State Champ Radio analysis
Page: 4
The concert business has had a record year in 2023 — tours by Taylor Swift and Beyoncé were pop culture moments, festivals roared back to life and consumers’ splurging on tickets seemed to defy gravity. There’s likely more good news on the horizon, too. By all forecasts, next year is shaping up for continued success, even as consumers still feel pinched by inflation.
Among the big names to announce stadium tours next year are The Rolling Stones, Foo Fighters, Green Day and a pairing of Journey and Def Leppard. Chris Stapleton, Zach Bryan and Luke Combs will hit both stadiums and arenas. Drake, Bad Bunny, Thirty Seconds to Mars, Hootie & the Blowfish, New Kids on the Block, Alanis Morissette and The Trilogy Tour featuring Enrique Iglesias, Ricky Martin and Pitbull will play arenas and amphitheaters. Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour continues in 2024, too, with 85 shows announced for Asia, Australia and North America.
Advanced ticket sales suggest consumers remain eager to see their favorite artists perform live. Through mid-October, Live Nation’s event-related deferred revenue — from ticket sales to events that had not yet occurred — was up 39% year over year, according to the company’s third-quarter earnings release.
AEG Presents, the second-largest promoter, is “feeling really positive” about 2024 tours across all venue sizes and genres, says Rich Schaefer, president of global touring. “I think people are discovering new artists and want to see big shows — and they’re willing to pay for it.” They’re buying well in advance, too: AEG put tickets on sale for 76 Zach Bryan shows in 2024 — some won’t happen until December — and has “largely sold everything out,” says Schaeffer. “That artist especially has a crazy connection with his fans. They’ve seen videos of what his shows are like, and I think everybody wants to experience it.”
Those big tours — and thousands of others — are counting on consumers to continue to open their wallets despite continued high prices for staples and living expenses, rising debt delinquencies and Americans’ credit card debt reaching a record level in the third quarter. The holidays are presenting mixed signals: Black Friday spending was up 2.5% compared to 2022, but numerous surveys have found consumers plan to spend less on gifts this year.
Consumers may feel beleaguered, but they continue to spend to see their favorite artists perform live. “I have weekly booking calls with the over 40 presidents around the world and we talk booking clubs up to stadiums and festivals, and we have not seen anything taper off in any sense,” said Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino during the company’s Nov. 2 earnings call. The company is “not seeing any pullback in any way” in consumer demand regardless of the region or venue size, he added.
A big question, though, is whether consumers will be in a spending mood throughout 2024. A new Goldman Sachs economic outlook report says the U.S. economy today is better than was expected a year ago, inflation will continue to subside and the likelihood of a recession in 2024 is “limited.” The latest data from the University of Michigan is encouraging: U.S. consumer sentiment soared in December and people’s expectations for year-ahead inflation dropped to 3.1% from 4.5% last month.
Whatever uncertainties exist — including falling savings rates and weakening credit conditions — have not materialized in ticket sales thus far. “We certainly see the headlines [about macroeconomic conditions], but it’s not flowing through to numbers that we can see,” Lawrence Fey, CFO of secondary ticket marketplace Vivid Seats, said during a Nov. 7 earnings call.
One could simply look at who’s touring in 2024 to get a sense of where ticket buyers are thinking. “You got The Stones going on the road in parts in North America,” says Doug Arthur of Huber Research Partners. “They’re always a pretty big draw. The Stones are pretty savvy historically about touring when they think the economics support it.”
Consumers’ willingness to spend increasing amounts on live music isn’t a new trend — although some of 2023’s record-setting box office numbers appear to be the result of music fans may be clamoring for live events in after suffering through pandemic-era restrictions. The concert industry has benefited from a lasting shift among consumers from goods to experiences over the last 10 to 15 years, says Brandon Ross, an analyst with LightShed Partners.
This year’s boffo box office numbers weren’t outliers, and Ross expects to see “outsized performance on a global basis” in 2024. “There has been a year-and-a-half long concern for a broader pullback in consumer spending,” says Ross. “I don’t think will not impact growth, but I think there’s substantial tailwind supporting this industry.”
Those tailwinds probably won’t be strong enough for next year’s touring business to duplicate 2023’s stellar growth rate — but no one seems to be expecting that. “I don’t think you’re talking about another up 30% type of year, and I don’t think [Live Nation is] talking about that either,” says Arthur. “But can the concert revenues be up high single digits between volume, fans per show, price per ticket and spending per fan? Yeah, I think that’s not unreasonable at all.”
Artists and promoters will continue to encounter high costs in 2024 — labor, catering, buses and staging are stretched thin with a high number of big tours on the road. That’ll continue to push ticket prices up. Even so, AEG hasn’t seen resistance to higher prices, says Schaefer. “There’s very few instances where we think that pricing is responsible for tickets not selling.”
Most corporations would love to rake in revenues well over $1 billion in a single year. In 2023, Taylor Swift has done it — and plenty more — by herself.
Billboard estimates that the 2023 Time Person of the Year honoree has grossed approximately $1.82 billion in music sales and royalties, concert tickets, merchandise sales at concerts and movie ticket sales in 2023 through Dec. 7.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
That figure represents the total amount generated in these handful of segments of Swift’s business career, not the amount she personally pocketed. Because none of this financial information is publicly available, Billboard calculated music royalties based on data from Luminate, concert ticket sales using publicly available information and her concert merchandise revenue was estimated based on Billboard’s reporting.
While impressive, $1.82 billion isn’t even the entirety of the income Swift has derived from her music career. Billboard left many items out of the calculations due to the inaccessibility of data, including synchronization royalties for her music’s use in advertisements, films and television shows, sponsorships, and merchandise sales from her website and licensing deals.
To put Swift’s year in perspective, she took in more than the $1.4 billion global gross of the motion picture Barbie. She exceeded the $1.6 billion fetched last year by the auction of Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s art collection of works by the likes of Vincent van Gogh, Georges Seurat and Gustav Klimt. And it’s almost four times the 2022 annual revenue of Deezer, a publicly traded music streaming company with 9.4 million subscribers. In fact, she grossed more than every record label besides the three majors.
