The Ledger
With the recent news of slowing streaming growth in the U.S. and declining global revenue growth in recorded music, one might think the trends could have a negative impact on the market for publishing and recorded music catalogs.
Think again. For a handful of reasons, industry insiders who spoke to Billboard don’t believe the slowdown will have much — if any — effect on the continually brisk business in music intellectual property rights. Subscription revenue, which accounted for roughly 66% of U.S. revenue and approximately 51% of global revenue in 2024, according to the RIAA and IFPI, respectively, will continue to grow in mature markets and elsewhere.
“I don’t think the numbers that we’ve seen are enough to make any [music investors] worry too much,” says MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan. “I know that a lot of these funds have seen our numbers, and our numbers are relatively cautious about the outlook. We’re not bearish, but we’re not bullish either.”
Trending on Billboard
Numerous people pointed to Goldman Sachs’ estimates — a closely watched music forecast that remains something of a gold standard in the business — that both global recorded music and publishing revenue will grow at approximately 8% annually through 2030. What’s more, equity analysts seem comfortable with Universal Music Group’s forecast of 8-10% subscription growth through 2028.
In mature markets, future growth will come from higher prices after more than a decade of unchanged subscription fees. “We’ve all gotten comfortable with getting music at what I believe to be a subsidized rate versus its value,” says Jeremy Tucker, founder/managing member of Raven Music Partners, an investor in music catalogs. That subsidy is an underpricing of music subscriptions in order to attract new customers and help platforms achieve scale. Now that there are 818 million global subscribers, according to MIDiA Research, labels and streaming services seem intent on getting more from each subscriber.
Many streaming services raised their prices in 2022 and 2023, and Spotify raised prices in a few markets in 2024. Major labels that have renewed their licensing agreements with Spotify suggested the deals allow for higher-priced superfan tiers. Additionally, Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl said at a March 10 banking conference that “there’s quite strong evidence that there’s a lot of room to grow on pricing, especially in … mature markets.” All of this means there will be more value coming to rights holders, says Tucker, who looks at a lengthy time horizon, not any single year’s results, when considering potential gains. “We think there’s going to be growth over the medium to long term. But, in any given year, the actual growth is not something I’m too worried about.”
Additionally, people expect rights holders will extract more value from catalogs through better blocking and tackling. While companies focused on subscriber growth over the last 15 years, the next era will be marked by better execution, says a person in the music investment field. Artificial intelligence, this person says, can help rights owners expand the global reach of their music by creating versions in multiple foreign languages at little cost. AI can also make royalty collection more effective and cost-efficient. These wins may not have the appeal of, say, a biopic that boosts an artist’s catalog. But from a financial point of view, expanding a song’s reach and cutting costs serve the buyer’s core mission of improving the return on investment.
While U.S. growth slows, much of the world is growing quickly, and Western companies that focus on English-language repertoire face a “bleak” future as emerging markets outpace markets where English-language music is most popular, says Mulligan. As a result, companies that failed to invest a decade ago are playing catch-up in markets dominated by local music. “What they should have done is started signing loads of artists [in emerging markets] 10 to 15 years ago,” Mulligan says.
Still, there’s opportunity in emerging countries and their local repertoire. Subscription penetration rates — the ratio of subscribers to the country’s adult population — are a good proxy for a country’s potential, explains Mulligan. Developed markets like the U.S. and U.K. have penetration rates in the high 40 percent, according to MIDiA’s latest data. Elsewhere, lower penetration rates suggest subscription revenue will increase down the road and, as a result, the local music business infrastructure will grow over time. Poland’s subscription penetration rate, in contrast, is 17%, Brazil’s is 16% and China’s is 13%. Indonesia, the world’s fourth-most populous country, has a 1.8% penetration rate. India, the world’s second-largest country, has a penetration rate of just 1.3%.
Low penetration rates correspond with growth potential, as streaming platforms help fuel infrastructure growth and subscription adoption adds more value to the market. “You get this virtuous circle of influence,” Mulligan explains, “where if you establish the infrastructure to create an audience, that creates the virtuous circle of investment, where people start setting up labels, people start being able to have their careers as artists, they create more music, more of that music exports, and the impact on the global market increases. India is maybe a third of the way along in the journey, whereas Indonesia has not even got started.”
