Yet, the system employed by Billboard seems to be beyond reproach as the venerable publication has done nothing to distort or manipulate data it uses to make its determinations, at least as far as we know. This would have huge implications on the ability of the record companies to secure articles for their artistes in the leading magazines and appearances for their clients with Jay Leno and David Letterman, among others. When the record companies bought back their records they gave the false impression that their products were popular. Billboard, however, would have fulfilled its mission, even if its data were not historically accurate. Four hundred and fifty thousand units were indeed sold but who bought them? Billboard then would have provided an accurate depiction of the number, if not the nature, of the transactions. So yes, we would hear that an album sold 450,000 units in the first week of release, and yes, Billboard was telling the truth. While the scans provide accurate reflections of the transactions, they do not detect the manipulation by the record companies which simply send their agents to the stores to buy back the products which the labels have sold to the retailers. It has been a well-known secret that record companies have circumvented the SoundScan system used by Billboard to track sales of recorded music products at cash registers in the United States. This, however, is not to say that the outcome is impervious to manipulation. Billboard in the United States has, what many would describe as, an impeccable mechanism for determining the position of songs and albums on its charts. The fact is that distorted information might not always be a reflection of a lack of integrity in the process of accumulating the data. Yet one has to be careful about our notions of historical accuracy in the music business. Charles believes that we are doing a disservice to posterity by not providing our children with historically accurate indicators of our performance. He points to the problem of “historical distortion” which can result from inaccuracies in charts.
Fiwi choice top 10 chart full#
A more accurate description of payola is “pay for play without full disclosure”.Ĭharles listed a number of popular Jamaican charts including FiWi Choice with which I happen to have an association, but did not develop his thesis on the unreliability of these charts, or that of any other for that matter, which left me wondering what was the purpose of his mentioning them in his article. As I have repeatedly pointed out in a number of public fora, it is the element of non-disclosure which makes payola illegal in those jurisdictions which have outlawed the practice. IN his article The Unreliability of Charts (Sunday Observer May 5, 2012) my colleague, Charles Campbell, continues to advance a cause for the criminalisation of payola, the practice incorrectly described by some in the Jamaican media as “pay for play”.
0 kommentar(er)