Spending on tickets and concert merchandise accounted for the lion’s share of Swift’s business this year. Swift’s The Eras Tour generated approximately $900 million in ticket sales in 2023. That figure is based on Billboard’s estimate that Swift sold 3.3 million tickets to 53 concerts in the U.S. at about $250 per ticket. An additional 13 shows in Latin America likely earned another $60 million to $75 million from 750,000 ticket. At those concerts, Swift sold an estimated concert merchandise sales of $132 million of merchandise. Her per-show average merchandise sales at roughly $2 million, based on Billboard’s reporting.
Swift’s music grossed an estimated $536 million from streaming royalties, purchases — tracks, digital albums, CDs, LPs and cassettes — and broadcast radio play through Dec. 7. Swift is this year’s leading U.S. artist in terms of on-demand audio streams, album sales and track sales.
Sales and streams accounted for roughly 86%, or $461 million, of her recorded music revenue. Most of that money was collected by her label, Republic Records, and the owner of her Big Machine Music Group catalog, Shamrock Capital. These amounts include the gross amount from music purchases (CDs, LPs and downloads) and includes mechanical royalties paid by record labels to songwriters and music publishers.
Swift’s songwriting catalog generated an estimated $75 million from streaming and radio play. (Publishing royalties from streaming are not counted in the recorded music gross revenue. Unlike the mechanical royalties from purchases, mechanical royalties from streams are not passed through record labels.) The radio royalties are paid to Swift’s performance rights organization, BMI, and will be distributed to Swift, her co-writers and the various music publishers and administrators that have rights to the compositions.
Additionally, Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour movie has an international gross of $250 million, according to Box Office Mojo. In the U.S., the movie grossed $179 million and debuted at No. 1 with first-week ticket sales of $95 million to $97 million. Depending on the production costs, the movie could be a financial boon for Swift considering she circumvented the traditional Hollywood distribution system and made a deal directly with AMC, the country’s largest movie theater chain. Additionally, the film is now available to rent on streaming and Swift retains the rights to license to a streaming service — both of which will earn her even more money.
Swift’s true economic impact is far larger than her gross sales outlined here. Many experts have been thinking of Swift’s business as the center of a larger economic impact that expands like concentric circles around her fans’ insatiable demand and willingness to travel to experience her concerts. The U.S. Travel Association stated in September that it believed The Eras Tour’s total economic impact will exceed $10 billion. Swift’s tour reached 20 U.S. cities and her fans averaged $1,300 of spending on travel, hotel stays and food. The association figures Swift’s fans spent about $5 billion in those destinations. Including indirect spending by others “who came to join the action around the events but did not actually attend the shows,” the association estimates the total economic impact is twice the $5 billion of direct spending. Another estimated found that her six sold-out shows at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, alone brought an estimated $320 million to the Los Angeles area’s gross domestic product, according to the California Center for Jobs & The Economy and California Business Roundtable.
Spotify’s announcement this week that it was laying off 17% of its global workforce surprised a music business enjoying a renaissance. After all, Spotify ignited the subscription-streaming boom that saved the industry. And while the companies that depend on the online advertising business go through booms and busts — think of Meta cutting 21,000 jobs since 2022 — music business jobs have been relatively safe.
Spotify’s decision to eliminate about 1,500 full-time staffers shouldn’t have come as a surprise, though. As CEO Daniel Ek put it in a letter announcing the layoffs, “Today, we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact.”
Over a decade and a half, Spotify pioneered a new model for music subscriptions by prioritizing growth over profit. While on-demand video streaming services such as Netflix frequently raised prices, Spotify left most of its prices unchanged until July. Digital music platforms have a notoriously tricky path to profitability, but Spotify’s share price soared thanks to a pandemic-era boost to streaming companies as well as high expectations for its nascent podcasting business. By February 2021, as Spotify poured money into acquisitions and pricey podcasting content, the stock was trading at $364.59 per share, valuing the company at roughly $71 billion.
By 2022, however, Spotify’s investors had run out of patience. The stock was trading at $110 on June 8 when Ek and CFO Paul Vogel shared their ambitious plan at the company’s Investor Day presentation: $100 billion in annual revenue, 40% gross margins and 20% operating margins. To get there, Spotify would continue to scale its podcasting business and lean on its audio content acquisitions — The Ringer, Parcast, Megaphone and Anchor — to help the format reach larger audiences. Now, Spotify also wants to do for audiobooks what it did with podcasts: piggyback on its massive base of music listeners, develop innovative products and build a bigger market.
Podcasts and audiobooks, as well as services sold to artists and record labels like merchandise listings and Discovery Mode, are important to reaching the targets of 40% gross margin and 20% operating margin. Given the nature of licensing deals with record labels and music publishers, music margins have little room to improve. Whereas video streamers like Netflix pay fixed costs for much of their content, Spotify pays a percentage of revenue to record labels and music publishers. That means as revenue increases, so do its content costs. And that’s not likely to change. “Our strategy is not predicated on trying to extract margin by negotiating better terms with the content partners we have,” Ek said at the 2022 Investor Day.
Over a year later, however, Billboard’s analysis of Spotify’s financial statements shows the company is still nowhere near its target margins. Since the first quarter of 2020, its gross profit margin has fallen between 24.1% and 28.4% while its operating profit margin has ranged from –8.8% to 3% and was below zero in 11 of 15 quarters.
Merely adding subscribers isn’t enough. (The company reported 226 million at the end of Q3 2023.) Reaching its targets requires Spotify to cut costs while investing in new growth opportunities such as podcasts and audiobooks. Ek said as much when explaining Vogel’s upcoming departure on Thursday. “I’ve talked a lot with Paul about the need to balance these two objectives carefully,” he said in a statement. “Over time, we’ve come to the conclusion that Spotify is entering a new phase and needs a CFO with a different mix of experiences.”
Spotify’s cost-cutting started in 2022 with a pause on new hires, layoffs in October and the cancellation of six live audio shows in December. This year, it laid off 6% of its global staff in January and in June merged two podcast production houses, Gimlet and Parcast, and further cut its podcast workforce by 2%. In August, it shut down Spotify Live, a short-lived live streaming app. Then on Monday, Spotify announced it would lay off 17% of its workforce. It also canceled two in-house podcasts, Heavyweight and Stolen.
