State Champ Radio guest column
Trending on Billboard
Here’s a story that captures everything wrong with Washington: Billion-dollar corporation asks Congress to force car manufacturers to install AM radio in every vehicle — a government tech mandate worth billions of dollars to its bottom line — while refusing to pay the artists and rights owners whose music is the very foundation of their business.
Last Congress, lawmakers such as House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries saw through this scheme and stood firm. Radio lobbyists went home empty-handed. Now they’re back, asking for the same corporate handout, and still refusing to pay artists a dime.
Related
Before you say, “But who listens to AM/FM radio in 2025?”, ask yourself this question: Why are corporate radio lobbyists fighting so hard for this government mandate? Because keeping radio in cars is worth almost $14 billion in advertising every year. And why is it worth that much? Because hundreds of millions of Americans still listen to AM/FM radio every week.
Big Radio spent over $13 million lobbying Congress last year, which doesn’t even include the millions they contributed to political campaigns, to protect their golden goose at the expense of artists.
Corporate radio lobbyists engage in a cynical game of claiming something we all know isn’t true. They claim artists should be satisfied that “promotion” on radio is good enough compensation. But the days of Americans discovering music on AM/FM radio are long gone. Social platforms like YouTube and TikTok are where music breaks now. Last year, 84% of Billboard Global 200 songs went viral on TikTok first. Radio adapted by abandoning discovery and repeatedly playing popular songs radio listeners already know — in a single day recently, one iHeart station played songs by six major artists 112 times. One station. In a single day. Without paying a penny to the performers.
That isn’t promotion. It’s exploitation.
Related
That’s why the last Congress rejected radio lobbyists’ efforts to pass the AM in Every Vehicle Act. And why they must again reject it unless radio corporations agree to tie it to the American Music Fairness Act that ensures artists are paid fairly for radio plays.
Under the American Music Fairness Act, small and community stations would only have to pay between $10 and $500 a year to play all the music they want. The bill also gives radio corporations the opportunity to tell the independent Copyright Royalty Board what they think the performance royalty rate should be. If radio conglomerates believe their airplay has promotional value, they can make their case.
For some reason, AM/FM radio companies think they are special and that the principles of copyright shouldn’t apply to them. Every other platform pays artists for the work they do. Spotify. Pandora. SiriusXM. Only AM/FM radio — the most established music platform — claims it should be exempt from this concept.
For years, corporate radio lobbyists engaged in cynical practices to block music legislation. But now they are the ones who want Congress to act. And that gives music creators power — and they are speaking out with one voice.
Related
Over 300 artists – from Aerosmith to Barbra Streisand to Jelly Roll to Mariah Carey – wrote Congress earlier this year calling for passage of the American Music Fairness Act. This was an unprecedented display of artist unity for fair pay.
And just this week, Boyz II Men, Gloria Gaynor, Mike Love, Sammy Hagar, Smokey Robinson and others called on congressional leaders to pair the AM bill with the American Music Fairness Act. Their message was simple: “When you save the radio industry by mandating its technology remain in cars, we ask that you save the musician too and allow us to be paid fairly when our music is played.”
Artists have never been this fired up. Perhaps that’s because, like the rest of America, they are fed up with our workers being taken advantage of. This is about priorities. Big Radio corporations want Congress to mandate that their product be installed in every new car sold in America — government intervention to protect corporate profits. Meanwhile, musicians are simply asking to be paid for their work.
The solution is simple: If radio corporations want billions in government-mandated protection, they need to start paying the workers whose labor generates their wealth.
No corporate handouts without worker fairness. No radio without royalties.
Michael Huppe is the president and CEO of SoundExchange, where he champions creators and spearheads the use of technology, data and advocacy to power the future of music. To date, SoundExchange has distributed more than $12 billion in digital performance royalties to a growing community of more than 800,000 music creators. Michael is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law School, a published author, lecturer and active community member. He is a member of YPO, Forbes Business Council, and Fortune Brainstorm Trust, with opinions published in Variety, Rolling Stone, The Wall Street Journal, Music Business Worldwide, Billboard and The Hill.
Trending on Billboard
David Israelite’s guest column on October 23, 2025 explained how little music creators get paid across different streaming services. I just want to lay out the facts and be clear: YouTube pays the least for music, full stop. They always have and always will unless someone stands up to them. They’ll throw up smoke screens and tempt you to look the other way, but let’s not be fooled.
YouTube recently touted that it paid artists $8 billion over the past year. This sounds impressive, but it’s not. During the same period, Spotify generated roughly $18 billion in revenue and paid about $12 billion to music rights holders — nearly 67% of its revenue. By contrast, YouTube generated $60 billion in revenue and paid only $8 billion to rights holders — about 13%. YouTube will say they’re not just a music service. But I would argue that YouTube never would have become such a successful platform without music, and even if only one-third of their revenue comes from music (and it’s likely higher), they certainly should be paying more than Spotify, not 50% less.
Related
How does YouTube pay less than their competitors? They are a behemoth bully. They have 2.7 billion monthly active users and more than $60 billion in annual revenue. It’s the dominant video platform, with more hours streamed than Netflix. It’s the largest music service, with more users than Spotify. And in the “traditional” TV space, it’s on track to surpass Comcast as the largest U.S. cable provider. This company now owns audience and content delivery in a way the world has never seen before.
Their tyranny isn’t just limited to music. If you read the headlines, you will see a pattern of coercion: YouTube vs. Televisa/Univision. YouTube vs. NBCUniversal. YouTube vs. Fox. YouTube vs. Paramount. And now YouTube vs. Disney. The playbook is always the same: if you refuse to accept YouTube’s below-market terms, YouTube threatens to go dark until you capitulate. They then shift the blame and spin the story — when in reality, YouTube just wants to pay less.
And now they’re trying to dictate terms to consumers too. If you’re a YouTube TV subscriber, you received an email saying “if Disney’s content is unavailable for an extended period of time,” YouTube will give you a paltry $20 credit. So, YouTube gets to unilaterally decide for consumers how long is too long and how much ESPN is worth to them? They bully the people creating the content and then they bully the consumers who want access to it.
Related
Disney understands that “content is king,” but at YouTube, content is just a pawn in their game. And the game at YouTube is clearly about aggregating services and market power (across Google and YouTube) and using that market power to strong-arm everyone in the ecosystem — rights holders, content creators, advertisers, everyone — for their own financial gain. YouTube is showing us what happens when unchecked power and greed collide.
Thankfully, Disney is standing up to YouTube, and we all need to support Disney because enough is enough. As artists, consumers, and companies, let’s voice our support for Disney in this battle with YouTube. And in parallel, Washington needs to take a good hard look at YouTube’s abuse of market power and explore whether it’s time to break up Google so that YouTube, YouTube Music, and YouTube TV are separate businesses that finally have to compete on a level playing field.
YouTube: without the artists, athletes, and actors, there is no business.
Irving Azoff holds the title of chairman and CEO of The Azoff Company and is the personal manager of the legendary Eagles, Jon Bon Jovi, U2, John Mayer, Van Halen, Gwen Stefani, Steely Dan, Maroon 5, and many others. The Azoff Company is a privately held media and entertainment company dedicated to investing in positively disruptive businesses that put artists and fans first. Azoff was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2020.
