money makers
When Beyoncé sings about “rugged whiskey” and the “dive bar we always thought was nice” on her country album Cowboy Carter, she was definitely not talking about her whisky.
Launched this September in partnership with luxury giant LVMH’s Moët Hennessy, Queen Bey’s premium rye whisky SirDavis retails for $89 bottle and was inspired by her paternal great-grandfather’s legacy as a successful Prohibition-era moonshine maker.
It’s the latest product from Beyoncé, who, in addition to performing 56 shows for her $580-million-grossing 2023 Renaissance World Tour, also released a perfume called CÉ NOIR and a haircare line called Cécred over the past year.
Trending on Billboard
Fans are feverishly speculating on what genre she might reclaim next for a potential Act III album. So, why would she spend her precious time and invaluable brand power to release a whisky? And how much money might she make from it?
Billboard interviewed half a dozen alcohol industry experts and leading entertainment lawyers, and while they unanimously agreed that it is too early to guess at SirDavis’ sales — it only launched in August — they said the whiskey fits into a modern-day marketing strategy as multi-faceted as Queen Bey’s career.
“It’s an extension of the marketing push for her latest album, which has references to traditional Americana and American heritage,” says Spiros Malandrakis, head of alcoholic drinks research for Euromonitor, referencing Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter, which came out in April. “What is one of the most iconic products that encapsulates American heritage? It’s an American whisky that has roots dating back to moonshine.”
Cowboy Carter debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 album chart dated April 13 with 407,000 equivalent album units earned in the U.S. in the week ending April 4. It has since racked up a total of 1,322,896 equivalent album units, according to Luminate, and marks her her eighth No. 1 album. Whisky comes up in the lyrics of several Cowboy Carter songs, as do Levi’s jeans — spelled “Levii’s Jeans” on the track that features Post Malone — and Queen Bey is currently featured in an ad campaign for the classic denim company.
But given the international nature of her brand, Malandrakis says, Bey’s whisky works to extend its appeal beyond a strictly Americana audience. SirDavis whisky dropped the e, as the Scottish do, and it incorporates grains often used in Scotch and Japanese whiskey.
“She kind of winks towards this international side of her brand,” Malandrakis says. “She is a black American icon. She is also equally, potentially even more so, an international icon.”
WORTH A SHOT
Celebrity liquor deals have the potential to make superstars into billionaires, like the sale of Casamigos Tequila did for George Clooney, and before that what Cîroc vodka and DeLeón tequila did for Sean “Diddy” Combs. Beyoncé’s husband Jay-Z did his first liquor deal in 2012 — D’ussé Cognac with Bacardi — and in 2021 he sold half of his champagne Ace of Spades to LVMH. As of May, Forbes estimated Beyoncé’s net worth to be $760 million.
Jordan Bromley, head of Mannatt’s entertainment transactions and finance practice, says that these kinds of deals can be highly lucrative, whether the talent receives an upfront check or sticks around for two or three years to build the brand and then negotiates a big payout when they exit.
Beyoncé x Sir Davis
Mason Poole; Julian Dakdouk
“This should be a tentpole of any icon’s business portfolio, and not just in liquor but maybe home goods, athletic goods or venues,” says Bromley, citing Rihanna’s Fenty as one of the most successful examples of an artist becoming a billionaire thanks to a business outside of a music career. “You’re not stressing out over a record label audit—which you should do every two or three years—because you’re a 20% owner in a billion dollar company.”
However, Bromely says, there is risk for icons in lending their star power to a product.
“Is there risk? Absolutely—only the entire trust you’ve created for your brand,” Bromley says.
The product has to be good and it has to sell, and the ingredients necessary for those two components are not the same with all products. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2023 that Beyoncé and Adidas AG ended their partnership, the “adidas x IVY PARK” collection, after disappointing sales.
With spirits, sources say success usually seems to follow when fans believe a superstar authentically enjoys drinking the spirit in their spare time.
The SirDavis story posits that Beyoncé has whisky-making in her blood, and followers of her social media accounts know she has frequently posted about tasting and collecting rare Japanese whiskeys.
It is not known if Beyoncé has an ownership stake in SirDavis, and LVMH, which owns Moët Hennessy, rarely breaks out sales for its individual products. But Malandrakis says most celebrities exit their liquor company partnerships within a few years with a sizeable check.
“Not because they lose interest but they realize these things have a timeline. At some point Beyonce will not be as relevant, as strange as that sounds,” Malandrakis says. “The longevity of products like that is ultimately down to how good they are and how much they create for the community.”