As the graphs show, recent trends in Spotify’s financials made it clear larger cuts were necessary to meet the company’s ambitious targets. Personnel costs as a percentage of revenue rose from 13.8% in 2021 to 16.2% in 2022. Research and development expenses — which include some salaries — jumped from 9.4% of revenue in 2021 to 11.8% in 2022.
As Ek explained in the memo to employees, Spotify grew in 2021 and 2022 to take advantage of lower-cost capital. Today’s environment is different, however, and Ek believes Spotify’s “cost structure for where we need to be is still too big.” Indeed, Spotify’s head count steadily increased as it acquired companies, developed new formats and created product innovations that both resonated (Spotify Wrapped) and flopped (Spotify Live) with users. The number of full-time employees increased nearly 50% from 2020 to 2022.
This growth came without added efficiency, however. The revenue generated per employee peaked at 1.54 million euros ($1.66 million) in 2019 and declined to 1.4 million euros ($1.51 million) in 2022 — the lowest since 2017. The July price increase will help Spotify bring in more revenue without additional staff or resources, though the effectiveness of those increases won’t be known until Spotify releases full-year results in late January.
What’s more, Spotify’s gross profit per employee fell to a five-year low in 2022. Gross profit is what’s left after cost of sales — primarily royalties to labels and publishers — is deducted from revenue. It goes toward personnel costs, sales and marketing expenses, and general and administrative costs. But as Spotify added employees in recent years, gross profit per employee fell to 350,000 euros ($377,000) in 2022 from 391,600 euros ($421,000) in 2021.
An obvious way for Spotify to reach its target margins was to make larger cuts to its workforce and, as Ek phrased it, “become relentlessly resourceful.” Cutting 17% of its personnel costs would have resulted in savings of 323 million euros ($349 million) in 2022, based on total personnel costs of 1.9 billion euros ($2.05 billion). That savings would have halved Spotify’s 2022 operating loss of 659 million euros ($711 million).
Ultimately, the multi-billion-dollar question is simple: Can Spotify continue adding subscribers as fast as it has in previous years and develop its spoken word products into the higher-margin businesses it needs with far fewer employees? That’s the high-stakes situation the new CFO will walk into in 2024 and that will determine the company’s future from here on out.
Taylor Swift’s The Eras Tour is poised to become the highest-grossing global tour of all time, according to Billboard’s estimates.
While no official numbers have been reported yet, Swift’s tour should pass current record-holder Elton John’s Farewell Yellow Brick Road Tour with more than $900 million in ticket sales so far.
On Sunday (Nov. 26), Swift played her last scheduled show of the year, wrapping an intense run of 66 concerts in the United States, Mexico and South America. Representatives for The Eras Tour have not yet reported official revenue or attendance figures to Billboard Boxscore or any other trade journal or news entity, but the enormity of The Eras Tour is impossible to ignore, with a total that amounts to a staggering average of nearly $14 million per show.
Dating back almost 40 years, all Boxscore rankings are based on figures reported to Billboard. Data is reported from a variety of official industry sources, from artist managers and agents to promoters and venue executives. Reporting has always been voluntary, and some artists, venues and promoters opt to withhold data from representation on our charts. It is not uncommon for artists to not report — or to wait until the end of a tour, which is still more than a year away in Swift’s case — though it’s rare that such a well-documented blockbuster tour, in contention for top year-end honors, is not submitted. Swift’s abstention disqualifies her from appearing on year-end Boxscore charts.
Swift kicked off The Eras Tour in Glendale, Ariz., on March 17, playing 53 domestic shows before wrapping at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., outside Los Angeles, on Aug. 9. She hit a total of 20 U.S. cities, and 11 of those venues have provided attendance figures to Billboard. Based on those numbers, as well as estimates based on aggressive scaling at the other nine stadiums, Swift likely sold 3.3 million tickets over 53 shows in the United States, or an average of 63,000 tickets per show.
Sources close to the tour point to an average domestic ticket price of around $252. This is in line with the prices for the summer’s other major concert event, Beyoncé’s Renaissance World Tour, which maintained a $135 ticket in Europe and a $253 ticket in North America. While ticket prices might dip in certain markets and bloom in others, using that number as an average puts the U.S. leg of The Eras Tour at $838.3 million. That total gross spreads out to $15.8 million per show, a staggering figure that exceeds recent tours by Bad Bunny, Beyoncé, and The Rolling Stones, each of which had giant totals of their own.
Taylor Swift performs onstage during Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour at Levi’s Stadium on July 28, 2023, in Santa Clara, Calif.
Jeff Kravitz/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management
That projected $838 million haul is more than enough to make Eras the highest-grossing U.S. and North American tour ever. John’s Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour holds the official Boxscore title, with $567.7 million in the United States and Canada. That total reflects 135 shows over a span of four years, compared to Swift’s 53 shows in less than six months.
Moreover, The Eras Tour’s U.S. gross would situate it as the second-highest grossing tour of all time based on global figures, before even crossing the border. John’s farewell tour remains the official record-holder with $939.1 million.
Since wrapping the Eras Tour’s U.S. leg, Swift played four shows at Mexico City’s Foro Sol (Aug. 24-27) and, more recently, nine South American shows, spread between Buenos Aires in Argentina and Brazil’s Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Those dates bring her much closer to John’s global record, even based on relatively conservative projections. But as we’ve seen with virtually every worldwide stadium tour in the last two years, the post-pandemic surge in ticket prices hasn’t been as severe outside the United States.
Further, these are Swift’s first shows in these Latin American markets. That means pent-up demand likely drove huge sales, though her base isn’t quite as explosive there as it is in the States.
Based on estimates considering the high end of grosses and ticket prices for each Latin American venue’s post-pandemic history, The Eras Tour likely earned another $60 million to $75 million and more than 750,000 tickets from those 13 shows.
In all, Billboard estimates that Swift has generated $906.1 million and sold 4.1 million tickets in 2023 across all shows in the United States, Mexico and South America. That would unofficially make The Eras Tour the biggest tour of 2023. And when considering Swift’s total revenue from the tour, it doesn’t even account for merchandise sales, sponsorships, music streaming and sales boosts, or her self-produced and released Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour concert film.