Trending on Billboard
Irving Azoff recently slammed YouTube as “by far the worst offender” when it comes to paying creators fairly. As one of the largest and most successful managers of artists in history, his opinion carries a great deal of weight.
Songwriters specifically are paid through a complex, regulated environment, so digital services have myriad ways of manipulating the system. Those who care about creators often hear about how these platforms mistreat them — and if you ask 10 industry leaders who is the worst, you might get 10 different answers.
Related
To make sense of who is friend or foe, here is a ranking based on what they’re doing for and against songwriters today. Beyond their public relations and industry parties, it is essential to understand how these services actually treat the creators they depend on*,* so here are the broad criticisms.
One must start with Spotify, the largest music-focused streaming service. While Mr. Azoff ranks YouTube as enemy number one, when it comes to songwriters, no one comes close to Spotify.
Last year, the streaming giant revealed — months after imposing the scheme — that it had unilaterally added audiobooks to premium subscriptions so that it could attempt to qualify for paying a lower royalty rate — since music was now part of a “bundle.”
This scheme is currently being challenged in court by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), which pays streaming royalties to rights holders. The NMPA has also pushed for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into this as an unfair business practice, as once Spotify imposed this bundle on its users, it raised prices and made it virtually impossible to return to a music-only premium plan.
Related
Spotify also has fought for extremely low royalty rates at the trial that determines streaming royalties, which takes place every five years in Washington, D.C. And when we, alongside NSAI, won a significant royalty increase in 2018, Spotify spent years appealing that decision. Eventually, they lost that appeal — but songwriters were denied much-needed income throughout the process. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The platform also has added insult to injury through tone-deaf PR stunts like its “Secret Genius” campaign — honoring the very songwriters whose genius is no secret — while it simultaneously fought them in court.
Another significant swipe at songwriters is its free service. Instead of being a free trial period or an on-ramp to encouraging users to pay for music, millions of users can listen to unlimited songs for free without ever signing up. This service delivers the most minuscule royalties to songwriters — it’s almost incalculable.
Mr. Azoff’s opinion about YouTube is shared by many in the industry. The service is notorious for using hardball tactics in negotiations. Since the YouTube platform largely involves synchronization (video) royalties — which are in a free market for songwriters — there is even more opportunity cost. The general perception for years has been that YouTube benefits much more from the music on its service than it pays.
Related
Amazon is complex in that music is only part of its much larger ecosystem. Unfortunately, it has also recently taken advantage of lower rates by bundling music with other services. However, it has not been as brazen as Spotify and has generally been more concerned with its relationship with songwriters. There are opportunities for the platform to improve, and we are hopeful that it continues to keep conversations open with the end goal of seeing music creators as business partners instead of pawns.
TikTok leads the world in social media music consumption — it is essential to the platform’s success. While deals have been struck in the past, the service has used its size to pressure songwriters and artists to return to the platform when there were attempts to negotiate fairer rates. Songwriters suffer disproportionately from this dynamic. While artists receive exposure on the service that can be monetized through touring and merchandise, songwriters need direct compensation, so holding out for more is essential, and thus far has been largely unsuccessful.
Apple Music continues to stand alone in several areas. When other services appealed the aforementioned royalty rate increase in 2018, Apple did not. Additionally, as Apple Music head Oliver Schusser announced at our Annual Meeting in Manhattan earlier this year, the platform will never give music away. “I think it’s crazy that 20 years in, we still offer music for free,” Schusser said. “We’re the only service that doesn’t have a free service. As a company, we look at music as art, and we would never want to give away art for free.” While we will still push for higher rates from Apple, this sentiment must be appreciated and amplified.
Related
Satellite radio shouldn’t be counted out. SiriusXM — which now owns Pandora — has a troubling history of paying extremely low rates to songwriters. In fact, today digital radio pays significantly more to artists annually than AM/FM radio pays songwriters. Think about that. The radio relationship has completely flipped. Songwriters used to make a large percentage of their income from terrestrial radio, and now they make less than artists make from satellite radio — which is dwarfed by interactive streaming — alone.
So who is the worst offender? The answer depends on who is in a current contract negotiation or a rate-setting proceeding. However, when entering into any of these marketplace or regulatory environments, it is crucial to understand where the players stand and how they have historically positioned themselves.
The Super Bowl of all of this starts in a few months before the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, D.C. At that time, the major streaming services will put forth their proposals for how they want to pay songwriters for 2028–2032. This will be illuminating, and all creators and advocates must seriously consider what they put forth. We will make sure songwriters know what they propose.
There is an opportunity for digital platforms to make serious headway in terms of their relationships with songwriters at this proceeding. So pay close attention, and we will adjust rankings after they reveal their positions. Stay tuned.
David Israelite is the president and CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). Founded in 1917, NMPA is the trade association representing all American music publishers and their songwriting partners.
It has been over one year since Spotify brought limited audiobook functionality to its Spotify premium products in November 2023. In March 2024, in a major shift for songwriters and music publishers, Spotify began reporting its three principal premium subscription tiers to the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) as “bundled subscription services” rather than as “standalone portable subscriptions,” as they had previously done. In response, the MLC sued Spotify in May 2024 for allegedly underpaying music publishers, but a judge dismissed the case in January 2025. A motion for reconsideration filed by the MLC in February 2025 remains pending in the Southern District of New York.
Earlier this month, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) stated at its annual meeting that this change has resulted in a first-year loss of $230 million in mechanical royalties to songwriters and music publishers. Spotify’s own recent SEC filing states a loss of 205 million euros in mechanical royalties for the 13-month period between March 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025. This is actual money that should have, but did not, make it into the pockets of songwriters and music publishers. It has instead remained with Spotify.
Trending on Billboard
Spotify’s actions have already been publicly lambasted by this author, the NMPA and the songwriter and music publisher communities as perhaps the worst affront in a long line of offenses committed by Spotify against songwriters. So why am I writing about this issue again, a year after first doing so in Billboard? Because with a year’s worth of additional facts and data at hand, it is my opinion that this is one of the greatest injustices visited upon songwriters in the era of music streaming, sadly perpetuated by the company that has perhaps benefited more than any other from the creativity and labor of songwriters. All songwriters and music publishers should be aware of this critical issue and deserve to know all of the supporting facts.
When I wrote on this issue back in May 2024, I opined that Spotify’s actions would likely reduce the effective share of its U.S. subscription revenue paid to songwriters and music publishers from the agreed-upon 15.1% to 15.35% in the Phonorecords IV settlement to less than 12%. I wrote that Spotify’s timing felt engineered to partially sideline songwriters and music publishers from benefiting from price increases that were reportedly soon to take effect (and did). I wrote that the Spotify Audiobooks Access tier was seemingly not commercially viable as a standalone product and was launched in the U.S. (and nowhere else) with the primary and perhaps sole purpose of supporting Spotify’s attempt to report most of its subscription tiers to the MLC as bundles and reduce mechanical royalty payments to songwriters. And finally, I wrote that Spotify was motivated to take publishing royalties out of the pockets of songwriters in order to improve its gross margin and offset the costs of running its new audiobook initiative.
