The Ledger
Though making and distributing music has become easier than ever, the number of tracks being uploaded to digital service providers has fallen — not increased — in the last two years.
In the first quarter of 2023, an average of 120,000 tracks were being uploaded to DSPs each day, up from 93,400 in 2022, according to Luminate. That number dropped to 103,500 for the full year of 2023 and fell further to 99,000 last year, according to the company’s recently released 2024 year-end report. Normally, a decrease in the amount of new music tracked by Luminate wouldn’t merit much attention. But a 4% annual decline in new tracks is notable when today’s creators have an unprecedented number of tools to make music — including easy-to-use digital audio workstations like BandLab and generative artificial intelligence apps such as Suno — and can tap into global distribution.
Music professionals Billboard spoke to for this story pointed to numerous possible explanations for the drop in new tracks, with anti-fraud measures being the most widely cited reason for the decline. Bad actors are known to upload large numbers of tracks through do-it-yourself distributors before hacking into users’ streaming accounts to stream the songs. Erik Söderblom, chief product officer for music distributor Amuse, cites Spotify’s policy changes announced in 2023 to discourage labels and distributors from uploading tracks used to inflate streaming activity for the drop. “It has been a successful way for both of them as a DSP and us as a distributor to discourage fraudulent actors who abuse the system by releasing and monetizing large volumes of audio files through artificial streams,” he says.
Trending on Billboard
Beatdapp, which can identify when users’ accounts are hijacked and turned into bot farms that unknowingly stream music, has seen fraud rates decrease on the platforms it works with, says CEO Morgan Hayduk. While a small 4% decline in the scheme of millions of new tracks suggests there’s still ample music for these bot farms to illegally stream, Hayduk believes the financial penalties are having their intended effect. “I do think the DIY space is taking their end more seriously and trying not to be a conduit for this,” he says.
French streaming service Deezer introduced an “artist-centric” royalty payout scheme in 2023 to combat fraud and prioritize professional music over “functional” music such as background noise and nature sounds. But given Spotify’s far larger user base, the platform’s anti-fraud measures get more credit for creating outcomes favorable to artists and record labels. For instance, in 2023, Spotify began levying penalties on music distributors and labels when fraudulent tracks they uploaded had been detected. As a result, experts tell Billboard, better policing at the source of the problem could have resulted in distributors being wary of working with some creators.
While the anti-fraud measures may have had the intended effect and prevented some tracks from being uploaded, DistroKid, another self-serve distributor of independent artists, actually sent more tracks to DSPs in 2024 than the prior year. “There wasn’t a decrease in tracks uploaded to streaming services through DistroKid in 2024,” a company spokesperson said in a statement to Billboard. “The average number of tracks uploaded to streaming services each day steadily increased throughout the year.”
As for other, lesser factors, a likely candidate is Spotify’s 2023 decision to set a minimum threshold for royalty payouts at 1,000 streams. The policy received mixed reactions. Some critics called the threshold a penalty for developing artists who rely on royalties to help build their careers. But cutting off payments to the outer reaches of the long tail put Spotify in sync with major labels’ recent push for royalty accounting schemes that reward professional artists at the expense of, as Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge put it in 2023, “merchants of garbage.”
Ending the practice of cutting tiny royalty checks may help DSPs’ goal of prioritizing professional musicians over a sea of unwanted content, but “may also dishearten early-stage artists who struggle to grow their project,” says Söderblom. As a result, fewer uploads would mean fewer new tracks could enter Luminate’s database. Will Page, author of Pivot: Eight Principles for Transforming Your Business, believes that the payout threshold likely had “a material effect on what Luminate gets to count.” After Spotify set a threshold for payouts at 1,000 streams, an artist would experience diminishing returns from uploading more unpopular music. According to Luminate, 93.2 million of the 202.2 million tracks in its database were streamed fewer than 10 times. Page, Spotify’s former chief economist, estimates that 99% of the 99,000 new tracks in 2024 made the recording artist less than $100 in royalties last year.
Anti-fraud measures and artist-centric royalty schemes may not account for all of the decline, though. Another factor could be a natural ebb in the supply of music. Söderblom sees 2022 as “a great year for DIY” because many artists had additional time to work on new music due to the COVID-19 pandemic. “The combination of accessible music production and distribution tools and a more or less global lockdown led to a huge influx of releases,” he says. “As the world returns to normal, it seems natural to see the volume of new uploads decline.” The same could be true of video creators. Last week, MIDiA Research declared that “the pandemic-induced content creation boom has peaked” after time spent creating content such as YouTube videos dropped in the second quarter of 2024 — marking the first decline since 2021.
Similarly, the 120,000 tracks uploaded daily in 2022 may have marked a peak of musicians uploading their back catalogs to distributors. MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan has surveyed amateur and semi-professional creators for five years. “A lot of them are in their 40s and 50s, and probably a lot are people who have been playing in bar bands and whatever else,” says Mulligan. “And they say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these demos. Let’s put them on Spotify.’ And so, they had a lot of back catalog that hadn’t been digitized before to put up there.” Those tracks weren’t necessarily new, but they were new to DIY distributors and streaming platforms. Once the backlog runs out, these artists may not have any other recordings to distribute.
Yet another explanation is the rise of social media as a destination for new music. Music streaming platforms and DIY distribution have leveled the playing field and given every artist an opportunity to reach listeners around the world. Still, many artists have realized they aren’t the next Taylor Swift and can’t get much traction at services such as Spotify and Apple Music. Streaming can work wonders for big artists, but the promise of democratization “has lost a lot of sheen,” says Mulligan. Small artists who don’t attract a crowd at Spotify can use social media or user-generated platforms such as Audiomack to connect with listeners. “They would rather have a small fan base who they can interact with than a large audience they can’t interact with,” he says. “Add that with the remuneration issue and it’s a much less compelling premise to go on streaming now than it was three, four years ago.”
