• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

It’s official: Hip-hop has more hits, as chr tightens

https://radioinsight.com/ross/173814/its-official-hip-hop-has-more-hits-as-chr-tightens/

This commentary on Radio insight is about how certain formats are fairing in terms of the number of hits produced.

Five years ago, Mainstream and Rhythmic Top 40 broke roughly the same number of hit songs. Mainstream Top 40, not yet done with an eight-year streak of mass-appeal hit music, had 105 songs crack the top 20 that year. Rhythmic, usually known for being more musically aggressive, had only 103 top 20 songs, according to Nielsen BDSRadio. Unused to Mainstream Top 40 having the buzzier music, Rhythmic Top 40 relied heavily, for a while, on pop crossovers, while stations throughout the format sought to reposition themselves with the slugline “Hits and Hip-Hop.”

Now, it’s Rhythmic Top 40 and R&B/Hip-Hop that generate the musical excitement, as Mainstream Top 40 PDs grapple with what to do with “Sicko Mode.” And while “rise of Hip-Hop/marginalization of pop” has been a consumer-press story for more than a year, new data from Nielsen BDSRadio confirms Rhythmic Top 40 having returned to the new music lead, at least as reflected by the number of top 20 songs in the format last year (106). Hip-Hop/R&B is second, having charted 104 top 20 songs last year. Meanwhile, the number of top 20 hits at Mainstream Top 40 is down sharply: 105 in 2013, 96 in 2015, 87 last year.

The willingness to break records doesn’t necessarily track with ratings success — many programmers interpret “radio law” as suggesting just the opposite. Triple-A and Active Rock — two of radio’s most aggressive formats by this measurement — are also two of its most niche. But strong available product — typically manifesting itself as too many good songs for radio to choose from each week, and strong secondary titles that are good enough to be powers themselves — is traditionally an indicator of a healthy format.

The last time we looked at these numbers, Edison Research’s Infinite Dial 2017 study had just shown radio slipping out of the top slot for music discovery — the punchline to an already-apparent trend line. (Last year’s Infinite Dial study didn’t even ask the music discovery question.) As that news landed, radio was aggressively imaging itself on the air around music discovery, but not necessarily taking other possible steps to engage for that image.

Since that time, the “No. 1 for new music discovery” stagers seem less frequent — or maybe they’re just becoming less noticeable. R&B and Rhythmic radio, propelled but not entirely driven by the availability of streaming Hip-Hop stories, have more product. Top 40 and Country, two formats that were engaged for young listeners with a rare simultaneous product boom five years ago, have both tightened considerably. Surprisingly, current-based rock formats all found more songs to play in 2018, despite ongoing complaints about a lack of product,

The current state of radio’s major formats is driven not just by product, of course, but by the ongoing migration of younger listening to streaming and a higher concentration of available quarter-hours among the older listeners who grew up more under broadcast radio’s sway. Streaming has focused younger listeners heavily around Hip-Hop, dispersing the mother/daughter coalition that drove the late ‘00s/early ‘10s golden age of pop. Here’s how the new music landscape looks on a format-by-format basis.
 
This commentary on Radio insight is about how certain formats are fairing in terms of the number of hits produced.

Sean Ross always has great comments on current radio. The interesting thing to me is that one would think that there's no need to "break" records when you have the internet. But the fact is that people are streaming the hits. Just because people can stream anything they want doesn't mean the playlists are bigger. Ultimately it's the same horserace, and the same horses. FM programmers are looking at streaming numbers when they pick the songs they add to their playlists, and record label promotion people are citing streaming data when getting their songs added. So streaming just becomes another form of research. So even though the internet allows for more music to be heard, it doesn't mean that more music become hits.
 
Sean Ross always has great comments on current radio. The interesting thing to me is that one would think that there's no need to "break" records when you have the internet. But the fact is that people are streaming the hits. Just because people can stream anything they want doesn't mean the playlists are bigger. Ultimately it's the same horserace, and the same horses. FM programmers are looking at streaming numbers when they pick the songs they add to their playlists, and record label promotion people are citing streaming data when getting their songs added. So streaming just becomes another form of research. So even though the internet allows for more music to be heard, it doesn't mean that more music become hits.

There are so many things that go into the Hot 100 now. It's more difficult to become a hit. "Delicate" stalled at #12 but was the #24 song of the year! I would expect it to have to make the top five to do that.
 
