digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

iTunes Charts haven't changed in over 24 hours - Bum Rush the Charts?

bumrushthecharts.blogspot.com — The iTunes music store charts usually change at least once, if not more, every day. Since Bum Rush the Charts, is Apple hiding something? If every record label knew what # it took to get to #1, would Apple try to block that information?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • podsaferevo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14The bum rushers broke the charts! After selling well in excess of 10 000 songs on March 22nd... they stop updating the charts??? ***** Check the iTunes stores around the world - the black lab song is still there. WTF APPLE!!!
    • sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8If Apple knows somebody is trying to game the charts, they're going to cut it off, as well they should.
    • podsaferevo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28i'd bet that the charts are being "gamed" every single day.
    • sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Quite possibly, but it's not everyday that you have a month-long, well-publicized buildup to the gaming. Like it or not, Apple has to shut this down, lest the idea gets out that anybody can toy with the charts to their heart's content.
    • blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32Maybe no one bought into this corporate scam to get people to buy a song.
    • .Steven, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4How about a Report this: "because no-one cares/gives a stuff!" button?
      (I guess the "OK, this is lame" is close enough)
    • chicagobiker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"Maybe no one bought into this corporate scam to get people to buy a song."

      Corporate scam? All the proceeds were being put towards a scholarship. Black Lab isn't an RIAA member.

      The point of this was apparently missed by most diggers; the "industry" feels that the online music market is only 10% of the total market and doesn't matter. So all you internet geeks can DIAF according to them and they'll DRM your minority butts into the ground while they focus on CD sales which account for 90% of their business.

      Sadly the apathy felt here has proved the RIAA and record labels correct and they'll just don their teflon suits and keep on suing the internet users for $5,000 a pop because none of us matter really.
    • marcuschi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12hows this for a theory: Nobody cared so nobody bought the song...? Just a thought.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1marchusi is right

      The idea was flawed from the beginning. If the whole idea was to replace the RIAA as primary publicist, then it is not valid to just tell everyone THIS is the song you should purchase. The valid way to replace the RIAA is to start using a system that introduces you to non-RIAA music before you buy it, and that has nothing to do with the idea that 'we might be able to get one song onto the charts'. The single act accomplishes nothing. Long term replacement of the RIAA as publicist will happen thanks to mp3.com, youtube, myspace, and it will increasingly so as bands realize that 'signing' is a horrible thing to do. Sign away your rights, sign away your artistic integrity, sign away your money.
    • indnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Obviously the conspiracy theorists don't check the charts on a regular basis, or they would know the iTunes charts don't move that much from one day to the next. The BRTC people estimated about 10,000 copies of "Mine Again" were purchased. Problem is, 10,000 songs is what iTunes sells in just a few minutes everyday. Do the math.
      And why would Apple "freeze" the charts? That's ridiculous. They don't give a damn about the whole operation. My guess is, they have other priorities.
    • kuhlmeye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is also a good idea to take into account that while Bum Rush The Charts was a limited operation, there are still millions of other, for lack of a better word, idiots out there purchasing RIAA music, probably a lot of that music is already located on the top songs already. So in essence, our productivity is being offset by millions of people being counterproductive and putting money into the RIAA's hands.

      Too bad

      EDIT - For those that havent seen, "Mine Again" is number 99 on iTunes top songs.
    • Sabot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If this is not a scam, it really should be. Get a whole bunch of morons to give money to itunes: brilliant! I think the key to all our problems is to spend more money!
  • MYN1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23If Apple knew Bum Rush was going to go public with the number of downloads sold. And it ended up charting pretty high. That obviously reveals the number you have to sell to get to a certain position on the chart. That number becomes more important of course the higher up you chart. Especially if you can reveal you sold X on a single day to get to the #1 spot.