One year later, I believe that all of this has proved to be true. Let’s look at the facts.
What is a bundle?
In this context, a bundle occurs when Spotify — or another music service — is sold to consumers for a single price as part of a package which includes other goods and services. Some bundles package music with digital services such as subscription video on demand and/or physical goods such as phones, tablets and delivery services. The components of the bundle typically can be purchased on an individual basis if a consumer is not interested in purchasing the entire package, and those components typically have a clear independent commercial value to some segment of consumers.
For rightsholders, the potential value exchange is that a tech platform may package a bundle of goods and services (including music) together in a manner that could potentially bring additive revenue, users and engagement to music creators that, absent the bundle, might be less obtainable. Basically, the platform is offering a package deal to reach customers who may be less likely to pay for a music service sold on its own.
Rightsholders operating in a free market may be asked by the licensee to help offset their other costs of operating such a bundle (e.g., non-music licensing costs, other operating expenses) by agreeing to reduced royalty terms than what would typically apply to a standalone music service, which a licensee may also offer. Rightsholders are able to consider such requests, sometimes referred to as “bundle discounts,” by engaging in discussions with the licensee and utilizing pertinent data and information such as market research, reporting and revenue forecasts to inform their viewpoints and make decisions that are in the best interests of music creators.
A range of outcomes is possible in the free market. A rightsholder may refuse to license the bundled service at all, or they may license the bundled service for the same price and terms they’d grant to a standalone music service, or they may agree to some means of discounting. The Phonorecords IV settlement includes examples of such terms, including a specific definition of revenue for bundled services and other terms that are reduced relative to those that apply to standalone music services.
When this works as intended, music rightsholders may choose to effectively co-invest with a streaming service in creating a discounted bundle that they feel has the potential to earn additional revenue, even if there may be less revenue earned on a per-user basis from the bundle relative to a standalone music service. The potential benefit to music creators is that they may capture additional royalty amounts from users who might not have signed up for a music service absent the additional non-music components of the bundled offerings. The licensee is rewarded for bringing some level of added value to music creators by building, offering and marketing the bundled package to consumers.
Why Spotify’s bundle is different
But this is not what Spotify has done. Spotify has built a music subscription empire based upon the creativity and labor of songwriters and now reduced their U.S. mechanical royalties in a manner that implies that songwriters now contribute less to the success of Spotify. That could not be further from the truth. Regardless of the legal issues surrounding this matter, Spotify’s reduction of songwriters’ mechanical royalties, in my opinion, has no commercial merit.
In June 2024, a few months after Spotify began including the limited audiobook functionality (15 hours of listening time per month) in Spotify’s premium tier, it launched a tier called Spotify Basic. Spotify Basic, which is $1 to $3 less expensive than Spotify’s premium tier, depending on the number of users, is what Spotify’s premium tier was prior to November 2023 — a music subscription service without the audiobook functionality. It is the service that tens of millions of users signed up for prior to November 2023 because they acknowledged the value of unfettered access to music and are willing to pay for it. But all of those premium users, regardless of whether or not they want audiobooks, are now considered by Spotify to be bundled subscribers as of March 2024. That is, unless they manually selected to switch to Spotify Basic.
Most Spotify users probably don’t know that all of this happened, or that Spotify Basic exists. Spotify Basic is not available to new subscribers; it is only available in the U.S. to existing premium users who were subscribed as of June 20, 2024. Promotion and marketing of Spotify Basic to qualifying users has been limited. If a Spotify user cancels their Spotify Basic plan later on, it is not possible to resubscribe to it. Basic is also not available via upgrade paths. For example, a subscriber cannot upgrade from Basic Individual to Basic Duo. Instead, they are forced to pay $2 more for Premium Duo even if they have no interest in audiobooks.
Since Spotify’s November 2023 launch of the limited audiobook functionality, it has not been possible for new Spotify users to obtain a Spotify subscription that does not include audiobooks (save for qualifying student plans, which are bundled with Hulu). This is important because, absent a clearly presented and available option for a new (or existing) customer to choose between one offering that is music-only and another offering that includes audiobooks but is more expensive, the very clear conclusion is that music alone continues to drive consumer decision making around Spotify, including users’ decisions to pay for Spotify, what price they are willing to pay and what levels of price increases they are willing to endure without canceling their subscriptions.
Most Spotify users also don’t know that there’s a Spotify Audiobook Access tier. Last year, many — including this author — opined that the Audiobook Access tier was launched solely in the U.S. for the primary or sole purpose of lending legal support and a pricing benchmark to Spotify’s reduction of mechanical royalties. One year later, this appears on its face to have been true. Spotify Audiobook Access only remains available in the U.S., and there appears to be little, if any, earnest effort on Spotify’s part to promote and market it to consumers. They do not publicly report subscriber numbers for Spotify Audiobook Access, nor do they seem to talk about it much. In my opinion, it appears to be an offering that Spotify is not serious about and that was launched to prop up the reduction of songwriter’s mechanical royalty payments.
I’ve also been asked why Spotify did not declare its premium tier to be a bundled product when it began offering podcasts to subscribers many years before its introduction of audiobooks. The answer may lie in the fact that podcasts are monetized by selling advertising to businesses and brands, and there has been clear demand for Spotify to provide that service. Audiobooks, by contrast, have historically been monetized mostly via subscriptions sold to consumers by digital retailers. In Spotify’s case, it is possible that while some segment of premium subscribers might utilize limited audiobook access if they are already paying to access unlimited music, those same subscribers might not be motivated enough to pay Spotify specifically for access to audiobooks. In other words, engagement alone might not be an indicator of willingness to pay. It costs Spotify money to offer audiobooks to its subscribers, and if those subscribers aren’t willing to pay for them specifically, it’s possible that Spotify needs to offset those costs in some other manner. As I’ve opined before, I believe this has been a material driver behind Spotify’s bundling initiative that has cost songwriters and music publishers hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. mechanical royalties to date.
Spotify’s financials post-bundling
Finally, let’s talk about how this issue has impacted Spotify’s financial performance. Spotify’s premium gross margin increased from 29.1% to 33.5% between Q4 2023 (the last full quarter unimpacted by Spotify’s reduction of mechanical royalties via bundling) and Q1 2025. The $230 million first-year loss of U.S. mechanical royalties reported by the NMPA equates to about 1.4% of Spotify’s global premium revenue of 13.82 billion euros (approximately $15.89 million) for 2024. There are a number of factors that have allowed Spotify to improve its gross margin performance, but its reduction of U.S. mechanical royalties has contributed to that improvement on a very real and material basis, as Spotify has noted on quarterly earnings calls.
Spotify’s gross margin improvement has undoubtedly been a big factor in the performance of its stock, which is up about 130% year-over-year as of this writing. It is perverse that songwriters and music publishers have contributed so meaningfully towards these recent improvements in Spotify’s financial performance and the market’s reaction, yet find themselves not only unrewarded for their contributions but on the wrong end of Spotify’s efforts to reduce its U.S. music publishing costs.