Swift is scheduled to resume The Eras Tour on Feb. 7 with four shows at the Tokyo Dome in Japan. Then, she’ll play seven shows in Australia and six in Singapore. In May, she kicks off a 50-date run in Europe before returning to North America for 18 shows in new markets, including the tour’s first entry into Canada. In all, that’s 85 shows to go, with the possibility of more to come, considering her recent concert additions to runs in London and Vancouver.
These upcoming international legs are already more ambitious than any previous Swift tour. While this year’s 53 U.S. shows are in line with what she did on 2018’s Reputation Stadium Tour and 2015’s The 1989 World Tour, those treks included just six and seven shows in Europe, respectively — a fraction of next year’s slate of 50.
If we use the comparison between Beyoncé’s recent European and North American grosses as a north star, in Europe, Swift could be looking at $8.5 million per show, or about $420 million over the entire leg. And even if next year’s North American shows dip from 2023’s record-breakers, the U.S. and Canada shows could add another $240 million to 260 million. Including the 17 shows in Asia and Australia, The Eras Tour is likely headed toward a total gross of $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion by the end of 2024. It will be the first in history to earn more than $1 billion in ticket sales and will set Swift far apart from her competitors. If figures skew toward the higher end of what’s possible, she could double John’s current record gross.
Representatives for Swift did not respond to a request for comment on Billboard‘s estimates at press time.
The Contenders is a midweek column that looks at artists aiming for the top of the Billboard charts, and the strategies behind their efforts. This week (for the upcoming Billboard Hot 100 dated Dec. 9), the now-annual holiday rush has begun on the Hot 100 – but for the first time, the usual pace-setter is in danger of being passed for the top spot.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Mariah Carey, “All I Want for Christmas Is You” (Columbia): Since the chart dated Dec. 12, 2015, Mariah Carey’s signature Yuletide tune has reigned atop Billboard’s Holiday 100 listing — 43 consecutive weeks (of its total 58 weeks at No. 1 among the chart’s 63 weeks of existence, dating back to 2011). And every December since first reaching the Hot 100’s apex in 2019, “All I Want” has returned to the top of the chart, most recently spending four weeks at pole position, from the surveys dated Dec. 17, 2022, through to Jan. 7, 2023. In all, it has spent 12 weeks at No. 1 on the Hot 100, belatedly making the 1994 release the third-longest-reigning single of Carey’s storied career, and arguably her all-time signature hit.
Once again this year, Carey’s pop perennial begins the holiday season in the lead. It returns at No. 1 on the first Holiday 100 of the 2023 season (dated Dec. 2) and also zooms from 17-4 on the Hot 100, in its 60th total week on the listing. As per tradition, Mimi has come out in full force to re-promote the seasonal staple (and her own Queen of Christmas status) this month. That includes sharing a video of her being “defrosted” at midnight on Nov. 1, starring in a holiday-themed Victoria’s Secret campaign, debuting new themed merch, and of course performing “All I Want” on the Billboard Music Awards (while also accepting the Billboard Chart Achievement Award for the song’s longtime success).
“All I Want” returning to No. 1 on next week’s Hot 100 would be no surprise at all — the song has been one of the great inevitables on the Billboard charts for nearly a half-decade now. However, this year it might be neck-and-neck with another holiday fixture, one that’s been gaining on it in recent years and may finally be in position to pull ahead.
Brenda Lee, “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree” (Decca): While Brenda Lee’s Christmas classic is 36 years older than Carey’s, it has nonetheless been building steam over the past half-decade, firmly establishing itself as the perennial silver medalist of Yuletide pop. As “All I Want” has reached No. 1 on both the Holiday 100 and the Hot 100 every year since 2019, so has “Rockin’” climbed to No. 2 on both charts — returning to the runner-up spot on this week’s Holiday 100, while also re-entering the Hot 100 at No. 8, as the second-highest-ranking holiday title. And each of the last few years, the gap in performance between the two songs has shrunk, though Carey’s has thus far remained the decisive leader.
This year, however, the competition has gotten legitimately tight. While Carey remains the leader of the two in sales and official on-demand U.S. streams through four days of this tracking week, Lee is slightly ahead in official U.S. streams, per preliminary tracking data for next week’s charts, according to Luminate. Lee’s song is also growing in streaming at a faster rate than Carey’s — and does in fact lead it comfortably on Spotify’s Daily Top Songs USA chart.
With the distance between the two songs looking increasingly climbable, and with “Rockin’” celebrating its 65th anniversary this year, Lee and her UMG label family have increased their promotional efforts to get the song over the top. Earlier this month, a new music video for the song (with cameos from country stars Tanya Tucker and Trisha Yearwood) premiered on CMT, while Lee will perform the song on NBC’s Christmas at the Opry special on Dec. 7. Lee also released the five-track A Rockin’ Christmas With Brenda Lee EP, featuring a new remix of “Rockin’” by dance producer Filous, and — of course — recently joined TikTok, where she’s been sharing daily posts reminiscing about the song and her career, and sharing her reactions to some of the new feedback and acclaim the song has garnered. (Lee even hopped on the plane intercom on a recent flight to perform the song, as captured by video shared on TMZ.)
With this major promotional push and an increasing public sentimentality behind the 78-year-old Lee — who, as one of the biggest pop stars of the pre-British Invasion ’60s, did top the Hot 100 twice, with 1960’s “I’m Sorry” and “I Want to Be Wanted” — this year should mark her best chance yet of returning to the top spot. If “Rockin’” doesn’t get there this week, it should be a week-to-week battle with “All I Want” throughout the holiday season — one that Lee herself recognized in a recent New York Times profile, quipping, “Now I gotta worry about Mariah… Get outta here, girl!” (She also added: “Oh, there’s room for everybody. Her song’s good, too. I love her singing.”)
IN THE MIX
Jack Harlow, “Lovin on Me” (Generation Now/Atlantic): Back in the secular music world, the reigning Hot 100 topper should still be a force to be reckoned with. Harlow’s “Lovin on Me,” his third No. 1 on the chart in three years, remains atop both the Spotify Daily Top Songs USA listing and Apple Music’s real time charts, and it also debuts at No. 32 on Billboard’s Radio Songs rankings this week, as it continues to grow on the airwaves, claiming top Airplay Gainer status on the Dec. 2 Hot 100. It may soon be buried under the holiday music avalanche, but Harlow and “Lovin” won’t hand over the reins to the chart without at least a bit of a fight.
