Question: How did Billboard change its ranking methodology in response to Gangam Style?
About the article "Gangnam Style", section "Music industry".

Candidate passages:
Starting in 2005, "Billboard" changed its methodology to include paid digital downloads from digital music retailers such as Rhapsody, AmazonMP3, iTunes.
This change also allowed songs to chart with or without the help of radio airplay.
This meant that a song did not need radio airplay to be eligible to chart on the Billboard Hot 100.
With this policy change, a song could chart based on digital downloads alone.
On July 31, 2007 "Billboard" changed its methodology for the Hot 100 chart to include digital streams.
The digital information at the time was obtained from Yahoo and AOL's streaming platforms.
This change was made exclusively to the Billboard Hot 100 Chart.
The effect of this chart change was minuscule at the time because it was estimated to account for 5% of the chart's total points.
In October 2012, "Billboard" dramatically changed the methodology for their country, rock, Latin, and rap charts, when they incorporated sales of digital downloads and streaming plays into what had been airplay-only charts.
Another change was that rather than measuring airplay only from radio stations of the particular genre, the new methodology measures airplay from all radio formats.
This methodology was extended to their Christian and gospel charts in late 2013.
On February 20, 2013, "Billboard" announced another change in the methodology for their charts that incorporated YouTube video streaming data into the determination of ranking positions on its streaming charts.
The incorporation of YouTube streaming data enhanced a formula that includes on-demand audio streaming and online radio streaming.
The YouTube video streams that used in this methodology are official video streams, Vevo on YouTube streams, and user-generated clips that utilize authorized audio.
"Billboard" argued that this change was made to further reflect the divergent platforms of music consumption in today's world. 
Record executives in the music industry believe that music charts will increasingly be filled with YouTube-driven globalised acts from foreign countries.
Sean Carey, a research fellow in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Roehampton, wrote that the flow of popular music will no longer be a single traffic route from North America and Europe to other parts of the globe, but will also move the other way as well.
According to Adam Sherwin from "The Independent", the global web demand for Gangnam Style had short-circuited the "traditional reluctance" of radio stations to play foreign-language songs.
The song is also underlining a shift in how money is being made in the music business.
Although Psy earned more than US$60,000 from music sales of "Gangnam Style" in South Korea alone, he and his music label YG Entertainment have raked in almost US$1 million from advertisements which appear on YouTube videos identified for using "Gangnam Style" in its content.
The "Harvard Business Review" published an article written by Kevin Evers, who explained how "Gangnam Style" had changed Billboard's ranking methodology of its music charts.
Instead of relying solely on radio plays and paid purchases, Billboard started to place a heavier emphasis on digital sales and YouTube views.
As a result of the change, Gangnam Style moved up to the top position of Billboard's Hot Rap Songs music chart.
According to the British Phonographic Industry's report based on Official Charts Company sales data, thanks to Psy's song and Carly Rae Jepsen’s "Call Me Maybe," pop became the UK’s favourite musical genre of the year, taking the lion’s share of the singles market (38.5%) in 2012.
Ngangam (Gangam) is a language of the Gurma people spoken in Togo and Benin. 
Abramson authors "The MFA Research Project" (MRP), a website that publishes indexes of creative writing Master of Fine Arts (MFA) programs based on surveys and hard-data research.
Indexes appearing on the MRP (which is made public, and available to MFA applicants, from November 15 through August 15 of each year) include ordered listings of program popularity, funding, selectivity, fellowship placement, job placement, student-faculty ratio, application cost, application response times, application and curriculum requirements, and foundation dates.
The MRP also publishes surveys of current MFA applicants regarding demographic and application-practice issues such as applicant age, applicants' application strategies, and applicants' genre affiliations.
Similar surveys and research are also published with respect to creative writing doctoral programs, low-residency creative writing MFA programs, non-terminal creative writing M.A.
programs, playwriting/dramaturgy MFA programs, and scriptwriting/screenwriting MFA programs.
In 2009, data compiled by the MRP regarding full-residency creative writing MFA programs were adopted by "Poets & Writers" for its annual MFA issue.
"Poets & Writers" now publishes data from the MRP annually, having expanded its annual MFA data chart to include (beginning in 2010) a comprehensive assessment of low-residency MFA programs, and (beginning in 2011) a comprehensive assessment of creative writing doctoral programs.
The methodology for these rankings was first published by "Poets & Writers" in 2010; the methodology was most recently updated and republished in 2012.
Beginning in August 2012, "Poets & Writers" has published MRP data in the form of an alphabetized "MFA Index"; previously, the magazine's annual data chart was referred to as a "ranking."
In 2011, "The Chronicle of Higher Education" termed the "Poets & Writers" national assessment methodology "the only MFA ranking regime."
Writing in 2010 for "Boulevard" and "The Huffington Post", novelist and poet Anis Shivani noted the "great brouhaha" caused by "a journeyman's attempt to rank MFA programs...according to input from potential apprentices as opposed to evaluations by journeymen and masters themselves."
In 2009, noted poet and literary critic Ron Silliman claimed Abramson's research and writing on MFA programs was part of a larger sea change in American poetics; according to Silliman, "Abramson's take poetry in American life is new and different.
And important...believes we are moving away from poetry as a literature--let alone as a canon--toward poetry as a practice..." In September of 2011, an open letter signed by nearly two hundred professors from undergraduate and graduate creative writing programs was published, calling the then-rankings "specious" and terming their then-methodology "unethical" and "quite misleading."
A week later, "Poets & Writers" responded to the open letter, asserting that it had "adhereto the highest journalistic standards... Our ethical obligation is to be transparent to our readers about the source of the rankings and how they were derived, which we have done consistently and without reservation."
Of Abramson, the rankings' primary researcher, the magazine's Editorial Director Mary Gannon said, "[he has been collecting data about applicants' preferences and about MFA programs for five years, and we stand behind his integrity."
"Sociological Methodology" is abstracted and indexed in:According to the "Journal Citation Reports", its 2011 impact factor is 3.000, ranking it 5th out of 137 journals in the category "Sociology".