YouTube viewership takes its place in Billboard charts

[skooldem1]

What are your thoughts on this news?



YouTube viewership now sits alongside digital downloads, physical sales, and streaming, among other metrics, to determine the top songs in the land

more info:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1549399/hot-100-news-billboard-and-nielsen-add-youtube-video-streaming-to-platforms

Billboard and Nielsen announced today the addition of U.S. YouTube video streaming data to its platforms, which includes an update to the methodology for the Billboard Hot 100, the preeminent singles chart.

The YouTube streaming data is now factored into the chart's ranking, enhancing a formula that includes Nielsen's digital download track sales and physical singles sales; as well as terrestrial radio airplay, on-demand audio streaming, and online radio streaming, also tracked by Nielsen.

more info:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1549399/hot-100-news-billboard-and-nielsen-add-youtube-video-streaming-to-platforms

[jobeterob]

Billboard has been around since the 1800's.......they need to go with the flow, move with the times. They have done it very well in the past and seem to be doing so again.

This is a smart move. It is unfortunate that the artists don't get a cent out of Youtube.

[Jerry Oz]

I listen to songs on YouTube all the time, mostly those that aren't in my collection. I don't understand why this is considered for the Billboard charts, which is based upon sales. Youtube streaming should be measured the same as radio airplay, even though radio pays royalties. Am I missing something?

[jillfoster]

I think this is a good idea. I feel it's a better gauge of popularity than many other venues.

[thomas96]

Honestly, as a musician myself, I don't like it at all. Youtube was intended to be a home-video site, and now it has people uploading others' music, movie scenes, live shows, etc. I really think it should be illegal to upload all of those things, and enforced with harsh consequences. Musicians these days only make money off of touring/performing live, though they spend lots of hours on writing and recording these songs that end up getting downloaded for free [[stolen) on youtube or elsewhere on the internet. What happened to the days when a musician would put out a record and everyone would be rushing to the record stores to go buy and hold that 12inch [[or 7inch) piece of vinyl in their hand and couldn't wait to get home and play it after hearing the hit song on the radio? Very bad situation for musicians now. To the point where some are charging $200+ for cheap seats that would've cost $25 50 years ago. It ends up hurting the consumers as well. That's just my opinion though, I understand that how it is now won't get changed, unfortunately.

[jobeterob]

Totally agree with Thomas but I think for that to have been different, the approach of the big record companies had to be different 20 years ago. It is too late now. All the kids will not pay for what they've had for free for so long now.

When single sales tanked in the 1990's, Billboard converted their singles chart to an airplay only chart. So, sales don't play a part in it anymore.

I assume the Youtube chart will be a separate Youtube chart, not the Top 100.

What burns me a little bit is that Adele has 380,000,000 youtube views for her official video of Rolling in the Deep.............whereas Aretha Franklin had 15 million for I Say A Little Prayer and Diana Ross and Lionel Ritchie have 12 million or so of Endless Love. And the obscure Motown artists have a couple thousand maybe. It just shows what is popular now.

The Billboard Top 200 album chart represents sales but it too is only a sample. And far more is just simply stolen these days.

[smark21]

The hot 100 singles chart measures both sales and airplay, as well as streaming and now youtube. With the advent of itunes and legal downloading, singles sales are much stronger than they were in the late 90s when the record companies cut back on singles to get people to buy albums. That strategy, along with the advent of file sharing technology, is what killed much of the music industry. And deservedly so.

Some acts do have it in their contract that they get paid for youtube video hits. I remember reading two years ago that Rebecca Black received a royalty for the number of hits her video for that god awful “Friday” song received. Of course one of the drawbacks of including youtube is that novelty songs like “Friday”, “Gangham Style” and “Harlem Shake” will get an even bigger boost, but then again novelty songs will always have their place in the market.

[marv2]

It is a good idea. It is also a blatant attempt by Billboard to find it's own revelency in todays World.

