Record Labels
Page: 45
After seven years working for regional Mexican indie labels — including DEL Records and most recently AfinArte Music — and helping grow the música mexicana genre, industry veteran Maria Inés Sánchez has been appointed Sony Music Latin’s new vp of West Coast operations.
Based out of Los Angeles, Sánchez, who began her career over two decades ago with stints at Sony and Universal, will report directly to Esteban Geller, general manager of Sony Music U.S. Latin, and oversee a team that includes other new hires such as Gonzalo Herrerias, senior director A&R and label manager Juan Tapia.
With Sánchez’s appointment, the label doubles down on its dedication to support the genre, which has seen extraordinary global growth this past year alone. “Sony Music Latin is really committed on continuing this explosion,” Sánchez tells Billboard. “The commitment being that we have to support a new generations of artists and help develop them because these young artists will only continue to fuse and evolve the sound, which has helped the genre grow.”
With indie labels mainly driving the the genre’s surge, Sánchez says the key to keep pushing the genre forward will be creating key alliances between major labels and indies. Sony Music Latin has already entered partnerships with labels such as Lumbre Music (Yahritza y Su Esencia) and Rancho Humilde (Fuerza Regida).
“We saw Mexican music grow because artists started to collaborate,” explains Sánchez. “It’s the same thing if companies start joining forces. Major labels like Sony, we can reach a broader spectrum of the business in general. We have eyes where indie’s perhaps don’t with offices internationally, which help export the music and work in other key markets such as Latin America and Spain.”
It aligns with how Sony U.S. Latin president Alex Gallardo visualizes the label’s role in regional Mexican music today. “We want to be the best possible partner for any artist, label, manager, or any Mexican music project, for this we have reinforced the West Coast team, and we have a clear vision to take Mexican music as far as possible,” says Gallardo.
Sony U.S. Latin also has an alliance with Sony Music Mexico to work both countries, Mexico and the United States, as a “single market,” Gallardo explains.
Adding that, ultimately, the plan is to break regional Mexican music beyond those two countries and enter new markets throughout Latin America and Spain. “We have already taken steps like getting Christian Nodal to sell out a WiZink Center in Madrid for 15,000 people … In countries like Colombia, Chile or Spain [the genre] is entering little by little and I believe that the strength of Sony in all these markets should be focused on bringing this wonderful music that is coming out of this new wave of artists.”
Naming Sánchez as vp of West Coast operations, a role previously served by Manny Prado (now at Interscope), means having someone who has a “very complete vision of both the business and Mexican music” having experience in both indie and major labels. Plus, having a woman in charge is something that “makes us very happy,” adds Gallardo.
“As a woman, I bring passion and conviction to a genre that I respect and love,” says Sánchez. “I’m committed to keep fueling this música mexicana explosion and impacting on a bigger level.”
In a year that’s been dominated by familiar albums and re-releases at the top of the Billboard 200 chart, this week served up a refreshing new No. 1: veteran punk rock band blink-182, which returned with the album One More Time and scored its first placement atop the tally with its original lineup — Tom DeLonge, Mark Hoppus and Travis Barker — since 2001.
The album’s coronation was not a flash-in-the-pan, news cycle nostalgia play. Instead, it was the result of a year-long reunion and rollout plan that included a massive world tour, a string of singles and a behind-the-scenes video series with hundreds of thousands of views that both allowed the band’s original fans to get a glimpse inside the lives of their longtime heroes and brought in new fans drawn to the group’s irreverent humor and oddball visuals. For a group that came of age in the heyday of MTV — and was well-known for its provocative and hilarious music videos — the visual element was a key part of re-engaging that fan base, helping earn Columbia Records senior vp of video production Saul Levitz the title of Billboard’s Executive of the Week.
Here, Levitz breaks down the content plan behind the group’s big comeback, the nostalgia factor of a beloved band’s reunion, how the visuals reflected the music and more. “We wanted to bring context and emotion to every visual,” Levitz says. “Whether it be the album trailers or music videos, we needed to bring the audience into the cathartic moment that the band was going through.”
This week, blink-182’s One More Time debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, the group’s first No. 1 with its original lineup since 2001. What key decisions did you make to help make that happen?
