They played We Belong by Pat Benetar on KZOK

[TheBigA]

With all due respect: Duh. Billboard's Top 100 is still determined by purchase/plays. Rather than a young Boombox4 going to Tower Records to buy a single or album, now they download it to their phone, or have it play on a smartspeaker.

That's not true. The Billboard Hot 100 is not strictly based on sales. Their site says:

THE WEEK’S MOST POPULAR CURRENT SONGS ACROSS ALL GENRES, RANKED BY STREAMING ACTIVITY FROM DIGITAL MUSIC SOURCES TRACKED BY LUMINATE, RADIO AIRPLAY AUDIENCE IMPRESSIONS AS MEASURED BY LUMINATE AND SALES DATA AS COMPILED BY LUMINATE.

 

[CTListener]

That's not true. The Billboard Hot 100 is not strictly based on sales. Their site says:

THE WEEK’S MOST POPULAR CURRENT SONGS ACROSS ALL GENRES, RANKED BY STREAMING ACTIVITY FROM DIGITAL MUSIC SOURCES TRACKED BY LUMINATE, RADIO AIRPLAY AUDIENCE IMPRESSIONS AS MEASURED BY LUMINATE AND SALES DATA AS COMPILED BY LUMINATE.

Clarify "streaming activity," please. I use the ad-supported version of Spotify. I just listened to a current country hit there. I didn't download the tune, or pay Spotify anything to hear it. Is what I did considered "streaming" in the eyes of Luminate? How about listening to the same song on a radio station via the Audacy or iHeart app?

 

[TheBigA]

Clarify "streaming activity," please. I use the ad-supported version of Spotify. I just listened to a current country hit there. I didn't download the tune, or pay Spotify anything to hear it. Is what I did considered "streaming" in the eyes of Luminate? How about listening to the same song on a radio station via the Audacy or iHeart app?

They're all factored into the Hot 100. Someone paid for you to hear the song. In your case, it was the advertiser.

 

[Kelly A]

That's not true. The Billboard Hot 100 is not strictly based on sales. Their site says:

THE WEEK’S MOST POPULAR CURRENT SONGS ACROSS ALL GENRES, RANKED BY STREAMING ACTIVITY FROM DIGITAL MUSIC SOURCES TRACKED BY LUMINATE, RADIO AIRPLAY AUDIENCE IMPRESSIONS AS MEASURED BY LUMINATE AND SALES DATA AS COMPILED BY LUMINATE.

I never said that. What I said was a combination of sales and reported airplay ("purchase/plays"). Whether that airplay is streaming or radio.

 

[TheBigA]

I never said that. What I said was a combination of sales and reported airplay ("purchase/plays"). Whether that airplay is streaming or radio.

You mainly talked about downloads. Downloading of music is decreasing in usage, while streaming is increasing. One doesn't have to download a song or album for it to be counted or included in the Top 100.

 

[Kelly A]

You mainly talked about downloads. Downloading of music is decreasing in usage, while streaming is increasing. One doesn't have to download a song or album for it to be counted or included in the Top 100.

Boombox was claiming that 'nobody purchased music anymore, they stream'. That's not accurate. As a recent example; Taylor Swift's music downloads are selling very briskly. Sure, overall streaming by volume is more commonplace. My point was the premise that the way Billboard tabulates their Top 100 is vastly different than it was back when Linda Ronstadt had hits, isn't accurate either. As you point out, Billboard counts; sales/downloads, streaming, and radio airplay. That part hasn't changed due to streaming as he was claiming.

 

[TheBigA]

My point was the premise that the way Billboard tabulates their Top 100 is vastly different than it was back when Linda Ronstadt had hits, isn't accurate either. As you point out, Billboard counts; sales/downloads, streaming, and radio airplay. That part hasn't changed due to streaming as he was claiming.

Correct They added the other non-sales elements to the Hot 100 in 2007. That's the dividing line. In addition, the way radio airplay is tabulated changed in the early 90s with monitoring. As did the way physical album sales was counted. The bar code was a revolution at the time. Now it's the QR code.

 

[bobdavcav]

I think it still can happen. Some artists videos go viral. That happened with Lil Nas X / Billy Ray Cyrus in 2018/2019. Old Town Road was a big hit. It was a 'grand slam', in a way. But it's not common. And Lil' Nas X hasn't achieved the household name status the Beatles, or Taylor Swift did.

I don't think there will be another Beatles. Just as there never will be another Walter Cronkite, or another John Wayne. The media works differently now. It's completely fragmented.

