yeah that seems to be the gist, any recognition is registered and paid for. i'm just curious if there is or ever will be a statute of limitation.
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 15:47 (eleven years ago) link
the whole 'lyric video' thing seriously is out of control though. Justin Timberlake is on-camera, occasionally mouthing words of the song, in the "Suit & Tie" lyric video, but because the words are on the screen and it's not a super high budget production that's just the lyric video, and the 'real' video was something else.
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 15:51 (eleven years ago) link
A board member of yore weighs in
http://t.co/YYHOtAKK86
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 22 February 2013 15:52 (eleven years ago) link
pretty sure this lyric video was made by a 12-year old
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6S-0SbIVgs
― J0rdan S., Friday, 22 February 2013 15:54 (eleven years ago) link
that's my niece you're talking about!
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 February 2013 15:58 (eleven years ago) link
watching 2 seconds of a 4-minute YouTube always counts towards its views and always has, though. Lex bringing that up raises a whole other issue about all this.
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, February 22, 2013 6:03 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is not actually true from what I understand
― rap steve gadd (D-40), Friday, 22 February 2013 15:59 (eleven years ago) link
ha well you def know more about YouTube than me, i thought all view-based traffic was measured by the "open the page and you're counted" rule. what is your understanding?
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 16:05 (eleven years ago) link
Looks like some dude is right?http://www.quora.com/YouTube/How-far-into-the-video-does-a-user-need-to-watch-for-YouTube-to-count-it-as-a-viewhttp://www.atlantaanalytics.com/practicing-web-analytics/how-does-youtube-video-view-count-work/
― marc robot (seandalai), Friday, 22 February 2013 16:15 (eleven years ago) link
Anyway, I wonder how many songs this year are going to come with dance moves attached.
― marc robot (seandalai), Friday, 22 February 2013 16:17 (eleven years ago) link
you say that like half the songs out there don't have dance moves attached to them already
― This beat is TWEENCHRONIC (DJP), Friday, 22 February 2013 16:26 (eleven years ago) link
think the thing that annoys me most is the 30 sec thing? even if you ignore the fact that checking a song out on youtube doesn't equate to actually LIKING it, at least limit it to people consuming the actual full song
being forced to listen to a song over and over again on the radio doesn't equate to actually liking it either! also looool that you want to limit it to people listening to the "actual full song."
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 16:42 (eleven years ago) link
Maybe they'll somehow work YouTube Likes and Dislikes into the system.
― MarkoP, Friday, 22 February 2013 16:55 (eleven years ago) link
this harlem shake song. does it really only last 30 seconds? (i only heard about it yesterday sorry if im asking a dumb question)
― Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:01 (eleven years ago) link
someone 'liking something' and something being popular aren't the same things regardless
― iatee, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:03 (eleven years ago) link
ie like the billboard chart never strictly reflected 'the most liked' music
― iatee, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:04 (eleven years ago) link
anyway related to this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/21/172644482/tv-ratings-agency-nielsen-will-begin-measuring-online-streaming
― iatee, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:08 (eleven years ago) link
this harlem shake song. does it really only last 30 seconds?
it's normal length (4 mins or something) but some of the meme videos that are being monetized / counting toward it's #1 chart position are that short
― dmr, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:10 (eleven years ago) link
it's 3:18
ahh ok. I did wonder.
― Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:14 (eleven years ago) link
is it really less than 4 minutes, it felt like it went on for 10
― This beat is TWEENCHRONIC (DJP), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:20 (eleven years ago) link
Has there ever been a song as short as 30 seconds at #1? Or is there a minimum limit? I know in the UK in the 90s they changed the maximum to 19mins 59 secs because the orb,fsol etc were releasing 40 min singles and charting.
― Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:26 (eleven years ago) link
― marc robot (seandalai), Friday, February 22, 2013 10:15 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ahh interesting—it does say in analytics you can see what point people stop watching
― rap steve gadd (D-40), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:27 (eleven years ago) link
that feels a bit creepy
― Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:30 (eleven years ago) link
I would assume that billboard is smart enough to count the views per week, not just the cumulative total. In which case they must be getting data directly from youtube I would think. And if so there's no reason they couldn't also get U.S. only data, filter out the plays that are too short, etc.
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:33 (eleven years ago) link
The shortest ever #1 hit in the US is "Stay" by Maurice Williams & The Zodiacs. Something like a minute and a half.
― justfanoe (Greg Fanoe), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:33 (eleven years ago) link
or about three harlem shakes, which is the new convention for measuring time
― :C (crüt), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:40 (eleven years ago) link
3 malted harlem shakes please
― rap steve gadd (D-40), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:47 (eleven years ago) link
and one shamrock shake
https://twitter.com/McDonalds/status/303230001342472192
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:51 (eleven years ago) link
feel like this is as good a place as any to confess than, on purpose, my iTunes is set to only count plays that play 100% of the song/track
― available for sporting events (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 22 February 2013 17:53 (eleven years ago) link
Been waiting for that. xp
― how's life, Friday, 22 February 2013 17:53 (eleven years ago) link
tbf don't most radio programming surveys only play the first ten seconds of a song to ppl surveyed to see if a track is 'known'?