    Also note that in both the Washington Post and San Jose Mercury articles about Bum Rush, a spokesman from Apple (Derek Mains) claimed the tabulation of the charts was comprised of some kind of "proprietary algorithm". What does that mean? How difficult is it to compile a sales chart? Are there are other factors involved?
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Statistics are magical, secret things.
    • rhesuspieces00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17if there is an "algorithm" involved, it may well be that results are tabulated based on multiple days sales, so you have to have good sales over the course of several days or weeks before you can make it onto the chart. it makes sense. if i were a band/label and knew that i could get my song to the top of the charts for a day by buying 10,000 copies of my own song (and then get half the $10000 back since the song is mine), I'd do it. For $5000, thats pretty good advertising.
  • jptm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1hello apple?
  • Judefan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Any other factors? How about the factors used at Radio Corps? Key factor in any business deal- Money.
  • MYN1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Also note that while researching his story, Shay Quillen, the reporter from the San Jose Mercury was told by his contact at iTunes, on the record, that the charts update "several times throughout the day".
  • kroosh, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Maybe it isn't Apple, its the music labels who turn revenue for Apple. I could see there being an anti-BRTC movement in some way by a label. Major labels market (typically crappy) music to (typically crappy) people, who will buy stuff because its #1. If a label loses the place of being #1, they lose the potential to make money.
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Apple: Innocent until proven innocent. Always.
  • cspenn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A friend made a comment - Apple probably doesn't care, at least internally, but labels might care. What if it was revealed that labels weren't selling all that much in the way of tracks each day in the #1 online music store in the world? What if iTunes is a giant long-tail phenomenon, and the algorithms for chart toppers need to remain proprietary so as not to undermine investor confidence in RIAA labels?
    • Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22the algorithms for chart toppers? a>b>c??
  • Mothpod, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8This could be huge! If iTunes suspended the charts on purpose, this proves that BRTC was something to worry about!
    • trevorml0878, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5it's also really bad pr for apple - and bad news travels fast. Good news for competitors. I'm seeing something.. an Itunes boycott by the entire indie music industry. All band websites linking to other digital services and leaving Itunes in the dust..
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I agree moth. I was thinking earlier about the ever-mounting backlash against the RIAA (by consumers, consumers' rights groups, universities, bands, ad infinitum) and it seems to me that they should be very, very worried about independent music (the movement, not the genre ;).

      In the world of the big-wigs, it's big vs. bigger, and those with the most financial (and lately, political) clout always come out on top. Unfortunately for them, the user-driven ideals of internet distribution (online downloads, online ordering, worldwide audiences, even [ugh] MySpace) have pitted these huge, entrenched consortiums against a swarm of artists and labels that are accredited not by some aging, hair-plugged industry exec but the listeners themselves. Even as they struggle to hold onto their outdated business models, thousands of previously unknown competitors are puncturing the bubble and draining their profits. You can't buy out, coerce, or threaten EVERYONE into submission, so they swing blindly at anything that moves and, in the end, add to their own misery. The sad thing is that some mid-level employee surely went all Chicken-Little and warned them about this years ago, and they laughed him off. In the end, if there's one thing we know about big, immobile businesses (Sony, Microsoft), it's that by the time they realize they're in trouble, even multi-million-dollar-try-too-hard "We're still hip!" campaigns will ultimately fail.

      I'm hoping that the collapse of Big Media and Ma Bell will be watershed moments for our generation. The power is ALWAYS in the hands of the end-user, and it's about time we started throwing our considerable weight around.
    • Sethwm2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOVRgVPrGlQ

      HUGE!!
  • podsaferevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15major labels probably bum rush the charts every damn day - buying their own artists. what if podcasters were about to reveal the actual cost of the #1 slot....
  • cspenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Remember that iTunes also offers discounts of up to 20% for some bulk orders - you can find that on Apple's web site under Music Marketing.

    Let's say it took 25,000 plays to get a track to #1 in the iTunes music store. That's only $20,000.