So, where do songwriters and music publishers go from here? While it has been reported that Universal Music Publishing Group and Warner Chappell have entered into direct agreements with Spotify for the U.S. as part of broader deals that include their associated record labels, the upcoming Phonorecords V process before the Copyright Royalty Board — which starts early next year — presents the entire songwriter and music publishing community with the opportunity to right Spotify’s wrong. I encourage all who depend on songwriting and publishing royalties for their livelihood to educate themselves on the facts and stay aware of new developments.
Adam Parness was the global head of music publishing at Spotify from 2017 to 2019. He currently operates Adam Parness Music Consulting and serves as a highly trusted and sought after strategic advisor to numerous music rightsholders, notably in the music publishing space, as well as popular global brands, technology-based creative services companies and firms investing in music and technology.
I recently had the opportunity to testify before Congress about the NO FAKES Act of 2025 — a landmark effort to protect human voices and likenesses from being cloned by artificial intelligence without consent.
I started singing when I was four years old and have used my voice throughout my career to amplify lyrics that I believe in. Each recording reflects pieces of my individuality and artistry that have evolved throughout my life.
My recordings reflect my human experience, and I am honored that they are a part of people’s lives — from wedding vows to breakups, to celebrating milestones and even the special relationship between a mother and daughter.
Trending on Billboard
But today, my voice and likeness, along with so many others, are at risk. AI technology is amazing and can be used for so many wonderful purposes. But like all great technologies, it can also be abused when it is harnessed to steal people’s voices and likenesses to defraud families, manipulate the images of young girls, impersonate government officials or pose as artists like me.
It’s mind-blowing that we must even question that our voices and likenesses should be our own to control. It’s scary and unquestionably wrong.
I was so gratified with the commitment of the bipartisan group of Senators I testified before last week in DC to deal with deepfake images by supporting the NO FAKES Act, which would prevent the theft of someone’s voice or likeness to harm, harass, bully or defraud them or others, and damage our careers, reputations and values.
The NO FAKES Act gives every person the power to say “yes” or “no” about how their most personal human attributes are used.
In Congress, I was asked about the impact of unauthorized deepfakes on the careers and livelihoods of young artists — and that impact can be immense. Every performer in our business must establish early in their career who they are and what they stand for, creatively, artistically and personally. That is how we build connections with our fans. But if bad actors can invade that artist-fan bond and distort the story a young artist tells the world about who they are, many careers could be lost before they truly get started. And that’s a problem that goes beyond the arts — unconsented deepfakes and voice clones rob every person of the ability to speak their own truth and tell their own story.
The NO FAKES Act also supports innovation by providing a roadmap for how these powerful tools can be developed responsibly. And it doesn’t stand in the way of protected uses like news, parodies, or criticism. Thanks to technology companies like OpenAI and Google who support this bill, as well as the legions of creators who have worked so hard to advocate for it (nearly 400 of us last week endorsed it here), and the child protection and anti-sex-trafficking and exploitation groups who support it and continue to fight for those who are most vulnerable, we have a real chance of it becoming law this year.
It has been a special honor to record songs that shine a light on the battles many women fight, especially domestic violence. Fans have shared with me that “Independence Day” has given them strength, and in some cases, the song has been the catalyst that has made them realize they need to leave an abusive situation.
Imagine the harm an AI deepfake could do breaching that trust, using my voice in songs that belittle or justify abuse. Or the devastation of a fan, scammed by a deepfake voice clone impersonating me or any artist they trust, into handing over their hard-earned money to a fraudster. Or my voice and/or likeness being used to promote a product that may be subpar at best, and harmful at worst. And while this isn’t the part that I am an expert on, knowing AI is being used to deepfake and manipulate young girls in ways that can devastate and ruin their lives is especially troubling. As a mother, an artist and a human being who cares about others — I ask you to join in the fight to stop that kind of betrayal.
Passing the NO FAKES Act will set us on the right path to develop the world’s best AI while preserving the sacred qualities that make our country so special — authenticity, integrity, humanity and our endlessly inspiring spirit.
Martina McBride is an award-winning country music singer who has charted seven top 10s on the Billboard 200 and landed 21 songs on the Hot 100 in her career, and been nominated for 14 Grammys. She’s also a four-time CMA Female Vocalist of the Year and three-time ACM Top Female Vocalist winner, and in 2019 was honored with the ACM’s Icon Award.
In recent years, social media platforms have become a key battleground for copyright infringement disputes, with music rights holders targeting brands that use copyrighted tracks in social media posts.
This development can be traced, in part, to increasingly sophisticated software that major music labels and publishers use to monitor infringing uses of their songs online — a reaction to the “whack-a-mole” frustration that rights holders feel when they consistently find their songs being used on the Internet without permission. And with the risk of potential statutory damage awards for copyright infringement ranging from $200 to $150,000 per infringed work, rights holders can hold significant leverage in any ensuing legal action. Thus, whether a brand is incorporating music into posts on its social media channels or partnering with influencers who do the same, using music on social media has never been riskier.
Below, we examine the rising tide of recent lawsuits and other legal action taken against brands by music rightsholders and outline key takeaways to help avoid infringing uses and ensure that artists are properly compensated for their work.
Trending on Billboard
The Vital Pharmaceuticals Case
In 2021, UMG Recordings sued Vital Pharmaceuticals, the parent company of Bang Energy, for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, alleging that videos posted by Bang and its influencers on TikTok used UMG’s copyrighted songs without permission. UMG argued that Bang was “well aware” that its conduct constituted copyright infringement because UMG had informed Bang of its unauthorized uses before bringing suit. UMG also argued that Bang had control over and financially benefited from its influencers’ infringing videos, which the influencers submitted to Bang for approval before posting.
Bang denied any knowledge of infringement, arguing that TikTok’s standard music license covered Bang’s use of UMG’s music. The court disagreed and granted summary judgment on UMG’s claim for direct copyright infringement, holding that UMG did not authorize TikTok to permit end users, such as Bang, to use the music for commercial (as opposed to personal) purposes. The court reasoned that because direct liability for copyright infringement does not require proof of intent, Bang’s belief that TikTok gave it permission to use UMG’s music was, at most, relevant to the amount of damages Bang owed, not whether it was liable for copyright infringement in the first instance.
The court ruled against UMG, however, on its vicarious and contributory infringement theories related to Bang’s influencers, concluding that UMG failed to prove that Bang had input regarding the selection of music included in influencers’ videos and did not point to any evidence that Bang received a direct financial benefit from the influencers’ videos.
The Growing Litigation Trend
Since UMG v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, music rights holders have ramped up enforcement efforts against other brands. Sony Music Entertainment launched its own copyright infringement lawsuit against Bang (as did Warner Music Group) and also filed claims against brands such as Gymshark, OFRA Cosmetics, Marriott International and the University of Southern California. In each case, the brands, and/or the influencers they hired, allegedly used Sony-owned sound recordings in posts promoting the companies’ products or services.
Similar to UMG’s argument in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony argued that each of the companies knew that their content infringed Sony’s copyrights prior to the lawsuits, and thus that the infringement was “willful,” entitling Sony to statutory damages as high as $150,000 per infringed work. In the Gymshark case, as in Vital Pharmaceuticals, it was alleged that Gymshark knew that the music was unlicensed because Gymshark previously approached Sony to discuss music licensing and then proceeded to use Sony’s music without securing commercial licenses. OFRA allegedly failed to take down infringing content after Sony sent a cease-and-desist letter and then posted new infringing content after learning of Sony’s claims. And Marriott allegedly did not take down its posts upon Sony’s request, was previously sued in 2021 for similar copyright infringement issue, and generally knew how to enter into music licenses.