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:05 (eleven years ago) link
so is that why so many songs start with a chorus now?
― Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:07 (eleven years ago) link
that's not why, but a lot of songs do do that to try and hook people as quickly as possible
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:08 (eleven years ago) link
also while i can totally believe (and assume) billboard's methodology here is off in principle this move is an obv good thing, in terms of trying to capture snapshot datapoint of a song's popularity, relative popularity of songs for a certain week in time right? it's a move toward greater accuracy (and unlike weighing sales v airplay ratio, youtube and streaming is obv under airplay and the only question is how you calculate and weigh it in that number), unlike the moves w/ r&b, country, etc charts.
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:11 (eleven years ago) link
starting songs w/ chorus is old as the hillshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoF-7VMMihA
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:13 (eleven years ago) link
also a good move in that it simultaneously dilutes the weight of radio airplay, reflecting the greater culture (something radio itself has been reflecting increasingly for a little while now - hello fm talk radio, goodbye rock radio).
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:15 (eleven years ago) link
there's no such thing as greater accuracy, there are just different ways of defining 'popularity'. and the old ways of defining it are becoming increasingly absurd.
― iatee, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:16 (eleven years ago) link
yeah obviously it's a standard way to do a song, i'm just saying people writing big budget pop these days have openly said there's pressure to go straight for the hook. xp
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:16 (eleven years ago) link
personally i think any argument for this move just highlights how silly it was that they never made MTV and other video channels a factor
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:17 (eleven years ago) link
there's no such thing as greater accuracydefining terms is kind've a first step, pretty sure billboard has an idea of what they mean by popularity. also will let everyone else in the lab know we can feel free to just go by guesstimates and eyeballing stuff, who needs assays and a280s.
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:21 (eleven years ago) link
― D4y0 (some dude)
too true, ridiculous at the time but even more ridiculous now when '20 million views' can have chart impact and '20 million views' would've been what a heavy rotation video would've pulled on a friday night way back when. they may have just been reflecting the prerogatives of their readership (radio lobbying for mtv to be excluded would be plausible to me). not that the record industry was blind to the power of the huge, popular national radio station, the mtv oral history has many tales including label interns and flunkies attempting to stuff the ballot box w/ 1-800-dial-mtv, etc.
― balls, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:26 (eleven years ago) link
the major difference being that mtv was basically just a promotional outlet that actually cost the labels money (to make the videos, etc) while youtube is actually a revenue stream. gangnam style probably made about $1 million from youtube, which is the equivalent to selling a million singles. why shouldn't that be factored in pretty heavily?
there's no such thing as greater accuracy
surely the data that youtube collects is much more objectively accurate than whatever voodoo nielsen does with radio.
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:29 (eleven years ago) link
too true, ridiculous at the time but even more ridiculous now when '20 million views' can have chart impact and '20 million views' would've been what a heavy rotation video would've pulled on a friday night way back when.
I think you're vastly overestimating the size of a typical friday night mtv audience when they were playing music videos. 2011 vmas were mtv's biggest audience ever with only 12 million viewers http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1669953/vma-2011-ratings-history.jhtml
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:32 (eleven years ago) link
it speaks volumes that PSY had to get a billion views to generate income comparable to a million single sales
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:32 (eleven years ago) link
defining their terms doesn't make it more acccurate because 'popularity' isn't something that can be accurately judged. the numbers they plug into their formula can be more or less accurate but the number it spits out is never going to have anything to do w/ accuracy. if they had a clear idea of what they mean by popularity they wouldn't be radically changing that number crunching machine multiple times in a year.
there *isn't* some clear idea of popularity because the way media is consumed is changing basically year to year. spotify was barely a thing fairly recently. it could be replaced by something different soon. etc. that doesn't mean these things shouldn't be included, it just means billboard won't be able to come up w/ some magic formula that lasts a decade unless the way people consume media stops changing so quickly.
xps
― iatee, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:32 (eleven years ago) link
how many radio plays or mtv views do you think it takes to convert into a single sale?
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:36 (eleven years ago) link
gangnam style probably made about $1 million from youtube
thought it was $8 million
― dmr, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:38 (eleven years ago) link
http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1920x1200/chalkboard/2768651/chalkboard-tags-equation-theorem-math-image-resolution-x-2768651.jpg
hmm lemme get back to you on that one (xp)
― D4y0 (some dude), Friday, 22 February 2013 20:38 (eleven years ago) link
even more ridiculous now when '20 million views' can have chart impact and '20 million views' would've been what a heavy rotation video would've pulled on a friday night way back when
and again, back to the intentionality argument, 20 million youtube views is way more meaningful than 20 million passive views or listens on radio or TV. if someone watches a video 3 times on youtube that means a lot more than if they happen to hear it on the radio 3 times.
― wk, Friday, 22 February 2013 20:38 (eleven years ago) link