Business
Page: 24
U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take action to prevent radio stations from offering airplay to artists in exchange for performing free shows.
In a letter sent to FCC chairman Brendan Carr on Thursday (Jan. 30), Blackburn decried the alleged practice she says is “critically impacting Tennessee’s content creators,” branding it as “payola” — the practice of accepting payment in exchange for radio airplay without disclosing it.
“As you know, the FCC considers payola a violation of the Sponsorship Identification Rules,” Blackburn wrote. “From what we have learned, it appears that to sidestep these restrictions, radio stations and networks have adopted a troubling new tactic. Instead of demanding cash or lavish perks from record labels in exchange for airplay, they now pressure artists to perform ‘free radio shows’ — also referred to as ‘listener appreciation shows’ or ‘charitable concert events.’”
Trending on Billboard
She adds that radio stations “often receive the financial benefit of these shows through ticket sales, sponsorships, and other income while the artists and record labels frequently absorb the expense.”
Blackburn claims she has heard from artists in the industry who say “it is not unusual for them to perform anywhere from 10 to 50 such shows in any given year.” She adds that artists early in their careers tend to perform more but that “those that have had more success” are still often expected to perform free shows in exchange for airtime.
“This practice is exploitative and should not be tolerated,” the letter continues. “Federal law and FCC rules prohibit radio stations from receiving undisclosed compensation for broadcasting songs, and this principle must extend to free performances for radio stations and networks. Artists should not be extorted into providing free labor in exchange for airplay. I urge you to take swift action to end this abuse and protect our music community.”
A longstanding issue in the music industry, payola was first regulated by Congress in 1960 and later became the subject of a mid-2000s investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office that led to all three major labels paying millions in penalties and agreeing to reforms, including a vow not to use “commercial transactions…in an explicit or implicit exchange, agreement, or understanding to obtain airplay or increase airplay,” among other concessions.
Despite this, there has been ongoing concern in the industry and beyond about the continued effectiveness of these regulations. In 2019, then-FCC commissioner Michael O’Rielly asked the Recording Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to investigate allegations of payola. In 2022, several music executives met with the New York Attorney General’s office to complain that some independent promoters hired by labels had continued engaging in the practice.
According to Blackburn, whose state’s capital city of Nashville is the heart of the country music business, the alleged free concerts are simply payola in another form, writing that there’s “often an implicit suggestion that declining to perform could result in reduced airplay” — what she characterizes as “forced quid pro quo.”
You can read Blackburn’s letter in full below.
The Honorable Brendan Carr
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, NE
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Carr, Thank you for your leadership at the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). I am writing to bring attention to an issue critically impacting Tennessee’s content creators, particularly its songwriters and music community.
Federal law prohibits radio stations from accepting payment for airtime without disclosing the transaction—a practice commonly known as “payola.”1 As you know, the FCC considers payola a violation of the Sponsorship Identification Rules. 2
From what we have learned, it appears that to sidestep these restrictions, radio stations and networks have adopted a troubling new tactic. Instead of demanding cash or lavish perks from record labels in exchange for airplay, they now pressure artists to perform “free radio shows”— also referred to as “listener appreciation shows” or “charitable concert events.”
We have heard the new scheme works in this manner: radio stations and networks offer more airtime for an artist’s songs if the artist performs a free show. There is often an implicit suggestion that declining to perform could result in reduced airplay. Radio stations and networks often receive the financial benefit of these shows through ticket sales, sponsorships, and other income while the artists and record labels frequently absorb the expense.
This forced quid pro quo applies to essentially all artists, regardless of their level of success. Artists in the industry have told me that it is not unusual for them to perform anywhere from 10 to 50 such shows in any given year. Those just starting out in their career will often perform more, while those that have had more success will have to perform fewer, but they will still be expected to do them.
This practice is exploitative and should not be tolerated. Federal law and FCC rules prohibit radio stations from receiving undisclosed compensation for broadcasting songs, and this principle must extend to free performances for radio stations and networks. Artists should not be extorted into providing free labor in exchange for airplay.
I urge you to take swift action to end this abuse and protect our music community. Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.
Sincerely,
Marsha Blackburn
United States Senator
Will Drake’s pending defamation lawsuit stop Kendrick Lamar from performing “Not Like Us” during his Super Bowl halftime performance? Legal experts say it might — but that it really shouldn’t.
