Record Labels

In January 1999, Universal Music Group laid off hundreds of employees during a wave of consolidation with PolyGram. “The biggest staff cuts were at Geffen and A&M, two Los Angeles-based labels that have been folded into Interscope Records … and at Island Records, which has been merged with Mercury,” Billboard reported at the time, predicting that the cuts would affect label rosters, with “baby bands … expected to suffer the most casualties in the shake-ups.” In an interview with The New York Times, one artist manager described the impact of the merger on his band as if “a car [got] shut off in midgear.”
Roughly 25 years later, UMG is expected to cut hundreds of jobs to create “efficiencies in other areas of the business so we can remain nimble and responsive to the dynamic market,” according to a January statement from the company. Warner Music Group has announced layoffs of more than 800 people in two rounds over the last 12 months; on Monday, WMG label Atlantic Records announced additional cuts of about two dozen employees, primarily in the radio and video departments. (Sony Music is also expected to trim staff, according to sources; a rep for Sony declined to comment.)

Trending on Billboard

These cuts herald a leaner approach to the major-label business, and some talent and their representatives are worried about how this impacts their future.

Artists “are going to be upset,” says Mike Biggane, who was head of curation for Spotify, then worked at UMG as global executive vp of music strategy and tactics until last year. “The teams that artists signed up for and have been going to battle with will all be gone. That is going to impact the managers and the remaining label staff, who are already spread too thin.”

“If you’re not a multi-platinum artist, good luck,” says Allen Kovac, a longtime manager who had several acts in the UMG system during the 1999 consolidation.

A rep for UMG declined to comment. Speaking to financial analysts on Wednesday, UMG CEO Lucian Grainge said that “when it comes to supporting their rosters, [labels] will have access to our highest performing internal teams and resources to bring the new artists to even higher levels of success.”

And some executives were more sanguine about the impact of the upcoming staff cuts. Chris Anokute manages Taela, who was signed by Michelle Jubelirer before she recently left Capitol Music Group. “I’m very grateful to Michelle for signing her,” Anokute says. “Now there’s new management, and I’m excited to work with the new team to keep on developing her. I’m not worried for one second.”

Major labels have been consolidating internally for more than two decades. In 2004, Atlantic Records and Elektra Records merged as part of a Warner Music Group shake-up that included 1,000 layoffs. “Warner began cutting money-losing and under-performing artists from its merged Atlantic-Elektra label’s roster, and is preparing to let go as many as half of the label’s 170 acts,” The Washington Post reported.

Later the same year, BMG and Sony Music merged. “In each market tough decisions will have to be made about the senior executive lineup, overall staffing and artist rosters,” Billboard wrote. 

While layoffs were typically followed by roster trimming in the past, history can serve only as a limited guide when assessing the latest round of cuts. “The environment today seems quite different to that of the late 1970s and early 1980s — the first time the industry experienced serious contraction — or the early 2000s,” says Adam White, a former Billboard editor-in-chief who later served as UMG vp of international communications. “During both of those time periods, industry sales slumped significantly and staff cutbacks were widespread. Isn’t that in contrast to the current environment, with revenue admittedly not growing at previous, double-digit rates — but still growing?”

Nonetheless, with leaner staffs, “you either need to spread your remaining staff more thinly or serve a smaller roster,” says Peter Sinclair, who worked at UMG for five years before founding beatBread, an artist-funding platform, in 2020.

Some major-label executives contend the staffing changes their companies are making will let them offer more resources to artists, not less. WMG CEO Robert Kyncl, for example, told staff that the cost savings from recent cuts would free up money that can be put towards “increasing funding behind artists and songwriters,” while Atlantic Music Group chairman/CEO Julie Greenwald said the company would be “bringing on new and additional skill sets in social media [and] content creation” to “help artists tell their stories.” In a memo to staff on Wednesday (Feb. 28), Grainge wrote that “our long-term growth strategy, including this organizational redesign, represents a new paradigm for artist support.”

However, many acts believe major-label staffs are already stretched perilously thin, and that layoffs will only exacerbate artists’ feelings of being underserved. “Way too many of my ­clients complain about what the labels aren’t doing for them,” says Todd Rubenstein, an entertainment attorney. “Even if there is a whole plan they come in with, it’s still not getting serviced.”

“I’m not anti-label; I think every single artist we have is on a major label,” adds Crush Management founder Jonathan Daniel. But “the reason I set up my company the way I did” — Crush has its own marketing and radio promotion staff — “is because labels always have too many artists for how many ­people work there.”

Labels are already more willing to trim their rosters than they were in the past, and A&R executives say this may have intensified independent of the recent layoff announcements, after a period of excessive signing driven by pressure to maintain market share and an abundance of viral hits on social media. “Would [layoffs] speed up the process of trimming the roster?” asks entertainment attorney ­Michael Sukin. “Sure, but labels don’t need an excuse.”

That said, when employees are laid off or leave to take another job, some artists will lose their internal advocates. Executives believe it’s likely that there are acts in the UMG system who won’t have their options picked up after the layoffs because no one inside the buildings will fight to keep them.

“Any artist that’s more singles-based is more of a risk on your balance sheet,” says one A&R executive-turned-manager. “They want artists that have sticky fan bases that will be there and support them when they don’t have a hit.”

This all sounds nerve wracking for artists, who are, after all, the lifeblood of record companies. In reality, though, an artist who was a label’s 40th most important act may not have been getting a ton of help anyway — as a UMG executive told The New York Times around the time of the Polygram merger, “for the [artists] we let go, they’ve probably already been dragged over the coals by a record label that can’t do the best job for them.” Nick Stern, another longtime artist manager, is fond of saying “there’s nothing better than being a top five priority at a major label, and nothing worse than being 20 to 50.”

And while artists who got dropped by a major label in 1999 didn’t have many ways to get their music heard around the world, that’s not the case in today’s digital industry. Song creation, distribution and marketing are now all far more affordable. “As the majors’ gatekeeping role shrinks, artists have more options, more leverage, more control and more creative freedom,” Sinclair says. “If you’re an artist and you get dropped by the majors, I’d recommend you take it for what it is: an opportunity.”

When Biggane left UMG last year, he started Big Effect, a company developing technology designed for smaller artist teams to release products and manage catalog effectively. He predicts an “exodus of talent on both sides — people working in the industry trying to provide services and artists looking for services.”

“They’re all going to come out in the independent market,” Biggane says, “and try to find each other.”

Additional reporting by Kristin Robinson