If Mulligan’s hypothesis is true, the artist-centric approach adopted by Spotify, Deezer and others could end up hurting its biggest proponents: the major labels. Streaming platforms have essentially told long-tail artists, “We’re not going to stop you from coming in, but you’re not really welcome,” says Mulligan, which he thinks could have unintended consequences somewhere down the road. “Stop a generation of artists coming in,” he says, “and there’s a really good risk that you’ll inadvertently stop a generation of fans coming in if those artists go elsewhere to build their fan bases.”
According to Morning Consult, 57% of people born roughly between 1995 to 2010 aspire to become influencers and earn a living publishing their lives — or a fictional semblance of their real lives — on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. That means there has never been a greater need for simple solutions to license music.
Making synch licensing simple is key to capturing the potential in today’s creator economy, says Wendy Connell, vp of marketing at music synch startup Soundstripe. “How can we guide people through this complicated process and make it as easy as possible, and make sure that they know that they’re covered, it’s legal, and take care of all the complication for them?” she says.
Soundstripe has business customers, too, and its traditional synch (film, TV and movies) rose 87% in 2024. But personal users — influencers, hobbyists, students, etc. — account for 53% of its customers. With evidence growing that content creation is big business, there’s a huge opportunity for companies like Soundstripe that provide them with services — and the need for affordable music licensing could help grow a U.S. synch revenue market that was worth $411 million in 2023 (a number that includes only label revenue tracked by the RIAA) and probably more in 2024.
Trending on Billboard
The world is awash in content creators — the term for professional, semi-professional and amateur photographers and video makers who flood digital platforms with everything from cooking tips to travel videos to Amazon product recommendations. But making short videos for a living isn’t just an aspiration of the younger generations for whom Mr. Beast is the peak of celebrity and Kim Kardashian is the blueprint for turning fame into wealth. Morning Consult also found that 41% of all adults surveyed would choose the career: Across all age groups, millions of creators already operate at the sub-career level. And a November 2023 report by the Keller Advisory Group found there were 27 million paid creators in the U.S. aged 16 to 54. For a small group of them, being an influencer provides a six-figure annual income, but for most of the 27 million “micro-influencers,” annual income is less than $10,000. Regardless of how much they make, though, influencers are churning out content — much of it requiring music.
This supply of content exists because there is a massive, eager audience for creators’ videos and photos. Young consumers are spending their time on smartphones, not TVs: 60% of American teens spend four or more hours each day on social media on average, and nearly 30% are on social platforms for more than six hours per day. Older age groups also spend time on social media — the 55-64 age group logs two hours per day on average, according to eMarketer — but younger people skew toward short-form videos on TikTok while older consumers bank most of their social time on Facebook.
In the past, TV shows and movies provided a constant source for synch royalties for the use of a sound recording and its underlying musical work. Today, those traditional synch opportunities still exist, but influencers and other content creators are eroding legacy media’s viewing time. In July, YouTube accounted for more than 10% of TV viewing, according to Nielsen, becoming the first streaming platform to surpass the 10% threshold. That was more than Netflix, a TV juggernaut that commanded an 8.4% share, and Amazon Prime, a distant third amongst streaming platforms at 3.4%. All streaming platforms accounted for 41.4% of TV viewing, well ahead of cable (26.7%) and broadcast (20.3%).
But influencers need easy-to-use, affordable licensing options to stay out of legal trouble. Last year, companies such as Marriott, Bang Energy and OFRA Cosmetics were sued by music rights holders for using unlicensed music in influencer marketing. (Sony Music and Marriott ended their lawsuit while Bang Energy lost separate court cases against Sony and UMG in 2022.) While TikTok’s licensing deals allow users to incorporate music into their videos, they stop short of allowing corporations and the influencers they — or third-party firms — hire to use music for commercial purposes. Outside of influencer marketing, there are numerous other instances of companies using music without permission when simple, legal and affordable licensing options exist.
Aside from Soundstripe, platforms such as Epidemic Sound, PremiumBeat, Artlist and, most recently, The Rights provide royalty-free music, typically through a subscription model, that provide a wide range of mostly anonymous production music, though professional musicians and songwriters working under their stage names are largely absent from these platforms. While Soundstripe currently has in-house musicians to build its catalog, Connell says the company is working on bringing in record labels’ catalogs to offer to their customers. That would benefit artists and songwriters whose music isn’t available at Soundstripe and similar platforms and who would otherwise miss out on the rise of influencer culture — and the financial benefits that can come from tapping into it.
In the ‘00s, The Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan looked at the disruptive nature of early social media platform MySpace and saw the death of the record label. It didn’t exactly work out that way — not with MySpace, not with Facebook, not with TikTok. In fact, the major music companies became adept at using these platforms to break artists and perpetuate their market power; if there’s a breakout song on TikTok, labels rush into an old-fashioned bidding war. While social media certainly disrupted the music business, it didn’t uproot the traditional record label model.
There have been numerous other game-changers over the years that failed — on their own, at least — to radically alter how major labels do business, including independent distribution. After TuneCore launched in 2006, major labels continued to sign artists and own their intellectual property, albeit to broader “360” deals that incorporated more than recorded music rights. Nor did the advent of streaming by itself reshape the structure of major record labels. The artists with the most streaming success are involved with major labels in one way or another, be it a traditional record contract, a joint venture or, in rare cases like Taylor Swift, a distribution deal.
Trending on Billboard
Corgan may have misjudged social media’s sole impact on record labels, but he wasn’t entirely wrong about its ultimate influence. When combined, social media, independent distribution and streaming form a potent combination that has changed the balance of power and induced major labels to change how they promote music around the world. This dynamic isn’t exactly new, but it was never clearer than in 2024. This year, major labels have increasingly embraced the role of being service providers to those parties who prefer to remain independent and retain ownership of their intellectual property.
A few years ago, Universal Music Group (UMG) was pouring money into superstar acquisitions such as Bob Dylan’s and Sting’s song catalogs. More recently, the company has been focusing on its artist services model. In the last three months alone, UMG acquired indie label group [PIAS] and agreed to acquire Downtown Music Holdings for $775 million, though the proposed deal has encountered opposition from the independent music community and will need to pass regulatory scrutiny before being finalized. The company also purchased Outdustry — which has an artist- and label-services arm that focuses on China, India and other high-growth emerging markets — and bought a stake in Chord Music Partners, giving UMG distribution and publishing administration duties for the more than 60,000 songs in the investment vehicle’s catalog.
In fact, 2024 played out much like UMG CEO Lucian Grainge said it would. His January memo predicted the company would continue to expand globally and offer labels outside of mature markets a “full suite of artist services” while “acquiring local labels, catalogs and artist services businesses.” To be fair, UMG was already on that path: In 2022, it acquired m-theory’s artist services company and installed its founders, JT Myers and Nat Pastor, as co-CEOs of Virgin Music Group to expand Virgin’s independent music division globally.
Warner Music Group (WMG) appears to have sensed the shifting landscape, too, as there has been a noticeable shift in messaging during Robert Kyncl’s tenure as the company’s CEO. In the Stephen Cooper era, WMG was the music community’s leading investor in Web3 startups. In contrast, Kyncl has chosen to focus on expanding WMG’s footprint globally. WMG briefly signaled its interest in acquiring Believe in March and April after the French company announced a CEO-led effort to take the company private. Notably, Believe has a global label services business and a presence in developing markets that take advantage of the “glocalization” of local markets and global streaming platforms’ ability to help music travel across borders. WMG ultimately passed on pursuing Believe, but Kyncl has followed his peers’ interest in emerging markets, purchasing stakes in Indian companies Divo and Global Music Junction.
The service model isn’t an entirely original approach. Grainge wrote that UMG is “creating the blueprint for the labels of the future,” but UMG is doing what major music companies have always done: following trends and buying independent companies that established a particular market. Sony Music already bought into the service model with The Orchard and AWAL, the latter purchased in 2022 for $430 million. Independents such as Believe, OneRPM and Symphonic Distribution have become established players by combining distribution and artist services, while investors have poured money into independents such as Create Music Group — which this year raised $165 million at a $1 billion valuation — and gamma, which is backed by $1 billion.
But the well-established blueprint was never more of a hot commodity than in 2024. In the music business, nothing signifies the relevance of a business model like the major labels’ desire to buy it and integrate it into their systems — especially when the largest music companies feel they have no choice. The holy trinity of social media, independent distribution and global streaming platforms has given artists an alternative to the much-derided major label record contract. Artists who want to own their intellectual property and have more creative control have never had more of the tools necessary to be independent. That includes financing options, such as advances from well-funded independents or royalty advances from a new breed of financial services companies. When there’s no need for radio promotion and shelf space at brick-and-mortar retailers, the independent model looks a lot more attractive — not only for artists but for the major labels that have become increasingly keen on buying into it.
Ironically, the major labels’ acceptance of the independents’ business model means the music business is becoming less independent. Trade groups such as the Association of Independent Music and IMPALA quickly spoke out against UMG’s agreement to purchase Downtown, just as they did with Sony Music’s purchase of AWAL. U.K. regulators ultimately concluded that AWAL was a “relatively small player” and that the deal did not substantially reduce competition. Time will tell if competition watchdogs feel the same about UMG’s much larger purchase of Downtown. In any case, the independents have proved that artist and label services businesses are a good fit for the modern music business. The next step was always going to be consolidation.
For all the value derived from social media, artists and labels have yet to generate revenue directly from their activity on Facebook, Instagram and other platforms. In contrast, Weverse, a social media and e-commerce platform owned by South Korean company HYBE, changes up the typical social media dynamic by generating direct revenue from the fandom it facilitates.
This month, in an effort to generate even more revenue from superfans, Weverse introduced a digital membership tier that offers additional perks such as ad-free viewing, video downloads for offline access, high-quality streaming and language translation. The paid digital membership is separate from the fan clubs offered on the platform and Weverse’s own direct messaging feature that allows users — for a fee — to message their favorite artists.
“Digital membership, we believe, is the very first cornerstone of the future evolution” of the music business,” Weverse CEO Joon Choi tells Billboard. He adds that in the first two weeks that digital memberships were made available on the platform, 79 artists (out of 162 active artist communities on Weverse) have given fans the option of signing up for them.
Trending on Billboard
Weverse is an anomaly in social media: a platform with a small number of high-demand musicians rather than a large number of mostly unpopular artists. Launched in 2019, Weverse had 9.7 million monthly active users (MAUs) as of Sept. 30, according to HYBE’s latest financial results, down from 10.6 million a year earlier. The platform is a Swiss Army knife of a promotional vehicle. Artists not only post media content and updates but also conduct live-streams and respond — for a fee — to fans’ direct messages, while the platform additionally sells concert live streams, music and merchandise. And HYBE’s most popular artists can rack up amazing numbers on the platform: Earlier this week, BTS member Jung Kook set a Weverse record with 20.2 million real-time views of a 2.5-hour live broadcast in which he spoke to fans during a break from his military duty.
In recent months, Weverse expanded beyond K-pop artists by welcoming such Western, English-language stars as Ariana Grande and The Kid Laroi, hinting at possibilities that have record labels salivating. Goldman Sachs analysts have estimated that improved monetization of superfans — including new digital platforms, greater emphasis on vinyl buyers and higher-priced music subscription plans — could result in $3.3 billion of incremental revenue globally by 2030. Given the potential, it wasn’t surprising to hear both Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl and Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge express their interest in superfan products and experiences earlier this year. In September, UMG CFO Boyd Muir said the company was in “advanced talks” with Spotify about a high-priced superfan tier — something Chinese music streaming company Tencent Music Entertainment already launched with early success.
In the early days of its membership tier, Weverse is still figuring things out. “We are pioneering this field, so we see a lot of unknowns,” says Choi. For example, he says Weverse has heard from many labels that it should bundle the digital membership tier with fan clubs already offered by artists into something like a premium membership tier (of the 162 active artist communities on Weverse, 72 currently offer fan clubs). He adds that Weverse would not make the decision independently but is discussing it with labels. “Combining them together in the future, I think it’ll be stronger than what we offer right now,” says Choi.