Under normal circumstances, it’s silly to even ask the question. Obviously a Super Bowl halftime performer will play their chart-topping banger — a track that just swept record and song of the year at the Grammys and was arguably music’s most significant song of the past year.
But these are very much not normal circumstances. Last month, Drake filed a lawsuit over “Not Like Us,” accusing Universal Music Group of defaming him by boosting the scathing diss track. The case, which doesn’t name Lamar as a defendant, claims UMG spread the song’s “malicious narrative” — namely, that Drake is a pedophile — despite knowing it was false.
Trending on Billboard
That pending legal action makes it fair to wonder: When Lamar steps onto the world’s biggest stage on Sunday night (Feb. 9), will he face pressure to avoid the whole mess by just skipping “Not Like Us” entirely?
He shouldn’t, legal experts say, and for a pretty simple reason: Drake’s lawsuit against UMG is a legal loser. “I don’t think the case is strong at all,” says Samantha Barbas, a legal historian and an expert in defamation law at the University of Iowa’s College of Law.
For Drake to eventually win the case over “Not Like Us,” he’ll need to show that Lamar’s claims about him are provably false assertions — meaning the average person would hear them and assume Kendrick was stating actual facts. Barbas says that’ll be tough for Drake to do about a diss track, where fans expect bombast and “rhetorical hyperbole” more so than objective reality.
“In the context of a rap battle, the average listener is going to know that the allegations aren’t to be taken seriously,” she says. “Taunts and wild exaggerations are par for the course.”
Another challenge for Drake is that he’s a public figure. Under key First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, a public figure like Drake must show that UMG either knew the lyrics were false or that the company acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a legal standard that’s intentionally difficult to meet so that rich and famous people don’t abuse libel lawsuits to squelch free speech.
“A high-profile public figure like Drake immediately enters the case with a high burden of proof,” says Roy Gutterman, the director of the Newhouse School’s Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University.
UMG’s attorneys will also likely point to the fact that Drake himself made harmful allegations against Kendrick earlier in the same exchange of diss tracks, including that Lamar had abused his fiancée and that one of his children was fathered by another man. Were those defamatory statements of fact, or merely the exercise of artistic license within the conventions of a specific genre of music?
“Factoring in the context here — music and art within an ongoing dispute between rival musicians — he has an even tougher case,” Gutterman says.
So if Drake’s case is likely to eventually be dismissed, then there’s no reason for Kendrick to hold back on Sunday, right?
Not exactly.
For starters, Federal Communications Commission rules prohibit the airing of “obscene, indecent, or profane content” on broadcast television during primetime hours. To avoid those rules, Super Bowl halftime performers typically avoid curse words or overtly sexual material — something that would probably already preclude the “pedophile” line and other lyrics in “Not Like Us.”
Corporate legal departments are also famously risk averse, and often prefer to play it safe rather than potentially face expensive litigation, even if they’d ultimately win. That could lead any of the big companies involved here to put pressure on Kendrick to skip “Not Like Us.” His label, UMG, has vowed to fight back against Drake’s “frivolous” lawsuit, but might not want to add complications mid-litigation; the game’s broadcaster, Fox, or the NFL itself might worry about getting added to the suit as defendants.
Gutterman said it would be “a significant stretch of liability law” for Drake to successfully sue Fox or the NFL simply because Kendrick played “Not Like Us” at the halftime show. But in practice, that might not be how their in-house attorneys are thinking about it.
“The threat of litigation can have a chilling effect on speech,” Barbas says. “The safe thing to do is not to publish or broadcast.”
Reps for Lamar did not return a request for comment on whether he’ll perform the song. The British tabloid newspaper The Sun, citing anonymous sources, reported last week that Kendrick has faced pressure to skip the track but plans to perform it anyway and “won’t be silenced.” But that report could not be confirmed by Billboard and was not widely re-reported by other outlets.
Asked whether they have a position on whether Lamar plays the song, reps for UMG, Fox, the NFL and Roc Nation (Jay-Z’s company that produces the halftime show) all either declined to comment or did not return requests for comment.
When the show kicks off on Sunday night, the most likely outcome is probably somewhere down the middle: That Kendrick plays the song’s already-iconic instrumental hook and perhaps some of the lyrics, but skips any of the portions that are directly at play in Drake’s lawsuit.
