Charts

6/10/1994

“I got your chaht right heah! It’s the best chaht in da bidness! Step right up folks and see it shine! Use it and win a stuffed animal for this little lady! Step right up, folks!”

Ah, Charts. Can’t live with ‘em. Can’t live without ‘em. Butu in reality, what’s it all about, Alfie?

In the past year, there have been more chart changes than ever before. We’ve got new charts (R&R), blue charts (Gavin), old charts (Billboard) and no charts (Hitmakers).

We have programmers who like some charts. Programmers who hate all charts. Record guys, of course, love all charts…the thought being that if there are enough charts floating around, you can find your record doing reasonably well on at least one of them.

So, which is the right one?

Network Forty, of course.

Actually, there are two charts (and only two) that are accurate: The Network Forty Plays Per Week Chart and the Monitor charts. All the rest suck. And Network Forty’s PPW Chart is more accurate than Monitor because our reporter base is much larger. We have more information from more radio stations than any other trade. The Network Forty PPW Chart is truly the most accurate, in-depth measure of a song’s success. Period.

Want a taste test? Fine. Put on the blindfold and prepare to ingest the following information:

First, let’s look at Radio & Records. (We’ll wait a few moments for the laughter to die down.) R&R has problems in several areas. First, believability. Few believe that the information R&R receives from radio reporters is accurate. Since R&R takes “guesstimates” on the phone, there is a lot of room for possible manipulation. If the information isn’t believable, how can the chart be otherwise? Unless and until R&R begins taking faxed, computer print-outs from radio stations’ music software systems, their information is flawed.

And, of course, even if R&R finally wises up and begins to take faxed lists, their charts will continue to be screwed up. The weighting system used by R&R has been defined, deleted and redefined. And it remains complex, convoluted, confusing and is guaranteed to cause constipation with use!

R&R’s weighting system is absurd. There’s no way to examine the weighting system as R&R has so far been unable to explain it. Should larger markets be given greater consideration than smaller markets? Theoretically, maybe. Should Z100 count 20 times more than 99X? No way.

R&R also confounds the problem by running raw data through Arbitron ratings. How ridiculous is that? Everyone with half a brain knows that Arbitron does not accurately reflect the actual listening time of the radio audience. Arbitron’s ratings of the Top 40 and Rock audience is even further off. Yet R&R uses Arbitron as a source. Someone over there needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

R&R’s use of Arbitron is one reason the chart is inaccurate. The weighting is incorrect. The method of retrieving information is inadequate. The chart is insane.

Billboard tries real hard. The Hot 100 is also weighted, but the system isn’t nearly as complicated as R&R. It has been around for a long time and has some disciples. Many like the fact that the Hot 100 chart takes sales into account along with airplay. Although the Hot 100 does make SoundScan a part of the process, there is a problem with the Billboard methodology. The airplay and sales are not generated within the same time frame. Wouldn’t it make sense to use the same days to figure sales and airplay if a chart is to be used from the total figures?

The Billboard Hot 100 is also weighted, but the system isn’t nearly as complicated as R&R’s.

There is also a problem in depending on SoundScan to accurately reflect sales. As is the case with BDS, our industry sometimes accepts SoundScan research as the Bible when, in fact, SoundScan monitors less than 50% of actual record sales. Although useful to reflect a national sales picture, particularly with established artists, SoundScan misses break-out records in many regions. We should always remember that SoundScan is a projection, not a fact.

Because sales figures usually run substantially behind airplay, (and because Billboard’s sales figures are older than the airplay used) the Hot 100 chart generally is slower than most others. It better reflects what happened rather that what is happening.

Gavin? Although threatening to go to a Plays Per Week system, Gavin still prints a playlist chart. If Bill was still alive, I could understand it. He’s not and Gavin should use PPWs.

Hitmakers doesn’t print charts. (Leave off the “charts from the previous sentence and Hitamakers would finally have it right!) With luck, maybe Hitmakers can print the playlist chart when Gavin drops it.

Hits? Nobody in radio reads Hits charts. Nobody in radio reads Hits. And since Hits uses only R&R stations in its data base, what’s the point?

The Monitor? The most accurate compilation of airplay available, with only one problem. The Monitor uses BDS data so the sample size isn’t large enough. Increase the sample size to monitor all markets and the data will be more accurate.

The Network Forty is the only publication that monitors all radio stations in the Top 40 format. We use this information to compile our charts. Because of our process (Network Forty uses computer-generated airplay reports filed via fax) and data base (Network Forty has over 265 reporters compared to R&R’s 173 and Monitor’s top 100 markets), Network Forty’s charts are the most comprehensive and most accurate available.

Although BDS is generally reliable in reporting airplay, the BDS reporter base is extremely limited. How limited? A couple of weeks ago, BDS ranked “All-4-One” as the most-played singles with over 6,000 spins. Network Forty also ranked “All-4-One” number one with nearly 11,000 spins! A lot of airplay out there is being missed by BDS. A whole lot. Depending only on BDS and the Monitor leaves out major pieces of the Mainstream radio pie.

As we see it, Network Forty and Monitor are great. R&R, Billboard, Gavin, Hitmakers and Hits are worthless.

Network Forty and Monitor are the only charts you need. Throw the rest away.