Wham!, “Last Christmas” (Epic/Columbia): It’s not quite as exciting as the Mariah/Brenda showdown, but there’s also a race for No. 3 on the Holiday 100. That’s between Bobby Helms’ country-rock classic “Jingle Bell Rock,” which has been the annual No. 3 on the holiday Hot 100 since the 2019-20 season, and Wham!’s synth-pop staple “Last Christmas.” Wham! has creeped closer to the Big Three each year since singer-songwriter George Michael‘s death in 2016, hitting a new peak last year of No. 4 on the Hot 100. This year, it’s nipping at the heels of “Jingle Bell Rock” — they’re Nos. 13 and No. 12 on this week’s Hot 100, respectively — as it narrowly trails Helms’ hit in streams, and also follows in airplay, while leading it in sales, so far this tracking week.
For artists who choose not to sign with a record label, some may be independent and others will be do-it-yourself independent.
What’s the difference? Take Laufey, the Icelandic jazz artist whose latest album, Bewitched, reached No. 23 on the Billboard 200 albums chart in September. Laufey is signed to AWAL, the Sony Music-owned company that provides marketing and distribution services for independent artists. She hasn’t signed away the rights to her music, but AWAL helps promote her recordings at digital service providers and retail.
Oliver Anthony Music, on the other hand, is DIY independent. By all appearances, the “Rich Men North of Richmond” singer, whose real name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford, has left his recordings on autopilot without any kind of marketing behind them since he broke into the national consciousness in August and topped the Hot 100 for two straight weeks. Following the success of “Rich Men,” Lunsford has released more songs without the usual promotional muscle required to get new music noticed. As he told Billboard earlier this week, he manages himself and is avoiding record labels as he prepares to record an album.
He’s clearly getting some help. Lunsford has a basic but professional website and an e-commerce store that sells a handful of variations on Oliver Anthony Music hats, T-shirts, bumper stickers and beer koozies. For concerts, Anthony signed with UTA for representation and has a year of touring ahead of him, starting in February with dates in Europe and the Eastern half of the United States. He has an informal publicist who helps with media requests. And he told Billboard he has encountered “many artists,” such as country star Jamey Johnson, who have lent support and guidance.
Comparing “Rich Men” to other tracks to reach No. 1 on the Hot 100 this year, though, suggests being DIY creates some missed opportunities. Combined sales and streams of Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers,” Taylor Swift’s “Anti-Hero,” Morgan Wallen’s “Last Night” and SZA’s “Kill Bill” dropped between 17% and 55% over the 10-week period after the last date those tracks were No. 1. “Rich Men,” in contrast, dropped 83.4%. It makes sense: A major label marketing machine is better than an independent artist’s system in helping a track get hot and maintain momentum over months and years.
With a little help, “Rich Men” could arguably have far more sales and streams. As a DIY artist, Lunsford uses social media activity to keep listeners engaged and depends on the continued interest of journalists to keep him in the public eye. As he told Billboard this week, becoming a full-time musician means “you’re essentially a business owner and an entrepreneur and a lot of other things, too. And those are things I’m not quite used to yet.”
But Lunsford has done extremely well taking the DIY route. Billboard estimates that “Rich Men” has grossed $2 million from recorded music and publishing royalties from U.S. sales and streams since its release in August. While his weekly download sales are down sharply from their peak in August, our estimates still put the track’s royalties at an impressive $60,000 per week. And because Oliver Anthony Music is a DIY independent artist who retains the rights to his master recording and publishing, he should be pocketing nearly all that money (less any fees for distribution and publishing administration).
Besides, Lunsford seems content being a DIY artist — even if that means leaving money and celebrity on the table. There’s something to be said about saying “no” to the usual impulses to staff up and scale a business as fast as possible. Lunsford can ease into stardom at a comfortable pace rather than jump headfirst into the music business’ shark-filled waters. Read through the YouTube comments to his videos and you sense that listeners put value in Lunsford not being an industry insider — it adds to his authenticity. At the end of the day, not being too much of a business is probably good for Lunsford’s business.
Surprisingly, “Rich Men” has held up better than a couple of other No. 1s in 2023: Jason Aldean’s “Try That in a Small Town” and Jimin’s “Like Crazy.” Track sales and streams for “Try That” dropped 91.1% in the 10 weeks after it was No. 1. For “Like Crazy,” the first No. 1 for a solo member of superstar K-pop group BTS, track sales and streams dropped 92.9% over the same period. Although “Rich Men” has fallen far from its peak, its 83.4% drop in track sales and streams is considerably better than those other two hits.
There are obvious parallels between “Try That” and “Rich Men.” Both reached No. 1 because of widespread media attention. Both started conversations about social issues: race for Aldean, class for Lunsford. Both were celebrated as conservative anthems, although Anthony has distanced himself from political partisanship. Both are country tracks — Aldean’s a mainstream song built for maximum radio play, Lunsford’s a more old-fashioned slice of Appalachian roots music.
What’s more, both “Try That” and “Rich Men” did brisk business in track sales. As Billboard noted when “Rich Men” ascended the chart, artists popular with conservatives often have strong download numbers. In a typical week, the No. 1 track on the Hot 100 might sell 15,000 downloads, but when the culture wars stoke demand, the No. 1 will sell ten times that many. “Try That” sold 175,000 downloads in the week it was No. 1, while “Rich Men” averaged 132,000 weekly downloads in its two weeks atop the Hot 100.
Download buyers don’t offer the same consistency as streamers, though, and both “Rich Men” and “Try That” lost 99% of their track sales in the 10 weeks after they topped the chart. And because download sales were a big reason why those tracks reached No. 1, their total consumption (measured in both download sales and streams) dropped more than No. 1s that relied more on streaming. But heavy download sales were instrumental in getting each track to No. 1, and “Rich Men” still sells well, too: Last week, the track was the No. 41 most purchased track in the United States., according to Luminate.