    Do major record labels have that kind of money to promote a song to #1? I'd think so...
    • adc86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And what kind of kickback do they get? Is it a percentage of revenue, or some kind of up front rights purchase? I mean, that factors in too, in addition to the obvious "return on investment"
  • MYN1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8In the old days of record promotion, Neil Bogart of Casablanca records allegedly used to call it "Buying it to the bank".
  • mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So iTunes does 3 million downloads a day worldwide. If those top 100 pulled in 5% of their total daily downloads, that would mean the AVERAGE daily total one track in the top 100 would be 1500 (and that would be a worldwide average). Likely higher for the top tracks, lower for the bottom of that 100 list. If BRTC site visits equated to 25% purchases, it would STILL be above that number of 1500.
  • Cdogg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11My theory is that Apple discovered that only 10,000-20,000 sales gets you to #1 and they don't want labels to know how cheaply they can manipulate their charts. Fun stuff.
    • adc86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No kidding- I mean, if someone tried giving me 20g to tell people they were alright, I'd be kicking them in the ass so fast...
    • aecarol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How can the labels NOT know? They know how many of their own songs were sold a month. They know their chart positions during the month. They could get a pretty damn good idea of how much it costs.

      iTunes probably uses a "running average" or something to smooth things and limit blatent attempts to manipulate the numbers, but I'd be suprised to hear it was much more than that.
  • danimal0416, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The iTunes Top 25 Songs RSS feed isn't updating: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wpa/MRSS/topsongs/limit=25/rss.xml
  • parkylondon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Before we jump too high and shout too loud let's wait for Apple's take on this. Should Apple explain why the charts haven't changed in over 24 hours? Absolutely! Is it suspicious? Sure, a little but probably not so bad that we start creating conspiracy theories. Until Apple responds we wait. If, indeed, as it seems, we have broken Apple's chart algorithm then that is not just great news - it's news that will be shaking the music industry to its core.

    PS sorry about the pun. Couldn't resist.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Should Apple explain why the charts haven't changed in over 24 hours? Absolutely!"

      Damn right, because when I buy music from iTunes, I better damn well know I'm only purchasing the most popular song at that precise moment in time. Don't give me the most popular song from 5 minutes ago, or yesterday, or even over the course of a week. My life is dictated by other people's tastes and I demand explanations!
    • oriolesfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well said actorboy.

      "You forgot about one thing, it's called THE MUSIC!"
  • bradspry, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6***** charts.
  • wilhoitm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The iTunes counters are broken because Apple is selling an astronomical amount of Apple TV boxes! ;-) All the Apple TV owners are downloading content... Star Trek Re-mastered, Animatrix, etc...
    • mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2IF that was the case, they would have had MUCH more problems after Christmas. I just don't see AppleTV being much of a plausible explanation.
  • ncurses, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I just thought I'd mention that the song is Mine Again by Black Lab. It took some actual reading on the page to find this.
  • MYN1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3UPDATE: "MINE AGAIN" SHOWING UP AS #11 on US ROCK CHARTS!
  • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I'd rather zerg rush the charts.
  • jobias, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If someone's trying to make a concerted effort to game the system, I kinda understand why they would lock down the charts. It doesn't sound any different than someone trying to game news stories here.

    On a side note; I personally did notice a change in Black Lab's position on the charts. When I bought Mine Again it was at around 96th place on the top 100. As of 11:49pm MST it's at 53rd position. That certainly looks like change to me.

    To be fair though, I'm in Canada observing the Canadian charts. Perhaps Apple doesn't care about locking down our top 100 songs.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Could be wrong, but it seems they would be obligated to show an accurate purchase count, regardless of why purchases were made. You spend your $1, you get your vote.
  • MYN1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Hold onto your asses... Charts are updating now. Some HUGE chart moves worldwide!

