analysis
From Taylor Swift T-shirts to Fleetwood Mac Rumours vinyl LPs, the global music merchandise business will grow to a retail value of $16.3 billion by 2030, according to a new report by MIDiA Research.
Merch become a priority for many artists in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the concert business. And as touring resumed and fans opened their wallets, the global merch business rose to $13.4 billion in 2023. But merch sales are expected to cool considerably, as MIDiA forecasts merch sales will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of just 2.8% through the end of the decade. There’s still plenty of opportunity, though — if artists and merch companies don’t treat merch like a cash grab.
“As the market has become more sophisticated, fan expectations for quality have risen,” MIDiA’s Tatiana Cirisano said in a statement. “But record labels focusing on monetising fandom risk ‘overharvesting’ — exploiting this resource to the point of diminishing returns.”
Trending on Billboard
Music companies, Cirisano added, “must nurture deep, long-lasting fandom to sustain this growth.”
Physical music, which MIDiA considers to be merch because many consumers treat vinyl LPs and CDs as collectible items, is forecasted to peak in 2025 and decrease through 2030. Physical merchandise such as artist-branded apparel and digital merchandise such as virtual goods and NFTs are expected to make up for physical music’s decline and lift total merch revenues.
Merch isn’t the most financially appealing part of the music business. That would be digital music, which enjoys both higher margins and higher growth rates. In the first half of 2024, Universal Music Group’s recorded music business had earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) margin of 25.4%, nearly five times its merch division’s 5.3% EBITDA margin. And while MIDiA expects merch to grow at a 2.8% CAGR through 2030, Goldman Sachs forecasts the global music streaming market will grow at a 9.9% CAGR over that time frame.
But merch has always been an important part of the music business because of music fans’ unending desire for T-shirts and keepsakes of their favorite artists. Consolidation in the merch business began about six years ago as major labels and some indies invested in merchandising companies to diversify their revenues and expand the services they offer to artist clients.
Warner Music Group, for example, acquired German merch specialist EMP in 2018. Universal Music Group acquired boutique merch company Epic Rights in 2019. Sony Music Entertainment made a strategic investment in merchandise company Ceremony of Roses in 2022, and its Thread Shop merch agency purchased the merch division of The Araca Group in 2019. Also in 2019, Indie company EMPIRE took a majority stake in merch/ecommerce company Top Drawer Merch / Electric Family.
On Thursday (Oct. 3), one day before first-round voting opens for the 67th annual Grammy Awards, the Recording Academy released its 2024 Membership Report. The most eye-popping statistic: 66% of the current Grammys electorate has joined since the Recording Academy introduced its new membership model in June 2019. Under that model, the academy invites large new member classes to join, with an eye on boosting the numbers of women, people of color and people under 40 in the academy.
Thus, the voting membership that delivered album, record and song of the year to Adele in 2017 and those same three awards to Bruno Mars in 2018 is much different today. We started to see a shift in voting patterns in February 2019, even before the new membership model was introduced, when Childish Gambino’s “This Is America” became the first hip-hop hit to win record or song of the year. (It won both.) That same year, Kacey Musgraves’ Golden Hour won album of the year.
Trending on Billboard
Since 2019, approximately 8,700 creators have become voting members of the Recording Academy. Of that total, more than 2,000 joined just this year. There are now more than 13,000 total voting members, according to the Academy.
Other key takeaways from the report include:
Boosting Numbers of Women
In 2019, the Recording Academy set an ambitious goal to add 2,500 women voting members by 2025. With a year to go, the Academy has already surpassed this goal, adding more than 3,000 women voting members. Since 2019, the percentage of women voting members has grown by 27%.
Increasing Racial Diversity
The Academy reports that the percentage of people of color has grown by 65% since 2019 among voting members. Since 2019:
The percentage of Black or African American+ members has grown by 90%.
The percentage of Hispanic or Latin+ members has grown by 43%.
The percentage of AAPI+ (Asian American or Pacific Islander) members has doubled, reflecting a 100% increase.
The current voting membership, counting the new voting members added this year, is 49% white or Caucasian; 38% people of color; and 13% prefer not to disclose or unknown. That “people of color” slice breaks down like this: 19% Black or African American+; 10% Hispanic or Latin+; 4% Asian or Pacific Islander; 2% prefer to self-describe; and other smaller slices.
The current voting membership is 66% men; 28% women; 6% prefer not to disclose/unknown; and other, smaller slices.
Too Much Jazz. Not Enough Country
By genre, the current voting membership is 27% pop; 19% jazz; 17% R&B; 17% rock; 13% American roots; 13% alternative; 12% classical; 10% global music; 10% Latin music; 10% other; 10% rap; 9% dance/electronic; 9% country; 8% gospel/Christian; 8% visual media; 7% contemporary instrumental; 5% new age; 4% children’s; 4% musical theatre; 3% reggae; 3% spoken word; and 1% comedy. (Members could select more than one genre.)
Jazz and classical are overrepresented, relative to their share of the music market. Country lags behind its share of the music market.
By area of specialization, the current voting membership is 46% songwriters/composers; 33% producers; 33% instrumentalists; 32% vocalists; 19% engineers; 12% arrangers; 6% other; 4% music video; 3% album packaging; 3% album notes writers; 2% music supervisors; 2% conductors; 2% spoken word.
In a letter accompanying the release of the report, Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy, said in part: “The Recording Academy membership has never been more reflective of the music community than it is today. It has more women, more People of Color, and a broad representation of diverse genres and crafts. But we’re not just celebrating numbers. Our organization has been fundamentally transformed by this extraordinary infusion of new talent, making us an unquestionably better, stronger, more successful, and more impactful organization.
“And we’re not done yet. Even though we’ve made huge strides towards creating a diverse and representative membership body, there is still much work to be done. We want to recruit more young voters, because the future of music is in their hands. We want to see an increase in the percentage of women and people of color, because our goal must always be to accurately represent our community.
“And as we globalize our mission, we want a membership body that reflects every corner of the music world.”
Mason added some specifics in an interview with Billboard this week. “It’s been a very intentional effort to try and make sure that our membership is the most relevant, the most diverse. …We’re not just trying to build numbers. We’re looking at, what is the music community made up of? … A big goal for us is to make sure that we’re matching or coming close to the community that makes music. That’s not the same as the general population of our country. We know that R&B/hip-hop is roughly 33%-34% of all music created and consumed. We know what the numbers are for Latin music, women, and other groups. We have a rough idea of what the numbers feel like.”