“It wouldn’t be surprising,” Barbas says, “if the challenged lyrics are changed.”
The Music Business Association has announced the agenda for Music Biz 2025, set for May 12-15 at the Renaissance Atlanta Waverly. This marks the first time the conference will be held in Atlanta, as part of a new rotating host city model, following a decade in Nashville.
The change, announced last March, is inspired by the Music Biz Roadshow series, which has connected industry professionals with local artist communities like Memphis and Chattanooga since 2022.
New events include a First Timers’ Meetup on May 12, allowing newcomers to connect with Music Biz staff and board members, followed by first day-capping party sponsored by Spotify. The State of the Industry breakfast on May 13 will explore global consumption trends and industry outlooks. Multi-panel discussions like Humans of Music and Workflow Workshop will focus on workforce and operational improvements.
Trending on Billboard
The Music Biz Roadshow returns on May 12, with support from The Mechanical Licensing Collective and Made In Memphis Entertainment, to help artists and their teams optimize revenue streams. Tech-focused pros can attend events such as the Startup Lab on May 12, Startup Round Robin on May 13, and the Music Tech Hackathon on May 15. Additional summits include Let’s Talk Physical, Music Security Summit, Publishing Summit, Music & Money and the Indie Label Summit.
The fourth annual Bizzy Awards dinner, sponsored by Warner Music, will be held on May 14, honoring late Twitch executive Cindy Charles, who died in a tragic traffic accident in October, with the 2025 Presidential Award, and Digital Data Exchange with the 2025 Impact Award. Finalists will be announced in February, with winners recognized at the event.
Music Biz president Portia Sabin expressed excitement for this year’s expanded agenda, highlighting the industry’s strong hand in shaping the program.
“The task of building a comprehensive, four-day program for our Annual Conference becomes harder and harder every year thanks to the innovative and compelling panel ideas contributed by our ever-growing global community — it’s a good problem to have!” said Sabin. “We’re proud of how the agenda for Music Biz 2025 came together, and we can’t wait to welcome both new & returning faces to our event in this year’s new host city.”
The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) announced on Tuesday (Feb. 4) that it would issue takedown notices to Spotify for 2,500 podcast episodes on the platform that allegedly contain “unlicensed musical works” from 19 NMPA member publishers.
“Spotify has thousands of unlicensed songs in its podcasts, which it has done nothing to remedy. This takedown action comes as no surprise, we have warned of this issue for some time,” says NMPA president and CEO David Israelite of the takedown notices. According to the NMPA, this is just the start of the takedown requests, and the demands will continue to roll out.
This is the latest of many retaliatory actions the NMPA has taken against Spotify since last March, when Spotify significantly cut payments to NMPA’s members for premium subscriptions. By adding audiobooks into its premium subscription tiers, Spotify argued it qualified for a discounted royalty rate, known as “bundle,” given it would now have to pay for books and music from the same price tag that was once just for music. Israelite said at the time that he would “declare war” on Spotify for this move, and launched a number of actions to fight back.
Trending on Billboard
This included sending cease and desist notices for podcast and video content on its platform that were allegedly infringing on music IP; a legislative proposal, asking for the overhaul of the statutory license; complaints to the FTC and nine state attorneys general; and more. Around the same time, the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) also fought back by filing a lawsuit against Spotify for the move to bundle premium subscriptions, calling it “unlawful.”
On Sunday, Jan. 26, the Spotify bundling issue was brought back into the headlines when Universal Music Group announced a new direct deal with Spotify which included changes both to the recorded music and publishing royalty rates. This marked the first direct deal between Spotify and a publisher since the passage of the Music Modernization Act (MMA), and sources close to the deal say that the agreement included improved remuneration for UMG’s publishing company, Universal Music Publishing Group, and its songwriters.
Still, all other publishers, most of which are members of the NMPA, remain on the baseline bundle rate. The NMPA told Billboard at the time that the deal was “good news for the entire industry” and that “a rising tide lifts all boats, and this signals that Spotify is coming back to the table,” but the organization also added it had no plans to stop any of the actions it had already set in motion against Spotify, and neither did the MLC.