[skooldem1]

Just a little background on what is being said in the streets regarding the "Harlem Shake". Many young African Americans are upset that what was a popular hip hop dance over 10 years ago has become [[in their minds) a mainstream dance hit in 2013. They feel it is a blatant ripoff of black culture. I have visited many blog/sites and they are upset. What they don't know, in a rush to judgement is that the viral videos of the "Harlem Shake" [[this is now the new Gangnam Style type craze) is that all the people in the video are not doing the "Harlem Shake" dance. The song is called the "Harlem Shake". In the viral videos people just jump around and do crazy moves.

Here is the reaction from people in Harlem:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IGH2HEgWppc

[skooldem1]

Here is a compilation clip of people dancing to the "Harlem Shake". It is the new sensation:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSQRXY-rp_M

[stephanie]

marv I totally agree with what you said!
Stephanie

[skooldem1]

'Harlem Shake' hits number one, ushers in new world of YouTube-fueled charts
by Kyle Anderson

After a five-week run with the number one song in the country, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis’ “Thrift Shop” has finally abdicated its throne — thanks partly to a whole new chart formula.
As of this week, Billboard‘s Hot 100 now includes YouTube streams in its chart calculations, which means the king of the hill this week is Baauer’s nonstop meme instigator “Harlem Shake.”
Previously, the Hot 100 had used radio airplay, sales, and various forms of streaming through services like Spotify and Rhapsody to tabulate what the biggest song in the country was. Including YouTube numbers makes perfect sense, since in a way the online video service is the biggest streaming service available.
The extra numbers will undoubtedly mean a big boost for songs that do well with sales and streaming but can’t quite break into radio. “Harlem Shake,” for example, did an impressive 262,000 downloads last week, but is barely on satellite or terrestrial radio. It only scored a handful of impressions on radio, but its 103 million spins on YouTube easily confirm the track’s ubiquity.

The new tabulations have reconfigured the chart success of other songs that have been bigger than their old chart positions would have suggested. Rihanna’s “Stay,” languishing at number 57 last week, is now the number three song in the country thanks to her oft-spun video for the song that premiered last week. Same goes for Drake’s “Started From the Bottom,” which jumped from 63 to 10 following the unveiling of the track’s video. It even gave a second boost to PSY’s “Gangnam Style,” since apparently some people are still watching that video. [[Had this system been in place last fall, PSY would have undoubtedly spent several weeks at number one instead of struggling at number two.)
Expect former top dog Macklemore [[now at number two this week) to get an extended life thanks to the YouTube numbers, since the video for “Thrift Shop” remains one of the Internet’s most-spun clips.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to “Harlem Shake” once the sugar-rush wears off. Its movement in the coming weeks could suggest a brand new idiom for the Hot 100, and may make it look a lot more like the weekly box office chart. Considering the new power of YouTube views, artists and labels looking to crash the upper registers of the chart would do well to coordinate the debut of new videos—especially those that have the potential to go viral.
It’s also likely to put more emphasis on official lyric videos, which often premiere with the unveiling of the single itself [[official videos tend to lag behind a few weeks). Ultimately, the Hot 100 will be more reflective of what people are actually listening to, as opposed to what was satisfying its radio-centric criteria.
The recent trend at the top of the chart has been long reigns for individual songs, thanks mostly to the monolithic nature of radio. But YouTube views could create a lot of one-shots at the top of the chart, making room for a lot more novelty tunes, international breakouts, and meme-ready dances.
Before this shift, the success of Macklemore & Ryan Lewis’ “Thrift Shop” seemed like an outlier—now, it feels like the future.

http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/02/21/harlem-shake-number-one-youtube-billboard/

[soulster]

The only thing that bugs me is that most people have no idea where that dance came from. They think it came from Korea.

On-topic: it's just like when Billboard gives weight to radio airplay.

As far as users uploading music is concerned, I think there should be a way for youTube to set it up so that anyone who wants to upload copyrighted works can pay a small fee for the limited right. It can be done.

[thomas96]

Totally agree with Thomas but I think for that to have been different, the approach of the big record companies had to be different 20 years ago. It is too late now. All the kids will not pay for what they've had for free for so long now.

When single sales tanked in the 1990's, Billboard converted their singles chart to an airplay only chart. So, sales don't play a part in it anymore.