We wanted to bring context and emotion to every visual. Whether it be the album trailers or music videos, we needed to bring the audience into the cathartic moment that the band was going through. When Ron [Perry, Columbia chairman/CEO] first sent across the song “One More Time” I cried every time I listened to it and felt the visuals needed to match this place it was taking the listener. Both because the band was processing their own lives with a directness they hadn’t before and also because it’s a universal message that can be applied to any relationship that has gone silent due to ego, mismanagement, or just time letting it slip away.
blink obviously has been around a long time, but it had been years since they released an album. How did you approach the content given that history?
There’s always a pull between nostalgia and making things feel fresh and modern. The modern approach usually wins out because no artist wants to rest on their laurels when rolling out new music. But this time it felt more appropriate because the band was acknowledging their past in a way that confirmed a lot of what the fan base had been thinking in their heads but never heard them say to each other. Never had I seen the fan base live vicariously through each member’s journey. They saw a piece of themselves in Tom, Mark or Travis’s personal journey, so we had to acknowledge that and not make it seem like it didn’t mean anything.
blink’s original incarnation was also at the height of the music-video era, and many of their videos are iconic. How did you balance that track record with bringing in new elements for this project?
Oh man, this is the best part of the job — living up to expectations and a visual history. We literally went inside so many of these iconic music videos for the “One More Time” video so this process was less about living up to those videos and more about celebrating them. There is so much expectation for their videos to be funny and self-aware. The band wanted to push beyond this expectation, though. Their personalities have also evolved so much that as soon as something felt too much like something the old blink-182 would do it stopped feeling fresh. But trust that Tom kept things OG on set with the humor and personality that people remember the band for.
This album also had an extended rollout, with the first single being released a full year before the album. How did that help you develop and roll out the content for it?
Being on the “EDGING” set was a revelation. The band hadn’t played together in forever, and even though they were playing to track there was something so clear about how they all locked in musically together and how their personalities melded together to create this nexus of what the band was. I remember being on set and thinking, “How could these guys ever have not been together?” It seemed so effortless and perfect the way they complemented each other through friendship and music. And Cole Bennett did a tremendous job with the video having the POV of a younger fan who has embraced the band’s legacy and sees their influence on a ton of new artists in genres you wouldn’t expect. It’s rare that you have a gap this long between a first single and then the album, but it certainly made us realize early the power the band had in this trinity coming together.
In a way, this entire project could be seen as a throwback: an extended rollout strategy, big radio singles, a major tour around the world and a beloved rock band topping the charts. What’s the significance of that in this era of the music industry, when things are often on much tighter timelines and rock rarely reaches No. 1?
I attribute the success as much to the music just being f—ing great and everyone seeing a part of themselves in the journey of these three individuals that come together and put aside their differences and find that spark again that made them special and unique and beloved. It was amazing to have the amount of time needed to get everything right, and that is rare nowadays, but without those other elements being in place the time is irrelevant. This album is less about the story of rock returning and more about how the audience can see themselves within artists that share so much of themselves and their journey. If you can make them cry, you’ve got something.
Lawyers often say that bad facts make bad law – meaning that unusual or unlikely details of a case can shape precedent in unpredictable ways. But bad facts can also make for bad contracts, to judge by the contractual restrictions on re-recording that major labels may be adopting in the wake of the success of Taylor Swift‘s “Taylor’s Version” of her albums.
Re-recording restrictions, a common contractual provision that has been part of record deals for decades, are intended as a kind of post-term noncompete. Their understandable economic purpose is to stop an artist from re-recording songs released under a contract that has run its course in order to benefit a subsequent label – and let the subsequent recording compete with the original without a comparable investment. Under that logic, the reasonable duration of a re-recording restriction would be a few years, as was the practice before the “Taylor’s Version” releases came out. It’s harder to justify locking up artists for a protracted period that might be longer than the duration of the original recording agreement.
That duration could be limited, too, by a potential legal challenge. Both the federal government and many states restrict the enforceability of noncompete clauses in employment agreements, particularly when they limit economic freedom. (Examples include California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, and the recently passed New York Senate Bill S3100A, which New York governor Kathy Hochul is expected to sign.) Next year, the Federal Trade Commission will vote on banning noncompete clauses in employment agreements altogether. Labels often say that recording artists aren’t employees, but that wouldn’t necessarily put these kinds of restrictions above the fray – especially if they last longer than seems reasonable.
Few artists re-record anything, and those who do usually only revisit one or a few hits, maybe their biggest album at most, and that’s more likely if there’s a contractual dispute. It’s unprecedented for a significant artist to re-record his or her entire catalog, repackage each album and promote their rerelease – particularly when the original hit releases are still readily available. That requires motivation. Or, in Swift’s case, perhaps, frustration. But in a “Taylor’s Version” world, who wants to be the one who let it happen again?
Chris Castle
Laura Lee Nall Photography
Without getting into the he-said-she-said of the sale of Big Machine, including Swift’s recording catalog, it’s important to note that it was an unusual case. So, it’s worth asking if there’s a lower-risk alternative.
If a label is going to sell a living artist’s entire catalog – or sell a company whose value is dominated by that catalog – the safe thing to do might be to offer the artist a chance to bid on it. Or, failing that, at least consult with the artist to create a comfortable situation, even if that requires additional assurances or an additional payment. If you think it’s only necessary to do the minimum, look at what can happen with an overly legalistic approach. To artists like Swift, these recordings are their life.
Changing the recording agreement template to try to guarantee an outcome may backfire. “Taylor’s Version” simply isn’t a normal situation – it’s one that involved the world’s most popular artist, who is as attached to her catalog as any performer, plus just as business-savvy as most executives. It’s a situation that was almost impossible to anticipate – so making contracts even more one-sided may not help. Instead, a change like this could draw the attention of President Biden’s FTC, which seems to have an abiding interest in noncompete clauses. Especially if a number of competitors just happen to push the same contractual change at the same time.
If labels must have extended re-recording restrictions, couldn’t they add a sweetener, such as offering living artists a right to match the highest bid if their recording catalogs are ever sold individually, or a blocking right over the buyer or something similar? Alternatively, they could also just leave things be.
An overreaching re-recording restriction could also provoke retaliation from artists’ lawyers. They could make leverage points like post-term marketing restrictions and audits more important deal points in order to fight restrictions. That means disfavored buyers might have to wonder how hard it could be to get the approvals they need, or how much they would like continual audits. And in cases where artists are also principal songwriters, buyers could also have trouble clearing song rights, especially for new purposes like AI.
Some labels may be less concerned with expanding this restriction than they are with winning a competitive negotiation to sign a new artist. And if a competing label agrees to a shorter restriction, it could be an easy compromise that would cost little or nothing.
There’s always a temptation to add restrictions to contracts, but in this case, the exercise could backfire. Labels might be advised to be careful what they wish for.
Chris Castle is an Austin-based lawyer. He represents artists, publishers, songwriters and startups on commercial and public policy matters.
Led by strong sales and a world tour by the group Seventeen, K-pop giant HYBE’s third quarter revenues grew 20.7% year-over-year to 537.9 billion won ($410 million at the quarter’s average exchange rate), the South Korean company announced Thursday (Nov. 2).
When counted over the first nine months of 2023, Seventeen sold 11 million albums, including 5.1 million copies of Seventeenth Heaven, an eight-track EP, in the week after its Oct. 23 release. Seventeen also performed 18 times in nine cities across Asia, including shows at Japan’s five major domed stadiums that attracted 515,000 fans. In the third quarter alone, Seventeen performed two shows at the Tokyo Dome in Japan as well as a concert at Gocheok Sky Dome in Seoul, South Korea.
HYBE also pointed to a string of successful solo releases by members of BTS for contributing in the quarter. V’s Layover sold 2.1 million albums in the week after its Sept. 8 release. J-Hope’s Jack in the Box, released July 15, reached No. 1 on the Tunes chart in 49 markets. D-Day by Agust D, also known as BTS member Suga, performed 28 times in 10 cities in North America and Asia.
HYBE’s music sales of 264.1 billion won ($201 million) was up 104.4% from the prior-year period and was 7.4% better than the 245.9 billion won ($187 million) in the second quarter. Concert revenue was up 83.9% year over year to 86.9 billion won ($66 million) but fell 44.8% from the prior quarter.
The company’s acquisition of Atlanta-based hip hop label Quality Control has quickly made a major impact. Home to such artists as Migos and Lil Baby, Quality Control accounted for 19% of HYBE’s streaming revenue in the quarter.
Big Machine Label Group, picked up in 2021 through the acquisition of Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings, contributed 27% of third-quarter streaming revenue while South Korean labels took a 54% share.
Weverse, HYBE’s social media platform, increased its monthly active users to 10.5 million in the third quarter from 9.5% in the previous quarter and 6.9 million in the third quarter of 2022.
