When critics talk, Billboard listens.

For, in what news that will serve to change the way albums chart on the Billboard 200 forever, the company has announced it is to introduce a new policy which will make scoring #1 albums all the more difficult for artists who feel they can ‘cheat’ their way to the top.

All the details below…

Effective November 21st 2011, any albums priced below $3.49 during their month of release will be refused entry onto the Billboard 200.

In an official statement released by the company it stated:

Free or almost-free albums don’t represent a marketplace.

Whether you work with or are a fan of Madonna or Kenny Chesney, Lady Gaga or Coldplay, it is your faith in our efforts to keep our charts credible that we work to honor every day.

Ultimately, what swayed us to make a rule change now was the fact that we wouldn’t want an album that sold for one penny to count on our charts. Our charts are meant to indicate consumer intent.

And once you accept that you don’t want to count penny albums, the only remaining question is simply where a threshold should be.

Unit sales for Albums priced below $3.49 during their first four weeks of release will not be eligible for inclusion on the Billboard album charts and will not count towards sales data presented by Nielsen SoundScan.

Allow us break this down for you:

If Artist A released a project which sold 2 million copies in its first week, of which 50% of those copies were sold for less than £3.49, Billboard and Nielsen Sound Scan would only count the sales of copies sold at full price. Completely ignoring those sold at a discount price.

Good news for those in favor of equal playing ground but bad news for the likes of Lady GaGa and Rihanna who in the past have used discounted prices to boost their chances of debuting at #1 in the US.

In May of this year, GaGa’s third album ‘Born This Way’ debuted with sales of 1,108,000 but only because 440,000 copies had been sold by Amazon for an astounding $.099.

Had the project been released after the implementation of this new policy, it still would have been #1 week but would have sold 664,000 as opposed to 1 million copies.

However, all sales generated by Rihanna’s ‘Rated R‘ (including those sold at discount) would still be counted as the lowest available price for that album was $3.99, 50 cents over the newly introduced threshold.

Three cheers for Billboard!

For as they rightly put it, free or almost free releases do not and will never indicate real consumer intent.

About time.................and over due.

Sounds fair to me, but even without the 99cent sale Gaga still would have had a #1.

What took them so long?

I thought they already did something similar when Prince was "selling" copies of Musicology along with concert tickets during his 2004 tour?

I think it is bogus. Who are Billboard to tell artists how high to price their albums?

[Edited 11/17/11 9:36am]

Musicslave said:

What took them so long?

Probably still recovering from the fallout of the Amazon controversy. This is why I can't see CDs go any time soon because of shit like this.

Looks like Rihanna still won't have a #1 abum. LMAO

musicjunky318 said:

Looks like Rihanna still won't have a #1 abum. LMAO

Somewhere Mariah Carey is like, "DAMMIT!" lmfao.

Terrib3Towel said:

rialb said:

I thought they already did something similar when Prince was "selling" copies of Musicology along with concert tickets during his 2004 tour?

I think it is bogus. Who are Billboard to tell artists how high to price their albums?

[Edited 11/17/11 9:36am]

He included his with the price of the concert ticket which I think the cheapest were around 80 dollars at the time. So he could've told them he sold it for any amount under that price.

Who seriously cares about number one albums, chart positions, airplay anymore? Rules for fools... if they think changing this long overdue rule is going to make them more credible then they have lost their marbles..

About time.

Yes it was considered unfair. Not only did she want #1, she wanted record of the year and used a quick and easy way to try to get it, and now it's not happening for her thanks to Adele. I'm glad this new rule is in place. I was worried Rihanna would try something similar too in the near future. I don't believe she's had a #1 album but I could see her going out of her way to get it.

raffi said:

Adele's 21 has now reached the 12 million mark

rialb said:

I thought they already did something similar when Prince was "selling" copies of Musicology along with concert tickets during his 2004 tour?

I think it is bogus. Who are Billboard to tell artists how high to price their albums?