The rollout of the membership tier hasn’t been without controversy, though. In October, an article at The Korea Herald quoted an email from Weverse to its partner record labels in which the company said participation in the membership tier is “mandatory for all artist communities hosted on Weverse.” The article also quoted a South Korean lawmaker who called on the country’s Fair Trade Commission to investigate Weverse’s “new forms of monopolistic practices and determine whether unfair treatment is occurring against affiliated companies using the platform.” Weverse says it has not been contacted or investigated by regulators.
Choi pushes back against the assertions in The Korea Herald, saying artists on the platform are not required to offer a subscription tier, in contrast with the email quoted by the newspaper. “That’s not mandatory,” he insists. In a separate statement to Billboard, Weverse said it “aims to roll out digital membership to all communities” but that the decision “is the choice of labels and artists” and, in any event, fans will still be able to use many existing Weverse services for free. Despite Weverse playing an integral role in the marketing and promotion of K-pop artists, Choi argues it doesn’t have enough market power to make such demands: “We are not in a dominant place where we can just present the policy and dictate our policy to the artist or labels however we want.”
Weverse has also received criticism for its revenue-sharing splits with labels, with The Korea Herald additionally citing an anonymous source as saying the company proposed a “disproportionate” share of the revenue ranging from 30% to 60%, leaving the artist and label with anywhere from 40% to 70%. Choi declined to comment on the business arrangements that determine how much subscription revenue Weverse keeps but noted the platform is investing money into the subscription tier to create features valuable to artists and their fans.
The pushback encountered by Weverse foreshadows the challenges platforms and labels will face as superfan platforms proliferate and the stakeholders wrangle over how the money will be shared. Labels and publishers have spent decades trying to get more value from streaming services, and short-form video apps like TikTok necessitated new conversations about how to compensate creators for the value they bring to the platform. As Choi says, “What we’re doing is basically creating a new value by connecting the artist and super fans in the same place.” In the process, HYBE has pioneered a new model that could become standard practice for artists and labels in the music business of the future.
A year ago, SiriusXM launched a new streaming app filled with original and licensed content from its satellite radio service and set the price at $9.99 — far below the roughly $16 average monthly revenue it takes in per satellite subscriber. The hope was that a relatively affordable price and an improved app would help SiriusXM reach younger consumers and expand beyond its core in-car satellite radio listeners.
The new app was “just the beginning,” CEO Jennifer Witz said at the time, adding that SiriusXM would “continue to iterate and develop our product offerings throughout the next year and beyond as we strive to deliver our subscribers the best listening experience on the go, in the car, and wherever they choose to tune in.” The company’s satellite radio business was built on vehicles. If you buy a new or used car, you’ll likely get a free SiriusXM trial that’s extremely effective at convincing people to subscribe once their trial is over. The new streaming app was intended to attract people who would listen outside of the car.
But selling the radio experience in a smartphone app didn’t go well. As it turns out, the streaming app hasn’t produced a good return on marketing spending, Witz said on Tuesday (Dec. 10). Appearing at the UBS Global Media and Communications Conference, the executive cited “slow progress” in turning free trials into long-term retention. As a result, SiriusXM has already cut back its marketing spend on the app and expects to have fewer streaming trials — and thus fewer subscribers — in the future. That was a worse assessment than what Witz delivered on SiriusXM’s Aug. 2 earnings call. At that time, when asked about conversion rates for the app, Witz said they had been “challenged” but maintained positivity, adding that there had been some “positive results” with first-time trial adopters and that the company was “confident” it could attract “a different audience” that will be “incremental” to the existing car-based business.
Trending on Billboard
Now, after its underwhelming experiment with the app, SiriusXM will, in Witz’s words, be “leaning into our strengths.” In other words, the company is putting its focus back on satellite radio and the in-automobile listening experience. In alignment with that strategy, the company also announced the departure of Joseph Inzerillo, the chief product and technology officer who played an instrumental role in the app’s launch.
For all the strengths of the app — curated stations, celebrity musician stations, a smorgasbord of audio programming — the company gave up its competitive advantage when it tried to compete outside of satellite radio and the automobile. After all, the company is the lone satellite radio operator and, given the cost and complexity of launching satellites into orbit, has the market to itself. But when leaving the safety of satellite, it’s hard to beat Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube and Amazon Music at their own game. These are streaming-native platforms built for consumers’ desire for interactivity, while SiriusXM’s app attempts to fit a one-way satellite radio experience into a two-way, interactive medium. In the end, paid radio turned out to be a tough sell to a generation that has grown up on on-demand streaming.
So, SiriusXM is going to focus on what it does best, and in-car listening gives the company a huge audience to work with. It currently has 33 million subscribers and, according to MusicWatch’s Russ Crupnick, reaches 65 million total listeners. In an email to Billboard, radio consultant Andy Meadows said he believes “SiriusXM is better suited to compete for those coveted in-car listeners so [Tuesday’s announcement] makes sense from that standpoint.” Crupnick also sees in-car listening as a point of strength for SiriusXM, pointing to the uniqueness of the SiriusXM product as a distinct advantage. “The ease of use, breadth of content, and curation position them as far superior to terrestrial radio, and in a different place than music streaming or podcasts,” he says.
Building on in-car satellite listening, the SiriusXM streaming app will become more of a complementary product. “There is real opportunity with 360L,” said Witz on Tuesday, referring to the company’s in-car platform that serves as a dual satellite radio/streaming product. Because 360L includes streaming, it allows SiriusXM to serve personalized — a.k.a. more lucrative — ads and provide more targeted — a.k.a. more expensive — ads for advertisers. Of the app, she said it can provide data that helps SiriusXM determine spends on programming that resonates with listeners, given that satellite receivers are a one-way technology that doesn’t provide granular insights into listening behaviors. Similar to 360L, the app can also provide targeted advertisements.
For customers, bundling satellite and streaming costs as low as $25 per month. That’s about double the cost of an individual Spotify subscription, but SiriusXM subscribers can withstand the price. According to Witz, platinum satellite subscriptions, which cost upward of $29 per month, account for “about a third” of the current subscriber base. And providing the best of satellite and streaming will help SiriusXM compete with a “newer breed of streaming products” on Americans’ car dashes, says Meadows. “Anything SiriusXM, and traditional radio for that matter, can do to look, sound and function better across all devices is in their best interest long term.”
If it seems like everybody is talking about Spotify Wrapped, the streaming service’s data-driven annual recap of listening habits, it’s because everybody is talking about Spotify Wrapped. That says a lot about its effectiveness and its value to the company.
The streaming platform’s personalized year-end recap is unmissable this time of year. Mashable began prepping its readers back on Nov. 19. A week later, Spotify heightened expectations by advising users to update the Spotify app to the latest, Wrapped-ready version. When Wrapped finally appeared on Wednesday (Dec. 4), there was an onslaught of media coverage. Billboard even got into the Wrapped coverage, revealing Chappell Roan’s top artists and songs on Spotify in 2024 (Ariana Grande and Heart’s “Barracuda,” respectively).
With so much media coverage, some of it is bound to carry a grousing, annoyed tone. “Hate your Spotify Wrapped?” Rolling Stone asked, “You’re not alone.” “Sorry, parents,” The Washington Post lamented, “it’s actually your kids’ Spotify Wrapped.” Vogue turned Wrapped into a frank self-examination in an article titled “I love Spotify Wrapped so much I hate it.” For people whose Spotify Wrapped “suck[ed],” Pocket-lint suggests ways to “fix it” in 2025. The Huffington Post’s compilation of the “funniest” tweets about Wrapped was filled with only mildly humorous complaints.
Trending on Billboard
In contrast, articles about Wrapped’s peers came and went without anything close to the same level of media hullabaloo. The annual recaps of Apple Music, Amazon Music and YouTube Music received basic coverage at mostly tech-oriented publications but didn’t elicit the kind of longwinded pop culture essays that Wrapped conjures up every year. Apple Music Replay received run-of-the-mill articles such as “Apple Music’s yearly recap is finally available in the app” at tech news site The Verge. When TechCrunch covered the launch of Amazon Music’s 2024 Delivered, the headline referred to it as Amazon’s “take on Spotify Wrapped” lest nobody know what they were talking about. YouTube Music Recap launched on Nov. 25 to little media coverage.
For its part, Spotify contributed to the media overload by building a 2024 Wrapped microsite and posting 10 Wrapped-related press releases on launch day. Wrapped itself introduced new innovations in 2024, including a personalized Wrapped podcast featuring two AI hosts and the Your Music Evolution Playlist, a personalized playlist that tracks a user’s different musical interests and phases throughout the year. Wrapped has become such an important event that Spotify hosted a pre-release press briefing that featured talks by executives across the company. As Glenn McDonald, a former Spotify software engineer and author of the book You Have Not Yet Heard Your Favourite Song: How Streaming Changed Music, told Billboard via email, “nothing else they do gets as much marketing/branding energy put into it.”
Wrapped especially shines in the awareness it attracts on social media. At the end of every Wrapped recap, Spotify offers personalized badges that flood X, Instagram and TikTok — the latter two benefitting from integrations announced in November that make it easier to share content. In this way, Wrapped turns its users into “active brand advocates on social media,” as one academic study put it. Or, as another paper phrased it, Spotify turns its users into “free labour” to help market its product. “For Spotify, it is 100% a brand-visibility moment,” says McDonald. “Social virality is the only metric the company cares about. The viral attention does help with user retention and reactivation, but the virality itself is the thing they’re measuring.”
More than an effective marketing ploy, Wrapped has turned into a competitive advantage in a business where standalone music streaming services desperately need one. A company has a competitive advantage when it creates more economic value than its competitors. Economic value is the difference between the perceived value of the product and the costs required to produce the product. Some brands are able to charge a premium because they have succeeded, through the quality of the product and the effectiveness of marketing, in convincing consumers their product is worth more. Food made with better ingredients commands a price premium, for example. Sometimes differences in perception of value come down to marketing. The difference between luxury clothing brands’ prices can be explained by amounts spent on splashy advertisements and celebrity endorsements, not just the cost of materials and labor.
Unlike streaming video-on-demand (SVOD) services, which attract viewers mainly through exclusive programming, music streaming platforms have — for the most part — the same content and must find other avenues to attract and retain customers. Amazon Music Unlimited, for example, is cheaper for members of Amazon Prime. Apple Music benefits from being part of the Apple entertainment ecosystem and Apple’s ownership of music identification app Shazam. YouTube Music gets its subscribers through YouTube, the most popular streaming app in the world. Spotify, a standalone company, can’t match Amazon’s low price, Apple’s omnipresence or YouTube’s ubiquity.
Instead, Spotify competes on product features it develops in-house. Launched in 2015, Discover Weekly, a personalized playlist filled with recently released tracks, was so popular that people who streamed their Discover Weekly playlists streamed twice as much as people who didn’t. A product that popular helps give Spotify an advantage over its larger competitors. Discover Weekly was launched the same year Apple launched Apple Music. Although many onlookers expected Apple would crush Spotify, Spotify has consistently maintained a sizable lead in market share, and innovation played an important role in holding off behemoths like Apple and Amazon. As Will Page, former Spotify chief economist, put it in his 2021 book Pivot, Discover Weekly “create[d] a moat to protect Spotify’s castle.”
Wrapped follows in Discover Weekly’s footsteps as a moat-building product innovation. The key is Spotify’s ability to get its listeners to talk about Wrapped. One study found that Spotify Wrapped was more effective than Apple Music Replay in users’ willingness to create user-generated content (i.e. share Wrapped on social media). That’s gold in a business where consumers can choose between a number of fairly identical substitutes with similar features. Anything that increases engagement and prevents users from leaving for Apple, Amazon or YouTube is valuable. In that sense, developing a product that becomes a part of the cultural zeitgeist, like Wrapped, is perhaps the biggest competitive advantage a streaming service can have.
In the last four months, two of the three major labels have seen their stock price punished for missing expectations of subscription growth — effectively sending the message that in 2024, delivering substantial revenue gains isn’t enough. In its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings on Thursday (Nov. 21), Warner Music Group (WMG) revealed streaming growth of 8.2%, which was below some analysts’ estimates — helping explain why the company’s share price fell 7.4% on Thursday and erased approximately $1.29 billion of market value. The same thing happened to Universal Music Group in July — albeit to a far greater extent — when its lower-than-expected second-quarter subscription growth led to a 24% drop in its share price despite total revenue climbing 8.7%.
To say analysts and investors place a great deal of attention on streaming growth is an understatement. During WMG’s earnings call on Thursday, six of the 10 questions from analysts concerned subscription revenue, including topics such as drivers of expected growth, the setting of wholesale rates and how streaming royalties are calculated and distributed. That’s because analysts — and the investors they speak to — know that platforms such as Spotify and YouTube are critical to record labels and publishers’ fortunes.
Trending on Billboard
Judging from their introductory remarks, WMG and UMG would rather talk about their companies’ global expansions. On Thursday, WMG CEO Robert Kyncl highlighted the company’s focus on India, a country of 1.4 billion that he called “more like a continent than a country.” Currently dominated by ad-supported streaming, India has the fifth-largest gross domestic product but ranks just 14th amongst recorded music markets. But Kyncl said he believes the country “will become an increasingly influential global force in the music business,” adding that WMG is “well positioned to keep taking market share” through acquisitions and partnerships. Meanwhile, during UMG’s latest earnings call on Oct. 31, CEO Lucian Grainge talked about acquisitions, partnerships and expansions in emerging markets such as China, Thailand and Nigeria.
Constantly pulled back to the topic of music subscriptions, Kyncl and WMG CFO Bryan Castellani attempted to quell any concerns that streaming growth is petering out, explaining how WMG intends to obtain high, single-digit subscription revenue growth even as that growth has been slowing. Relatively few Americans have a music streaming subscription, at least when compared to streaming video-on-demand (SVOD) options such as Netflix; during the call, Kyncl noted that subscription penetration in the U.S. is 30% while SVOD services are at 50%. “There’s a lot more to grow in United States for music,” he said.
Lately, though, the success of music streaming platforms has looked one-sided. The licensees, not the licensors, appear to be keeping most of the spoils of price increases and subscriber acquisitions. As one WMG analyst put it, the major labels’ content is a must-have for digital service providers (DSPs) such as Spotify, but “a lot of value has instead accrued to the DSPs” rather than content owners. At least by one measure, Spotify has reaped the benefits of price increases far more than major labels. Since Spotify announced its first U.S. price increase on July 23, 2023, its share price has risen 177%, compared to 3% for UMG and 4% for WMG.
To level the playing field and reap more of the benefits of subscription music’s popularity, WMG intends to tweak pricing — which it believes the labels will benefit from — to help drive continued subscription growth. For starters, the company expects improvements to come from the launch of a high-priced subscription tier for superfans that Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said in July could cost $17 or $18 per month. Kyncl and Castellani also pointed to changes in wholesale prices that would establish per-subscriber minimums to reduce the discounts given to family plans and other multi-user accounts. “With both subscriber growth and opportunities for wholesale price increases, the formula for streaming growth is strong and there’s plenty of room for acceleration,” said Kyncl.
The U.S. and other mature streaming markets will deliver subscription growth more immediately than emerging markets still dominated by ad-supported streaming. But over the long term, said WMG, high-growth, emerging markets like India have substantial potential. As Kyncl explained, WMG is betting on countries like India that have rising gross domestic product (GDP) because advertising spending will increase as GDP increases —and rising GDP will eventually translate to more subscribers. Again, Kyncl talked about closing the gap between music and TV; in India, he put the number of music subscribers at 15 million and the number of households with TVs at 100 million.
Streaming has shaped today’s music business. WMG and UMG would not have gone public had it not transformed a once-moribund industry. Investors wouldn’t have poured money into Hipgnosis Songs Fund and other investment funds were it not generating massive royalties for aging catalogs. And prominent institutional investors such as Blackstone and Pimco would not be so enthusiastic about music assets if streaming couldn’t open new markets around the world.
That strong enthusiasm has created high expectations, though, and labels’ mandate to deliver high, single-digit subscription growth is going to transform streaming in the years to come. Prices will be higher. Streaming services will launch high-priced superfan tiers. And if the labels have their way, ad-supported on-demand streaming would no longer be free. However things shake out, the majors seem confident they can deliver.
With all apologies to Charli XCX, the 2024 concert season should have been dubbed “VIP summer” for the amount of upselling done by U.S. amphitheaters.
At Live Nation amphitheaters, revenue from VIP clubs was up 19% and VIP ticket premium revenue for major festivals was up more than 20% in the third quarter. Earlier this year, VIP/premium offerings represented 9% of Live Nation’s overall amphitheater business but “should be 30% to 35%,” CEO Michael Rapino told investors in February.
Amphitheaters where Live Nation controls the food and beverage experiences have the potential to deliver more fan spending. Converting an area of grass into a VIP club provides 20% to 30% returns on investment, Rapino explained. At Northwell at Jones Beach Theater, for example, Live Nation took the 15,000-seat venue from no premium offerings to three premium tiers. Of the 40 U.S. amphitheaters in its portfolio, the company could “Jonesify” half of them, Rapino said during an investor call on Wednesday (Nov. 13).
Trending on Billboard
Diving headfirst into VIP pricing is sure to help Live Nation’s bottom line. The company believes premium offerings can add $200 million in adjusted operating income per year, according to its investor presentation. This year, VIP net per-fan spending will have grown at 20% annually since 2019, well ahead of overall net fan spending growth of 8% annually.
From exclusive lounges to fan meet-and-greets with artists, the concert business has been better than other music industry segments at filtering customers according to their willingness to pay. VIP status became standard practice at music festivals to separate the people who can afford a $400 ticket to camp in a grass field and those who can afford deluxe accommodations, food and beverage, and transportation. The year-old Sphere in Las Vegas takes customer segmentation to a new level: Tickets are relatively expensive for a single concert without considering travel and accommodation — which Live Nation bundles with Sphere tickets through Vibee, a destination experience company it founded in 2023.
It may be ahead of other music companies, but Live Nation is merely following practices familiar to companies such as airlines, which charge more for early boarding, and theme parks, where paying a premium allows you to spend less time standing in line for rides. Insurance companies offer multiple tiers of services that include add-ons such as “accident forgiveness.” Everywhere you look, there’s an expensive option that’s out of reach for most consumers but well worth the value to others.
The wave of upselling now extends to VIP tiers in music streaming. Last week, Tencent Music Entertainment (TME) announced it has 10 million Super VIP subscribers accounting for 8.4% of its 119 million subscribers. Super VIP, launched in the first quarter of 2022, provides such perks as better sound quality, priority access to music content and live event tickets. With a cost five times the normal subscription tier, Super VIP subscriptions helped TME’s average revenue per user increase 5% from the prior-year period. That success with VIP pricing is likely a harbinger of things to come. A single tier may not deliver the kind of profitability investors now demand.
“I think Spotify and the labels, long ago, realized this ‘one price for everybody’ thing gets these companies off the ground, but ultimately it’s not sustainable,” says pricing strategy consultant Rafi Mohammed, who espouses a strategy he calls “good-better-best” and encourages companies to create more valuable tiers of products and services for subsets of customers who are willing to pay extra. “If you’re a company and you’re not doing it, you’re making a mistake,” he says. “There are always going to be higher-end people who are willing to pay more for a more enhanced experience.”
With the current music streaming model relatively unchanged for two decades, music companies are increasingly engaging in the kind of customer segmentation taught in business schools. Companies that want to deliver strong, sustained growth are looking at ways to provide more valuable — and more expensive — experiences to those customers willing to pay for them.
Record labels are itching for a high-priced streaming subscription tier that would produce greater royalties. Spotify’s VIP tier — for lack of a better term — seems all but inevitable at this point. In September, Universal Music Group (UMG) COO (then CFO) Boyd Muir said the company was in “advanced talks” with the streamer for a high-priced tier that offers a better user experience than standard subscription plans. Spotify CEO Daniel Ek lifted the veil on a pending VIP plan in July, saying it would “probably” be priced at $17 or $18 per month and provide subscribers with “a lot more control, a lot higher quality across the board, and some other things that I’m not ready to talk about yet.”
UMG has said that internal market research shows 23% of subscribers would be willing to pay more for a VIP experience. But Will Page, Spotify’s former chief economist, isn’t sure Spotify is ready for a VIP tier. “It needs to walk before it can run towards a VIP platform,” he says.
Since the days of pre-Spotify subscription services such as Rhapsody, the basis $9.99 (in the U.S.) price was raised only recently but hasn’t kept pace with inflation. Spotify launched in the U.S. in 2011 and didn’t raise the individual premium price to $10.99 until 2023. Had the price kept pace with inflation, that $9.99 tier would have cost $13.50 by the time the price hike took effect. While video-on-demand streaming platforms such as Netflix have consistently raised prices over the years, music platforms like Spotify refrained, keeping their prices unchanged for fear higher prices would stunt their growth. “I would love to see the industry earn its stripes in showing pricing power before it goes to base two, which is market screening power,” says Page.
In the meantime, the music business has other ways to cater to VIPs, including a new slate of “superfan” platforms and vinyl records. Vinyl mimics a VIP strategy by upselling fans to an expensive physical item over low-value online streaming. And just as film studios use a so-called “windowing” strategy by releasing movies to theaters before streaming platforms, artists and labels are increasingly selling vinyl LPs ahead of their streaming street dates — a strategy that’s been largely absent in music since 2016. To Page, artists and labels are missing a big opportunity by not using vinyl to create a VIP release window.
“In America alone, vinyl is going to be a billion-dollar business,” says Page, “and the people who can sell it are the types of artists who would appeal to a VIP strategy.”
Peering over U.S. borders at the rest of the world, the recorded music business looks like the land of opportunity. The U.S. is certainly lucrative, but it’s also hyper-competitive. While the three major labels have locked up most of the States’ recorded music revenues — they distribute many indies, too — they command a far lower share internationally.
A new estimate of independent labels’ market share shows why major labels’ investments and acquisitions in foreign territories are so common. On an ownership basis, independent artists and labels had a 46.7% share of the global recorded music business in 2023, according to a new MIDiA Research report, with independent labels taking a 40.8% share while artist-direct distributors such as Ditto Music and TuneCore having a 5.9% share. (The data, collected through an online survey of independent labels, accounts for 93% of all global revenues.) That leaves 53.3% for the major labels.
The U.S. is considerably more concentrated. Independent labels and distributors had a 35.7% share of the U.S. market in 2023, according to Billboard’s analysis of Luminate data — 11 percentage points less than their global share — with the major labels owning the remaining 64.3%. That means that while independent artists and labels were behind the majority of the well over 100,000 new tracks that were being uploaded to digital service providers daily as of early 2023, they only accounted for a bit more than a third of revenue.
Trending on Billboard
The U.S. market gets even more concentrated when distribution, not just ownership, is measured. In the U.S., the major labels have an 84.3% distribution share through their ownership of music distributors Ingrooves (Universal Music Group), The Orchard (Sony Music), AWAL (Sony Music) and ADA (Warner Music Group), leaving independent labels and distributors with a 15.7% share. But MIDiA puts the independents’ global distribution share at 34.2% — 18.5 percentage points higher than their U.S. share.
Besides the availability of market share, companies are also investing outside of more familiar, Western countries because they’re chasing high growth rates. The U.S. is slowing and has settled into solid, high-single-digit annual improvements: 7.2% in 2023 and 5% in 2022 after a pandemic-related 41% surge in 2021, according to the IFPI’s data on global trade revenue.
Emerging music markets, on the other hand, are growing like weeds. Strong gains in some heavily populated countries led the U.S.’s share of global revenues to dip from 41.2% in 2021 to 38.6% in 2023. Over that time span, China’s share grew from 3.8% to 5.1% and Brazil’s share rose from 1.8% from 2.0%. In 2023 alone, Mexico grew 18% to $490 million, and India grew 15% to $357 million to overtake Spain as the world’s No. 14 market.
For majors and indies alike, the never-ending pursuit of market share is taking them across the globe. This year, Universal Music Group bought a majority stake in Nigerian record label Mavin Global and Outdustry, a record label and artist services provider that focuses on China, India and other emerging markets. Warner Music Group took a majority stake in Indian digital media and music company Divo. Believe acquired Turkish record label DMC and purchased Indian record label White Hill Music’s catalog and YouTube channel. In 2022, Sony Music acquired Brazilian independent music company Som Livre. A year earlier, Warner Music Group invested in Saudi Arabian independent label Rotana, building a presence in the Middle East-North Africa region where Reservoir Media has a partnership with Abu Dhabi-based PopArabia.
Streaming and social media have allowed independents to blossom around the world, creating a market “more diverse, fragmented, international, and regional than it has ever been,” wrote MIDiA’s Mark Mulligan. “It has resulted in a market that is characterized by both fragmentation and consolidation,” wrote Mulligan. “These opposing forces are shaping today’s market and will do so in the coming years.”
The music business is getting back to basics.
In a few short years, the major labels have gone from investing in and partnering with speculative tech startups to pouring money into regionally focused music companies across Asia, Africa and Latin America. After a brief flirtation with NFTs and live-streaming businesses, anything resembling a faddish technology seems to be out of favor, judging from the deals and partnerships they’ve been making lately. Instead, the majors are targeting old-school music companies that own catalogs and develop artists — and can benefit from the majors’ global network of distribution and other services.
In 2024 alone, the three majors — Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group — have acquired or invested in 11 record labels, music catalogs and service providers in small or developing markets. The flurry of deals — there were even more in 2023 and preceding years — provides the majors with more content for their ever-increasing distribution pipeline and more international artists to take to Western markets.
Take UMG’s run of acquisitions and investments in 2024: the remaining stake of European indie label group [PIAS], the remaining stake in the catalog of Thai music company RS Group, a majority stake in Nigerian record label Mavin Global and the outright acquisition of Outdustry, a multi-faceted company with an artist- and label-services arm that focuses on China, India and other high-growth emerging markets. Outdustry will be a division of Virgin Music Group, UMG’s fast-growing distribution and artist services company that includes distributor Ingrooves Music Group and Integral, formerly the artist services division of [PIAS].
Trending on Billboard
UMG, in particular, is letting the world know about its intentions. On Thursday (Oct. 31), UMG CEO Lucian Grainge dedicated much of his earnings call opening statements to the company’s efforts to expand into potentially lucrative markets that merited little attention before legal streaming services replaced digital piracy. UMG plans to make “several other investments” before the end of the year, CFO Boyd Muir said during the earnings call. In total, he said, investment spending in the second half of the year will be 350 million to 400 million euros ($380 million to $434 million).
The focus on emerging markets and artist services is a noticeable change from a few years ago. When NFT prices soared and fans were stuck at home during the pandemic, the majors invested in blockchain, virtual reality and live-streaming startups. Today, as the majors face slowing streaming growth in mature markets and the needs of an increasing number of independent artists, they’re focused on building a global network of service providers with an eye on up-and-coming markets.
The focus on emerging markets goes beyond acquisitions. In September, UMG launched a new company, Universal Music Group Greater Bay Area, that will be based in Shenzhen, making “the first time a major music company has established a division in China’s Greater Bay Area, the world’s most populous urban area,” the company said.
Another development mentioned on UMG’s earnings call was GTS, a global talent services business in Latin America. In October, GTS became a standalone company separate from UMG’s record labels. “By separating from our local labels,” Grainge explained, “GTS will now be able to also offer its services to artists outside of the UMG family.”
Grainge and Muir painted a picture of a global business determined to expand outside of the mature markets they know best and build a presence in high-growth ones. UMG’s competitors — including independent Believe — are doing the same.
WMG has also had a busy year investing in traditional music companies. In March, WMG purchased a stake in India’s Global Music Junction (India’s The Economic Times reported it was a 26% stake) and launched Warner Music South Asia in April. Last year, the company took a majority stake in Divo, an Indian digital media and music company. Earlier this week, CEO Robert Kyncl told The Economic Times that China and India are the company’s top markets for expansion. “We’re already doing great in India, but it can be a much bigger part of our story,” Kyncl told the paper.
The majors continue to buy catalogs, of course. This year, Sony Music purchased Pink Floyd’s recorded music catalog (in addition to merchandising and name and likeness rights) and UMG bought a minority stake in Chord Music Partners, which holds the rights to over 60,000 songs. Expensive song catalogs give the majors rights to assets with long, productive lives. But given the enormous size of these companies, artist catalog acquisitions barely move the revenue needle. A legendary artist’s catalog might cost $200 million but generate a steady $10 million a year — a healthy sum but a pittance to a company with annual sales exceeding $12 billion.
Rather than pour money into just catalogs, the majors are buying entire companies and building new businesses with growth potential. As Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in an investor note about UMG on Thursday (Oct. 31), earlier acquisitions have had “a negligible effect on revenue and a small impact on profit growth.” But in the future, they are likely to be a more important driver of revenue growth, and Morgan Stanley expects UMG’s financial reports will break out their impact (e.g. reported revenue vs. organic revenue).
In buying regional music companies and building artist-services business, the majors are also taking a defensive measure. Independents such as Believe have been investing in local markets for years. In 2024 alone, Believe purchased the remaining stake in Turkish record label DMC and acquired Indian label White Hill Music’s music catalog and YouTube channel. Independent distributors such as UnitedMasters, Stem, Symphonic Distribution and Create Music Group have given artists a viable alternative to major label-owned systems. The majors are simply changing along with the market.
In 2012, UMG acquired the recorded music assets of EMI Music and later sold some pieces to WMG to satisfy antitrust regulators. Opposition to greater consolidation in the U.S. and Europe means it was probably the last acquisition of its size in those regions. (WMG’s brief flirtation with buying Believe in April and May quickly drew opposition from French indie labels.) There’s less opposition to more gradual growth taking place elsewhere in the world, though. The majors are continuing to expand, but they’re taking many small steps, not single EMI-sized leaps — and they’re doing it through old-fashioned music businesses.