The few remaining vestiges of the media behemoths (Taylor Swift, the NY Times, CBS News, Disney, etc.) are a hangover from the era of the old school, 'mass' media. Musically, radio will have to straddle the fence, as it probably does now. Radio stations have playlists, and they probably don't have the massive level of churn the Hot 100 seems to have. I don't pay super attention to radio charts anymore, but do they pump and dump 20% of their playlist every week? And, especially with the recurrent / gold categories, I think it keeps radio charts a bit more stable. And because radio is mostly free, it will undoubtedly still be around for a while.

Either way, fifteen years from now there won't be any superstars of the Beatles, or even Taylor Swift's status. We don't have three or four networks anymore, we don't have charts that really indicate star status (who's Gunna? Who's Lil Baby? They technically outdid the Beatles, Elvis, and almost matched Taylor Swift's recent accomplishment. But who are they?).

There undoubtedly will be some media figures who achieve mass recognition status for a few minutes. The internet and various social media are far reaching, so that may still happen. We see viral videos giving individuals their fifteen seconds of fame right now.. Any such flashes of superstardom are usually short lived, though. That's the trend.

I get the sense that radio doesn't know how to handle how much is being thrown at it. As a result, the radio charts seem to move slower than ever. Did we see songs on the charts for weeks and weeks back in the day?

 

[michael hagerty]

I get the sense that radio doesn't know how to handle how much is being thrown at it. As a result, the radio charts seem to move slower than ever. Did we see songs on the charts for weeks and weeks back in the day?

Sure. Here's a piece just about songs that did ten weeks or more at #1, never mind their entire chart life:

Only 42 songs have stayed at No. 1 on the chart for 10 weeks or more — here they all are

Something we learned in the 70s (when I programmed) was that we were dumping records too soon. There was still life in them. There had been a widespread practice of ending airplay when a record dropped off the station's chart and not playing it again (apart from a year-end countdown) for a year before adding it to the oldies library.

In the mid-70s, the concept of the "recurrent" came along. It could be an oldie that had new traction from its inclusion in a movie, commercial or whatever, but mostly, it was songs that had fallen off the chart but that were not burned out. Those records would continue to get airplay for the year that they previously would have been absent. Oftentimes, they would be more popular than all but seven or eight songs that were on the chart at the time.

Over the years, especially in the 90s and 2000s, programmers began to simply extend the chart runs of songs that still had pull. And airplay-based charts started seeing songs with six months and more worth of life in them.

 

[TheBigA]

I get the sense that radio doesn't know how to handle how much is being thrown at it. As a result, the radio charts seem to move slower than ever. Did we see songs on the charts for weeks and weeks back in the day?

It depends on the format. Some genres move slower than others.

To say "radio doesn't know how to handle it" ignores the fact that these decisions aren't just made by radio. The music industry decides what to release and when to release it. So record labels put out some songs with as "radio singles" and some songs for the purpose of generating ongoing interest in that artist. But a decision is made by both sides as to what the radio single is going to be, and that will involve an investment in 3 or 4 months of time in the chart. As part of this, record labels aren't investing as much time or money in album releases, because the return on investment isn't as great as it once was. The main business model is around streaming, so the more songs they can have in the streaming system, the better. Radio understands that. These are two different business models, and music is being used differently by each group.

 

[TheBigA]

Over the years, especially in the 90s and 2000s, programmers began to simply extend the chart runs of songs that still had pull. And airplay-based charts started seeing songs with six months and more worth of life in them.

Not every song is a hit song. Artists understand this because they see how their fans react to them. They organize setlists based on which songs get the biggest response. Radio can also see how listeners are responding, so they may stick with songs longer because they're still getting positive response.

But the other part of this is the chart is still the chart. There are only 10 songs in the Top 10. There can only be one #1 song at a time. So the other songs have to wait a week for the #1 song to drop, before a new #1 arrives. That's how it works. The charts are put out weekly. Radio stations or streaming sites can put out daily charts, because the data is constantly coming in. So when you have songs staying at #1 for 3 weeks, that slows the rest of the chart down. We're seeing that now in country music. You had a 2-week #1, followed by a 3-week #1. That is killing off some songs in the Top 20, because they have nowhere to go.

 

[seatownmedia]

Nobody in recent posts have mentioned the radio term “Recurrents”. Surprisingly these high performing songs that have peaked and may have peaked six months to a year earlier are the bread and butter of top40 stations.