As in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony also brought claims against alleged infringers, such as Gymshark and OFRA, for contributory and vicarious liability based on their influencers’ infringing content. Most recently, Warner Music Group (WMG) sued Crumbl and Designer Brands Inc., the parent company of DSW Shoe Warehouse, under similar theories.
While a number of these cases were just recently filed, and others ultimately settled out of court or appear to be moving towards settlement, there is no question that they are part of a fast-growing trend, and provide a glimpse into the mindset, and tactics, of rights holders with respect to unauthorized music use on social media platforms.
Navigating Platform Music Licenses
So what can brands do to avoid this type of legal action and ensure from the outset that artists are properly compensated for their copyrighted works? The best way to avoid copyright infringement when using music owned by a third party is, of course, to license the music directly from the third-party rights holders. This approach is often impractical, however, given the speed and volume with which brands need to publish content on social media.
Instead, many brands use music from the social media platforms’ respective “commercial music libraries” or “CMLs,” which contain different music options than those available for “personal” accounts. The CMLs, such as Meta’s Sound Collection and TikTok’s Commercial Music Library, allow companies and individuals to use music on the platform specifically for commercial purposes, so long as the brand also adheres to the platform’s other license terms.
Using CMLs can pose challenges, however, especially with respect to registering “business” accounts within each platform. Even with the proper registration, it is not always clear which music within the different libraries’ business or commercial accounts can use, and the scope of those rights may (and do) change over time. There are, however, a number of strategies brands can use to help ensure they are using permitted music.
For example, before using a platform’s CML, brands should review the CML’s terms of service and related policies, including terms that specify which commercial purposes the music can be used for and whether the songs can be used in videos on other platforms. It is equally important for brands to actively track the platforms’ evolving license terms in order to remain compliant. And for some brands, it may make sense to use software or external vendors to monitor and flag their brand and influencer posts for potential copyright violations across social media platforms. Of course, every brand’s business needs will be different. The key is finding the right combination of internal and external resources to help minimize the risk of copyright infringement.
Conclusion
The rising chorus of lawsuits from music rights holders is nothing to tune out. Brands using music as part of their social media strategies (which, practically speaking, is almost every brand) must take proactive steps to mitigate legal risks, and they will also be protecting artists’ rights in the process. This includes complying with and staying informed about changes to platform-specific licensing terms, ensuring that their influencers stay within the bounds of such terms, and considering tools to monitor, flag, and remove potentially infringing content. Failing to take these precautions can lead to costly litigation, reputational damage, and the forced removal of content.
Sarah Moses is an entertainment litigation partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and focuses her practice on a variety of complex litigation and commercial disputes. She represents media, entertainment and technology clients in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, First Amendment, blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) matters, among others.
Monica Kulkarni is an advertising, marketing and media associate with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. She represents clients across a variety of industries and provides multidisciplinary legal counseling on transactional, compliance and regulatory matters in advertising, entertainment and media.
Jacob Geskin is a law clerk with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP based in the Firm’s New York office where he works across music, intellectual property and media law.
Last year, I wrote an op-ed titled “Fighting Streaming Fraud at the Distributor Level.” In it, I discussed the complexity of streaming fraud, where it comes from and how it can be solved with all industry stakeholders working together. At Symphonic Distribution, we’ve worked to create resources for our clients, such as an analytics tool that shows fraudulent streams and best practices for streaming safely while utilizing KYC (know your customer) efforts to combat increases in fraud and championing the use of identity verification. All of these efforts, along with continued collaboration between members of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance (MFFA), have led to a reduction in instances of fraud.
In the months since my op-ed was released, streaming fraud has become an even more important topic of conversation at industry events and conferences and is being meaningfully addressed by distributors around the globe. Currently, most distributors have continued to be or are now involved in learning how to proactively deal with fraud; they’ve been more vocal, provided more data to each other, and most now have policies to prevent it as best they can. However, fraud has also become more sophisticated, and like a virus, it has mutated and evolved to better hide itself. For example, we’ve recently seen fraudsters begin to “sprinkle” fraudulent activity through bot playlists, use AI to impersonate artists and even attack legitimate streaming activity to weaponize fraud against others as sabotage; the latter even happened to me.
Trending on Billboard
Symphonic has had success in decreasing fraud and been outspoken about what can be done to combat it. I can say we’ve seen results, and that our work will continue, but we felt it important to be transparent about what could be done to continue to make progress in this area.
Distributors
As I’ve said before, distributors need to implement advanced KYC procedures. At an absolute minimum, there needs to be robust identification checks for all new labels and artists they bring under their umbrella. Fraudsters cannot commit fraud if they can’t upload their tracks, and many will balk when asked to provide their personal ID. Moreover, if they do provide their ID and commit fraud that is then traced to them, all accounts linked to that ID can be deleted at once.
Additionally, leveraging platforms such as Tipalti, Trolley and other fintech payment platforms is helpful for OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) compliance and further helps identify the individual. As distributors, we all have a responsibility to ensure that who we’re dealing with is actually who they say they are and truly the rightsholder. This is a challenge, but the effort is worth it.
Here are a few additional actions distributors can take:
Implement and Enforce Strict Content Verification Processes
Before content is published, implementing rigorous verification procedures can prevent the distribution of infringing material. This includes verifying the authenticity of tracks and ensuring that proper licenses are in place. Sony Music’s recent removal of over 75,000 AI-generated deepfake recordings highlights the importance of proactive content management.
Educate Artists and Labels on Ethical Practices
Providing clear guidelines about artificial streaming and its consequences is crucial. Educating stakeholders on the risks associated with fraudulent services and emphasizing the importance of organic growth can deter participation in unethical practices. Resources like Symphonic’s best practices for streaming safely offer valuable insights.
Collaborate Across the Industry
Forming alliances and working collectively can strengthen the fight against fraud. Initiatives like the MFFA demonstrate the effectiveness of industry-wide collaboration in addressing streaming fraud.
DSPs
Similarly, digital service providers (DSPs) need to be more discerning about what content gets ingested into their platforms. With more than 200,000 tracks being added on many of them each day, DSPs must take a more active role in creating more friction in the process of uploading music to dissuade and discourage fraudsters.
What DSPs can do to help:
Strengthen User-Generated Content (UGC) Systems for Issue Resolution
UGC platforms have developed systems that help identify and resolve disputes among parties without the need for extensive legal action. Strengthening these systems can enhance conflict resolution and reduce litigation.
Meaningfully Address AI in Music
At a minimum, AI-generated songs should be clearly labeled. Action is already being taken here with groups like AI:OK working on developing an AI Trustmark, but DSPs should already be adopting more stringent AI guidance. At Symphonic, we ask our clients whether they have used “Some,” “All,” or “No” AI in their content during the upload process to improve identification. We are also exploring partnerships to enhance AI detection and verification.