I agree it is too late. I really don't understand how these big record companies let it happen, without trying to stop it. If I were the head of Atlantic or something, there is no way I would let people download my artists' music for free without putting up a fight. People are stealing music yet nobody does anything about it. Like you said it's too late now, especially with how big the internet is, but when it was first coming up with Napster and such I just don't get how they didn't get it to stop from happening. Very disappointing for a lot in the industry.

[milven]

I agree. The record industry should have done something years ago. In many ways , they created the problem. Single sales didn't tank. The companies eliminated the CD Singles, 45 rpm and cassette single. So when a kid came into a store to buy three songs, he was told he had to buy three Cd's or cassettes. What kid could afford over thirty dollars for three songs. The Internet was rising , Napster began and savvy kids found a way to get the music for free.

The industry is just about gone now and they record companies are the major cause of it. Record companies have merged to the point that there is now only Warner, Sony and UMG.
One Stops have closed or merged too. And record stores?? What are they??? If any are still open, they are now antique shops selling used merchandise. It hurts when I see a commercial on TV for a new release and it says something like, "Available on I=tunes, Walmart, Target, and wherever music is sold"

Wherever music is sold??? Well, it used to be sold in record shops but the music labels ruined that.

They took away the singles and therefore they chased away the youth who could have been future customers as adults.

They started releasing certain product only to certain stores like Walmart and Best Buy. They shut out the record store.

They did nothing when kids started to get music for free on line until it was too late. Then they went after the kids instead of the sites that were allowing people to download music illegally.

Everything has changed and it is too late to do anything about it.

The Billboard Hot 100 using You Tube? Why not? Not much else to use. No more sales in record shops. Not many radio stations playing music. Now it is news, talk, sports and commentary. It is probably the right move to make after so many wrong moves were made. It's progress. But sometimes we don't have to like progress

[marv2]

I hadn't thought about the dance, the Harlem Shake in over 10 years. When I saw all these videos of people titled "the Harlem Shake" I couldn't figure out what it was they were doing. LOL!

[jillfoster]

Totally agree with Thomas but I think for that to have been different, the approach of the big record companies had to be different 20 years ago. It is too late now. All the kids will not pay for what they've had for free for so long now.

When single sales tanked in the 1990's, Billboard converted their singles chart to an airplay only chart. So, sales don't play a part in it anymore.

I assume the Youtube chart will be a separate Youtube chart, not the Top 100.

What burns me a little bit is that Adele has 380,000,000 youtube views for her official video of Rolling in the Deep.............whereas Aretha Franklin had 15 million for I Say A Little Prayer and Diana Ross and Lionel Ritchie have 12 million or so of Endless Love. And the obscure Motown artists have a couple thousand maybe. It just shows what is popular now.

The Billboard Top 200 album chart represents sales but it too is only a sample. And far more is just simply stolen these days.

Some will also depend on if it's an "official" video, and when it comes to catalog material, how long has that video been up? Where are you getting this 12 million figure on "Endless Love"? Are you tallying all the uploads together?

[marv2]

marv I totally agree with what you said!
Stephanie

Stephanie, it makes you wonder how long it took them
[[Billboard) to come up with this one? They were quickly going the way that Top 40 Radio went years ago.........into the trash bin of pop culture! LOL!!!

[skooldem1]

I don't see the connection. Billboard just compiles the charts.

[skooldem1]

What I'm not clear on is what videos are counted? Official uploads from record companies, videos uploaded from the artist themselves?

[marv2]

What I'm not clear on is what videos are counted? Official uploads from record companies, videos uploaded from the artist themselves?

They will come up with some arbitrary bullshit trust me!

[soulster]

I agree. The record industry should have done something years ago. In many ways , they created the problem. Single sales didn't tank. The companies eliminated the CD Singles, 45 rpm and cassette single. So when a kid came into a store to buy three songs, he was told he had to buy three Cd's or cassettes. What kid could afford over thirty dollars for three songs. The Internet was rising , Napster began and savvy kids found a way to get the music for free.

Exactly! But, the single isn't gone, thanks to iTunes, 7-digital, the legal Napster [[or is it all Rhapsody now?), Amazon, and a few others. The only difference is that they are downloads, and they are lossy.


