July 11, Billboard’s Hot 100 had Katy Perry’s “California Gurls” at No. 1 and Eminem’s “Love the Way You Lie” at No. 2. The Ultimate Chart, measuring the week to July 13, had those songs in reverse order. But No. 3 on the Ultimate Chart — Shakira’s World Cup song, “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)” — is a distant No. 39 on Billboard; the Ultimate’s No. 4, Eminem’s “Not Afraid,” is No. 11.

The most notable disparity is Justin Bieber’s “Baby,” which is No. 5 on the Ultimate Chart; on the Hot 100, the song peaked at No. 5 in February, but fell off the chart entirely in June.

That would seem to indicate the continued popularity of the song — or at least of Mr. Bieber — on social-media networks even if downloads and radio play have cooled. For artists and record companies, that extra attention can mean the difference between a blip and a long-lasting hit.

Billboard’s chart managers declined to comment for this article, but over the years the magazine has often tweaked its algorithms to reflect changes in the marketplace.

Three years ago, for example, it added two sources for the Hot 100 in addition to its longstanding reliance on sales and airplay: AOL and Yahoo’s streaming services.
A version of this article appeared in print on July 22, 2010, on page C2 of the New York edition.

[Wolfy]

Jul 21, 2010 19:21:53 GMT -5 pnobelysk said:

only problem is that if it catches on fans will go crazy getting songs to number one by spamming on fb and stuff like that

What's the difference between that and fans coming together and buying a song on the same day on iTunes to get the song to chart higher?

[slicknickshady]

Well, for one, that costs money. That's the main difference. It's great to have another source though. I get the point your trying to make wolfy but that example isnt a good one. People have to pay when they buy the song.

[Deleted]

If the Ultimate Chart gathers some of its data from around the world, like that Shakira World Cup song, then it's not a specifically American chart, like the Hot 100 is, so I don't expect it to become a rival to Billboard's chart anytime soon.

[fridayteenage]

Bieber has 4/T20 vs. Gaga's 3. Hmm.

Both 4/T100 iTunes right now.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2010 20:43:42 GMT -5 Wolfy said:

Jul 21, 2010 19:21:53 GMT -5 pnobelysk said:

only problem is that if it catches on fans will go crazy getting songs to number one by spamming on fb and stuff like that

What's the difference between that and fans coming together and buying a song on the same day on iTunes to get the song to chart higher?

It's been pretty much proven that "download days" don't work.

[Wolfy]

Jul 21, 2010 22:20:48 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

If the Ultimate Chart gathers some of its data from around the world, like that Shakira World Cup song, then it's not a specifically American chart, like the Hot 100 is, so I don't expect it to become a rival to Billboard's chart anytime soon.

The site says its new and that its still growing. They can quite easily check the location of each web hit to figure out charts for any country.

[cking33]

I think there's definitely something to this chart. Obviously, I wouldn't use it as a definitive chart by any means, but there's some value to it. For instance, even though Bieber doesn't really have a huge hit song on the Hot 100 at the moment, obviously people are looking his stuff up online to listen to and as a result, his album is selling strong -- moreso than his debut. I'd like to learn more about how they actually go about calculating this chart.

[jebsib]

Cashbox, Radio & Records, Gavin, Billboard, Ultimate,....

Hmm.. which one survived them all?

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Billboard is the best at measurement US success for records. What radio plays plus sales numbers is a pretty accurate indication of a song's popularity. Justin Beiber's songs are popular but not like this chart is saying. It's just not accurate. Radio and Sales measures the amount of money generated by a song for the record company and artist....You have royalties and actual sales.

That's the problem with the UC. It's measurements reflect the popularity of the artist as much as the popularity of the song and maybe even more so. Billboard measures the success of a single and not the artist.

[rosemoor]

there are 140 top40 stations. so basically 140 PDs decide what songs hundreds of millions people get to hear and buy. It's hardly scientific or democratic. If someday all radio stations are interactive and more accurately measure listeners' response like some internet radios do, the popularity based on that is as manufactured and incomplete as the youtube viewing # made by fans spamming the youtube.

[HolidayGuy]

^Contrary to what some believe, they do survey audiences and do song research. For instance, when a track gets great airplay out of the gate and drifts off after just a few weeks- then that track did not go over well with listeners.

And, since when do PDs hold a gun to consumers and tell them what to buy? :) Nowadays, iTunes is the outlet for singles sales, and people can sample songs that don't get the greatest airplay- as we've seen via high sales for tracks that aren't the biggest radio hits. Pop radio does look to be the driving force behind big singles sales for tracks, but it's possible to get them without it.

[David]

People who say radio doesn't listen to consumers are people who don't like that Top 40 is rhythmic leaning. As much as I wish it was more diverse, lets face it, that style of music is ridiculously popular with the American 12-30 population. Which is who Pop radio focuses on. Like HolidayGuy said, they do gather information from other places.

I will say that sometimes its annoying when they don't even try new songs. I mean, if they test the song out, and gets a negative reaction, then fine, drop it. However, don't ignore a song because of what you "think" radio listeners will like. You really never know.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Radio does test songs extensively in many cases before making them live. Radio has actually gotten more scientific. The issue is with the record company's not letting radio stations play stuff that isn't being promoted by them. I have a problem with that. Radio can potentially guide you to singles that would perform much better than some of the songs that ultimately get chosen as singles especially after the first single and the album have been released.