Lunsford could easily ditch the DIY approach and assemble a team, but he’s in the rare position of not necessarily needing one. “Rich Men” succeeded without help from a marketing expert, social media guru or even a manager. Instead, Lunsford benefitted from an unprecedented groundswell of interest that gifted him an immense online following. His 1.15 million YouTube followers give him a similar audience as more established country musicians Kenny Chesney and Zac Brown Band, and twice as many as Grammy winner Kacey Musgraves. He has about as many Spotify followers as Bailey Zimmerman, a rising country star signed to Warner Music Nashville and Elektra Records.
When Lunsford eventually releases a new album, he won’t need many resources to instantly reach millions of fans — and he prefers it that way. “I think the most special thing about it being on the chart at all,” he told Billboard, “is that it made it to the chart without some big, corporate schmucky schmuck somewhere pumping a bunch of money into making it get there.”
Last spring, executives at Onex, AEG’s private equity partner in facility management company ASM Global, notified AEG leadership of their plans to trigger a clause in their agreement that allowed Onex to sell its 35% stake in ASM. Under the terms of the deal, AEG could either buy out Onex or match competing offers.
AEG officials instead elected to get out too, and over about half a year worked with Onex to identify a buyer for all ASM Global. On Nov. 3, Onex and AEG jointly announced that Legends Hospitality was buying ASM, the country’s leading venue management company.
Onex CEO Bobby Le Blanc told investors on a Nov. 10 earnings call that the decision to sell its ASM ownership stake for $2.3 billion was prompted by the company’s rebound in value, quickly recovering in the post-pandemic period after seeing its value dramatically drop when concerts shut down from 2020-2021 due to COVID-19.
The final sale price would double what ASM Global was worth in 2019 when AEG and Onex merged their SMG facility management holdings to create the world’s largest facility manager, Le Blanc confirmed.
Still, AEG’s decision to sell surprised many in the touring industry who had followed the company’s growth in that space.
For one, the sale made AEG a much smaller company, reducing its global footprint from 350 facilities under management to just nine — all of which AEG either owns or partially owns. And unlike Onex, as the world’s second largest concert promoter, AEG was able to enjoy significant synergies from owning ASM that other companies could not. AEG could more easily book its touring shows at ASM-managed facilities, expand its AXS ticketing platform to ASM-managed venues and sell sponsorships through its global partnerships division.
AEG and Onex merged their facilities holdings 14 months after Onex acquired SMG, AEG’s longtime facilities rival. In so doing, ASM Global became the world’s largest venue management company, with little to no competition for potentially large lucrative government contracts. Facility management has long been a predictable contracts business, in which city and county governments would pay SMG or AEG a fee to manage publicly owned venues and split any profits the private companies helped generate.
Merging the industry’s two largest competitors into ASM Global gave Onex and AEG unprecedented scale in the capital-intensive space and access to lucrative contracts. But the honeymoon didn’t last long. Oak View Group, which was founded in 2015 by former AEG CEO Tim Leiweke — who made his own failed bid to buy SMG — began growing as a serious competitor, and peeled away a number of big-name management clients away including PPG Paints Arena in Pittsburgh, the BOK Center in Tulsa and the sprawling McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. While the concert business’ post-pandemic boom has brought impressive profits, a source in facility management says that increased competition and inflation have been eating up ASM’s margins. Additionally, rising interest rates have made it difficult for firms like ASM to offer up capital investments in return for long-term management contracts, and much of the business’ growth was coming from new international venue projects, which were more costly to service.
Most recently, the bulk of AEG’s growth has been in its tour promotion business globally and through its theaters and clubs division. Since the end of the pandemic, both AEG and Live Nation have been looking to expand their network of smaller venues that they manage exclusively.
The company’s sweet spot is “locations with capacities of 1,500 to 5,000,” Rick Mueller, president of AEG Present North America, told Billboard last month. While most arena management deals do not include exclusive booking agreements because no single promoter can provide arenas enough content on their own to sustain a large facility, exclusively programming a club or theater can be much more profitable due to the leverage the contract holder has over other promoters wanting to book the venue, requiring promoters to cut them in on show deals. Now, AEG likely has more than an extra billion dollars to invest in this strategy, should it choose to do so.
Last spring, executives at Onex, AEG’s private equity partner in facility management company ASM Global, notified AEG leadership of their plans to trigger a clause in their agreement that allowed Onex to sell its 35% stake in ASM. Under the terms of the deal, AEG could either buy out Onex or match competing offers.
AEG officials instead elected to get out too, and over about half a year worked with Onex to identify a buyer for all ASM Global. On Nov. 3, Onex and AEG jointly announced that Legends Hospitality was buying ASM, the country’s leading venue management company.
Onex CEO Bobby Le Blanc told investors on a Nov. 10 earnings call that the decision to sell its ASM ownership stake for $2.3 billion was prompted by the company’s rebound in value, quickly recovering in the post-pandemic period after seeing its value dramatically drop when concerts shut down from 2020-2021 due to COVID-19.
The final sale price would double what ASM Global was worth in 2019 when AEG and Onex merged their SMG facility management holdings to create the world’s largest facility manager, Le Blanc confirmed.
Still, AEG’s decision to sell surprised many in the touring industry who had followed the company’s growth in that space.
For one, the sale made AEG a much smaller company, reducing its global footprint from 350 facilities under management to just nine — all of which AEG either owns or partially owns. And unlike Onex, as the world’s second largest concert promoter, AEG was able to enjoy significant synergies from owning ASM that other companies could not. AEG could more easily book its touring shows at ASM-managed facilities, expand its AXS ticketing platform to ASM-managed venues and sell sponsorships through its global partnerships division.
AEG and Onex merged their facilities holdings 14 months after Onex acquired SMG, AEG’s longtime facilities rival. In so doing, ASM Global became the world’s largest venue management company, with little to no competition for potentially large lucrative government contracts. Facility management has long been a predictable contracts business, in which city and county governments would pay SMG or AEG a fee to manage publicly owned venues and split any profits the private companies helped generate.
Merging the industry’s two largest competitors into ASM Global gave Onex and AEG unprecedented scale in the capital-intensive space and access to lucrative contracts. But the honeymoon didn’t last long. Oak View Group, which was founded in 2015 by former AEG CEO Tim Leiweke — who made his own failed bid to buy SMG — began growing as a serious competitor, and peeled away a number of big-name management clients away including PPG Paints Arena in Pittsburgh, the BOK Center in Tulsa and the sprawling McCormick Place convention center in Chicago. While the concert business’ post-pandemic boom has brought impressive profits, a source in facility management says that increased competition and inflation have been eating up ASM’s margins. Additionally, rising interest rates have made it difficult for firms like ASM to offer up capital investments in return for long-term management contracts, and much of the business’ growth was coming from new international venue projects, which were more costly to service.