    #2 NETHERLANDS, ROCK
    #55 HOLLAND, OVERALL TOP 100

    and this is just the first update. Could be some more big moves in the works!
  • Rozza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I bought it in the austrralian store, and i know heaps of others who didnt, who knows, there might be a bumrush2?! anyway,atleast a indie podsafe band got a faair share of $$$
  • PragmaticSense, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5I thought about buying this... but instead I just went and downloaded it illegally instead.
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9And by doing so, you just played into the record industry goons' hands. "Those Internet users are all a bunch of dirty pirates," they say. You just helped them gain a little credibility.

      Oh, and you didn't stick it to the RIAA; you shafted an independent band. I hope you feel good about that.
    • epgyd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@ISurfTooMuch

      And you're a tool for thinking that a band with a huge activist campaign devoted completely to buying one of their songs is "independent".
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@epgyd
      You know damn well what I mean by the term "independent", so don't pretend you don't. I'm talking about a band not signed to a RIAA-controlled label. If people want to organize themselves to buy said band's single, that's their business. My point, and let's not forget this, is that the OP's comment that he decided not to buy the track and pirated it instead plays right into the hands of the RIAA, who has constantly maintained that Internet users are all a bunch of pirates who will steal at the first opportunity. And even if he felt some sort of moral superiority because he took money out of the hands of the greedy RIAA, he was wrong. The money he didn't spend would have gone to a band that is in no way affiliated with that organization.

      So answer me this. With users like this on the Internet, how does this instill any confidence in artists to make their songs available without DRM? The record industry would like them to believe that DRM-free songs would only be stolen wholesale by all those dirty pirates, and this guy just made that argument a tiny bit stronger.
    • epgyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Okay, but you can't say that people aren't buying DRM music, therefore they are irresponsible, and so we deserve DRM indefinitely. Or, if people buy infested music, then they are responsible and DRM can be lifted. That's not how it's gonna happen. These companies will take rights from us as long as they think it's profitable to do so. When people accept being screwed, they will get screwed harder, not more softly.
  • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Or maybe : gasp : the top selling songs haven't actually changed?
  • cspenn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Canada Rock - #10
    US Rock - #11
    US Overall - #99
    Netherlands Rock - #2
    Netherlands Overall - #15
    Sweden Rock - #7
    Germany Rock - #12
    Norway Overall - #55
  • zsf555, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1PragmaticSense, you don't get the point.
    • PragmaticSense, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Why would a record company sign a band and spend money to produce and promote an album that people are going to pirate?
    • chicagobiker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well mostly because the record companies know that piracy doesn't matter. They don't really care. They've put up a fence around it with DRM and believe CD sales are 90% of their business. They're also convinced that the online indie market is too small to matter anyway.

      iTunes will never loose it's DRM because it's a win/win for them right now. Without it the labels pull out and with it all music purchased at their store only plays on iPods. And the iPods are what subsidizes the iTunes Store. That's why all the other online music stores are failing or loosing money and iTunes in unaffected. The iTunes store is a loss leader for iPod sales.
  • PragmaticSense, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0$10,000 between 4 band members is $2500 per member. Congratulations the band gets to eat for a month.
    • denny24hrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If you read on the bum rush the charts site, the band has a quote:
      http://bumrushthecharts.blogspot.com/

      "What's more, we're going to take it a step beyond that. We've signed up as an affiliate of the iTunes Music Store, and every commission made on the sale of "Mine Again" will be donated to college scholarships, partly because it's a worthy cause, but also partly because college students are among the most misunderstood and underestimated groups of people by big media. Black Lab has taken it up another notch - 50% of their earnings are going to be donated to the scholarship fund as well."

      So, not as big of a profit for that band as you would think. It's great that they are doing something great with the proceeds from this!