A few days later, on Jan. 29, the MLC’s lawsuit against Spotify was dismissed, with a federal judge saying that Spotify’s move to bundling was supported by “unambiguous” regulations. The judge is not giving the MLC a chance to refile and said the law is clear. Still, if the MLC wants to, it can challenge the ruling at the federal appeals court.
These takedown requests make it clear that the NMPA is not ready to bury the hatchet with Spotify. Among the 2,500 takedown requests are podcasts that allegedly contain unlicensed musical works from publishers like ABKCO, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG, Concord Music Publishing, Downtown Music Publishing, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt, Mayimba Music, peermusic, Primary Wave Music, Reservoir, The Royalty Network, Inc., Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, Ultra Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner Chappell Music, and Wixen Music Publishing.
Israelite adds: “Podcasts are a growing source of revenue for songwriters and publishers, and it is essential that podcasts provide lawfully produced entertainment. This is not hard to do, and Spotify knows, and has known, how to fix this problem for their users. We hope podcast hosts will stand up for their fellow creators and demand that Spotify do better. Spotify will stop at nothing to undervalue songwriters on behalf of its bottom line. Look no further than its recent bundling scheme and its ill-conceived appeal of songwriters’ rate increase in CRB III. We will not stop until the platform fixes its podcast problem, and all other areas where songwriters are not earning what they deserve.”
President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order directing the U.S. to take steps to start developing a government-owned investment fund that he said could be used to profit off of TikTok if he’s successful at finding it an American buyer.
Trump signed an order on his first day office to grant TikTok until early April to find an approved partner or buyer, but he’s said he’s looking for the U.S. to take a 50% stake in the massive social media platform. He said Monday in the Oval Office that TikTok, which is owned by China-based ByteDance, was an example of what he could put in a new U.S. sovereign wealth fund.
“We might put that in the sovereign wealth fund, whatever we make or we do a partnership with very wealthy people, a lot of options,” he said of TikTok. “But we could put that as an example in the fund. We have a lot of other things that we could put in the fund.”
Trending on Billboard
Sovereign wealth funds invest in assets, such as stocks, bonds and real estate. They are typically funded by a country’s budgetary surpluses, which the U.S. currently does not have.
Trump noted many other nations have such investment funds and predicted that the U.S. could eventually top Saudi Arabia’s fund size. “Eventually we’ll catch it,” he promised.
There are over 90 sovereign wealth funds around the world that mange over $8 trillion in assets, according to The International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds, a London-based organization made up of roughly 50 of these entities.
In the U.S., more than 20 sovereign wealth funds exist at the state level, according to analysis from the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based nonpartisan think-tank.
The largest ones — based in Alaska, New Mexico and Texas — are financed through revenue that comes from oil, gas and mineral proceeds and used to fund in-state programs, such as education. Though these funds are owned by governments, they tend to operate as standalone institutions with their own investment strategies and staff, the center said.
The president put Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, Trump’s pick for commerce secretary, in charge of laying the groundwork for creating a the fund, which would likely require congressional approval. The executive order says a plan for the fund — including recommendations for investment strategies and a governance model — has to be submitted to Trump within 90 days.
Former President Joe Biden’s administration had studied the possibility of creating a sovereign wealth fund for national security investments, but the idea did not yield any concrete action before he left office last month.
Bessent said the administration’s goal was to have the fund open within the next 12 months, and Lutnick said another use of the fund could have been for the government to take an profit-earning stake in vaccine manufacturers.
“The extraordinary size and scale of the U.S government and the business it does with companies should create value for American citizens,” Lutnick told reporters.
TikTok was supposed to be banned in the U.S. last month under a federal law that forces ByteDance to divest its stakes or face a ban. The law was passed in April with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Biden. The two companies and some users quickly took legal action against the statute, which was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court last month.
After taking office, Trump, who had attempted to ban the popular app during his first term, directed the Justice Department to pause enforcement of the law for 75 days. The reprieve has given the company more time to work out a deal with the administration.
Several investors — including billionaire Frank McCourt and Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin — have spoken publicly about their desire to purchase TikTok’s U.S. platform. Trump has said “many people” had also reached out to him privately about it. Last week, he said Microsoft was one of the U.S. companies eyeing the social media platform.
A San Francisco-based artificial intelligence startup called Perplexity AI presented a proposal to ByteDance last month that would allow the U.S. government to own up to 50% of an entity that combines TikTok’s U.S. platform with Perplexity’s business, a person familiar with the matter previously told the Associated Press. If successful, the proposal would allow the U.S. government to have a sizable stake in that entity once it makes an initial public offering of at least $300 billion.