There are so many things that go into the Hot 100 now. It's more difficult to become a hit. "Delicate" stalled at #12 but was the #24 song of the year! I would expect it to have to make the top five to do that.

There are plenty of cases of a song not peaking very high, but sustaining a lower level for many, many weeks and thus ranking higher for the year due to a longer time on the chart.

Ten weeks at #20 can be better than one week at #5.
 
There are so many things that go into the Hot 100 now. It's more difficult to become a hit. "Delicate" stalled at #12 but was the #24 song of the year! I would expect it to have to make the top five to do that.

It's all about timing. The song was released in March, and peaked in December. So it was in the chart for 10 months of the year. That will impact how high it gets on the year-end chart. That chart measures cumulative spins over the course of the year, not just a given week. There have been songs that failed to make Top 5 that have become the #1 song of the year.
 
It's all about timing. The song was released in March, and peaked in December. So it was in the chart for 10 months of the year. That will impact how high it gets on the year-end chart. That chart measures cumulative spins over the course of the year, not just a given week. There have been songs that failed to make Top 5 that have become the #1 song of the year.

Isn't this phenomena more or less recent, since the advent of downloads and streaming, that brings out music right away, instead of weeks of radio building demand?
 
Isn't this phenomena more or less recent, since the advent of downloads and streaming, that brings out music right away, instead of weeks of radio building demand?

You'd be surprised. The top streaming songs tend to be the ones that are also most familiar, which means the ones that have been on the radio building for months. It's rare that a song comes out and jumps to the top. As I said, the internet makes it possible for artists and labels to get their music to their fans instantly. But getting that music out doesn't make them hits. I continually look at the Billboard streaming charts for evidence that these quick releases are having an impact, and for the most part, they don't. They just serve the fan base. But for a song to be a hit, it has to have that same impact with everyone. In other words, serving the base doesn't get you hits with anyone except the base.
 
You'd be surprised. The top streaming songs tend to be the ones that are also most familiar, which means the ones that have been on the radio building for months. It's rare that a song comes out and jumps to the top. As I said, the internet makes it possible for artists and labels to get their music to their fans instantly. But getting that music out doesn't make them hits. I continually look at the Billboard streaming charts for evidence that these quick releases are having an impact, and for the most part, they don't. They just serve the fan base. But for a song to be a hit, it has to have that same impact with everyone. In other words, serving the base doesn't get you hits with anyone except the base.
That's not what I see. I see songs selling immediately and going to #1, before radio can even get into the act! Before they do, sales has dropped off and if initial sales weren't enough to send a song to the top then radio doesn't seem to make very much difference.
 
That's not what I see. I see songs selling immediately and going to #1, before radio can even get into the act! Before they do, sales has dropped off and if initial sales weren't enough to send a song to the top then radio doesn't seem to make very much difference.

Gotta consider other factors such as a song trending on Twitter and Youtube and they tend to be at 100 Million Viewers though for the song to be a hit. Also you gotta consider Iheart's concert promotions division they have to take into account who the top talent are at the time for seats to be in the music festival stadiums. Radio more specifically Iheartradio is getting into the act but this time as a concert promoter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ONRf7h3Mdk
 
That's not what I see. I see songs selling immediately and going to #1, before radio can even get into the act! Before they do, sales has dropped off and if initial sales weren't enough to send a song to the top then radio doesn't seem to make very much difference.

Hard to say. The #1 streaming song this week is Post Malone's Spider Man. It's #10 in the radio airplay chart. Anything Post Malone does is going to get airplay.

Once again shooting to #1 doesn't mean the song will have long-term value to the artist and the label. "Meant To Be" shot to #1 on the streaming chart, but it stayed there during it's entire run up the radio chart, and for five months afterwards. That's a hit song. If it falls off after a week, it's not likely to have any long term impact. Once again it's the difference between appealing to the base and appealing to the general public. Some artists make a career simply churning out disposable songs to their base. Those aren't the songs you're likely to hear in ten years at weddings or in restaurants. We used to call those songs "turntable hits." They got played for a few weeks, and then were gone forever.

The real sign of a hit isn't always where the song ends up in the currents chart, but where it shows up in recurrent and gold. That's where the real money is made.
 
Last edited:
How much of the problem with Mainstream CHR is the lack of superstars?

