|
Post by bandit73 on Feb 20, 2013 20:18:53 GMT -5
The older methodology for the Hot 100 was more favorable to smaller markets. The new methodology does not use small-market stations AT ALL.
Which sounds more accurate to you?
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Feb 20, 2013 23:48:11 GMT -5
The older methodology for the Hot 100 was more favorable to smaller markets. The new methodology does not use small-market stations AT ALL. Which sounds more accurate to you? If you put it that way, the most accurate would use the one that takes into consideration all stations from all markets. If the name of the show is, "American Top 40" I would personally like a survey from all markets, not just large markets. If there was an issue with the large markets not getting a proportional representation, then they should have retooled it, not destroy it all together.
|
|
|
Post by woolebull on Feb 20, 2013 23:52:24 GMT -5
Here are some examples of what mct1 was talking about in that 1991 time frame: Roxette, "Fading Like A Flower": Number 2: Airplay 11, Sales 23 Paula Abdul, "Promise of a New Day": Number 1: Airplay 5, Sales 25 Bryan Adams, "Can't Stop This Thing We Started" Number 2: Sales 11, Airplay 14 R.E.M. "Shiny Happy People" Number 10: Airplay 25, Sales 38 Curtis Stigers "I Wonder Why" Number 9: Airplay 28, Sales 62 Karyn White "Romantic" Number 1: Airplay 2, Sales 26 Chesney Hawkes "The One And Only": Number 10: Airplay 28, Sales 53 Interesting stuff. All of these songs, by the way made R and R's Top 10. Not to nitpick, but "The One And Only" peaked at #12 on the R&R chart. Still, that is indeed a far cry from #28, lol! I stand corrected! It is still an amazing discrepancy, however!
|
|
|
Post by blackbowl68 on Feb 22, 2013 10:29:10 GMT -5
Up until I think 94, R&R weighed things evenly no matter the station. Billboard started the god awful trend of weighting stations by market and all when they switched to soundscan. Plus, starting in 11/30 it was 100% accurate as it was reading exact data and not what PDs and record stores submitted with a hand on the bible claiming it was the honest truth. At least this is what I think was the case. This eventually of course led to listener impressions tabulating which is an even bigger crock. A lot of people don't agree, but the best thing AT40 did when this happened was get away from the Hot 100. However, I think they should have dropped BB altogether. I am it saying go with R&R necessarily but why keep paying $10K a week for rights to use a chart that is only a component of what figured into the Hot 100 which you were paying that much for before? It wasn't like by that point the fact they used the Billboard name was helping them since affiliated were dropping like flies. This was why I liked the change. The chart should always be a reflection of consumer reaction, not that of industry people. Why should a song's airplay on a station in the middle of nowhere with a population of less than 1000 mean more to its popularity than that in a metropolitan city of over 1 million? Plus the record's sales points are based on actual number of copies sold without taking location of purchase in mind (store rankings). This type of advancement makes R&R look like an ancient artifact. IHMO, the fairest thing Billboard could've done with the Hot 100 is drop the airplay component altogether since all airplay is a pathway to the end result.
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Feb 22, 2013 11:00:57 GMT -5
Ratings are a sample that are supposedly representative of the general population, especially before ppm when people filled out diaries of what they listened to, even if they really didn't listen. Since these ratings were used to figure audience impressions, IMHO these made impressions pointless. I prefer dealing with absolutes. A spin for a song is a spin, period. No calculation involved other than a simple sum. That's why I prefer spin charts. Besides impressions made the "fly-over states" less important, since the major cities would greatly impact the chart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 12:32:44 GMT -5
Up until I think 94, R&R weighed things evenly no matter the station. Billboard started the god awful trend of weighting stations by market and all when they switched to soundscan. Plus, starting in 11/30 it was 100% accurate as it was reading exact data and not what PDs and record stores submitted with a hand on the bible claiming it was the honest truth. At least this is what I think was the case. This eventually of course led to listener impressions tabulating which is an even bigger crock. A lot of people don't agree, but the best thing AT40 did when this happened was get away from the Hot 100. However, I think they should have dropped BB altogether. I am it saying go with R&R necessarily but why keep paying $10K a week for rights to use a chart that is only a component of what figured into the Hot 100 which you were paying that much for before? It wasn't like by that point the fact they used the Billboard name was helping them since affiliated were dropping like flies. This was why I liked the change. The chart should always be a reflection of consumer reaction, not that of industry people. Why should a song's airplay on a station in the middle of nowhere with a population of less than 1000 mean more to its popularity than that in a metropolitan city of over 1 million? Plus the record's sales points are based on actual number of copies sold without taking location of purchase in mind (store rankings). This type of advancement makes R&R look like an ancient artifact. IHMO, the fairest thing Billboard could've done with the Hot 100 is drop the airplay component altogether since all airplay is a pathway to the end result. I'm glad you liked the change. However here is why I do not agree, as I've said before in MY opinion airplay was more important than sales. Therefore, I never cared what was selling well or not. To this day, I still don't. Thats not to say I never cared about the Hot 100, I did. And even though I didn't care about it, using sales when figure into it was fine. However once we got into the 90's and songs were being released but singles of those songs you heard on the radio were not, now what?! Apparently album sales were never figured into the Hot 100 listing so that was going to skew everything. And thats a problem for radio stations and a countdown show they are going to air. Now to this "why should a station in podunkville get the same weight as a station in Chicago" well, here's my answer to that: Billboard was weighting all this crap with their radio airplay chart and skewing them to the larger markets. I know this since I lived in a medium high and a mid level market, never really heard 92 or 93 AT40's until now, and none of this garbage reflected what they were airing. Bon Jovi's Keep the Faith only made it to #39? ? On what planet?! Now then you are ABC and going to these stations in Tulsa, Jacksonville, Pensacola, Dothan, Providence, Des Moines, Boise, and Kansas City and telling them "Hey, we want you to air this show. It uses Billboards radio chart. Yes we know Billboard doesn't have any respect for your own playlist and weights them way down while propping New York, LA, and Chicago up as being the almighty but play it anyway." How did that work out in 1994? I agree with Shadoe Fan, a spin is a spin regardless of where it happens. And if all stations were figured the same, then fine it's more accurate when done electronically. But for all they know there were more people listening to the song in Jacksonville or Orlando when it was played because the station is more popular and the listener area wasn't of a population of 150 than in Chicago even though they weighted Chicago higher.
|
|
|
Post by artsmusic on Feb 22, 2013 16:09:53 GMT -5
In a related note, the Hot 100 now is using YouTube plays in the calculations: www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/arts/music/billboard-makes-youtube-part-of-hot-100-formula.html?_r=0“The notion that a song has to sell in order to be a hit feels a little two or three years ago to me,” Mr. Werde (editor) said. “The music business today — much to its credit — has started to learn that there are lots of different ways a song can be a hit, and lots of different ways that the business can benefit from it being a hit." Sales were always a part of the Hot 100, but soon that may not really matter.
|
|
|
Post by mct1 on Feb 22, 2013 19:41:52 GMT -5
I don't know if there's any way to look up how the Airplay charts looked like for free. With that said, here is what the Top 40 Airplay chart looked like on 6/1/1991 (corresponding Hot 100 positions in parentheses) If I understand the chronology correctly, this was the last week that an Airplay chart based on the "old methodology" was published? You can look up those charts for free. Go to Google books and type in "Billboard - October 12, 1991" for example and it will take you to that issue. You will have to scroll up or down to get the appropriate page. "I Ador Mi Amor" was at #1 for second week that week with "Emotions" moving from 7 to 2 on the Top 40 Radio Monitor chart. Yes but 10/12/1991 is the only date within June-November 1991 that you can read for free (other than the Top 10 on Billboard's web site and a few others). There are actually almost no issues available for the entire period from the end of 1986 to the middle of June 1992, a period of almost five and a half years. The only exceptions are the 1987 year-end issue; the 10/12/1991 issue; and an issue from the spring of 1992. What is purported to be the 1989 year-end issue is actually a mislabeled issue from 1981.
|
|
|
Post by jlthorpe on Feb 22, 2013 20:08:36 GMT -5
I remember buying a Whitburn Top 40 book years ago and being struck at how out of whack the sales, airplay and Hot 100 peaks were for songs in mid-to-late 1991. Before that time, a single's Hot 100 peak was usually in the same ballpark of the average of its sales and airplay peaks. Once the Hot 100 changed in November 1991, sales and airplay peaks could be widely divergent, but there was usually some rational relationship between those peaks and a song's Hot 100 peak. During the period when the charts were not linked to each other, by contrast, Hot 100 peaks sometimes just made no sense at all in relation to sales and airplay peaks. Some songs charted much higher on the Hot 100 than they did on either the sales or airplay charts. Here are some examples of what mct1 was talking about in that 1991 time frame: Roxette, "Fading Like A Flower": Number 2: Airplay 11, Sales 23 Paula Abdul, "Promise of a New Day": Number 1: Airplay 5, Sales 25 Bryan Adams, "Can't Stop This Thing We Started" Number 2: Sales 11, Airplay 14 R.E.M. "Shiny Happy People" Number 10: Airplay 25, Sales 38 Curtis Stigers "I Wonder Why" Number 9: Airplay 28, Sales 62 Karyn White "Romantic" Number 1: Airplay 2, Sales 26 Chesney Hawkes "The One And Only": Number 10: Airplay 28, Sales 53 Interesting stuff. All of these songs, by the way made R and R's Top 10. This time of showing the new charts while using the old charts gave people who were looking, to use a phrase heard on AT 40 around that time, a "sneak peak" into how different the charts would become 11/30/91. In regards to the three songs I listed on here that peaked in the bottom part of the Top 10 (REM, Stigers, Hawkes) those songs were played in heavy rotation on my CHR stations...definitely would rank higher than say 28 or so. More examples: Jesus Jones "Real, Real, Real" - #4 Hot 100, #7 R&R - #30 Airplay, #67 Sales EMF "Lies" - #18 Hot 100, #22 R&R - #64 Airplay, #69 Sales I wish Whitburn still printed Sales and Airplay peak positions in his Top Pop Singles books. It would be interesting to see how songs fare on those charts today (as well as songs which make the Sales chart and don't make the Hot 100, which Whitburn stopped printing as well).
|
|
|
Post by jlthorpe on Feb 22, 2013 20:30:35 GMT -5
It was also around this time that Paula Abdul's "The Promise Of a New Day" hit #1 without topping either the airplay or sales charts. I would love to know if they had practice charts from July until November 23, 1991...it would be interesting to see where certain songs would have ended up. The closest you can get is from the printed edition of the November 30 chart, since the "Last Week" and "Two Weeks Ago" data was from the new methodology. You can compare that to the November 16 and November 23 Hot 100s.
|
|