The bigger question remains: What is AI-generated music worth? DSPs could provide more guidance in this area, and implementing clearer rules now could drive more rapid and structured change while legal frameworks evolve. We are not anti-AI, but we support the idea that fully AI-generated content should be valued less than AI-assisted human-created content.
Develop and Implement Stronger Regulations for Distributors
As a result of fraud, distribution needs to be taken more seriously than it currently is. There are too many distributors with overly open policies who do not approach the matter responsibly. Instead of adding more distributors, we should consider working with the many reputable companies that already exist. And by extension, DSPs shouldn’t work with new distributors unless they are addressing fraud at the point of ingestion.
Coming Together
With fraudsters finding new and unique ways to commit fraud, distributors, DSPs, and other entities in the industry have come together to fight them. Chiefly, the MFFA, formed in 2023, continues to expand and add new members and anti-fraud initiatives. Since its inception, the MFFA has grown to more than 20 members. In addition to Symphonic, it includes Tunecore, CD Baby, Empire, Spotify, SoundCloud, Meta and many more. Those who are a part of the MFFA are beginning to continuously share information with each other so that we all know what to look for and stay informed as an industry on how best to fight fraud. This data sharing practice has already helped Symphonic reduce fraud, and from what we’ve heard, it is also doing the same for our partners in the MFFA.
I’ve continued to have these conversations at conferences and other industry events, and the enthusiasm for coming together to fight fraud is apparent. With the appointment of Michael Lewan as executive director, the work of the MFFA is going to accelerate quickly, and more companies will soon be able to join to expand the work they’re doing.
At the end of the day, there will always be more we as an industry can do to combat fraud because, like all things, it will continue to evolve. We need to make it harder for bad actors and fairer for real artists. As we’ve done already, distributors need to enhance their KYC efforts — if you don’t know who your clients are or have a way of identifying them individually, don’t work with them. On the other side, DSPs need to be more cognizant of what’s being ingested on their platforms and build some walls to slow down the process and enable fraud identification. We’ll continue to have these conversations and fight for a fair, safe, and trusted environment for artists, songwriters, and consumers to listen and submit music to.
Jorge Brea is the Founder and CEO of Symphonic Distribution, a 100% independent company offering full-service distribution, marketing, royalty collection, and more for record labels, artists, managers, and distributors alike with footprints in Tampa, Brooklyn, Nashville, Bogotá, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, and Brazil. Jorge is an active member of the Music FIghts Fraud Alliance, was named to Billboard‘s 2024 International Power Players list, won the Music Biz 2024 #NEXTGEN_NOW One to Watch Bizzy Award, and in 2023 was on the Tampa Bay Business Journal’s 40 Under 40 list.
Prompted by Chappell Roan’s comments about health insurance from the Grammy stage on Feb. 2, over the last several weeks an important conversation has been taking place about financial stability and health among those who work in music. At MusiCares, we celebrate this conversation and want to collectively seize this moment for real change. To do this, we need to go deeper than just a conversation. It is important to understand and focus solutions on data-backed, long-standing issues around fair pay and health in the music community.
In fact, MusiCares was founded with this mission in mind. The Recording Academy formed MusiCares as an independent 501c3 charity in 1989 to be a shared service for the larger music industry because even back then, it was difficult to ensure fair pay across all sectors. As a result, many music people were falling on hard times. Health and welfare problems are exacerbated in low-income environments. This problem continues in music today, even after MusiCares has provided over $118 million in direct assistance to people from every music profession, genre and U.S. state.
Trending on Billboard
We know this because we research it. Financial instability is a major concern for people in music, affecting their household economics, physical well-being and mental health. Our Wellness in Music survey, open to anyone in the U.S. working in music, shows that 69% of respondents cannot comfortably cover their expenses through work in music alone and 47% attribute their stress to financial instability. Furthermore, 65% of respondents are not confident about the trajectory of the industry. These are major red flags for both the well-being of our music community and the sustainability of this industry in its current form.
MusiCares provides customized care, often with substantial financial assistance to cover basic living needs and other expenses, when music people face economic hardship. Many people in music never get guidance on how to manage their money. For this reason, we also focus on the preventive side of financial health, including financial management services and tax support. The tragic fires in Los Angeles and hurricanes in the Southeast demonstrate how perilously close so many people in our community are to financial ruin. While some music people had substantial loss, many of the 5,000+ individuals we supported through our recent disaster relief efforts needed support simply because they lost a gig or two: $200 or $300 in income was often what separated them from security and an inability to pay their basic living costs. Higher wages are essential, but we also need to grow financial safety nets, which include funding and resources to support music professionals through hard times. This requires substantial and ongoing investments from the industry to ensure qualified non-profit organizations can meet the need.
Health insurance has also been a major topic in recent weeks, and it’s an important one. But health insurance alone is not enough. Our Wellness in Music survey consistently shows that 87-90% of music professionals have health insurance, just slightly the below US national coverage. While universal coverage is the goal, the barrier many people in music face is an inability to use the insurance they have. Most MusiCares clients have health insurance but may not use it because they can’t afford the deductible, their provider doesn’t take insurance, or the provider is out of network. Overwhelmingly, music people are not accessing preventive care services, like mammograms, dental cleanings and hearing screenings, at healthy rates. For this reason, we work with a carefully vetted network of hundreds of licensed health providers across the United States and have provided over 45,000 free preventive clinic visits. We need to keep closing the gap in economic and logistical access to essential medical care. This includes access to quality health insurance, additional funding to cover out of pocket costs and dedicated providers who can work with music professionals on their unique needs.
Inability to use insurance affects mental health too. The American Psychological Association estimates that about one in three therapists do not take insurance. Access to care is further complicated because people in music are highly mobile. Licensing regulations may mean people can’t work with their mental health provider or worse, end up receiving care from unlicensed providers. In the absence of access to licensed, affordable care, many music people are vulnerable to unregulated initiatives that have no grounding in science.
Music people in need of substance use treatment often face similar challenges. In-network treatment centers may have no space or it’s not the right fit for their needs. For single parents, highly mobile workers or those who need to keep working, in-patient treatment may not be an option. To get people the care they deserve, we need to expand access to substantial financial assistance for addiction recovery, in addition to tailored and long-term care options, referrals, and placement.
At MusiCares, we’ve provided over $25 million in direct assistance to music people and placed them in therapy and substance use treatment. Currently, MusiCares is the only philanthropic organization that covers the full costs of substance use treatment for music people. While financial support is essential, we find it is only effective because we have specialized providers o meet the needs of music people as well as follow-up care, like sober living, accountability coaching and support for basic living needs during key recovery junctures.
Finally, we need better coordination to create comprehensive support for everyone who works in music. At MusiCares, we have never gone at it alone and have no interest in trying. We need to work in tandem with health care providers, music industry companies and non-profit partners to ensure no one slips through the cracks. Those of us who work in this space have an opportunity for stronger coordination, including sharing our data and best practices, so that we are all making evidence-based investments that address the very real challenges within our community.
We all need music. Music needs a safety net.
Laura Segura is executive director and Theresa Wolters is vice president of health & human services at MusiCares.