[Edited 11/17/11 9:36am]

Well to me its common sense, i felt this way since the whole 49cent singles battle between Mariah and Destinys Child back during Mariahs glitter days, that was nothing more than DUMPING its been going on for a long time, though i agree Billboard shouldnt dictate prices, however they should be "policing" their chart and how things are done in that respect. Prince back in 2000 when the EP for 1999 the new master came out HE sold it as a single, maxi single, however Billboard ruled because it was above the list price of a single (any single) it was labelled an EP and could only chart as an album. I agree on this policy in the respect that it cuts down the DUMPING, but also i think if labels want to sell something for 2 dollars for a few days than they are free to do it, but i feel that 2dollar sale, which is way below the sale of an album's list price for qualifying as a full album, those shouldnt count for that period or it should be some kind sell 5 for 1 count type deal. But then again, charts have lost their relevance since their is a chart for everything in Billboard, im waiting for the Top 20 songs while taking a shit chart.

LOL. Now all those artists will be offering their albums for exactly $3.49 the entire first month they're out.

errant said:

raffi said:

Probably not she's never done that

Bullshit. She racked up a string of #1 singles in the mid-'90s because Sony was giving them away to retailers to sell for 49 cents.

errant said:

raffi said:

Am I missing something? Where can you get new releases for $3.49????

errant said:

raffi said:

Probably not she's never done that

Bullshit. She racked up a string of #1 singles in the mid-'90s because Sony was giving them away to retailers to sell for 49 cents.

Same thing with Beyonce. I remember going into a music store in the mid-90's and they had Destiny Child singles at the front counter for 49 cents and the cashier was asking every person who came to the counter would they like to buy one? I told her I wouldn't want one if they were giving the suckers away for free!

kitbradley said:

Am I missing something? Where can you get new releases for $3.49????

I'm saying!

kitbradley said:

Am I missing something? Where can you get new releases for $3.49????

Amazon runs $2.99-$5 sales sometimes when they offer codes for $2 off an album.

I think this is a silly rule. If someone buys an album (even if it's priced at $0.99) they still went out of their way and bought the album. It should count towards sales in Billboard 200 chart positioning. But, whatever. Their chart, their rules!

ABeautifulOne said:

kitbradley said:

Am I missing something? Where can you get new releases for $3.49????

Amazon runs $2.99-$5 sales sometimes when they offer codes for $2 off an album.

Amazon does it for non-eligible albums that won't make the official Billboard chart anyway. So no big deal really even if it seems that way.

Timmy84 said:

ABeautifulOne said:

Amazon runs $2.99-$5 sales sometimes when they offer codes for $2 off an album.

Amazon does it for non-eligible albums that won't make the official Billboard chart anyway. So no big deal really even if it seems that way.

the thing is though, no one is really "suffering" here, Lady GaGa and RIhanna would still have number ones, its like when The Eagles beat out Britney a few years back over a rule change, then maybe people can make a case that "this effects an outcome" but both these artists would still have had number one albums, they didnt beat someone else who was right behind, that tactic was like the one i brought up when there was a .49cent singles war going on and one artist got number one and the other number two. LadyGaGa and Rihanna arent really competing with new albums, though one has a remix and the other a new one on the same day, but who cares

Timmy84 said:

ABeautifulOne said:

Amazon runs $2.99-$5 sales sometimes when they offer codes for $2 off an album.

Amazon does it for non-eligible albums that won't make the official Billboard chart anyway. So no big deal really even if it seems that way.

That's not true. For selected artists Amazon usually prices albums at a low price and puts it under their Daily Deal program for albums that do make the top 200 charts although there is not a huge amount of people that know of the deal.

ABeautifulOne said:

Timmy84 said:

Amazon does it for non-eligible albums that won't make the official Billboard chart anyway. So no big deal really even if it seems that way.

That's not true. For selected artists Amazon usually prices albums at a low price and puts it under their Daily Deal program for albums that do make the top 200 charts although there is not a huge amount of people that know of the deal.

Really? I thought it was a law that it had to be $5.00 or more. I don't get that shit.