[HolidayGuy]

^That may be true in a number of cases, but we also have seen radio latch onto some songs in the past- witness Nelly/Tim McGraw and "Over and Over." Wasn't that not even planned as a single? But, radio jumped all over it and they ended up filming a video. I think that's happened a few other times, too. Not the norm, but there are cases of tracks taking off without a label radio push.

[Glove Slap]

The thing is that youtube views don't generate direct revenue. Radio play, digital sales and streaming do, which is why it makes sense to count those.

[rosemoor]

Jul 22, 2010 11:55:32 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^Contrary to what some believe, they do survey audiences and do song research. For instance, when a track gets great airplay out of the gate and drifts off after just a few weeks- then that track did not go over well with listeners.

And, since when do PDs hold a gun to consumers and tell them what to buy? :) Nowadays, iTunes is the outlet for singles sales, and people can sample songs that don't get the greatest airplay- as we've seen via high sales for tracks that aren't the biggest radio hits. Pop radio does look to be the driving force behind big singles sales for tracks, but it's possible to get them without it.

Well, before payola went illegal, it did work, didn't it? And masses out there are always easily manipulatable, especially the target is 12-30.

Besides, talking about surveys and all that, don't labels do the same thing for picking singles? and most of the time, they hire the same company to do that as the radios do. And we all know their track record.

[HolidayGuy]

^Let's not suggest that payola was a widespread practice (we have no way of knowing that, anyhow)- there were some cases of it (with some documented), but I don't think it was an every-label practice or anything. For years, there have been other "incentives" that labels may have used, too, that wasn't direct payola.

I do agree that SOME in the 12-30 bracket may be manipulatable, but that's a whole 'nother issue, and their issue. :)

[WotUNeed]

Jul 22, 2010 15:31:44 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^Let's not suggest that payola was a widespread practice (we have no way of knowing that, anyhow)- there were some cases of it (with some documented), but I don't think it was an every-label practice or anything. For years, there have been other "incentives" that labels may have used, too, that wasn't direct payola.

I think it's pretty well-documented that it is, in fact, a widespread practice. Pay-for-play may not be as simple as it was in the past, nor undertaken quite so blatantly, but it's not so hard to find confirmation that it's a widespread practice.

[Rodze]

Streaming off official video/songs on Youtube, Myspace etc. do generate revenue for the label (I'm not sure about non-official videos). When are you people, in 2002?

I think this chart is great for the age of the Internet. As I said, it tells us what's popular there (here? haha). It's more of a compliment to Billboard than a replacement.

BigChampagne already sells their Internet measurement product to labels, so this is just another one.

[felipe]

Jul 21, 2010 20:46:17 GMT -5 slicknickshady said:

Well, for one, that costs money. That's the main difference. It's great to have another source though. I get the point your trying to make wolfy but that example isnt a good one. People have to pay when they buy the song.

I've seen many fans that bought several remixes of the same song for the sole purpose of getting it to chart higher, so money is not necessarily an issue for some.

[felipe]

Jul 22, 2010 14:02:48 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

The thing is that youtube views don't generate direct revenue. Radio play, digital sales and streaming do, which is why it makes sense to count those.

But Billboard charts should be about the most popular songs, not about the ones that make the bigger revenue.

[Wolfy]

Jul 22, 2010 10:32:33 GMT -5 rosemoor said:

there are 140 top40 stations. so basically 140 PDs decide what songs hundreds of millions people get to hear and buy. It's hardly scientific or democratic. If someday all radio stations are interactive and more accurately measure listeners' response like some internet radios do, the popularity based on that is as manufactured and incomplete as the youtube viewing # made by fans spamming the youtube.

Well, they can easily tweak their code to spot spammers. For instance, if one person watches the same video over and over again on the same IP they can make that count as 1 web-hit. That would not be difficult to implement. Maybe they already do that, who knows.

I was talking to my niece today. She and all her teen friends don't listen to the radio. They are all about the internet. They listen to music on myspace, youtube, last.fm, etc. Nowadays that's a much better way to measure what's currently popular. I rarely buy music and never listen to the radio, yet I'm a huge music fan. I listen to music all the time, people like me aren't factored into Billboard. The UC much better represent what's currently popular.

Radio is controlled by a few people. Online people listen to whatever they want. The internet is a much better way to figure out what's popular.

[jebsib]

You guys don't think the music business itself hasn't ALWAYS been 'controlled by only a few people', let alone the radio PDs? How many people do you think work at the 5 big record labels that release albums and songs?

I don't know about the rest of you, but Shakira's Waka song being considered the #3 song in the US feels a little off

[pnobelysk]

Jul 23, 2010 9:11:49 GMT -5 felipe said:

Jul 21, 2010 20:46:17 GMT -5 slicknickshady said:

Well, for one, that costs money. That's the main difference. It's great to have another source though. I get the point your trying to make wolfy but that example isnt a good one. People have to pay when they buy the song.

I've seen many fans that bought several remixes of the same song for the sole purpose of getting it to chart higher, so money is not necessarily an issue for some.

for some yes. but money is an issiue for many.

[Wolfy]

Jul 24, 2010 7:10:28 GMT -5 jebsib said:

I don't know about the rest of you, but Shakira's Waka song being considered the #3 song in the US feels a little off

Most articles used that song as an example of how different this chart was. It received zero airplay in the US, but it did make a big impact on the net due to the world cup. It also sold well on iTunes, that lead to it charting high.