The wait is over. In 2025, Billboard U.K. will be hosting its inaugural Power Players list, also known as the Power 100, for the U.K. and Ireland’s world-beating music industry professionals.
While Billboard’s Power 100 ranks the music industry’s most influential executives globally, this list will celebrate and recognise the executives and members that are at the forefront of the U.K. and Ireland’s music scene, and boosting the region’s hugely talented artists on a global scale
Billboard U.K.’s Power Players list will be published in June 2025, and will be celebrated with an exclusive event at the upcoming inaugural SXSW London.
Trending on Billboard
Further details will be shared in the coming months.
“The U.K. and Ireland has long been home to some of the most influential figures in global music, shaping the industry and driving artists to new heights,” says Mo Ghoneim, president of Billboard U.K. “We look forward to spotlighting the executives leading this charge with Billboard U.K.’s Power Players, from labels to live, streaming to rights, and beyond.”
The news follows a period of success for British and Irish artists in recent years. In 2024, there were appearances for Hozier, Dua Lipa, Charli XCX, Coldplay and Ed Sheeran on Billboard’s Year-End Top Artists charts. Rising stars, meanwhile, like Lola Young, Aretmas, Myles Smith and more are growing their audiences domestically and internationally.
2025 will also be a bumper year for concert-goers with the U.K. hosting some of the most in-demand tours and live experiences: Oasis will kick off their reunion tour in Wales before heading around the globe, and superstars like Lana Del Rey, Billie Eilish, Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, Usher and more come into market for huge shows.
There are challenges to be met, too: Grassroots music venues face decimation without urgent action; legislation on artificial intelligence is paramount to the government’s agenda on growth; artists are finding touring a loss-making endeavour; the live and festival landscape continues to evolve and bring new obstacles. These themes will shape the inaugural U.K. Power Players, but the doors are wide open.
The Power Players list will be peer-nominated and selected by the Billboard U.K. team. Nominations open Feb. 4 and will close in two weeks on Feb. 17. Interested parties can fill in the nominations form here. For any queries, please contact power100@uk.billboard.com or tsmith@uk.billboard.com.
Spotify added 35 million monthly active users in the fourth quarter last year — the most ever in a single quarter — bringing the total number of people streaming on the Swedish music and audiobook platform to 675 million, the company reported on Tuesday. Premium or paying subscribers totaled 263 million as of the end […]
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with yet another lawsuit, this one filed by a man who says the hip-hop mogul drugged and sexually assaulted him at a Los Angeles party in 2015 after luring him with the promise of a record deal.
The new lawsuit was filed Monday (Feb. 3) in New York state court by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, who has already filed a slew of other lawsuits against Combs. In it, a man identified only as John Doe claims that before performing for an audience at a Los Angeles venue called QC’s 20/20 with Combs in attendance, “a long-time and wellknown associate of Combs” told him “that Combs had heard of his talent and would be watching him perform. The associate specifically told Doe that if he performed well, Combs would discuss getting a deal with Bad Boy Records and arrange studio time between him and Combs.”
Following the performance, the man says that he attended an afterparty in the back of club, during which he was handed an “alcoholic beverage” containing Ciroc — Combs’ vodka brand — that was allegedly “from Combs himself.” After consuming the drink, the man claims he “quickly felt lightheaded and began slipping in and out of consciousness.”
During this time, according to the complaint, “Doe observed Combs and his entourage engaging in group sexual activity, often with other attendees who appeared either drugged, unconscious, or as if they were paid escorts. Doe believed most of the men participating in the sexual activities belonged to Combs’ entourage.”
At one point, the man claims that he regained consciousness to see Combs “grabbing his crotch while his pants had already been removed,” adding that “he believes that Combs had been performing oral sex on him because his penis was noticeably wet.” He goes on to allege that after regaining consciousness again, he “attempted to fight Combs off, but Combs’ security team stepped in,” and that Combs subsequently “threatened” him, “stating that he could easily contact his manager and ruin any chances he had of succeeding in the music industry if he did not comply.”
At this point, the man claims Combs ordered him “to have sex with a woman he did not know while Combs wanted to watch,” but that he escaped the venue after convincing Combs and his security team to let him use the bathroom.