Most recently, the bulk of AEG’s growth has been in its tour promotion business globally and through its theaters and clubs division. Since the end of the pandemic, both AEG and Live Nation have been looking to expand their network of smaller venues that they manage exclusively.
The company’s sweet spot is “locations with capacities of 1,500 to 5,000,” Rick Mueller, president of AEG Present North America, told Billboard last month. While most arena management deals do not include exclusive booking agreements because no single promoter can provide arenas enough content on their own to sustain a large facility, exclusively programming a club or theater can be much more profitable due to the leverage the contract holder has over other promoters wanting to book the venue, requiring promoters to cut them in on show deals. Now, AEG likely has more than an extra billion dollars to invest in this strategy, should it choose to do so.
Just like the zombies, vampires and ghouls that inspired him, Bobby “Boris” Pickett rises from the dead every October to haunt the radio, streaming services, TV commercials and the hundreds of products named after his 1962 smash “Monster Mash.”
“Every single year my entire life, I get to hear my grandfather’s voice for a month,” says Pickett’s grandson, Jordan Huus, 34. “And he’s not crooning or loudly singing. I get to hear his speaking voice.”
Although more recent spooky hits challenge “Monster Mash” for dominance every October, Pickett’s weird Boris Karloff imitation remains an immortal Halloween anthem. During the past four Halloweens combined, the track received more than streamed 15.4 million on demand streams; during the same period, Michael Jackson‘s “Thriller” scored 16.7 million, Ray Parker Jr.‘s “Ghostbusters” 12.8 million and Andrew Gold‘s “Spooky, Scary Skeletons” 8.85 million, according to Luminate.
Billboard estimates “Monster Mash,” which was released in 1962, has generated nearly $350,000 in average annual revenue globally over the last three years from the master recording, not including whatever synch revenue it enjoys from commercial and film/TV use, nor licensing revenue from the various compilation albums the song has appeared on; and about $500,000 in annual global publishing revenue, including cover versions and synchronization. In all, combined revenue for the song could easily hit $1 million each year, Billboard estimates.
“We had a great year last year with ‘Monster Mash,’” says Rell Lafargue, president/CEO of Reservoir, which owns Pickett’s publishing share and scored a “nice, healthy six-figure synch” for a 2021 General Mills cereal commercial relaunching Franken Berry, Boo Berry and Count Chocula. “We probably have 15 to 20 licensing requests on the line as we speak. Every year, people gear up for Christmas and other holidays, but the ‘Monster Mash’ is always there.”
Since its release on the late producer Gary Paxton‘s independent label, Garpax, “Monster Mash” has navigated a complicated path through the music business. Its two songwriters are Pickett and a friend, Leonard Capizzi, who sang doo-wop together on the beach in Los Angeles before cooking up the novelty song. After Paxton failed to sell the single to a bigger label, he gave it to radio DJs, who turned it into a hit; afterward, London Records agreed to distribute, and Stuart Hersh, Pickett’s longtime manager, says the company retained ownership of the master — now controlled through major label Universal Music Group’s Decca U.K. subsidiary.
As for publishing, Capizzi, who died in 1988, retained his share, and, as Pickett said in a 1995 interview, “his widow and child are getting all of his royalties.” Paxton, the “Monster Mash” producer, took over Pickett’s publishing and made a deal with publisher Acoustic Music, which changed hands to several other companies before Reservoir acquired it in 2014. Huus doesn’t know all the specifics, but his mother, Pickett’s daughter Nancy Huus, received publishing royalties until her death in February 2023, leaving her widower to control the family share.
“My mother left those to my father, who will in turn leave those as a split to my sister and I,” Huus says.
After its original 1962 release, various indie labels reissued “Monster Mash,” including Parrot Records 11 years later, when the song returned to the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at No. 10. By the ’90s, according to Hersh, Pickett had participated in a K-Tel compilation remake that included backup Tennessee vocalists who pronounced the chorus “monster may-ash.” Pickett called this version “Monster Mish.”
Says Hersh: “Mish-mosh aside, I said to Bobby, ‘Why don’t I produce a new version for us that’ll be our master, and I’ll try to cut it as close to the first one as possible?’” Hersh brought in 1950s drums and created the track-opening creaky door with an actual creaky door, as opposed to the original effect, a nail slowly pulled out of a surface.
Convincing Pickett to use his higher-pitched voice from the 1962 version, Hersh re-released the track, Taylor Swift-style, and landed synch deals such as the 2005 John Cusack movie Must Love Dogs and a line of musical Hallmark greeting cards for Halloween. “I said to Bobby, ‘We’ve got to make this thing sound perfect and give it to independent films, and give people a chance, and it’ll be your master,’” Hersh recalls. After Pickett died in 2007, Nancy Huus gave the rights to the re-recorded 1993 master to Hersh, who still manages Pickett’s career, attending seasonal conventions and linking to streams and downloads of the reissue on themonstermash.com. “Our [version of the track] is the one with the black-and-white photo of Bobby over the gravestone,” Hersh says.
Hersh has no idea, however, who owns the name “Monster Mash” as it pertains to product titles. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office lists 60 active and abandoned applications carrying that name, including General Mills (for its Monster Mash cereal), Friendly Ice Cream (Monster Mash sundaes) and a Hong Kong company called Longshore Ltd. (for board games). “It was never trademarked back then, and I really don’t know who did it this time,” Hersh says. “I would think it’s been used so many times, at this point, it’s just like a regular phrase.”
Jordan Huus was 8 when his late mother, who was adopted, met Pickett, her biological father, for the first time. Since then, Huus recalls a family fascination with Halloween that lives on in his own household. “Oh, man, if you have like an hour or two, I could point out each decoration,” Huus says, describing his mother’s hand-crafted Halloween wreaths, plus posters and records honoring Bobby “Boris” Pickett. “Of course, we have to bring out the ‘Monster Mash’ stuff.”