  • MrBlack08, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6still beat out by nickleback... its a sad world.
  • dotspace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I saw Black Lab's "Mine Alone" on the Swedish chart on the 22nd around 10PM EST. It was around #8. Then an hour or so after that they weren't on that chart anymore.
    http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html
  • TuxedosRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It's nowhere to be found on that link...
  • stew22, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Who gives a ***** about iTunes
  • sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Fishy. With Apple sauce.
  • GetJacked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Bum Rush proves not that you can buy your way to number one, but that Podcasting, and Podcasters, are a real force to be reckoned with. Articles in the SJ Mercury, Washington Post, Billboard, TV coverage...THAT is the real result of Bum Rush The Charts. And, Black Lab as of this writing is #11 on the US rock chart, where a day ago it didn't crack the top 100. That's HUGE, it's a success, and all the whining about it being a marketing ploy and that we're all corporate pawns misses the point ENTIRELY. If the song never cracked the chart, we still win. Because we're on the radar, mainstream consumers know we exist, know they have an alternative to being spoon-fed corporate crap, that there's actually a place to hear new, fresh, GREAT music without some multi-million dollar corporate greed campaign behind it.

    As for the charts being frozen, well, maybe Apple didn't like the idea of being gamed. From the WaPo article:

    --Derick Mains, a spokesman for Apple, declined to comment on the campaign but said the bestseller list is compiled using proprietary methods that the company doesn't disclose. "It's much more complicated than taking a snapshot of the previous 24 hours' worth of sales," he said.--

    That to me says, "we're aware of this, and we're not letting it happen". With "Mine Again" now at #11, they decided to let it happen.

    Good job guys.
    • jonahan52, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"That to me says, "we're aware of this, and we're not letting it happen". With "Mine Again" now at #11, they decided to let it happen."

      So which is it? Either they aren't letting it happen but they are now or your actually getting numbers that reflect it's posititon finally. Gee let me think ..
  • deadaluspark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5you know, there are two problems ive had with this whole bum rush the charts idea since its inception.

    1. this reinforces the music industries ideals that 'people want DRM.' because people just spent $10,000 on some no-name independent band with DRM on every track. this would have been better executed through a music store without DRM.

    2. this no-name independent band really doesnt sound THAT much different from ***** thats already on the radio (yes, i did listen to this song. yes, i did steal it. i wasnt about to blow a buck on a song i might hate. which, honestly, in my personal opinion, was one of the most ***** annoying songs ive ever heard.). they may be talented (eh, just as talented as a lot of bands, not more so.), but they definitely dont bring a new or interesting sound to the table. if we really wanted to give the music industry what-for we'd choose a style of music that isnt all over the radio already and may not be radio friendly.

    3. all this has really done is shown the music industry that we love the ***** they shovel in our mouths and we want 'independent' bands who parrot it. so, ultimately, we've just given this band a chance to get signed and get all over the radio.

    so, no statement whatsoever was really made with this project. through the ideals of american over-consumption we've proven to media conglomerates that we are more than willing to cater to their needs. consuming is not a statement. consuming is not any sort of "activism."

    good job on creating a huge promotions/advertisement project. i cant wait to see this band get signed by a major label and you bitches will act like its a triumph when it just puts the band in a position you disagreed with in the first place.
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"yes, i did listen to this song. yes, i did steal it. i wasnt about to blow a buck on a song i might hate."

      Whole budget crumbles when you spend 99ยข frivolously, does it?
  • HanSolo69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Bum Rush the charts is an incredibly stupid idea.
  • mariofreak85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1My friend who works at Apple in the iTMS said they just released a new version of the store yesterday (something they do every few months) Maybe that's why it didn't get updated......
  • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4anyone who participated in this is a sucker. its guerrilla marketing at its finest - someone call the Boston police.
  • ChefGroovy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone who thinks regular people are buying hardly any of the music on itunes doesn't understand how the real world works. The riaa has a very long arm, and very deep pockets. They buy the songs themselves through various "middlemen", Apple said themselves that they don't get hardly any of the money. The RIAA gets it right back.

    How else can there be so much crap at the top of the list?

    Thought this was all common knowledge
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.