IMHO, it's a big part of it now. Because when the majors take some time off, as Bieber has done, there's a big hole.

It makes someone like Post Malone, who would probably not be a traditional superstar, become an automatic.

You look at last year's chart, and Ed Sheeran is a bankable star. But Zedd is a studio group with a country singer doing lead vocals. BeBe Rexha had a huge hit because she got together with Florida Georgia Line. Ariana Grande or Maroon 5 are still knocking them out of the park, but there's a hole for someone who can put a string of hits together into a whole show.
 
That's not what I see. I see songs selling immediately and going to #1, before radio can even get into the act! Before they do, sales has dropped off and if initial sales weren't enough to send a song to the top then radio doesn't seem to make very much difference.

If by sales you mean paid downloads, such as iTunes @ $1.29 a song, the volume there is tiny today.

The best metric is on-demand, not downloads. If you watch on-demand such as via the features in the pro (meaning "paid") version of BDS or MediaBase, you can compare radio airplay data with on-demand data.

While there is not a perfect correlationship, that is due to the fact that individual formats or stations don't always mirror the full extent of a song's appeal. Crossover songs may seem to get less or later play on formats they "crossed" to, that's because most of the demand comes from listeners to a different radio format.

A paid download is a one time deal; once you have it you don't buy it again. On-demand is ongoing. You may listen to the same song for weeks or months or... and that is what tends to mirror radio airplay frequency quite a bit.
 
That's not what I see. I see songs selling immediately and going to #1, before radio can even get into the act! Before they do, sales has dropped off and if initial sales weren't enough to send a song to the top then radio doesn't seem to make very much difference.


http://www.mtv.com/news/1451664/got-charts-linkin-park-shaggy-nsync-are-2001s-top-sellers/


http://www.mtv.com/news/1459367/eminem-sold-most-albums-nickelback-ruled-radio-in-02/

https://web.archive.org/web/2011061...rticles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Dec_31/ai_111776584/

But in the past the criteria for an artist's success was measured by the CD Album Sales in 2001-2002 timeframe hence in the 2001-2002 articles 7.6 Million copies sold used to be a success story . In 2019 the criteria has changed to Youtube Views and streaming data from various music/audio apps. The criteria for an songs success would have to be a Billion or more viewers like in these Maroon 5, Swift and Ed Sheeran clips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOTlE1K90k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vv-BfVoq4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGwWNGJdvx8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg
 
I should also mention that there is no radio rule that they can only play one song by an artist at a time, or they have to wait for a song to climb the chart. Songs have debuted at the top of the radio airplay charts, and artists have had multiple songs in the charts at the same time.

The thing to keep in mind when talking about radio is that part of what happens with airplay is a function of the record label. They might prefer radio to focus on one track, while at the same time releasing multiple songs to Spotify. I see that quite a bit. I also see radio stations bypassing the official single and playing a Spotify track if it feels that song will connect better with listeners. So it can get complicated, and there are no rules.
 


If by sales you mean paid downloads, such as iTunes @ $1.29 a song, the volume there is tiny today.

The best metric is on-demand, not downloads. If you watch on-demand such as via the features in the pro (meaning "paid") version of BDS or MediaBase, you can compare radio airplay data with on-demand data.

While there is not a perfect correlationship, that is due to the fact that individual formats or stations don't always mirror the full extent of a song's appeal. Crossover songs may seem to get less or later play on formats they "crossed" to, that's because most of the demand comes from listeners to a different radio format.

A paid download is a one time deal; once you have it you don't buy it again. On-demand is ongoing. You may listen to the same song for weeks or months or... and that is what tends to mirror radio airplay frequency quite a bit.

Here's where my assumption was faulty: I assumed that digital downloads were the successor of hard copy discs and didn't realize that on demand was so strong.
 
Here's where my assumption was faulty: I assumed that digital downloads were the successor of hard copy discs and didn't realize that on demand was so strong.

Understood. Also keep in mind that radio does not program specifically to teens, and teens are very significant users of on-demand services. So much of the Spotify, YouTube and the like volume is from a group that radio can not monetize, thus not following their tastes directly.
 
How can streaming be a source of revenue at all? I thought it was free!

Ha! Maybe to you, but the streaming platforms pay a royalty to the artists, labels, and songwriters.

It's very expensive, which is why Pandora and Spotify are losing money. They're trying to convert users to a paid subscription plan.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom