At one point, a No. 1 hit was a surefire way to know the world loved your song; today, it might just mean it was sold in enough colors. Billboard was first established in 1894 as a trade publication for advertising and posters in the entertainment industry. Now, over 100 years later, Billboard serves as a barometer for popular culture. By record labels, artists, and studios alike, Billboard’s comprehensive song rankings are the industry-standard record of success. A high spot on a Billboard chart can define and truly validate an artist’s career, so it’s no surprise labels will do whatever it takes to get there.
In 2020, Billboard ceased counting concert tickets and physical album bundles within its tracking metric. This was a catalyst for labels relying on the sale of multiple physical variants. Throughout the pandemic, labels prioritized a “collectible” ideology with variants: releasing alternative cover art, deluxes, anything to entice consumers to drive revenue. As fans are essentially purchasing the same album multiple times, it serves as an effort to maximize first-week sales, and of course, to boost debut chart positions on Billboard charts. Extreme levels of variant releasing are often deemed as “chart manipulation.”
One prominent example of this is Taylor Swift. In 2024, Swift released “The Tortured Poets Department”. Two years later, there are now 37 versions of this album released, including four main special deluxe physical versions. When asked about the ethics of variant releases, Indigo R. ’26 commented: “I think you could profit as much as you want from it. If you release a song and it’s an acoustic version or a happy version, I guess that makes sense. But it gets to a point. Doesn’t [Taylor Swift] release like 10,000 versions of her songs?”
Though Swift is largely recognized as the primary stakeholder and perpetrator of variant tactics, it is not widely known that almost all of the top-charting acts have been using these methods to different extents. K-pop acts such as Twice, ATEEZ, and solo artists like Billie Eilish are all examples of this. “I don’t think it’s fair at all,” reflects Tia M. ’26. “No matter who does it, I think if you actually deserve that No. 1 spot, you don’t need to cash-grab your way there.”
Recently, Grammy Award-winning artist Olivia Rodrigo released her first single for her highly anticipated album, “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love”. The track, titled “drop dead”, was majorly successful, scoring a No. 1 Billboard Debut. As a fan, I deeply enjoyed the record — especially with its highlight of ’90s soft-rock influence.
But to land its No. 1 debut, the track engaged in a chart battle with the current record holder, “Choosin’ Texas” by Ella Langley. Within a week, Rodrigo released nearly ten versions of Drop Dead. “Good for Olivia,” says Reva G. ’28. “She’s lowkey fighting for what’s hers. The music industry is so tough, it’s respectable that she’s putting in that work for what she wants.” Meanwhile, “Choosin’ Texas” has roughly the same number of variants as “drop dead”. With physical album sales carrying more weight in chart rankings, artists now flood the market with variants. What was considered “gaming” the system is now the average rollout strategy. This begs the question: How unethical or unfair are these practices if every competitor seems to be doing them?
