Forum
MJD, you are the expert. If Britney was the most popular, why she hadnt a top 5 in radio, while Christina had 3 number one?
Because radio play will never be more important than album sales.*
My question was serious. MJD, why Britney hadnt a top 5 in radio during her peak, and Christina Aguilera, whose music was teen pop too, had various number one? Maybe, Britney music wasnt so demanded in radio as Christina music?
Firstly, your comment about Christina Aguilera's debut album not releasing singles has been pretty much disproven. Her debut album released 3 singles (one platinum, 2 gold) in the US while Britney's debut album still had two platinum selling singles in the US. If Christina gets her debut album certified diamond it would be well over 20 years after its debut while Britney's album was certified diamond literally in 1999.
As for the radio play, Christina had some of her songs cross over to other Billboard charts. (Obviously 3 other singles from Britney's debut album weren't released in the US)
And, of course, she was essentially banned on the radio from 2001-2003)
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/25/business/fi-clear25
My question is very interesting and is for MJD. I dont understand why Baby one more time or Oops I Did It Again, the biggest hits of Briney in her peak, werent big in airplay. The banned
was in 2001-2003, not 1998-2000.
To teen_pop
Britney selling more than Christina despite having less airplay in 1999-2000 only proves further that Brit was bigger. I don't know why you think this is in Christina's favor. It's not. You're literally admitting that Christina was selling less despite having more exposure through radio. It only makes Britney's sales look more impressive. People hearing Christina frequently on the radio and not buying her music proves that people weren't as interested in her music.
Hi Teen Pop,
Airplay is segregated into various music categories. To be or not to be #1 fully depends on crossing over those categories. Teen Pop never had that cross over skill being too deeply axed around a specific target audience. That's why even a song like Wannabe which was 4 weeks #1 and 14 weeks Top 3 in sales peaked at #6 in the US Airplay Chart.
Christina Aguilera may be regarded as teen pop now, but she hadn't that flag at the time - which is in part why other countries haven't jump into buying her debut album. In fact, Genie in a Bottle was #1 in Adult Top 40 Airplay list. What A Girl Wants topped the Rhythmic ranking.
One other reasons why Christina Aguilera did so well in Airplay ranking is the availability of Spanish versions of her hits. All her songs crossed over Latin lists thanks to them. Come on Over Baby went #1 in the Latin ranking, I Turn to You #2.
Thus, those better peaks were down to technicalities more than revealing a higher popularity. It's precisely because Britney was bigger that she got more cleaving, impacting negatively her Airplay results.
Hi MJD! Great work with this website! Very impressive and interesting to follow your analysis. I do have a question regarding the overall streaming figures, however. Under Christina's analysis you have the total streams for Moves Like Jagger at 409.5m while under the analysis for Maroon 5 this was listed as 605.6m streams. I understand this is to do with the reported increase in Spotify's market share, but I wonder if it makes sense to apply this market share retroactively? If the song accrued the bulk of those streams in years when Spotify held a lower market share, does it make sense to suddenly apply the recent ~61% figure to all its streams? Does this also not create some incongruity when the song translates into a larger number of "equivalent albums" under Maroon 5's calculated total as compared to Christina's total?
Hello Geoffrey!
You are fully correct on your figures! The current formula is temporary, I'm waiting for the IFPI Global 2016 Report to define the new one. The new formula will not only adjust the current ratio, it will also take into account historical evolution, factor in free and paid users as well as introducing video streams.
I'm pending that formula to see how much of an impact (high or low) it makes on previously posted artists. While it is not a definitive decision, I'm tempted to update retrospectively all artists who have at least 10% of their CSPC total coming from streams with this new formula once it is available!
Hi MJD,
Can you please give us ALL of Christina's updated album sales in the USA? Thanks again 🙂
Some of these figures seem awfully underestimated. Would you mind explaining the process behind your guesstimates? Are they based on certifications? Because if that's the case, then there are a couple that make no sense. With some, you only used the figure equivalent to the certification, assuming than in many, many years they haven't sold one single extra copy. Yet with others you didn't do such a thing, so how do you decide?
I don't know what to think about the fact that you claim you, and only you, are the one that owns the absolute truth, and that anyone else that disagrees is wrong, even if it is an organization with official nature and access to the actual data of sales, like OCC. Do you have more access to that kind of information?
You claimed that BTB was certified as a double album in Canada, despite the fact that it is not even eligible as one because of its length. Would you mind sharing the link where Music Canada states so? While you're at it, would you be kind enough to provide the link where Billboard claims that her debut only sold 12.5 million? This one intrigues me the most, since Billboard rarerly talks about worldwide sales. In fact, the only time I remember them doing so was when they claimed BTW'd sold 8 million yet in your analysis about her, you didn't go with it. You actually used a way lower figure. So, how do you decide when Billboard's figures are legit or not? Someone else already pointed out the discrepancy regarding MLJ's streams. So, I won't talk about that more.
All these discrepancies and lack of actual evidence are highly suspicious. Also, the constant mention of Spears throughout the whole article is distasteful. It's pretty obvious that Spears was always the bigger one, commercially wise. Why do you have to mention her if the article is not about her? What's the point other than purposely instigating drama?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to see the evidence. Thanks in advance.