 

[CTListener]

Nobody in recent posts have mentioned the radio term “Recurrents”. Surprisingly these high performing songs that have peaked and may have peaked six months to a year earlier are the bread and butter of top40 stations.

And AC, country and urban stations. The days of big hits disappearing from the airwaves for years just when millions of people loved them have been over for a while.

 

[landtuna]

Just because you don't listen doesn't mean it's unknown.

Measure the various genre populations and you will see what I meant by 'unknown'.

 

[davideduardo]

As for PPM vs. diaries, even David Eduardo has stated several times on RD that the diaries clearly were not accurate. The PPM is accurate. That's quite a difference.

No survey based on a sample is 100% accurate. The critical issue is whether a particular method is accurate enough for its intended purpose. The diary survey is accurate enough for advertisers to trust to make ad expenditures.

The PPM was developed principally because ad agencies wanted faster deliver of ratings and more immediate survey periods. It's main purpose was to avoid the delays of mailed and manually processed diaries, allowing results for a survey period within just two weeks of its completion and covering more recent than 3-month survey periods.

The diary keepers were entering blocks of time for a station that they weren't listening to for much of that time.

They were rounding, as all of us do. And they were not keeping minute by minute account of the listening. So TSL was exaggerated. But, again, advertisers were using the diary with confidence right to the end in 50 of the nearly 300 rated markets. And they still trust the diary in nearly 250 markets.

The PPM showed that during that same period of time the radio could have been on 2-3 other stations during that same time period.

No, it did not. It showed, in this example, that people went for coffee, went to the bathroom, took phone calls, stepped out to wait for the kids' school bus, took a little nap, had a meeting, walked out to the loading dock and lots of other things that interrupted continuous listening. So the person who put WXXX from 9 AM to 5 PM in a diary actually had 10 or 11 tidbits of one to two quarter hours all through the day.

What often did get missed was checking the news station for traffic when getting in the car, where the diary keeper just put down the morning show they then listened to for 25 minutes on the commute. In other words, secondary listening.

To me, that's a different metric. One is based on memory and convenience to the user. The other one is a direct recording of whatever they actually were listening to.

The PPM does not distinguish "listening" from "hearing". That is why we see WSKQ show up in the listening of a non-Hispanic meter carrier in New York; they spent enough time in a bodega making a purchase to have their meter hear La Mega and so they seem to be P4 or P5 listeners to a Spanish language station!

 

[TheBigA]

Measure the various genre populations and you will see what I meant by 'unknown'.

Here's a survey from Billboard, which you can dispute:

The survey shows that 42 percent of the population is a country music fan, which breaks down to 95 million country music fans in the United States, a number that Fuson said gives the country music community the opportunity to open a lot of doors with sponsorships and other partnerships.

A further breakdown shows that 48 percent of those who like country music are male and 52 percent are female. The age brackets are interesting, as 13 percent are in the 18-24 age range; 17 percent, 25-34; 18 percent, 35-44; 20 percent, 45-54; and 16 percent each in the 44-64 and 65-plus.

So it's not "unknown." Just to the people who don't listen, which includes you.

 

[davideduardo]

And AC, country and urban stations. The days of big hits disappearing from the airwaves for years just when millions of people loved them have been over for a while.

And regional Mexican as well as Spanish CHR as well. I think that every format that plays currents now has recurrents as well.

 

[michael hagerty]

Nobody in recent posts have mentioned the radio term “Recurrents”. Surprisingly these high performing songs that have peaked and may have peaked six months to a year earlier are the bread and butter of top40 stations.

Literally three posts before yours.

 

[boombox4]

Boombox was claiming that 'nobody purchased music anymore, they stream'. That's not accurate. As a recent example; Taylor Swift's music downloads are selling very briskly. Sure, overall streaming by volume is more commonplace. My point was the premise that the way Billboard tabulates their Top 100 is vastly different than it was back when Linda Ronstadt had hits, isn't accurate either. As you point out, Billboard counts; sales/downloads, streaming, and radio airplay. That part hasn't changed due to streaming as he was claiming.

I was going by the end of 2021 RIAA statistics. And if one wants to look at things literally, Digital downloads comprise 4% of music revenues. So those are sales.

What I'd forgotten is that 11% are physical music sales. I had thought it was lower than it was. I was wrong in that case. A lot of those physical sales are LP records.