On July 26, Mason sent a pointed letter, via email, to the Academy’s voting members, “It’s about the current year and the quality of the work, period!,” he implored. “There should be no other rationale for voting. If you are taking into account an artist’s older work, or their reputation, or race, or gender, what label they are on, who their manager is, how many friends participated in the project, or anything else like that, you’re not doing your job.”
Talking to Billboard, Mason expressed a little more sympathy for members who may be inclined to take other factors into account, though he again said he hoped the focus would be on the music. “Voters have their own ideas around how they vote and what they chose to vote for and we want to give them some latitude to be able to do that but it’s my hope and I believe it’s the Academy’s desire that our voters will evaluate the music based on the merit of that music exclusively. It’s not about past sins [of the academy]. It’s not about genre representation. It’s really about the quality of the music. My hope is that people listen to the music and evaluate it based on the merits.”
At another point in the conversation, he said “The whole idea of this membership [drive] is not just to hit numbers, it’s to try to get the right results and the right outcome.”
Asked to be more specific about that statement, Mason said, “I’m not saying the positive result is any specific album or genre winning any specific award. I’m just looking for accuracy and relevance and making sure the outcomes are reflective of what’s happening in music. I don’t care what genre that is. I’m definitely not looking at making reparations [for past Grammy outcomes]. I’m just saying the outcomes for our academy … are all driven by our membership and if we have the right membership, we’re a better organization.”
First-round voting for the Grammy Awards opens on Friday Oct. 4 at 9 a.m. PT, and closes on Oct. 15 at 6 p.m. PT. Grammy nominees will be announced on Nov. 8. Final-round voting will be held from Dec. 12 to Jan. 3. All voting members, including those welcomed in the 2024 new class, are eligible to participate in the voting process. The 67th annual Grammy Awards will be held on Feb. 2 at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles. The host has yet to be named. Trevor Noah hosted the last four Grammy telecasts.
The 66th annual Grammy Awards were held on Sunday, Feb. 4. Ben Winston, Raj Kapoor and Jesse Collins were executive producers. Hamish Hamilton directed. The show received a Primetime Emmy nomination for outstanding variety program (live), but lost to The Oscars (which was also executive produced by Kapoor). The Recording Academy has yet to announce the host, producer or director of the 2025 show.
Sturgill Simpson is keeping it simple for his Why Not? Tour this fall.
The country artist announced on his website in July that although he and his team were “doing everything in our power to keep tickets in the hands of fans and out of the hands of scalpers,” they were opting out of using dynamic pricing for the 37-date run.
Although dynamic pricing is one of the concert business’ most effective tools for keeping tickets off the secondary market, it’s also a major factor in the sharp rise of ticket prices, and Simpson was taking his fans’ wallets into account.
For years, promoters put tickets on sale at a handful of price points, then watched them sell out and get listed with huge markups on the secondary market — revenue that would not accrue to them.
Since then, scalpers have hacked most efforts to foil them, including one of the strategies Simpson is employing: vetting presale buyers. The only proven deterrent has been dynamic pricing: charging what the market will bear during the initial on-sale in hopes of curbing secondary markups.
Trending on Billboard
In the early days of the music industry’s post-pandemic return to live shows, when pent-up demand led to robust sales, dynamic pricing became the go-to strategy for major acts. The move helped lead to a 30% rise in ticket prices from 2019 to 2024, however, according to Billboard Boxscore, with the average ticket price of a top 40-grossing tour jumping $111 to $144 at midyear 2024 — 6.6% in the past six months.
With the pandemic in the rearview mirror, many in the industry express concern about the sustainability of this upswing. In recent weeks, The Black Keys, Jennifer Lopez and other high-profile artists have canceled tours due to backlash over ticket prices. (The Black Keys fired their management in the aftermath.)
According to Billboard Boxscore, only a handful of acts can charge more than $200 a ticket and sell out, and yet more artists are pushing the boundaries on ticket price and quickly approaching average ticket prices between $150 to $200, getting very close to the ceiling of what fans can or will pay.
“Patronage is up — we are seeing more fans come out to shows, but our costs are eating into the increase in volume,” said Morgan Margolin, CEO of Knitting Factory Entertainment, who says agents and managers are charging 30% to 40% more for acts than they did prior to the pandemic.
“It’s getting more difficult to do business in the major markets, especially with minimum wage increases, insurance, rent, and other costs,” he added. “If artists and managers and agents keep escalating on top of those fees, where is the tipping point?”
The Black Keys successfully played U.S. arenas in the past but only a handful. Most of their dates were either festival slots or amphitheater and theater shows. In 2019, they grossed $28 million on their co-headlining Let’s Rock run with Modest Mouse. Tickets for that tour started at $36.50, with four price points under $100. For the band’s canceled International Players Tour, some tickets were priced at $59.75 and $89.75 but others were listed for $119.75, $159.75 and $199.75. In comparison, the bulk of Simpson’s tickets are selling in the $53 to $72 range.
Pricing tickets based on how much scalpers might profit is difficult and risky. If they are overpriced and the tour flops on the initial on-sale, it’s almost impossible to save. Reducing the price can alienate fans who paid the full cost. Stay the course, and if the tour is deemed a loser, fans will avoid it.
“I think a lot of these artists are getting bad advice and not thinking through the long-term consequences of chasing big bucks,” one arena booking executive says. “And that’s going to hurt them in the long run.”
A version of this story will appear in the Aug. 31, 2024 issue of Billboard.
Anyone who has bought a vinyl record or a CD in recent years knows full well that physical music products aren’t exempt from the inflation that has plagued U.S. consumers.
In fact, the price of a vinyl record in the U.S. rose 25.5% from 2017 to 2023, according to Billboard’s analysis of RIAA data — slightly more than the 24.3% increase in the consumer price index over the same time. CD prices fared a bit better, increasing just 20.4%.
However, while music subscription prices are rising, consumers can probably expect physical music prices to remain somewhat level going forward: Insiders who spoke with Billboard say vinyl prices are remaining steady in 2024 after the COVID-19 pandemic created supply chain problems and raised the costs of everything from raw materials to labor.
