|
Post by billcs on Oct 31, 2015 13:36:17 GMT -5
For discussion!! Have we reached a point now where Sales and Radio charts are their own entities and don't influence each other as much as in the past? Is there any point in a cumulative chart anymore that deflates a hot selling song in favour of radio and/or streaming play? Your thoughts
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Oct 31, 2015 14:41:45 GMT -5
I think having an all-encompassing chart is the best way to determine popularity at any given point in time. That includes sales, airplay, streaming, maybe even mentions on social media. The trick is measuring them on a scale that makes sense.
The issue with a chart like this (the hot 100) is that you're combining everything together, not just radio, sales, etc, but demographics. What's popular with teens isn't the same as 30-somethings or 50+. Each group consumes music differently. Same with gender, race, income, etc. Another issue I've always had with sales is that I think of all the components, sales are probably the least accurate if you're measuring popularity of a single point in time. I will only buy something once so if I buy an album or single in the first week, I've had my say and I can't say it again. So for example, I bought Hello the day it came out. I could listen to that song ten times a day for the next six months, that doesn't matter. Now, imagine everyone bought it the first day. Hypothetically, it could have sold four million copies in its first day of release and next to nothing every week after that. Was it only popular for that one week? What if everyone else listens to it daily for months afterward?
I'd say we've long reached a point where there is so much fragmentation that a chart like the Hot 100 isn't really significant for measuring overall popularity. As it is now, the demographic that is most invested in music are whose music consistently does best on it.
|
|
|
Post by billcs on Oct 31, 2015 20:28:05 GMT -5
Good point about Sales and one-time-only counts MIKEB And unlike what the business thinks, streaming doesn't replace sales, it just reflects that people can pretty much hear anything they want on their computer or phone. And radio play no longer represents what people are buying because as you say it is too fragmented into genres. So I think the current method of compiling a cumulative chart like the Hot 100 needs to be rethought because it really is only a bit of a barometer now instead of the definitive measure that it once was.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Oct 31, 2015 20:30:30 GMT -5
I actually think the streaming chart is probably the most accurate method we have of determining popularity and what people actually want. Of course, when major artists like Taylor Swift aren't on there, it does weaken its accuracy but otherwise it does work because every song is treated equally and therefore has equal opportunity of getting played. With music sales, you have price points and availability as factors that can play into how people choose what they do. The only other major downside to streaming (other than the artists not getting paid well from it) is that only certain demographics of the population use it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Oct 31, 2015 23:39:25 GMT -5
I agree with what's already been said here and I'd like to add that it seems like each of the components that Bill and Mike talk about in their posts have their own drawbacks for the reasons that have been described above. In terms of radio airplay, the fragmentation of radio isn't the only thing that I think is a drawback to airplay factoring in to the popularity of the song. I don't think that radio is as trustworthy as it used to be...or possibly, as we deluded ourselves into believing. When I look at a radio station's playlist, no matter what format it is, I wonder in the back of my mind if I'm looking at what is really popular or what record label execs/radio station employees WANT me to think is popular. I know payola is technically illegal. But just because something's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm sure many of you are aware of this deal that iHeartMedia seems to have when certain new songs are released. There have been plenty of examples, but the most recent ones I can think of specifically are "Applause" by Lady Gaga and "Gimme All Ur Luvin'" by Madonna. The first day the song is released for radio airplay, on all iHeartMedia stations (and maybe other stations owned by other companies too), the new song in question gets played at the top of every hour for at least a whole day...maybe longer. The result is a spike in airplay in its first week on the chart. How is that accurately showing what's popular? I don't even know if I like the song yet or not and I'm being made to listen to it once an hour every hour... Although, I know the casual radio listener wouldn't have the radio on for six hours at a stretch to hear said song six times, like an avid music fan would.
Anyway, I'm not sure that there's any way to accurately tell what's popular across the board anymore. Maybe we're at a point where we have to use several different charts (sales, radio, streaming, etc) to gauge what's popular...and take the demographic of each method into account when looking at each chart. Like both Bill and Mike have said, I'm not sure that the Hot 100 chart is very relevant any longer - at least not the way it's compiled now.
To answer the question in Bill's original post, I think sales and radio charts should probably be separate. In a perfect world, they'd accurately show what's popular at a given point in time. But, as we all know, the world isn't perfect and the ways people consume music now isn't as simple as buying a single or listening to it on the radio.
|
|
Sam I Am
Bend a car? Pat Ben-a-tar!
Posts: 2,208
Member is Online
|
Post by Sam I Am on Nov 1, 2015 3:36:50 GMT -5
I've always had reservations about any chart that includes radio airplay.
I can't see streaming ever being a dominant method for an 'official' chart, simply because it's a slower moving chart which reduces the opportunities for record companies to get all of their 'popular music' artists into the chart.
The digital download method for singles is akin to placing a vote on shows like Idol, X Factor etc. which people have become trained to do over the past 15 years, i.e. pay $2 to download the song and you are 'voting' for your song.
The obvious difference is that most people would only consider buying the single song once on iTunes whereas they'd be likely to vote for it multiple times if it were on a talent show, which is actually more like streaming where you can play a song multiple times... but without having to pay for your 'vote' each time!
Don't want to give the record companies any ideas, but if they were to introduce an option on itunes etc to 'pay' a smaller price (say 50c for a song that costs $2) for an extra 'vote' for that song that they've already downloaded towards the official chart it would be interesting to see how popular it would be.
|
|
|
Post by billcs on Nov 1, 2015 12:52:20 GMT -5
|
|