Jump to content
throwback

Billboard hypocrisy over Born This Way deal?


LePetitGAGABLover

Featured Posts

LePetitGAGABLover

Remember when everyone said that Gaga was cheating when she sold Born This Way (album) for 99 cents? How come now selling your album for 99 cents still doesn't count for billboard but streaming does, which is free? :usrs: I mean, wouldn't an artist make more money with cheap music than with streaming?:huh: Billboard doesn't make sense :lolly:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Born To Slay

Gaga should sell Album 6 for the minimum price 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LePetitGAGABLover

Gaga should sell Album 6 for the minimum price 

​Yassssssss. Rebel Heart:lolly:

Link to post
Share on other sites

LeoFameMonster

Just want wanted to point out  Amazon sold Born this way for .99 cents not Lady Gaga or her record company.

But Your right I think they would make more money selling cheaper music instead of streaming. Unless they get money from royalty's? i duno

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrewStevens

But Billboard charts are not about who makes more money but which album or song is more popular. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Born To Slay

But Billboard charts are not about who makes more money but which album or song is more popular. 

Still, if free streaming counts then so should a 99 cent album

Link to post
Share on other sites

LeoFameMonster

But Billboard charts are not about who makes more money but which album or song is more popular. 

​I think he means in order to have the number one album on billboard you have to sell a lot of albums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LePetitGAGABLover

But Billboard charts are not about who makes more money but which album or song is more popular. 

​But if Gaga were to sell 10 million 1cent copies in the United States, it wouldn't count for Billboard, but it would still be popular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladey Gagz

Still, if free streaming counts then so should a 99 cent album

Remember when everyone said that Gaga was cheating when she sold Born This Way (album) for 99 cents? How come now selling your album for 99 cents still doesn't count for billboard but streaming does, which is free? :usrs: I mean, wouldn't an artist make more money with cheap music than with streaming?:huh: Billboard doesn't make sense :lolly:

It's not the same thing :shrug: album sales weigh way more than streaming. It's not as if 1 album sale = 1 stream so the comparison isn't very logical or valid

Link to post
Share on other sites

LePetitGAGABLover

It's not the same thing :shrug: album sales weigh way more than streaming. It's not as if 1 album sale = 1 stream so the comparison isn't very logical or valid

But then it would be logical for Billboard to make album sells that are sold less than a threshold to count like streams. I mean, selling 500,000 99 cent albums is no joke. This is why there was no rules before Gaga. But how come one album stream does count but a 99 cent album does not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DrewStevens

Still, if free streaming counts then so should a 99 cent album

​I think he means in order to have the number one album on billboard you have to sell a lot of albums.

​But if Gaga were to sell 10 million 1cent copies in the United States, it wouldn't count for Billboard, but it would still be popular.

The thing is that there's not such a thing as free streaming. The "free" service you get from iTunes Radio, Spotify, iHeart Radio or Pandora is sponsored by companies who pay for adds. 

The streaming system for the top 200 is trying to adapt their charts to the new digital era where album sales are lower than they used to be in past years. They count an album sale for every ​10 digital track sales from an album or 1,500 song streams from an album. 

Selling your album only for 99 cents is not really fair when it comes to charts. How can you compete with that? Discounts are ok but giving your album for less than 10% of the original price doesn't sound fair to me. Anyone can do it, but I don't think that Billboard is being unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. The rule change in late 2011 which was implemented by Billboard does come off as contradictory to yet another rule change they've introduced in late 2014 - the inclusion of stream equivalent albums (SEAs) and track equivalent albums (TEAs) - to join the music industry's effort in covering up the continuous declining album sales in the presence of the continued dominance of individual track sales and the rise of streaming.

But then again, when it comes to counting and reporting an album's total sales, these equivalents are excluded, meaning the year-end best-sellers will remain based on actual, pure album sales. That's why Billboard created another album chart in addition to the Billboard 200 to report the week's top-selling albums based on actual album sales.

I guess to better understand the difference between the two, the new Billboard 200 chart we have now is almost like the current Hot 100 chart for singles (wherein radio airplay, streams are factored alongside actual sales). They reflect what's popular in multiple areas, more than which material actually sold the most. The chart positions on the Hot 100 and the new Billboard 200 do not, however, reflect or affect the rankings of the top-selling singles and albums on the Digital Songs and Top Album Sales - charts which are entirely based on actual sales.

Also, the albums priced below $3.49 are only excluded during their first four weeks of release to avoid labels from manipulating the album chart back then. The sales from this kind of discount deals will be counted towards the album's total once the 1-month period has already expired. It's not like they're banning discounts altogether or forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LePetitGAGABLover

Yep. The rule change in late 2011 which was implemented by Billboard does come off as contradictory to yet another rule change they've introduced in late 2014 - the inclusion of stream equivalent albums (SEAs) and track equivalent albums (TEAs) - to join the music industry's effort in covering up the continuous declining album sales in the presence of the continued dominance of individual track sales and the rise of streaming.

But then again, when it comes to counting and reporting an album's total sales, these equivalents are excluded, meaning the year-end best-sellers will remain based on actual, pure album sales. That's why Billboard created another album chart in addition to the Billboard 200 to report the week's top-selling albums based on actual album sales.

I guess to better understand the difference between the two, the new Billboard 200 chart we have now is almost like the current Hot 100 chart for singles (wherein radio airplay, streams are factored alongside actual sales). They reflect what's popular in multiple areas, more than which material actually sold the most. The chart positions on the Hot 100 and the new Billboard 200 do not, however, reflect or affect the rankings of the top-selling singles and albums on the Digital Songs and Top Album Sales - charts which are entirely based on actual sales.

Also, the albums priced below $3.49 are only excluded during their first four weeks of release to avoid labels from manipulating the album chart back then. The sales from this kind of discount deals will be counted towards the album's total once the 1-month period has already expired. It's not like they're banning discounts altogether or forever.

​Ok. This makes sense. Thank You. I would of liked your comment but I met my limit for today:neyde:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...