Money Makers is a new column in which Billboard unpacks one financial issue a week for an artist in the news. Thanks for reading, and if you have suggestions or tips, email me at ediltsmarshall@billboard.com.
While 2022 will be remembered as the year that Taylor Swift made history as the first artist to populate the entire top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100 with songs from her album Midnights (among other chart records), Billboard’s annual Money Makers ranking of music’s top royalty and box-office earners reveals that she dominated 2021 as well.
Swift, who released two (Taylor’s Version) rerecorded albums, finished the year as the No. 1 earner globally with an estimated $65.8 million in take-home pay. That’s an impressive sum considering she did not tour, which usually constitutes the lion’s share of an act’s annual income, and last year’s runner-up, The Rolling Stones, spent three months on the road last fall concluding their No Filter Tour.
Swift topped the ranking because she owns half of her studio record catalog and because of the strength of her sales and streaming income, $29.8 million and $28.9 million, respectively, in a year that saw her international streams surpass her U.S. streams, 9 billion to 6.8 billion, a 34% increase.
The Stones’ live dates, all of which took place in the United States, resulted in a $44.5 million box-office take. That played the biggest role in boosting the veteran rockers to No. 1 on Billboard’s U.S. Money Makers ranking with a total income of $50.8 million.
But Swift, who finished second in the U.S. ranking — she and the Stones have swapped the top two spots since 2018 — was not far behind with $38.8 million, largely on the strength of her master recording royalties.
Compared side-by-side, the top five earners on the global and U.S. Money Makers rankings are nearly identical, with Harry Styles holding the No. 3 spot on both, $41.3 million and $37 million, respectively; and Drake at No. 5, with $30.7 million and $23.8 million. The big difference can be found at No. 4, where K-pop superstars BTS reside on the global ranking, with a $38.4 million in 2021 take-home pay, and the hard-touring Eagles occupy the U.S. tally, with earnings of $27.3 million.
Methodology
Money Makers was compiled with 2021 Luminate and Billboard Boxscore data, the RIAA’s physical and digital revenue report for 2021, and IFPI global revenue statistics. All revenue figures cited are Billboard estimates and may not equal the sum of the subcategories due to rounding and the omission of revenue categories. Global sales were extrapolated for 21 artists that ranked highest on the 2020 Money Makers list. Global artist royalties were extrapolated using U.S. revenue totals, minus 30% of international royalties in line with major-label contractual clauses for foreign distribution.
U.S. formulas were used to estimate publishing revenue. Calculating royalties from master-recording performance rights was not possible because those rights do not exist for most uses in the United States. Unless otherwise noted, references to streaming totals consist of combined on-demand audio, video and programmed streams. References to recording-career totals are the sum of an act’s sales, streaming and publishing earnings. Revenue from featured-artist appearances, merchandising, synchronization and sponsorship is not included. Touring revenue, after the manager’s cut, equals 34% of an act’s Boxscore. Sales royalties were calculated based on physical and digital albums and track sales. Streaming royalties consist of on-demand audio and video streams, and estimated royalties from webcasting, SiriusXM and Music Choice.
The following royalty rates were used: album and track sales, 22% of retail revenue; 66% of wholesale if the artist owns his or her masters. On-demand streaming royalties were calculated using blended audio and video rates of, respectively, $0.0053 and $0.0038 per stream, applied against a 37% superstar-artist royalty rate; 50% for heritage artists (acts that have released at a minimum of 10 albums or been active for at least 20 years); and 79% for artist-owned masters. Further, a blended statutory subscription per-stream rate of $0.0024 was applied to programmed streams and per-play estimated rates of 74 cents for Music Choice and $46 for SiriusXM. Royalties for programmed streams were calculated on a similar basis using a 50% base royalty rate; 68% for artists that own some of their masters and 100% for artists that own all their masters, minus 5% for side performers.
Publishing royalties were estimated using statutory mechanical rates for album and track sales. The Copyright Royalty Board streaming formula produced an average rate of 13.4% of streaming revenue, an average of $2.50 per play for hit songs; $1 per play for heritage spins and genre songs that didn’t attain hit status; and per-play publishing rates of 40 cents for Music Choice, $8.33 for SiriusXM and $0.0003 for programmed streams. A 10% manager’s fee and 4% producer’s fee were deducted from the appropriate revenue streams.
-
Pages