As one music distribution executive put it, those supply chain problems are “flattening out.” As a result, turnaround times have improved drastically as manufacturers worked through their pandemic-era order backlogs. “I feel like the prices will flatten, too,” says the executive.
Trending on Billboard
“Our manufacturing prices have been stable for quite a while,” says Bill Hein, CEO of Pressing Business. Freight costs can be improved if a buyer books with flexible dates, Hein says, and reliable sea freight is being used for more of its U.S. deliveries. “Generally speaking, both air and sea freight are more predictable now than they were during the lockdown era, and prices are generally better.”
Outside of the music business, rising prices on everyday necessities have been a fact of life. Tired of the inflation that has eaten into their paychecks, Americans are pushing back against the high cost of staples, and companies are responding with attempts to reduce prices.
In July, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta suggested consumers had grown tired of more than two years of rising prices. “Some parts of the [Frito-Lay] portfolio need value adjustment,” he said during a July 11 earnings call. Overall sales volume was down 4% in its most recent quarter, and North American beverage sales for the company dipped 3%. PepsiCo will respond, Laguarta said, by offering better deals and increasing advertising. For some consumers, Laguarta added, “we need some new entry price points.”
Companies across the economy are sharing PepsiCo’s experience with price-fatigued shoppers. Walmart is offering more short-term discounts. Target lowered prices. Fast food giants McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Taco Bell are courting customers through low-cost bundles and value-oriented menus. And because it’s an election year, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, has floated a federal ban on price gouging in the grocery and food industries.
Since vinyl prices are based heavily on manufacturing costs, there’s little to prevent prices from creeping up without sellers losing profits. Vinyl retailers set prices based on wholesale costs and their need to cover overhead and other expenses. Artists on record labels must pay the wholesale price for their physical goods and don’t have control over pressing and printing costs, says Paul Steele, executive partner at Triple 8 Management. “Physical prices for our roster of nearly 30 artists have mostly stayed the same for a decade, with small inflationary increases here or there,” he says.
But aside from run-of-the-mill inflation, there are other factors that could push the average sale price higher. Physical music is increasingly a luxury good — a high-priced collectible item with packaging to match. Artists frequently release multiple variants of LPs with colored vinyl. And albums released today commonly have the expensive gatefold packaging that was common in the ‘70s.
The way music is released in the streaming era also drives up prices. Artists take advantage of the unlimited shelf space on streaming platforms by stuffing albums with more songs at no extra cost. As Billboard noted last year, the top 10 albums’ average number of songs rose from 13.2 in 2014 to 19.1 in 2022. A double album on a vinyl record is more expensive, and as one executive notes, putting more songs on an album will often — but not always — require paying more mechanical royalties to songwriters and publishers.
Indeed, some of the most popular vinyl records of the moment are double- or triple-LPs. Post Malone’s 18-track, two-LP album F-1 Trillion sells for $45.89 at Amazon and more at other retailers. Zach Bryan’s 34-track American Heartbreak has three LPs and a $44.98 list price. And that’s not to mention the more extravagant reissues, such as a 2-LP/2-CD/1-Blu-ray package for Van Halen’s For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge that carries a $99.98 list price.
Despite the increase in vinyl prices over the last several years, sales have yet to abate. Will that continue? The answer to that question will likely lie with younger consumers who have less disposable income. Michael Kurtz, co-founder of Record Store Day, says vinyl being a premium, collectible product is toughest on younger consumers. While Record Store Day succeeded in helping turn a new generation on to vinyl records, younger people don’t have as much money and are cutting back on their purchases. “A young customer 18 months ago would come to the counter with two or three records,” says Kurtz. “Now they come to the counter with one or maybe two.”
Catalog titles are often the more affordable option and help offset frontline price creep. Michael Jackson’s Thriller can be had for under $25. Fleetwood Mac’s perennial top-seller Rumours is offered in both affordable and more deluxe versions. Rhino Records’ Now Playing series of compilations for artists ranging from The Stooges to Gram Parsons to John Prine are priced at $19.99.
The good news — for all consumers — is that price growth is reverting to historical norms. The average monthly U.S. inflation rate reached 4.7% in 2021, 8.0% in 2022 and 4.1% in 2023. This year, the average monthly increase in the consumer price index (CPI) is just 3.2% through July. If vinyl prices seem like they’re continuing to creep upward, the packaging and the increasing prevalence of the double album are likely to blame.
Once upon a time, most artists performed live to promote new albums. For most acts, the real money was in music sales, so they went “on the road” with schedules and strategies to maximize them.
These days the live business is a juggernaut of its own, with higher ticket prices, adjacent businesses like merch and VIP seats, and schedules, plus strategies of its own. So creators at all levels of popularity are starting to realize that it may no longer make sense to tour the whole country, or world, to promote a new release. In some cases, there isn’t one; in others a tour can boost an entire catalog. The old model of touring focused on building an audience, which meant artists would play cities where they weren’t so popular. Now touring is a revenue stream, so many artists double down to play more shows in cities where they’re already big.
The economics of touring means that acts run up costs every day they are on the road but only bring in revenue when they perform — so it makes sense to play bigger shows, in fewer places, with fewer days off. Metallica’s M72 tour consisted of two-night engagements and a no-repeat pledge to motivate fans to see both. The international legs of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour involved more shows in fewer places — she covered Asia with four shows in Tokyo and six in Singapore and the Nordic region with three in Stockholm. The natural end of this thinking is a residency, or a few of them, and Adele took the summer off from her Vegas residency to play 10 shows in Munich at a custom-built venue with a capacity of 74,000. Why go to fans when fans can come to you?
Trending on Billboard
As it happens, this solves another problem with the touring business. As increasing competition for concert dollars inspires more elaborate productions, costs are skyrocketing — and many of them involve transportation and setup rather than a performance itself. For Metallica, much of the cost is in “load-in” — moving and building a doughnut-shaped stage with standing room in the middle, plus eight towers of speakers and monitors that weigh 11 tons each. The resulting expenses, which involve 87 trucks and several days of setup, make single shows difficult. Adele’s Munich show used what’s said to be the world’s biggest video screen, plus fireworks, confetti, smoke, fire and a string section. As expensive as that must be to build, imagine the cost of moving it and setting it up again a couple of times a week? How many venues even have room for a 220-meter-wide screen?
Doing more shows in fewer places also makes it practical to deliver events, rather than just concerts. Touring artists have to compete with festivals, which offer fans a lot of acts for their money, plus an experience to remember — and, not incidentally, share on social media. A memorable production, whether that means the world’s biggest screen or 11-ton speaker towers, can do the same. Personally, I don’t think Metallica or Adele needs any of this — I’d be just as happy to see either in a club, in front of a brick wall — but bigger productions seem to create a sense of FOMO.
Fans have certainly demonstrated their willingness to travel. When I saw Metallica last year in Hamburg, most concertgoers came from other German cities to see both shows. Swift’s European tour debut in Paris was filled with fans from the U.S. and Canada who realized that tickets there and a trip to France cost about the same as tickets back home. To some fans, Swift’s show is a vacation — Paris is just something to see on the way there.
In crude economic terms, concert travel essentially reallocates expenses from acts to fans — artists travel less, so concertgoers travel more. Most people don’t want to pay more than a certain amount for a concert ticket, but they seem more willing to spend on related travel. (I just spent about $300 to go to Stockholm to see Bruce Springsteen, an amount that seems too high to spend on a ticket, even though I essentially went to see the show.)
There are other costs and benefits, too. Younger fans can’t always travel alone. And as several European publications pointed out in their coverage of the Adele residency, this isn’t exactly good for the environment. (I think it makes more sense to tax travel rather than to object to a specific type of travel.) Residencies can also be more pleasant for artists — there are no songs about how nice it is to cross the U.S. in a tour bus. The flexibility is nice, too: Munich is a lot nicer in the summer than Las Vegas. Playing a few nights a week makes it easier to have a family life.
As much as I loved the Metallica and Adele shows, I think I still prefer the old model — although it’s easier for me to say that because I’m fortunate enough to live in a major city. I think there’s still long-term value in building a fan base the hard way. And I worry that fans who spend more money traveling to concerts will end up seeing fewer shows as a result. None of that changes the economics of touring, however, and organizing a profitable and artistically effective tour means understanding that.
In 2022, Will Page, the former director of economics at Spotify, encouraged a U.K. committee looking into streaming economics to consider how collecting societies have divvied up fixed pots of cash for more than 100 years. A fairer system for paying royalties, he said, might consider how long a person listens.
Page’s suggestion wasn’t a new, radical idea. Other royalty accounting systems already take listening time into account. In the U.K., collection societies such as PRS For Music and PPL apply a “value per second” rule to royalty payouts. So, Page explained, Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which clocks in at 5:55, earns twice the royalty as “You’re My Best Friend,” which runs just 2:52. A similar approach is codified into U.S. copyright law: Songs over five minutes long receive a higher mechanical royalty than shorter songs.
But streaming platforms have long paid royalties using a “pro rata” method that treats every song equally. At Spotify, for example, any two songs by Queen are treated the same. But there has been a movement in recent years to make royalty payments fairer to non-superstar artists. SoundCloud adopted a user-centric approach that pays royalties from each listener rather than pool all listeners’ revenue. Deezer has a “user-centric” approach — adopted by Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Merlin — which rewards professional artists at the expense of “functional” music.
Trending on Billboard
Two years after testifying to the committee, Page has released a paper, “A Case for Completion,” that outlines how streaming platforms could reward songs that get streamed in their entirety. The idea is simple: For each stream, the streaming service asks whether the song was streamed to completion. If the song was skipped before the listener got to the end, a portion of the royalties are transferred to songs that were streamed to completion.
The financial model looks like this: Labels earn about 50 million pounds ($64 million) for 10 billion streams. Page estimates that 10% of the songs will not be streamed to completion. Of those songs’ 5 million-pound ($6.4 million) royalty pool, 40%, or 1.3 million pounds ($1.7 million), goes to the completed songs’ royalty pool. That in turn increases the completed songs’ pool from 45 million pounds ($58 million) to 46.3 million pounds ($59.6 million). On a per-stream basis, a typical 0.0048-pound ($0.0062) pro-rata royalty becomes either a 0.0035-pound ($0.0045) incomplete royalty or a 0.005-pound ($0.0064) complete royalty.
Importantly, Page believes this completion-based scheme complements the current royalty accounting system, whether it’s pro-rata, user-centric or artist-centric. “If we are going to depart from the pro rata model, which has served us since Rhapsody got its license in December 2001 — which is 23-plus years ago — then we need a baby step that doesn’t mess with royalty accounting,” says Page. Tracking duration would add too much stress to a royalty accounting system that encompasses trillions of streams annually, accounting experts told Page. In contrast, setting a threshold that creates a binary outcome — either a song was completed, or it wasn’t — is more feasible, he argues.
The proposal may run into naysayers who believe skipping is a critical aspect to streaming. On-demand services with hundreds of millions of songs charge for the right to skip through playlists and algorithmically created radio stations. In contrast, free, non-interactive streaming services such as Pandora don’t allow unlimited skipping. What’s more, decidedly unskippable formats such as terrestrial radio are losing listening time to platforms that give the listener greater freedom. Whether TikTok has reduced attention spans or listeners are impatient in a world of unlimited choice, skipping is simply a way of life in 2024.
But skipping, however prized by today’s music listeners, isn’t necessarily rampant. As Page explains in an interview with Billboard, he gained confidence in completion-based royalty accounting after learning that completion rates surpass 90% once a person has been listening longer than three minutes. To Page, this means shorter attention spans select shorter songs and people willing to listen longer will do so. “Sprinters enter sprints; marathon runners enter marathons,” says Page. “For the most part, people who want longer songs go for longer songs and stay the journey. Jazz and classical have got the highest completion rates from all the genres.”
Paying based on completing a song makes sense intuitively, because in streaming the business goal is listener engagement, and one sign a listener is engaged is how much a song gets heard. From that perspective, a stream that ends halfway through a song is less valuable to both the streaming platform and the rights holders than a song that somebody listens to all the way through. So, rewarding completion makes sense from this business point of view.
It does. And I think a key strength of the proposal, and I’ve road tested it with the great and good in music and tech — I’m very open on strengths and weaknesses and anomalies. I’m putting all my cards on the table here for this to be accepted and be a model to give people even more assurances. But the strength is it’s asymmetrical. I am not promoting completion. If Glenn Peoples does nothing with this listening experience, I do nothing with these royalty calculations. I must be absolutely clear here. I am only punishing incompletion. I take action when you show intent. If you do nothing, I do nothing. If you step in there and say, “I’m done with this song, move me on to the next one,” I’m going to do something with the royalty structure. That’s crucial in terms of the argument. It’s got a strong common-sense property, as you alluded to, but it’s asymmetric. And to be absolutely clear, streaming services don’t pay a penny more or a penny less. We simply reallocate away from the incomplete pool to the complete group.
The deterrence against fraud or gaming the system, whatever you want to call it, seems to be a strong argument. If some artists are making music based on this 30-second threshold, I don’t see how that’s good for anybody. The royalty model shouldn’t be influencing how music is created and released.
Drake had an album where there were like eight songs which lasted between 40 and 50 seconds — skits — and they’re going to get paid the same as a seven-minute jazz composition with McCoy Tyner? These are questions of fairness. The current model has unfair properties in it as well. We have to remember [that] nobody thought about jazz and classical when they invented the 30-second rule. [An on-demand stream earns a royalty if it is streamed for 30 seconds or longer.] Nobody argued for duration.
Now let me allow me to play Devil’s Advocate. As a user of a subscription service, I pay for the ability to skip songs. And if I skip a song 45 seconds in, it doesn’t necessarily mean that song is less valuable. It means that I enjoy that ability to skip songs. If I don’t want to skip songs, I’ll listen to SiriusXM. And the ability to skip songs is one of the best things about an on-demand service. So why should skipping be punished if it has so much value to me?
I respect that view. I would say that argument is weak because the majority of people are paying for the concierge service. In the vast majority of instances, the act of skipping is a negative signal by the consumer. And for a lot of people, the engagement they have with their music platform is approximately this: in the pocket it goes and that’s it for the day. I’m not paying so I have to skip songs. I’m not paying so I have to select songs. I’m paying to enjoy the music. If you can serve it up for me, I’ll pay, I’ll stay even longer. So I quote [intellectual property expert] David Safir in a piece where there was a heated debate at the NY:LON conference in London. David calmed the debate down by saying, “Hold on, we haven’t even decided who we’re defining fairness for. Is it the creator, the platform, or the consumer?” As the consumer pays for convenience, the act of skipping, or the act of even leaning in, could be a sign of inconvenience. That is negative for the consumer’s experience in terms of willingness to pay and willingness to stay.
When I skip, it’s to sample the big catalog of music. It’s one way to listen to more music — not all of which I’m going to go back and listen to again. But at least I hear it. Again, whether it’s an editorial playlist, or just bouncing around the app, skipping allows me to sample the catalog. And not skipping would really get in the way, I think.
I remember with [Spotify’s] Discover Weekly, we began to wonder whether the reason it was successful is you used to spend a bit of your time searching for music that could involve a lot of skipping, and a bit of your time consuming music. And as time became more precious, you didn’t have any time to search. Nobody went to record shops anymore, and therefore there was even less time to consume. And what Discover Weekly did was internalize the search cost, the experimental costs, the skipping costs, and it gave you exactly what you needed. In terms of what pays everyone’s bills in this business, it might be the skipping — I doubt it. It might be the searching — I doubt it. I think what drives it is I just pull out my phone and it delivers me music and I stay the course. I think it’s that.
The [U.K. Competition and Markets Authority] asked the four streaming platforms in the U.K. to reveal a source of streams and just how much is human editorial: not a lot, 5% back then, probably two and a half percent now. How much is algorithmic? Not a lot. The vast majority of listening is people-owned playlists. That was a bombshell. That shook the industry out of a rut because, wait a second, 85% of listening might not be platform directed.
So, you know, it’s interesting to just think about that context as well. If you’re skipping, and you look at that table, you look at all the evidence, I think that the evidence weighs towards skipping as a negative signal in terms of the attribution, the value, utility that person’s gained from their platform, as opposed to a positive one. People want to stay in the saddle of music. They want to complete.
Reading the paper, I sensed some undercurrents, perhaps, of criticism of how people, especially young people, listen to music these days. You quoted somebody saying that wedding bands only play two minutes of a song because TikTok has ruined its users’ attention spans. Is part of this about trying to get people to listen to an entire song, and get their attention spans back?
I really owe a long-time mentor of mine, Fred Goldring, for that quote. He told the story about a wedding band that played a two-and-a-half-hour medley because people don’t have the attention spans for full songs anymore. I was like, “Oh, my goodness! What has TikTok has done? Is that what the 30-second rule has done to our music? Is that where we’re at?” If I can expand on that, Arctic Monkeys are a very successful band. They played the Emirates Stadium [in London] twice last summer. The first night was predominantly die-hard fans in their 40s and 50s. The second night was teenage girls who had discovered them on TikTok, and they only knew 34 seconds of all its songs. If you stick around after the chorus, we’re going to sing another verse. It’s called a composition, people; we’ve had these things for a long time. Yeah, there is a concern there.
Now, the concern could just be misplaced. I think the concern is actually very real. Songs are getting shorter. Choruses have been moved to the front, and Swedish artists were doing this in 2013. Many artists are doing it now. But in an attention economy, any alteration to pro rata [royalty calculations] that helps music win attention, that creates incentives that compete for attention, has to be good. Because music is in competition with so many other distractions. Now, completion has a different agenda, but it’s going to help this industry think about, how does it compete for attention?
You noted in the paper that complexity could be the opponent of a successful royalty system. I’m wondering to what extent people, and mainly creators, will need to understand how this royalty system would work. You’ll understand it. Attorneys will understand it, as they must. But ostensibly, these new royalty schemes are to create more fairness for creators. Do you think creators would understand this well enough?
Is the consumer aware that under pro rata, that if I’m a light user, and Glenn Peoples is a heavy user, my money is being used to compensate Glenn’s consumption? Probably not. If they were, would they change your habits? Maybe. Maybe that user-centric property is interesting. But I’m not sure how interested the consumer is in the actual royalty model. If you surveyed them and said, “How many people know it takes 30 seconds before you get paid?” Less than 1%.
On the industry side, something as simple as a completion index, a third threshold, I feel fits the curve. Even drummers will understand this. That’s really important. Now, where it could get complex in that proposal is that Glenn’s completion of a two-minute pop song would be worth more than my incompletion after listening to six and a half minutes of a seven-minute song. Curb the concern, though, because I did go on to show that genre is not necessarily a driver of completion; neither is song length. That’s a reassurance.
Universal Music Group (UMG) got a boost from physical sales in the second quarter, but the conversation during Wednesday’s earnings call was mostly focused on streaming. Subscriptions, which accounted for more than half of total recorded music revenue, were a key factor in the company’s 8.7% revenue growth in the quarter. Even so, UMG’s streaming business is not firing on all cylinders. Ad-supported streaming continues to show weakness and UMG revealed that Facebook no longer licenses its premium videos.
CEO Lucian Grainge said the industry has entered “the next phase” of the streaming and subscription business, one characterized by collaboration with streaming companies to produce new products and allow artificial intelligence to allow artists to sing their music in different languages. “The amount of work, win-win dialogue [and] creative discussions that are going on between us is really extremely exciting,” he said.
Trending on Billboard
Here’s what else you should know about UMG’s most recent quarterly earnings and what was said on the call.
Streaming is growing — unevenly
Although UMG’s recorded music subscription revenue improved 6.5%, not all subscription platforms are performing equally well. CFO Boyd Muir cited a “slowdown in subscriber growth at certain platforms” while noting that Spotify, YouTube “and many regional and local platforms” continue to show healthy growth. Generally, UMG is optimistic about the overall marketplace’s ability to find new subscribers. Michael Nash, executive vp of digital strategy, said UMG’s consumer research has identified 180 million consumers from the top 19 territories “that will form the next wave of subscription adoption,” even taking into account price increases.
“Other” streaming revenue dropped 3.9% in the quarter, which Muir attributed to a decline in ad-supported streaming and some platform-specific issues (see Facebook below). UMG warned of weak ad-supported streaming last quarter, and Muir said UMG needs to see “broad-based improvement across multiple partners and geographies over a longer timeframe before we’re ready to adopt a less cautious view.”
Meta is no longer licensing UMG premium videos for Facebook
Another reason for a slowdown in non-subscription streaming revenue was Facebook’s departure from music videos. “Meta had previously offered previous music videos on Facebook,” Muir explained. “This product offering was less popular with Facebook’s user base than other music products, and as a result, Meta is no longer licensing premium music videos from us. As of May of this year, Meta is now focusing instead on other areas involving music content, and we are working together to expand these areas as part of a multifaceted renewal.” Showing premium videos is not the only aspect of Meta’s licensing agreements with labels, however. As Billboard has previously reported, Meta reached a licensing deal with UMG in 2017 that allowed UMG’s repertoire in user-uploaded videos on Facebook, Instagram and Messenger. And a deal reached in 2020 allowed users to add songs from UMG’s catalog to videos on Facebook’s gaming platform.
The noncontroversial Spotify bundle controversy
After Spotify began offering both music and audiobooks, the company asserted it can pay a discounted “bundle” royalty rate to publishers and songwriters for premium streams. When asked about the audiobook bundle controversy on Tuesday, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek described it as a not-unusual disagreement between counterparts. “That’s the nature of all supplier and distributor relationships,” he said during the company’s earnings call. UMG had a similarly unsensational response when asked about the bundle controversy. Rather than feeling cheated out of royalties, Muir said UMG “[is] confident our revenue participation reflects the value our artists and our music is bringing to their platform.”
UMG invested 519 million euros ($562 million) in the first half of 2024
Three transactions accounted for 450 million euros ($487 million) of investments in the first half of the year: a majority stake in Nigerian label Maven Global; an investment in Complex; and a $240 million investment in Chord Music Partners, a joint venture of KKR and Dundee Partners that owns over 60,000 copyrights. UMG spent 96 million euros ($104 million) on catalog acquisitions in the half-year, including 75 million euros ($81 million) that had been sitting in an escrow account.
Equity analysts aren’t convinced the U.S. Department of Justice will accomplish its larger goal of separating Live Nation’s concert promotion and ticketing businesses, thereby undoing the controversial merger it allowed in 2010. But if Live Nation and Ticketmaster were to become separate companies, analysts estimate the combined companies would be worth from $85 to $96 per share, based on a handful of reports Billboard has seen.
Live Nation shares were trading around $101 to $102 the day before the lawsuit was announced on May 23. But shares have since traded in the $93 to $94 range, putting the current price at the upper end of analysts’ “sum of the parts” (SOTP) valuations. In the wake of the lawsuit, some analysts have lowered their price targets for Live Nation, and S&P Global downgraded its rating on Live Nation’s debt.
Any good merger creates value greater than the sum of the parts. Live Nation’s business model is a “flywheel” in which one segment (such as concerts) generates value for other segments (ticketing or sponsorship and advertisements). To the company, the flywheel is the result of hard-won competitive advantages built over the past 14 years. To the DOJ, the flywheel represents Live Nation’s ability to use its dominant market position to its advantage in anti-competitive ways.
Trending on Billboard
Breaking up Live Nation would eliminate the synergies that create value for the combined company. What is currently one stock would become two stocks of two separate companies with different management teams. Live Nation shareholders would likely get ownership in the new, standalone Ticketmaster. Analysts have calculated the value of Live Nation and Ticketmaster using a SOTP approach that combines the value of the business segments as if they were standalone companies.
But analysts have serious doubts the DOJ will succeed in breaking up the company. “Federal Judges…are generally pro-business and we doubt — at least based on [the DOJ’s 128-page] summary — the case is strong enough to either break up Live Nation or for the DOJ to win the lawsuit,” wrote Huber Research analyst Doug Arthur in a Thursday (June 6) note to investors. Similarly, J.P. Morgan sees “a real possibility that [Live Nation] comes out of this a winner” and fends off the DOJ’s ultimate goal of breaking up the company, analysts wrote in a May 29 note to investors.
“The government’s burden is going to be pretty high,” Bill Morrison, partner at Haynes & Boone, tells Billboard. “It’s long been the case in antitrust jurisprudence that it’s not illegal to have a monopoly. What’s illegal is to use that monopoly power in an anti-competitive way. And so that would be the burden that the DOJ would have to prove, which is to show that Live Nation abused its monopoly power and it acted unreasonably to restrain trade to maintain its monopoly.”
There could be outcomes other than a forced divestiture, however. Wolfe Research analysts note the “DOJ does not lose if it reached for the stars and landed on the moon,” they wrote in a May 23 note. “From that perspective, it is entirely possible the DOJ wants to get Live Nation/Ticketmaster to agree to remedies, such as eliminating exclusive ticketing deals, and is using the threat of a breakup to achieve those goals.”
The very existence of the DOJ’s lawsuit has changed how investors will approach Live Nation. The health of the concert business and Live Nation’s strengths will be overshadowed by the pall cast by the DOJ. Northcoast Research downgraded Live Nation from “buy” to “neutral” because analysts believe the stock price will be based on legal news and the political environment rather than fundamentals and business performance. J.P. Morgan also noted a “sentiment overhang” related to the DOJ’s lawsuit and lowered its price target to $116 from $126, although it kept its recommendation at “overweight.”
One variable that has largely gone unmentioned is the possible change in the administration at the White House. President Biden has taken an aggressive stance on protecting competition — the DOJ sank proposed mergers by Spirit-JetBlue and Penguin Random House-Simon & Schuster — reducing the fees consumers face everywhere from airlines to concert tickets, and criminally prosecuting companies over no-poaching rules and wage-fixing. A second Trump administration would bring an entirely new slate of appointments to head influential antitrust positions. “It depends on who is in those key [regulatory] spots, and then what the priorities are of those offices and the philosophy,” Morrison says. “We’ve seen big pivots in the past.”
Live Nation did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.
On Friday (May 31), AEG chairman/CEO Jay Marciano became the first major live music executive to voice support for the Department of Justice’s effort to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, foreshadowing the role AEG will likely play as a key witness in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Ticketmaster.
“AEG has long maintained that Ticketmaster has a monopoly in the U.S. ticketing marketplace and uses that monopoly power to subsidize Live Nation’s content businesses,” Marciano wrote in a memo to staff May 30. Beyond its longstanding criticism that Live Nation uses its scale to overpay for talent, AEG doubled down on its attacks on Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive ticketing contracts, with Marciano telling staff that AEG and its attorneys “strongly believe that DOJ’s lawsuit will succeed and ultimately bring sweeping changes” to the live music industry.
The government interviewed dozens of Live Nation’s competitors during its two-year anti-trust investigation, including AEG — executives at AEG have met with DOJ investigators on at least three separate occasions, including a 2023 meeting to discuss the crash of the ticket presale for Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour, which AEG promoted through its joint venture with Louis Messina.
Trending on Billboard
That puts Marciano and AEG in a rare position to galvanize public opinion and build support for his call to staff and the larger music community to help “us lay the groundwork now for the future of the industry.”
But AEG’s claims aren’t as compelling as Marciano thinks, according to Live Nation executive vp of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall, who responded to Marciano’s May 30 letter with a statement alleging AEG is trying to use Live Nation’s antitrust case “to advance their own interests.”
“AEG supports this case — indeed, begged DOJ to file it — because it doesn’t want to pay artists market rates or convince venues to adopt its second-rate ticketing system exclusively,” Wall said in a statement provided to Billboard after Marciano’s statement was released.
AEG declined to comment for this story.
The battle between Live Nation and AEG dates back to the federal government’s 2010 approval of Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, which the government approved by imposing a number of conditions on Ticketmaster designed to increase competition. As part of those conditions, referred to as the consent decree, the DOJ required Ticketmaster to license its source code and technology to AEG to create a competing ticketing service. The government did not address some of Ticketmaster’s more controversial tactics at the time, like the use of exclusive contracts to lock venues into long-term deals, which lies at the heart of this current conflict.
AEG only licensed Ticketmaster’s technology for a year, and in 2011 announced it was instead building a new ticketing platform called AXS with the help of Montreal firm Outbox ticketing. It took two years to switch all of AEG’s venues globally to AXS Tickets, and then AEG struggled to sign on new clients, even after merging with Veritix in 2015, and in 2019 ended up losing a major client — Altitude Sports and Entertainment — to a startup called Rival launched by former Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard.
AXS’ struggles were due in part to its ownership structure following the 2015 merger with Veritix, which divided ownership among AEG, private-equity firm TPG and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, who previously owned Veritix. In 2019, AXS’ partners began exploring a sale of the company and looked at buying Rival or being bought by Rival, deals AEG blocked thanks to AXS’ ownership rules that required unanimous consent for all material decisions. AEG also blocked a merger between AXS and CTS Eventim, a powerful European ticketing provider that was looking for an entry point in the U.S. market to compete with Ticketmaster.
Gilbert and TPG eventually agreed to sell their stakes in AXS to AEG in 2019, which by then had started to explore a new business model for the ticketer, built around non-exclusive ticketing contracts. Instead of competing with Ticketmaster to sign venues to AXS, AEG would instead focus on expanding its use of AXS ticketing for AEG-promoted tours. Both Live Nation and AEG prefer to use their own ticketing platforms for the concerts they promote because it allows the promoters to directly control the customer data.
Hoping to encourage Ticketmaster to allow AEG to use AXS whenever it brought tours to buildings ticketed by Ticketmaster, AEG offered to allow Live Nation to use Ticketmaster at the venues AEG controls, including the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles.
AEG would extract a similar concession from Live Nation in 2021 that would earn a mention in the DOJ’s lawsuit against Ticketmaster. On June 15 of that year, leading venue operations company ASM Global, in which AEG owned a minority stake, announced it had renewed its agreement with Ticketmaster to provide ticketing services for a majority of the 300 venues ASM manages.
The government flagged the agreement as suspicious because AEG at the time owned 30% of ASM and had “advocated for AXS to serve as the exclusive primary ticketer for the ASM Global venues,” the complaint reads. “But ASM Global’s majority shareholder, Onex, worried that Live Nation would retaliate by withholding shows from ASM Global venues if ASM Global entirely switched away from using Ticketmaster.”
A source close to the deal called the DOJ’s version of the story an “oversimplification,” noting that AEG and Onex didn’t have the right to require ASM Global clients to use one ticketing system over the other and that the majority of clients opted to stay with Live Nation. ASM did, however, convince Live Nation to grant a rare exception to its venue contracts, allowing ASM venues contracted to Ticketmaster to switch to AXS tickets for any tours AEG brought to the buildings.
In exchange, Ticketmaster paid a large advance for the multiyear contract and issued a press release, quoting ASM Global president/CEO Ron Bension saying, “Aligning with industry leaders like Ticketmaster is a critical component in providing millions of people with the most seamless and secure live experiences.”
Happy to have secured the largest carve-out in Ticketmaster’s exclusivity contract to date, AXS decided to push for more exceptions. In 2022, AEG began routing Swift’s The Eras Tour alongside its partner, Messina Touring Group. The majority of the venues on the tour were Ticketmaster-exclusive facilities, though ASM managed five of the stadiums, representing 12 shows on the 52-date trek. But two of those dates — a pair of concerts at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. — would be ticketed by SeatGeek under its exclusive deal with the Arizona Cardinals. Making matters worse, two of ASM’s management clients decided to partner with Ticketmaster for the sale.
Down to just five shows at two stadiums, AEG dropped the matter, but not before reporting the issue to the DOJ, encouraging them to look at Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s use of exclusive contracts as anti-competitive.
After the fiasco, Live Nation chairman Greg Maffei appeared on CNBC to defend Ticketmaster and claim “AEG, who is the promoter for Taylor Swift, chose to use us because, in reality, we are the largest and most effective ticket seller in the world,” he said. “Even our competitors want to come on our platform.” AEG leadership was quick to respond. “Ticketmaster’s exclusive deals with the vast majority of venues on The Eras Tour required us to ticket through their system,” the leadership said in a statement, adding, “We didn’t have a choice.”
In the months following, AEG’s relationship with Live Nation only worsened. In January 2023, AEG announced it was backing a U.S. tour for chart-topping singer Zach Bryan who had just released a live album called All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster. The album title succinctly encapsulated decades of anti-Ticketmaster sentiment from music fans over Ticketmaster fees, pricing and indignities and AEG was eager to get in early. With AEG as his promoter, Bryan embarked on an expansive tour of non-Ticketmaster buildings, a gambit that hadn’t been attempted since Pearl Jam in the 1990s. AEG even deployed a sophisticated anti-scalping system to keep tickets out of the hands of scalpers.
Despite the tour’s success, Bryan had reached a surprising conclusion about the experience — some of his homies hated AXS tickets too.
“Everyone complained about AXS last year. Using all ticketing sites this year,” he said of his 2023 Quittin’ Time Tour, which was still being promoted by AEG but would no longer route around Ticketmaster buildings and would play all venues, regardless of which company was the ticketer.
“All my homies still do hate Ticketmaster, but hard to realize one guy can’t change the whole system,” Bryan wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “It is intentionally broken and I’ll continue to feel absolutely horrible about the cost of tickets.”
In his written response to Marciano’s letter, Wall, a former litigator for Live Nation who helped architect the 2010 consent decree, says AEG is now trying to use the legal system to compete against Ticketmaster instead of focusing on improving AXS.
Marciano contends that there are many things that the DOJ can do to level the playing field and ended his letter by encouraging his employees not to “get distracted by Live Nation spin” and instead to “prepare for a world with more competition, more innovation, artist and consumer choice, lower ticketing fees, and more music.”
After an ugly weekend of diss-track crossfire, the beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake now features unproven accusations of spousal abuse, drug use and even pedophilia. Those claims might be “slander” to many people, but are they defamatory? We asked the legal experts.
The long-simmering dispute between the two hip hop heavyweights went thermonuclear on Friday, when Drake dropped a track claiming Lamar had abused his fiancée. Minutes later, Lamar fired back with accusations about addictions, hidden children and plastic surgery. The next day he dropped another song accusing Drake and others of pedophilia.
With the allegations getting wilder by the minute, spectators on social media began to wonder if either rapper – but particularly Kendrick – could be setting themselves up for more than just another scathing response: “Has anyone ever filed a defamation lawsuit over a diss track before?” joked Matt Ford, a legal reporter at the New Republic, on Saturday night.
Trending on Billboard
An actual lawsuit seems unlikely, for the simple reason that any rapper responding to a diss track with a team of lawyers would be committing reputational suicide. But let’s play it out: Could a rapper like Drake or Kendrick sue over the kind of scathing insults we saw this weekend?
While diss tracks filled with extremely specific invective (and we mean extremely) could certainly lead to a libel lawsuit in theory, legal experts tell Billboard that such a case would face not just legal challenges but also practical problems. First and foremost? That the accuser would open themselves up to painful discovery by opposing lawyers.
“Any plaintiff suing for defamation is putting their entire life and reputation on the line,” says Dori Hanswirth, a veteran litigator who heads the media law practice at the law firm Arnold & Porter. “If someone decided to sue over a statement that they preyed upon underage women, for example, then that person’s entire dating history would be fair game in the litigation.”
While the term “slander” gets thrown around on the internet a lot these days, actual legal defamation is pretty hard to prove in America, thanks to the First Amendment and its robust protections for free speech. Winning a case requires that an accuser show that a statement about them was factually false; mere statements of opinion don’t count, and neither do bombastic exaggerations.
“The public … has to believe that the speaker is being serious, and not just hurling insults in a diss fight,” Hanswirth says. “If the statements are not taken literally, then they are rhetorical hyperbole and not considered to be defamatory. The context of this song-by-song grudge match tends to support the idea that this is rhetorical, and a creative way to beef with a rival.”
Another legal roadblock is that both Drake and Kendrick are so-called public figures — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit. Under landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedents, a public figure must show that their alleged defamer acted with “actual malice,” meaning they knew their statement was false or they acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
In practice, the “actual malice” rule has made it nearly impossible for prominent people to sue for libel. And that’s by design. Without strong protections, defamation lawsuits would allow government officials, business leaders and other powerful people to harass and silence anyone who criticizes them, stifling free speech about important public issues.
“The Supreme Court has held that this heightened standard always applies where the plaintiff is a public figure, and it is designed to promote robust expression and debate,” said Adam I. Rich, a music and First Amendment attorney at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.
So, what’s the verdict? No matter how ugly the insults between Drake and Kendrick, it seems like the beef between them is probably going to remain in the form of verse rather than legal briefs.
“As both a lawyer and a fan,” Rich says, “I hope Drake and Kendrick turn the heat down and play the next round out in the studio, not the courtroom.”