Shares of HYBE gained 5.4% to 243,000 won ($180.89) in early trading on Thursday in South Korea.
Total revenues grew 20.7% to 537.9 billion won ($410 million).
Music revenues gained 104.4% to 264.1 billion won ($201 million).
Concert revenue jumped 83.9% to 86.9 billion won ($66 million).
Merchandising and licensing revenue fell 25.3% to 85.7 billion won ($65 million).
Fan club revenue grew 21.3% to 21 billion won ($16 million).
Adjusted EBITDA grew 13.1% to 90.8 billion won ($69 million).
Net profit improved 5.9% to 98.6 billion won ($75 million).
Colombian star Andrés Cepeda has signed a deal with Warner Music México, Billboard can announce today (Nov. 1). With this new alliance, the singer-songwriter of hits like “Desesperado” and “El Mensaje” seeks to continue developing his musical career in the coming years, according to a press release. “I feel very excited to start this new […]
Ñengo Flow has signed an exclusive record contract with Rimas Entertainment in a bid for his international expansion, Billboard can announce today (Oct. 31). The alliance that includes touring, merchandising, and brand partnerships strategies, “marks a significant step in the evolution of the reggaeton genre pioneer, known for the distinctive touch of his rhymes and […]
Mr. Pauer has teamed up with Orianna, Sony Music Latin’s electronic label, for the release of his upcoming studio album, Inevitable, Billboard can exclusively announce today (Oct. 30). The set—marking Pauer’s fourth album following Soundtrack (2014), Orange (2015), and Fiera (2022) — is slated for release in the first quarter of 2024 as the first […]
While Taylor Swift has been racking up billions of streams with updated “Taylor’s Version” re-recordings of her original hits over the past couple years, making cultural moments out of old material and simultaneously driving down the value of those original recordings that were sold away from her, record companies have been working to prohibit this sort of thing from happening again.
The major labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, have recently overhauled contracts for new signees, according to top music attorneys, some demanding artists wait an unprecedented 10, 15 or even 30 years to re-record releases after departing their record companies. “The first time I saw it, I tried to get rid of it entirely,” says Josh Karp, a veteran attorney, who has viewed the new restrictions in UMG contracts. “I was just like, ‘What is this? This is strange. Why would we agree to further restrictions than we’ve agreed to in the past with the same label?’”
For decades, standard major-label recording contracts stated artists had to wait for the latter of two periods to expire before they could put out re-recorded versions, Swift-style: It could have been five to seven years from the release date of the original, or two years after the contract expired. Today, attorneys are receiving label contracts that expand that period to 10 or 15 years or more — and the attorneys are pushing back. “It becomes one of a multitude of items you’re fighting,” Karp says.
“I recently did a deal with a very big indie that had a 30-year re-record restriction in it. Which obviously is much longer than I’m used to seeing,” adds Gandhar Savur, attorney for Cigarettes After Sex, Built to Spill and Jeff Rosenstock. “I think the majors are also trying to expand their re-record restrictions but in a more measured way — they are generally not yet able to get away with making such extreme changes.”
Until June 2019, when Swift announced she would re-record her first six albums, the concept of drawing fans to new versions of old songs was a music-business niche. Frank Sinatra rerecorded a number of his biggest hits in the ’60s, but in recent years, new Def Leppard and Squeeze versions had minimal commercial success. But after venture capitalist and longtime Justin Bieber manager Scooter Braun purchased Swift’s original label, Big Machine Music Group, she failed to re-obtain her original master recordings. The business transaction was personal to Swift — she has accused Braun of “incessant, manipulative bullying” — and she encouraged her huge fanbase and sympathetic radio programmers to exclusively play new Taylor’s Versions of Fearless, Red and others.
Suddenly, the concept of re-recording masters has evolved from archaic fine print buried in record deals to a widely scrutinized cause celebre. “Obviously, this is a big headline topic — the Taylor Swift thing,” Savur says. “Labels, of course, are going to want to do whatever they can to address that and to prevent it. But there’s only so much they can do. Artist representatives are going to push back against that, and a certain standard is ingrained in our industry that is not easy to move away from.”
Adds Dina LaPolt, a music attorney with a long history of grappling with labels over contracts: “Now, because of all this Taylor Swift sh–, we have an even new negotiation. It’s awful. We’re seeing a lot of ‘perpetuity’ sh–. When we were negotiating deals with lawyers, before we would get the proposal,, we’d get the phone call from the head of business affairs. We literally would say, ‘If you send that to me, it will be on f—ing Twitter in 10 minutes.’ It never showed up.”
Swift has her own reasons — in addition to dominating the charts and racking up millions of dollars in streaming revenue — for emphasizing her re-recordings. Smaller artists have more modest goals. Alt-rock band Switchfoot recently put out an “Our Version” of its 2003 album The Beautiful Letdown, as frontman Jon Foreman said recently, “for everyone who’s supported us the last 23 years, for everyone who’s sung along with these songs.” After superstar pop-and-R&B trio TLC negotiated a separation agreement from its label, Sony Music, in the early 2000s, Bill Diggins, the band’s manager, negotiated a re-recording clause allowing the group to use hits such as “Waterfalls” and “No Scrubs” for TV and movie synchs. “Anytime you negotiate with a label, it’s a difficult proposition,” he said.
Reps for Universal, Warner and Sony did not respond to requests for comment, but some music attorneys are sympathetic to labels’ concerns about re-recordings. Although “the contracts have gotten reasonably artist-friendly over time,” longtime music attorney Don Passman said recently, “they don’t want you to duplicate your recordings — like ever — and then they will limit the other types of recordings you can do.”
Josh Binder, an attorney who represents SZA, Gunna, Doechii, Marshmello and others, says the Taylor Swift scenario is rare, and most artists never have to exercise their re-recording rights. “It doesn’t offend me so much. Rarely does it come into play where the re-record treatment is even used,” he says. “[The labels’] position is, ‘Hey, if we’re going to spend a bunch of money creating this brand with you, then you should not try and create records to compete with us.’ We try and fight it. We try and make it as short as possible. But I don’t find it to be the most compelling issue to fight.”
Once artists get past the weeds of re-recording restrictions, Binder says, the bigger issue is controlling their master recordings — that was Swift’s primary concern in putting out her new versions, after Braun purchased her catalog from Big Machine. Artists and their attorneys have recently moved towards licensing deals — retaining ownership of their masters and signing with labels to distribute music for a limited period — rather than traditional recording contracts where the label owns everything.
But Ben McLane, an attorney who has worked with dozens of artists, from Donovan and DMX to new label signees such as the Toxhards and We the Commas, says traditional deals remain more common than licensing deals, so battles over new re-recording restrictions still come up.
“I always ask for less. Some labels, at a negotiating point, might be fine with it. It always depends on what your leverage is,” he says. “If you’re an unknown artist, and you really need the deal, the label doesn’t have a lot of motivation to give in on things like that. They’re strict.”
BMG terminated about 40 employees on Thursday (Oct. 27), sources within the company tell Billboard. The layoffs cut effectively the entirety of its film/TV, theatrical, and international marketing department for recordings as well as its Modern Recordings label, according to sources and an internal memo obtained by Billboard. It took place on the day of the New York office’s annual Halloween party, says a source.
The eliminations include company leaders like Fred Casimir (executive vp, global repertoire) and Jason Hradil (senior vp, global repertoire) and affected employees in its Berlin, New York, and Los Angeles offices. A source within the company fears there are more layoffs to come and believes the layoffs may be a result of the company hiring the consulting firm McKinsey & Company in recent months.
After employees were notified they were being laid off, the company hosted a call with the U.S. recorded music team — including those who were let go — according to a source within the company.
“Everyone at BMG says it feels like a venture capital firm now and not a record label,” laments an employee. “Things got dark real fast, and it bums me out watching a lot of amazing people lose their jobs right before the holidays.”
In a video call hosted by CEO Thomas Coesfeld, the leader explained that the restructuring was part of the implementation of its new strategy, BMG Next, according to an internal memo shared with Billboard. “The international marketing team was set up five years ago in response to the needs of the company at the time,” he said to senior managers. “Our talented team has done a great job, driving international campaigns for artists including Lenny Kravitz, Kylie Minogue, and Louis Tomlinson, but unfortunately on a business level, expectations from this novel structure were not met and it created duplication of functions with local teams. The clear business decision is to instead give artists a single contact point with their local repertoire teams.”
A BMG spokesperson declined to comment beyond providing the memo.