Generative AI — the creation of compositions from nothing in seconds — isn’t disrupting music licensing; it’s accelerating the economic impact of a system that was never built to last. Here’s the sick reality: If a generative AI company wanted to ethically license Travis Scott’s “Sicko Mode” to train their models, they’d need approvals from more than 30 rights holders, with that number doubling based on rights resold or reassigned after the track’s release. Finding and engaging with all of those parties? Good luck. No unified music database exists to identify rights holders, and even if it did, outdated information, unanswered emails, and, in some cases, deceased rights holders or a group potentially involved in a rap beef make the process a nonstarter.
The music licensing system, or lack thereof, is so fragmented that most AI companies don’t even try. They steal first and deal with lawsuits later. Clearing “Sicko Mode” isn’t just difficult; it’s impossible — a cold example of the complexity of licensing commercial music for AI training that seems left out of most debates surrounding ethical approaches.
Trending on Billboard
For those outside the music business, it’s easy to assume that licensing a song is as simple as getting permission from the artist. But in reality, every track is a tangled web of rights, split across songwriters, producers, publishers and administrators, each with their own deals, disputes and gatekeepers. Now multiply the chaos of clearing one track by the millions of tracks needed for an AI training set, and you’ll quickly see why licensing commercial music for AI at scale is a fool’s errand today.
Generative AI is exposing and accelerating the weaknesses in the traditional music revenue model by flooding the market with more music, driving down licensing fees and further complicating ownership rights. As brands and content creators turn to AI-generated compositions, demand for traditional catalogs will decline, impacting synch and licensing revenues once projected to grow over the next decade.
Hard truths don’t wait for permission. The entrance of generative AI has exposed the broken system of copyright management and its outdated black-box monetization methods.
The latest RIAA report shows that while U.S. paid subscriptions have crossed 100 million and revenue hit a record $17.7 billion in 2024, streaming growth has nearly halved — from 8.1% in 2023 to just 3.6% in 2024. The market is plateauing, and the question isn’t if the industry needs a new revenue driver — it’s where that growth will come from. Generative AI is that next wave. If architected ethically, it won’t just create new technological innovation in music; it will create revenue.
Ironically, the very thing being painted as an existential threat to the industry may be the thing capable of saving it. AI is reshaping music faster than anyone expected, yet its ethical foundation remains unwritten. So we need to move fast.
A Change is Gonna Come: Why Music Needs Ethical AI as a Catalyst for Monetization
Let’s start by stopping. Generative AI isn’t our villain. It’s not here to replace artistry. It’s a creative partner, a collaborator, a tool that lets musicians work faster, dream bigger and push boundaries in ways we’ve never seen before. While some still doubt AI’s potential because today’s ethically trained outputs may sound like they’re in their infancy, let me be clear: It’s evolving fast. What feels novel now will be industry-standard tomorrow.
Our problem is, and always has been, a lack of transparency. Many AI platforms have trained on commercial catalogs without permission (first they lied about it, then they came clean), extracting value without compensation. “Sicko Mode” very likely included. That behavior isn’t just unethical; it’s economically destructive, devaluing catalogs as imitation tracks saturate the market while the underlying copyrights earn nothing.
If we’re crying about market flooding right now, we’re missing the point. Because what if rights holders and artists participated in those tracks? Energy needs to go into rethinking how music is valued and monetized across licensing, ad tech and digital distribution. Ethical AI frameworks can ensure proper attribution, dynamic pricing and serious revenue generation for rights holders.
Jen, the ethically-trained generative AI music platform I co-founded, has already set a precedent by training exclusively on 100% licensed music, proving that responsible AI isn’t an abstract concept, it’s a choice. I just avoided Travis’ catalog due to its licensing complexities. Because time is of the essence. We are entering an era of co-creation, where technology can enhance artistry and create new revenue opportunities rather than replace them. Music isn’t just an asset; it’s a cultural force. And it must be treated as such.
Come Together: Why Opt-In is the Only Path Forward and Opt-Out Doesn’t Work
There’s a growing push for AI platforms to adopt opt-out mechanisms, where rights holders must proactively remove their work from AI training datasets. At first glance, this might seem like a fair compromise. In reality, it’s a logistical nightmare destined to fail.
A recent incident in the U.K. highlights these challenges: over 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush and Damon Albarn, released a silent album titled “Is This What We Want?” to protest proposed changes to copyright laws that would allow AI companies to use artists’ work without explicit permission. This collective action underscores the creative community’s concerns about the impracticality and potential exploitation inherent in opt-out systems.
For opt-out to work, platforms would need to maintain up-to-date global databases tracking every artist, writer, and producer’s opt-out status or rely on a third party to do so. Neither approach is scalable, enforceable, or backed by a viable business model. No third party is incentivized to take on this responsibility. Full stop.
Music, up until now, has been created predominantly by humans, and human dynamics are inherently complex. Consider a band that breaks up — one member might refuse to opt out purely to spite another, preventing consensus on the use of a shared track. Even if opt-out were technically feasible, interpersonal conflicts would create chaos. This is an often overlooked but critical flaw in the system.
Beyond that, opt-out shifts the burden onto artists, forcing them to police AI models instead of making music. This approach doesn’t close a loophole — it widens it. AI companies will scrape music first and deal with removals later, all while benefiting from the data they’ve already extracted. By the time an artist realizes their work was used, it’s too late. The damage is done.
This is why opt-in is the only viable future for ethical AI. The burden should be on AI companies to prove they have permission before using music — not on artists to chase down every violation. Right now, the system has creators in a headlock.
Speaking of, I want to point out another example of entrepreneurs fighting for and building solutions. Perhaps she’s fighting because she’s an artist herself and deeply knows how the wrong choices affect her livelihood. Grammy-winning and Billboard Hot 100-charting artist, producer and music-tech pioneer Imogen Heap has spent over a decade tackling the industry’s toughest challenges. Her non-profit platform, Auracles, is a much-needed missing data layer for music that enables music makers to create a digital ID that holds their rights information and can grant permissions for approved uses of their works — including for generative AI training or product innovation. We need to support these types of solutions. And stop condoning the camps that feel that stealing music is fair game.
Opt-in isn’t just possible, it’s absolutely necessary. By building systems rooted in transparency, fairness and collaboration, we can forge a future where AI and music thrive together, driven by creativity and respect.
The challenge here isn’t in building better AI models — it’s designing the right licensing frameworks from the start. Ethical training isn’t a checkbox; it’s a foundational choice. Crafting these frameworks is an art in itself, just like the music we’re protecting.
Transparent licensing frameworks and artist-first models aren’t just solutions; they’re the guardrails preventing another industry freefall. We’ve seen it before — Napster, TikTok (yes, I know you’re tired of hearing these examples) — where innovation outpaced infrastructure, exposing the cracks in old systems. This time, we have a shot at doing it right. Get it right, and our revenue rises. Get it wrong and… [enter your prompt here].
Shara Senderoff is a well-respected serial entrepreneur and venture capitalist pioneering the future of music creation and monetization through ethically trained generative AI as Co-Founder & CEO of Jen. Senderoff is an industry thought leader with an unwavering commitment to artists and their rights.
The music business needs a hug…and a punch to the gut.