The industry is just about gone now and they record companies are the major cause of it.

This is where I disagree. The industry is alive and doing better than it has in years. As the economy improves, so is the record business. It's never going to go back to what it once was, even if they manage to squash illegal file distribution, but that just opens up new opportunities, and has, to a degree, helped indie labels, and artists that couldn't get a record deal, or at least one that is fair to the artist.


Record companies have merged to the point that there is now only Warner, Sony and UMG.

And, the reissuing of vintage music, especially R&B and country, has, and will continue to suffer because of it. Even indie labels that used to reissue comps are feeling the pain.


One Stops have closed or merged too. And record stores?? What are they??? If any are still open, they are now antique shops selling used merchandise.

The good part about that is that people are ripping their CDs and dumping them to used record stores. That's good for those who prefer CDs, and for those who have had a hard time finding those out-of-print favorites. Out in the part of the country where I live, the southwest/west coast, there are still at least a couple of chains that specialize in used music and one that still stocks lots of new music in all genres, in both CD and vinyl LPs: Zia Record Exchange, and Amoeba. Then, there are all sorts of places online where one can order both.


It hurts when I see a commercial on TV for a new release and it says something like, "Available on I=tunes, Walmart, Target, and wherever music is sold"

But, it's been like that since the 70s...minus iTunes.


Wherever music is sold??? Well, it used to be sold in record shops but the music labels ruined that.

The return policies and giving the big-box stores like Wal-mart and best Buy brice advantages and exclusives really hurt them. The mom and pops, and the traditional record stores like Tower just couldn't compete. And, as much as I loved the download revolution, the illegal downloads really hurt the industry and the market. Again, the labels fumbled until Steve Jobs wormed his way in and owned the record labels. But, everyone knows how that played out. Now is time to concentrate on fixing the problem and capitalizing on new opportunities. Again, the traditional way of doing business is never coming back, so no amount of shutting down websites, suing grandma, and copy protection schemes will really work. The cat's out of the bag, run away, and ain't coming back.


They took away the singles and therefore they chased away the youth who could have been future customers as adults.

That was the beginning of the problems. But, like I said, the single ain't dead, except for a physical product. That's not coming back.


They started releasing certain product only to certain stores like Walmart and Best Buy. They shut out the record store.

As I stated above. It's not entirely the label's fault for that, though. Those loss-leaders, particularly Wal-Mart, got to the position of calling the shots, and the record labels became their bitch. They should have resisted.


They did nothing when kids started to get music for free on line until it was too late. Then they went after the kids instead of the sites that were allowing people to download music illegally.

There is a lot of info on exactly what did happen during those Shawn Fanning Napster days. Get the book "Appetite For Self-destruction" by Steve Knoppler. It gives a fascinating and factual account of all that went wrong in the record industry as far back as the 80s.


Everything has changed and it is too late to do anything about it.

No, it's not. Like I said, as the economy improves, so is the industry, but, like the Helen Reddy album title, it's a long, hard climb.


The Billboard Hot 100 using You Tube? Why not? Not much else to use. No more sales in record shops. Not many radio stations playing music. Now it is news, talk, sports and commentary. It is probably the right move to make after so many wrong moves were made. It's progress. But sometimes we don't have to like progress

I don't know where you live, but I drive across the state a LOT, and often check out the radio when I get bored of my own music collection, and I hear tons of music radio of all types. just last Saturday night, I encountered at least five oldies stations, and three of them were playing 70s R&B!

[JIVE FIVE Mary G.]

Very interesting thread and comments.

I think youtube is a double edged sword for independent and old school artists. It's true they receive no financial benefit from it, however, they do get exposure they would not get otherwise.

They also have an opportunity to sell their CD's by putting graphics on the video telling people where they can purchase their CD.

I think it's an important tool for artists I described above. A friend of mine, Angel Rissoff sells his product through youtube, and I've seen others do it, too.

There's no stopping fans from taking videos and photos at concerts these days, and while the artist may not reap any direct financial benefit from those videos, they do benefit from the public exposure.