Ed Christman contributed to this story.
U.S. labels and musicians have long counted on welcoming international audiences to turn home-grown successes into global stars. Just as people around the world snap up tickets for Hollywood blockbuster movies, consumers abroad have been typically eager for English-language music from the world’s leading entertainment exporter.
In recent years, however, U.S. pop stars have increasingly heavy competition from artists most Americans will never know. In France, the top song of 2022 was “Tout va bien” by Alonzo featuring Nino and Naps, according to French recorded music trade group SNEP. Only one foreign song, “As It Was” by Harry Styles, cracked France’s top 10. The top of the chart’s composition looked drastically different from previous years. In 2017, when Ed Sheeran’s “Shape of You” reigned supreme with French music fans, five of the country’s top 10 songs came from foreign artists. In 2012, eight of France’s top 10 songs were from foreign artists.
To Will Page, author and former chief economist at Spotify, the changing fortunes of French artists is evidence streaming and online platforms have changed the balance of power. “When the cost structure changes, local [music] bounces back,” he says. The CD era involved higher costs — mainly manufacturing and marketing — that favored international artists. Despite France’s rule that a quarter of the songs played on radio must be French, the system still tilted toward foreign artists with greater financial backing.
But with streaming and digital distribution, those costs are all but eliminated. Local artists are free to create and distribute music in far greater numbers, satiating a demand that had been unfulfilled. Consumers who previously listened to American pop stars are all too happy to stream artists singing and rapping in their native tongue. “An unregulated free market has achieved what regulation failed to do,” says Page.
In a paper titled Glocalization of Music Streaming Within and Across Europe, Page and Chris Dalla Riva, a musician who works at music tech startup Audiomack, showed France is hardly alone in this trend toward “glocalization” — local entertainment succeeding in an increasingly globalized digital economy. In other large European markets such as Italy, Poland and Sweden, consumers are also gravitating toward local artists who create music in local languages. These countries — along with Spain, the Netherlands, Germany and the U.K. — matched or reached their peak domestic share of top 10 songs in 2022. In 2012, less than a fifth of the top 10 songs in Poland, France, Netherlands and Germany were local artists. In 2022, local music’s share of the top 10 songs reached 70% in Poland, Italy and Sweden, 60% in France, 30% in the Netherlands and Spain, and 20% in Germany.
Similar results are echoed on TikTok, which has transformed how people discover music around the world. In France, Italy, Poland and Greece, 80% of TikTok’s top 10 songs of 2022 were by home grown acts. Local artists accounted for 60% of the top 10 in Spain and 50% in the U.K. Local hip-hop is especially popular on TikTok in these markets, says Paul Hourican, the platform’s global head of music operations. Drake and Eminem may have a universal appeal but don’t connect with audiences the way local musicians can. “When you think about what hip-hop is, it’s amazing beats and truth telling, and speaking their truth in local language,” says Hourican. “That seems to be really, really connecting, and kind of forwarding the culture of hip-hop into into all these markets.”
The localization shift doesn’t surprise Sylvain Delange, managing director, Asia Pacific at French music company Believe. “We knew that the market would grow domestically, and that the local music would take a bigger share of the music consumption,” he says.
“When streaming came in, there was a very natural effect that skewed consumption towards international music for the simple reason that when streaming music comes, it serves, first and foremost, the higher income, large, tier one cities that are more open to international influence,” says Delange. “So, it’s very logical that in the beginning, international music would over index on streaming platforms. But then it would progressively switch back towards a fairly natural trend — which is domestic music.”
Early on, streaming services’ curation was much more focused on English-language music, adds Dominique Casimir, chief content officer at BMG. “You couldn’t put an Italian song in the middle of that playlist, that just certainly makes no sense.” But as streaming exploded in popularity, the services hired more staff to service the local music market and put a greater emphasis on local music. With boots on the ground, streaming services created channels and playlists that focused on local repertoire, she says. “That did change massively the work we can do together with DSPs.”
Supply alone doesn’t explain the trend toward globalization, though. An additional explanation, “is generally people’s need to identify with their culture,” says Golnar Khosrowshahi, CEO of Reservoir Media. “That is driving listenership and the importance of that identification, whether it’s around the subject matter or the sound or the person. This is not new news. People identify with their culture. Their culture is important to them. Maintaining that culture is important.”
To take advantage of the forces shaping globalization, Khosrowshahi has targeted investments throughout Latin America and the Middle East. Among Reservoir Media’s recent acquisitions are the catalogs of Latin songwriter and producer Rudy Perez and, in conjunction with PopArabia, the catalogs of Egyptian company RE Media and Egyptian rap duo El Sawareekh. Additionally, in June, Reservoir Media and PopArabia formed a joint venture with Saudi Arabian hip-hop label Mashrex and acquired some of its back catalog.
“One of the reasons we’re compelled by the Middle East market and the Arabic-speaking market is because of the size of that diaspora,” says Khosrowshahi. “The geographical reach of that diaspora goes to Malaysia and Indonesia. You have substantive Arabic speaking populations, granted different dialects, but music seems to be able to transcend them a little bit.”
Through both catalog acquisitions and frontline label partnerships, companies are finding opportunities in an increasingly online global music market. Investments are now commonplace in developing markets that were previously overlooked by music companies. Believe acquired Indian music company Venus Music, partnered with Indian imprints Think Music and Panorama Music, and partnered with Viva Music and Artists Group in the Philippines. In August, Universal Music Group-owned Virgin Music Group acquired United Arab Emirates-based Chabaka. In 2022, Warner Music Group purchased a majority stake in Africori, the top digital distributor in Africa.
While TikTok and streaming services’ international popularity have leveled the playing field for local music around the world, Delange says YouTube has been the biggest driver of this trend over the last decade. For years, a debate raged throughout Europe and the U.S. about YouTube’s “value gap,” the difference between its ad-supported royalties and per-stream payments from competing subscription services. While the West was hesitant to embrace YouTube, Asian artists and labels embraced the opportunities for promotion, marketing and monetization, says Delange. In the West, YouTube was a problematic free platform. In the East, YouTube was a free platform with a massive audience. “That was revolutionary in a market that had been decimated on the physical side,” says Delange. It’s now proving the driver for a new stage of growth in the global music market.