Upthread you mentioned people downloading songs onto their phone as an example of sales. 4% is pretty low. And GenZers and Millennials probably aren't buying a lot of LP records. That's a GenX/Boomer thing. Modern day music consumption is primarily streaming.

https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-Year-End-Music-Industry-Revenue-Report.pdf

According to the RIAA's 2022 mid year report, the music sales percentage dropped by one percent. Streaming now accounts for 84% of all music consumption revenues.

https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Mid-Year-2022-RIAA-Music-Revenue-Report-1.pdf

Looking over the two RIAA reports, Digital Download revenues have dropped year by year from $823 million in 2019 to $587 million in 2021. According to the RIAA, that drop is around 31%. Physical music sales dropped, except for LP records. CD sales dropped by about 3% from 2021 to 2022.

And my basic point is that the Hot 100 is more volatile in 2022 than it was in 1982, which implies a difference not only in music consumption, but the way that the chart's results are reached.

Show me the 1982 equivalent of Gunna or Lil Baby. Even Michael Jackson didn't match their feats of taking over 20% of the chart for two weeks. Whatever metric you want to rely upon, that sort of thing simply didn't happen before streaming became the music consumption standard.

As for Taylor Swift's recent accomplishment, I suppose it should be expected, as she is a superstar, compared to the other two artists I just mentioned. If she can't outdo Gunna, her career goose is cooked.

 

[Kelly A]

I was going by the end of 2021 RIAA statistics. And if one wants to look at things literally, Digital downloads comprise 4% of music revenues. So those are sales.

And just like most things, that percentage can vary depending on times and demand. As I mentioned prior, downloads of Taylor Swift's latest offerings are being downloaded at high rates this past week. Does it mean sales/downloads will remain at that pace? Of course not.

What I'd forgotten is that 11% are physical music sales. I had thought it was lower than it was. I was wrong in that case. A lot of those physical sales are LP records.

Are you claiming vinyl LP's or album downloads?

Upthread you mentioned people downloading songs onto their phone as an example of sales. 4% is pretty low. And GenZers and Millennials probably aren't buying a lot of LP records. That's a GenX/Boomer thing. Modern day music consumption is primarily streaming.

Again, downloads vary based on demand. Streaming and radio listening is on average still higher, but to say "nobody" downloads, isn't quite accurate. And my original point being: Billboard has always created it's Hot 100 based on sales, including downloads, and airplay/streaming.

According to the RIAA's 2022 mid year report, the music sales percentage dropped by one percent. Streaming now accounts for 84% of all music consumption revenues.

And with the bump being seen with the Taylor Swift demand, that number by EOY will likely be higher.

Looking over the two RIAA reports, Digital Download revenues have dropped year by year from $823 million in 2019 to $587 million in 2021. According to the RIAA, that drop is around 31%. Physical music sales dropped, except for LP records. CD sales dropped by about 3% from 2021 to 2022.

I know you're trying to shift the subject to make a point, but weren't we discussing the Billboard Hot 100, and the claimed differences in tabulation from back in the 70's-80's vs. today?

And my basic point is that the Hot 100 is more volatile in 2022 than it was in 1982, which implies a difference not only in music consumption, but the way that the chart's results are reached.

But you have presented no data to make that claim. What do you mean by volatile? Streaming is listening. Radio is listening. Downloading is sales, Ordering the CD or vinyl from Amazon is sales.
Back in the day; Radio was listening, buying the single or LP at Tower Records was sales. Just as yesterday, sales and listening is all counted. Where is the volatility in that same simple formula?

Show me the 1982 equivalent of Gunna or Lil Baby.

That's easy. 1982 Billboard Top 100 EOY #1 song was Physical by Olivia Newton John. ONJ also held the 84th position in the same year end Top 100 with ranking 82, Make a Move on Me.
Considering this, what does your comparison of now vs. 1982 have to do with anything?

Even Michael Jackson didn't match their feats of taking over 20% of the chart for two weeks. Whatever metric you want to rely upon, that sort of thing simply didn't happen before streaming became the music consumption standard.

Solo, Michael Jackson had 28 top ten hits in the Billboard Top 100. Billie Jean (1983) held on as one of the longest number one ranked for seven weeks. So you're comparing Gunna as being a wider, or longer lasting in the Top 100? Come on!

As for Taylor Swift's recent accomplishment, I suppose it should be expected, as she is a superstar, compared to the other two artists I just mentioned. If she can't outdo Gunna, her career goose is cooked.

Her career goose is cooked? Dude you need to stay out of Bongwater's stash. Taylor Swift has had 188 Billboard chart entries including 9-#1's, and 40-top ten's. There is absolutely zero points of comparison between the success of Taylor Swift and Gunna, other than they're both human beings and music artists.