~~Mary~~

[soulster]

Frankly, as a lover of good sound, don't understand how people can be satisfied with ripping the music off of YouTube vids. If something is rare, and it's the only place one can find something, that's cool with me. But, to use it to build your music collection is incomprehensible.

[jillfoster]

Frankly, as a lover of good sound, don't understand how people can be satisfied with ripping the music off of YouTube vids. If something is rare, and it's the only place one can find something, that's cool with me. But, to use it to build your music collection is incomprehensible.

Oh, I totally agree. I only get videos off of youtube if they are televised performances. And I don't know how many times I've seen that the video on youtube that I loved was clear enough that it had to come from DVD... so I sought it out, and bought the DVD instead. I want CLEAR, PRISTINE as possible.

[jobeterob]

NEW YORK — Viral videos are hits on the Web, and now they can help propel a song to the top of the Billboard charts.

Billboard has announced that U.S. YouTube data is now one of the factors when ranking Hot 100 songs and songs on its other charts.

The new rule went into effect this week, with the viral-video hit "Harlem Shake" debuting at No. 1. Other factors include radio airplay, digital download sales, physical single sales, on-demand audio streaming and online radio streaming. Billboard's new rule incorporates all official videos on YouTube, including Vevo.

"Harlem Shake" by Brooklyn producer Baauer features few lyrics. The video has a heavy dance-flavored beat. It became a viral success thanks to hundreds of YouTube videos of people dancing to the song.

[jobeterob]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9706439.stm

Very good old interview with Otis on the Tempts.

[thomas96]

Frankly, as a lover of good sound, don't understand how people can be satisfied with ripping the music off of YouTube vids. If something is rare, and it's the only place one can find something, that's cool with me. But, to use it to build your music collection is incomprehensible.

I agree as well. I stick to my vinyl collection. People really take things for granted, like this music in general.

[soulster]

I agree as well. I stick to my vinyl collection. People really take things for granted, like this music in general.
Good for you, but, frankly, this is why the industry has a hard time selling R&B CDs, because R&B fans will not buy them and hang on to the vinyl.

Question: would you buy reissued vinyl?

[jillfoster]

Good for you, but, frankly, this is why the industry has a hard time selling R&B CDs, because R&B fans will not buy them and hang on to the vinyl.

Question: would you buy reissued vinyl?

I always have both... vinyl for the house, CD for the car. I had always just thought that CD would supplant cassette, back in the early 80's, 8 track was still being sold, so I was convinced that CD would replace BOTH 8 track and cassette, but I had no idea it would replace EVERYTHING.

[thomas96]

Good for you, but, frankly, this is why the industry has a hard time selling R&B CDs, because R&B fans will not buy them and hang on to the vinyl.

Question: would you buy reissued vinyl?

I buy cd's as well, but not a lot, since I have pretty much everything that's on cd on vinyl. I don't see a reason to buy the cd's. I mainly buy unreleased material on cd.

I wouldn't buy reissued vinyl if I could get the original record, but if it were unreleased material, or an album that was unissued then I would buy that. And I generally don't buy the reissues from Motown or Atlantic in the 80's, though I do have a few of rare/hard to get albums like Marvin Gaye's Soulful Moods of Marvin Gaye. [[I have that on cd, and 80's vinyl reissue)

[soulster]

I buy cd's as well, but not a lot, since I have pretty much everything that's on cd on vinyl. I don't see a reason to buy the cd's. I mainly buy unreleased material on cd.

I wouldn't buy reissued vinyl if I could get the original record, but if it were unreleased material, or an album that was unissued then I would buy that. And I generally don't buy the reissues from Motown or Atlantic in the 80's, though I do have a few of rare/hard to get albums like Marvin Gaye's Soulful Moods of Marvin Gaye. [[I have that on cd, and 80's vinyl reissue)
So, if an audiophile company came out with either audiophile masterings of something you already own or either gold CD or 180 gram pressing, you wouldn't be interested?

[thomas96]

So, if an audiophile company came out with either audiophile masterings of something you already own or either gold CD or 180 gram pressing, you wouldn't be interested?

Probably not if I already own it. I'm not too into digital remastering. To me it takes away from the pure analog sound originally recorded and put onto the record.