As someone who cares deeply about mental health, wellness and supporting people in need, my intentions with this letter come from the purest place of love and empathy. But if I’ve learned anything from my time in the music industry — it’s to be direct. Today, I’m calling for more consistent, accessible personal and professional development support for the people who keep the music industry’s wheels turning. These include things like leadership and communication training, adaptability and resiliency coaching and a basic understanding of emotional intelligence. We cannot have a healthy industry inhabited by healthy humans without the intersection of mental health and professional and personal development. We need to move beyond just checking boxes for things that look good on paper, but do not actually impact those owning the day-to-day operations of our business. It’s unsustainable long-term. What good are resources if the business itself doesn’t support their use? How can we seriously promote wellness while maintaining conditions within the workplace that undermine it? The need to invest in both our well-being and create healthier work environments is becoming dire as we navigate unprecedented mergers and acquisitions, rampant layoffs due to our ever-evolving business, and an increasingly competitive landscape that shows no signs of slowing down.
To start, we could benefit from operating with less ego and more empathy. Leaders can always strive to be better decision-makers and communicators, with a focus on humility and understanding for their teams and partners. They hold the power to make change, but also face immense pressure, and we need to support them in guiding the industry. We also need more people who genuinely care about human growth, and are equipped to fight for changing outdated systems.
These precursors are required to address what our artists are expressing on stage at award shows and what professionals are discussing off the record over dinner. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for the hundreds of people I’ve met over the past five years, including those who attend our jump.global Annual Summit, where we host open forums on these critical topics. Yes, we’re good at calling this all “mental health,” and to some extent, it fits under that umbrella. But it’s so much more than that. It’s dealing with the real-life effects of endless company reorgs, constant performance critiques, burnout from the grind, lack of healthy work-life boundaries and an industry that prioritizes making money without making sure its people are happy with their personal growth.
Trending on Billboard
These aren’t new revelations. The industry has long been criticized for its broken promises and dehumanizing culture, but we’ve reached a tipping point. People are mentally and physically exhausted, overwhelmed by constant fatigue and the whiplash of relentless demands. They are caught between morning meditation and breathwork sessions, only to be thrown into the chaos of endless emails and unclear paths to advancement. It’s real, and it’s widespread, impacting every part of our personal and professional lives. The music industry must embrace the people who have always been its heart and soul — artists, fans and workers alike. It’s time to nurture the relationships that sustain it, offering the support, care, and recognition that has often been overlooked, and ensure that everyone involved feels valued, heard, and connected. It needs to become so systemic that it’s as common as composing an email or pitching a release. Are we truly listening to the feedback of our teams as much as we are to the charts? If we put people over profit, we can turn this around — but without this shift, we risk burning out the very people who keep this industry alive.
This sentiment is echoed by the coaching community I’ve turned to for my own research and development. “When mental, physical and emotional health are prioritized as part of the fabric of an organization, company culture changes, people get more creative, productivity increases, communication improves, performance gets stronger,” says Marni Wandner, board-certified health coach, executive coach and 22-year music industry vet. “I work with both executives and artists, most of whom are trying to prevent burnout, or recover from it. When people are at their best, the whole industry benefits – and the way we take care of ourselves and each other affects the wellbeing and success of the artists.”
Outside of overall health, It’s important to note how much leadership training plays such a crucial role in all of this. “When we develop our leaders and prepare them well, they can manage their teams effectively and compassionately. We can create better work cultures, retain talent in the industry, reduce burnout and improve performance,” Tamara Gal-On and Remi Harris, UK-based coaches and Co-Founders of the Music Leaders Network, share in a joint statement.
Effective communication has also been identified as a crucial component of strong leadership. Tracey Pepper, a veteran media and public-speaking coach and certified personal coach, shares, “I work with high-level executives every week who are expected to inspire and motivate their teams, whether it’s sharing ideas or delivering feedback, but who have never sought support around developing their communication style. Yet, how they interact with colleagues and co-workers has a significant effect on company culture and, in turn, productivity. Being aware of how you’re impacting others by how you speak to them is a game-changer in leadership.”
I ask nearly everyone I meet about this disconnect, and the consensus is clear: our industry doesn’t necessarily lack awareness of how important professional and personal development resources can be, it lacks the time for people to properly dedicate themselves to it because of how intense and fast-paced their jobs can be. Without an immediate ROI, development often feels like a “luxury” that companies and people can’t afford or something we save for an end-of-year planning session. But what if we stopped viewing it that way and started treating it as the necessity it clearly is?
While I applaud any music company with Learning & Development programs already in place, I hope the journey doesn’t stop after one-off grants, seminars or annual workshops. We need to create ongoing learning environments where professionals are empowered with the tools to thrive personally and professionally. The strength of the business lies not just in the artists we promote or the music we create, but in the culture we nurture within our teams. Developing strong, emotionally intelligent humans that work in music isn’t just a nice-to-have — it’s critical for the long-term success and sustainability of the industry. “What is emotional intelligence?” is a fun one to type into ChatGPT, and then compare back to the music business.
Of course, there has been discussion and debate over whose responsibility it is to provide tools in these areas. To be fair, I think it’s everyone’s collective responsibility. Thankfully, generous programs and organizations are already leading the charge to end stigmas and provide essential resources, research and guidance. Again, while much of the headlines focus on mental health, a lot of them work intersectionally through all the areas I mentioned. Backline, Music Industry Therapist Collective, Music Health Alliance, MusiCares, Amber Health, Keychange and numerous coaches and therapists are making a lasting impact and creating meaningful, sustainable change in the industry. We owe a lot to these organizations, as well as those leading ongoing efforts in diversity, equity, inclusion, gender parity, fighting ageism and supporting neurodivergent education.
That said, there is always more that can be done and this is an invitation for all of us to do our part if you are not already. While innovating and commercializing music, we must also dismantle outdated systems and create forward-thinking support for both creatives and the workforce. As we work to heal the world with music, we must first extend that same care to those who make it all possible. Through compassion, empathy and kindness, we can do this.
We are all human, and no matter our title, company, or paycheck we all can, and will, benefit from these changes. To the artist managers who just lost their biggest client, the marketing directors struggling to juggle 20 releases, the people who have devoted their lives to a role only to see it eliminated, the CEO who ascended the corporate ladder only to be knocked back down and to anyone who has ever felt unseen, unsupported, or confused by the industry they love … I see you. This is why we need systemic change that supports you consistently, not just when it becomes impossible to ignore. Whether it’s implementing a new way to foster open communication within your department or simply gifting a coaching session to a colleague – we can all work together to shape more resilient cultures.
So, dear music business humans, I hope you’ll accept this hug and pass it on to the friends you’ve made along the way, the teams you manage, the interns you inspire, the artists you collaborate with and those you’ve yet to meet. To all of the music business-at-large, the gut punches may feel like love taps, but I promise you they carry enough weight to impact your bottom line — today or tomorrow.
With immense love, gratitude and concern,
Nick Maiale
Nick Maiale is the founder & CEO of jump.global – an agency solution for music executives and companies looking to grow their influence through B2B trade marketing, conferences & panels, international relations, college mentorship and more. He is studying to become a certified executive coach with a mission to bring more personal and professional development events, such as the jump.global Annual Summit, to the music business masses.