In the last year, BMG — which represents talent like Jelly Roll, Halsey and Lainey Wilson as well as certain rights to the catalogs of Tina Turner, Peter Frampton, Mötley Crüe, and more — has made a number of significant business changes. In January, its longstanding chief executive Hartwig Masuch announced he would retire and would be succeeded by then-CFO Coesfeld, effective Jan. 1, 2024. On April 18, BMG claimed it would be the first music company to fully integrate its catalog and frontline music operations. On May 17, Masuch announced he would accelerate Coesfeld’s transition to CEO to July 1 instead.
In September, BMG announced it was winding down its agreement with Warner Music Group’s ADA and would be taking over direct management of its 80-billion-stream digital distribution later this year. (Digital revenues contributed 70% of BMG’s overall revenues in 2022.) Last week, BMG also announced it would be partnering with UMG’s commercial services division for the distribution of its physical recorded music. Coesfeld described the deal as the first project of a burgeoning “alliance” between the two music companies.
One of the most popular albums in the United States, Taylor Swift’s 1989, is about to lose significant market share to a newer version, Swift’s re-recorded 1989 (Taylor’s Version).
It’s happened three times before. 1989 (Taylor’s Version), a re-recorded and expanded version of the nine-times platinum 2014 album, with five previously unreleased tracks, follows the insanely successful formula of the three preceding albums: Fearless, Red and Speak Now. If 1989 (Taylor’s Version) enjoys the same trajectory as its predecessors, the Big Machine-era version of 1989 will lose a majority of its weekly consumption and forever get crowded out by the more popular, Swift-endorsed re-recordings.
To understand what could happen to 1989, consider its predecessor, Red. Average weekly consumption of Red — measured in equivalent album units, which combines physical and digital album sales, track sales and streams — dropped 40% in the 12 weeks following the release of Red (Taylor’s Version), according to Billboard’s analysis of Luminate data for the United States. The original version of Speak Now took an even bigger hit, losing 59% of its average weekly consumption in the 12 weeks after the re-recordings were released. Given those two trajectories, the original version of 1989 could very well lose half its average weekly consumption.
Consumption of the original 1989, which includes Hot 100 chart-toppers “Shake It Off” and “Bad Blood,” has soared this year as Swift reached a Michael Jackson-level of media coverage. As Swift Mania heated up, thanks to her record-setting Eras Tour and steady output of new and rerecorded material, 1989’s average weekly album equivalent units (AEUs) climbed from 16,000 in January to 29,000 in May to 39,000 in August, peaking at 46,000 in the week ended Aug. 17. On the latest Billboard 200 albums chart, the original 1989 ranked No. 20 — one spot behind Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) and two spots ahead of Reputation, Swift’s final album for Big Machine.
That has been great news for Shamrock Holdings, which acquired Swift’s Big Machine master recordings in 2020 for a reported $300 million. In the year before Shamrock Holdings acquired Swift’s catalog, 1989 averaged about 10,000 AEUs per week — 70% below the current level. While Swift’s previous three albums of re-recordings ate into the Big Machine originals, 1989 was spared and got to benefit from Swift’s success — that is, until she got around to releasing her Taylor’s Version.
The original version of 1989 — Swift’s best-selling album to date — has more to lose than its predecessors: 1989 has averaged 33,000 equivalent album units over the previous 12 weeks, nearly 1.8 times more consumption than the 19,000 AEUs Speak Now averaged in the 12 weeks before Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) was released. The original versions of Fearless and Red had even less consumption in the 12 weeks before Swift’s re-recordings came out: 7,000 AEUs for Fearless and 9,000 AEUs for Red.
If 1989’s weekly AEUs drop by 50%, Billboard estimates the gross sales from purchases and streams will drop by nearly $120,000 per week — equal to more than $6 million per year. That’s gross sales, not wholesale. Shamrock pockets less than wholesale after paying royalties, distribution and manufacturing.
And if 1989 (Taylor’s Version) performs like the other three albums of re-recordings, it will far outperform Swift’s Big Machine originals. Through the first 41 weeks of 2023, the re-recordings of Fearless and Red have respectively averaged 4.8 times and 4.1 times the weekly consumption of the original albums. Speak Now (Taylor’s Version), which has just 14 weeks of sales history since its July release, currently has 5.3 times the average weekly consumption of the original.
The original version of Reputation also has a lot to lose. In the past 12 weeks, Reputation has averaged 27,000 AEUs per week. And just as 1989 consumption skyrocketed this year, Reputation’s weekly AEUs have more than doubled since January. Shamrock Holdings will enjoy those spoils, too — that is, until Reputation (Taylor’s Version) inevitably arrives.