He says that after the assault, he was afraid to report the alleged assault for fear of being blackballed in the music industry and later experienced “pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and emotional torment,” adding that it “greatly affected” his desire to continue pursuing a music career.
Also named as defendants in the suit are Combs’ various business entities under the Combs Global umbrella, which are alleged to have “enabled” the assault.
The man is asking for compensatory and punitive damages.
“As we’ve said before, Mr. Combs cannot respond to every new publicity stunt, even in response to claims that are facially ridiculous or demonstrably false,” said attorneys for Combs in a statement sent to Billboard. “Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr. Combs never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone — man or woman, adult or minor.”
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called “freak offs” during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
Lil Nas X has signed with Crush Management, joining a star-studded roster that includes Miley Cyrus, Green Day, Lorde and more, Billboard has confirmed. The firm’s other recent signings include Kesha, Labrinth and Orville Peck. The news was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter. Lil Nas was formerly managed by Adam Leber‘s Rebel Management. The […]
Spotify’s share price continues to soar in 2025 following a massive gain in 2024, making the music streaming company’s $109.3 billion market capitalization worth about the same as every standalone, publicly traded music company from which it licenses music combined — with nearly enough left over to include concert promoter Live Nation.
Based on closing prices Monday (Feb. 3), Universal Music Group has a market cap — the value of outstanding shares — of $51.1 billion, amounting to less than half of Spotify’s. The other standalone, publicly traded “multi-sector” music companies covering record labels and music publishers total another $27.8 billion: Warner Music Group ($16.6 billion), HYBE ($6.5 billion), JYP Entertainment ($1.8 billion), Believe ($1.5 billion), SM Entertainment ($1.3 billion), YG Entertainment ($646 million), Reservoir Media ($522 million) and Avex ($421 million). That brings the multi-sector aggregate market cap to $80.4 billion. If you add Live Nation’s $33.6 billion market cap to the multi-sector group, the combined market cap exceeds Spotify by just $4.7 billion.
Additionally, if you add the market cap of Sony Music – which is part of the Sony Corp. conglomerate and doesn’t trade as a standalone company – to UMG and WMG’s, the three major music groups’ aggregate market cap isn’t much more than Spotify’s. Importantly, if Sony Music was independent of Sony Corp, its value would be comparable to that of UMG. In the past four quarters, the two companies have had almost equal revenues on a dollar basis — $11.6 billion for UMG to $11.59 billion for Sony Music. Assuming the companies have similar margins and growth prospects, Sony Music’s market cap could — but would not necessarily — equal UMG’s $51.1 billion. Add WMG, and the three majors have a combined market cap of $118.8 billion — just $9.5 billion more than Spotify’s market cap at the end of trading on Monday.
Trending on Billboard
This imbalance between Spotify and music companies’ values hasn’t always existed. A move into podcasting and a pandemic-led growth spurt pushed Spotify’s stock above $380 in February 2021. The frothy times didn’t last long, however. Investors who were previously attracted to streaming companies’ high growth rates eventually demanded more financial discipline. When Spotify shares fell to an all-time low of $69.29 on Nov. 4, 2022, its roughly $13.3 billion market cap was less than a third of UMG’s $40.9 billion. But layoffs and price increases turbocharged Spotify’s financial statements and sent its share price into a new stratosphere. In 2023, the company laid off roughly a quarter of its full-time staff and implemented the first of two price increases. In 2024, Spotify’s share price rose 138.1%. Last month, it jumped another 22.6%.
Today, Spotify’s market value puts it in a rarefied air amongst entertainment companies. Netflix — which has 302 million subscribers globally to Spotify’s 252 million, and much higher prices — currently has a market cap of $418.8 billion. Walt Disney, which spans streaming, cable TV networks and theme parks, is worth $206.1 billion. Sony Corp, a huge company that includes games, movies, TV and hardware, has a market cap of $133.7 billion. Telecommunications giant Comcast, owner of NBCUniversal and cable company Xfinity, is worth $126.7 billion. Spotify is worth more than Warner Bros. Discovery ($24.9 billion), sports gambling company DraftKings ($20.2 billion) and video game companies Nintendo ($87.6 billion), Roblox ($46.4 billion) and Electronic Arts ($32.2 billion).