A “datapocalypse” hit the music industry this week as both the RIAA and IFPI reported 2024 numbers, following MIDiA Research’s annual tally a week earlier — and all three agreed that growth slowed in 2024. The IFPI’s figures and rankings of top markets revealed the rise of emerging markets, while the U.S.-focused RIAA figures revealed that growth in the United States was particularly weak (although not the worst in the world).
The trends seen in these reports have consequences for the global music industry. Companies follow opportunities, and emerging markets are attractive places to put resources. In November, Billboard published a story about major labels’ pivot in investment strategy from tech startups to old-school music companies in small and developing markets. As majors face slowing growth in mature markets, they’re looking for growth elsewhere — especially China, India and Africa. Independent companies such as Believe have long pursued markets around the world, too, betting on the rise of streaming and the increasing popularity of local music.
Trending on Billboard
The trio of reports underscore that slow streaming growth in many markets will need to be addressed. To that end, labels are already working to improve payouts through super-premium tiers that carry higher prices and working with streaming platforms to ensure “professional” artists get better remuneration than hobbyists, background noise and nature sounds. Ridding streaming platforms of AI-generated tracks will also improve labels’ payouts.
The reports differ because they represent different types of income. The IFPI reports trade revenue — the money collected by distributors and record labels — while much of the RIAA’s report shows the retail value, or the money collected by streaming platforms and retailers. In addition, the RIAA numbers cover only the U.S. while the IFPI and MIDiA reports track the global business. MIDiA Research includes additional revenue streams not found in RIAA or IFPI reports: expanded rights, which includes merchandise, sponsorships and other revenue that does not originate from master rights; and production music, which is growing in importance in music licensing but is typically outside the purview of record labels.
Following are the four main takeaways from the three reports.
Emerging Markets Were the Story of 2024
The most established markets mostly kept their place in the pecking order, but there was one momentous change in 2024. In a sign of the times, Australia, which ranked No. 10 on the IFPI rankings in both 2022 and 2023, was replaced by Mexico. While Australia improved 6.1%, Mexico expanded 15.6% thanks to a huge improvement in subscription revenue. In fact, the Latin America region grew an astounding 22.5%. Brazil, the No. 9 market, grew 21.7% — the fastest rate in the top 10.
Despite having a relatively small population of approximately 27 million, Australia has historically punched above its weight in music spending. The country ranked No. 6 in both 2014 and 2015 before falling off the top 10 in 2024 for the first time in nearly three decades. Meanwhile, Mexico — which had never cracked the top 10 before now — has roughly 130 million people, a booming streaming market and a flourishing music scene.
To be fair, Mexico is more of a mid-tier market than an emerging market. In terms of IFPI rankings, the country is emerging only in the sense that it “emerged” into the top 10. But it has a lot in common with emerging markets, including high growth rates and ample room for more subscriptions. In mature markets, subscribers are becoming harder to find.
China held firm at No. 5, its same ranking as the previous two years. With the world’s largest population and a fast-growing subscription streaming market, the country has risen from No. 7 in 2019 and No. 10 in 2017. Its largest music streaming company, Tencent Music Entertainment, finished the year with 121 million subscribers — more than all the streaming subscribers in the U.S.
In terms of pure growth rate, the top regions were the smaller Middle East-North Africa (MENA) and Sub-Saharan Africa, which grew at 22.8% and 22.6%, respectively.
Prior to 2024, the same markets had appeared in the top 10 for the last decade, sometimes in a different order. In 2017, China and Brazil entered the top 10, knocking out Italy and the Netherlands. Brazil had been in the top 10 in previous years but was absent in 2016. Now, with Mexico and emerging markets surging, we may be seeing a bigger shakeup in the top 10 in the future.
U.S. Growth Underperformed Nearly Every Other Market
In a business where year-over-year growth has become commonplace, the large, mature music markets don’t have the appeal of the smaller, fast-growing ones. So, while the U.S. remained the world’s largest market — by a wide margin — its revenue growth didn’t even keep up with 2024’s 2.9% inflation rate (depending on which numbers you’re looking at).
U.S. revenue growth slowed to 2.2% according to the IFPI report, or 3.2% according to the RIAA report. Together, the U.S. and Canada, which grew 1.5% in 2024, accounted for 40.3% of global revenue but grew just 2.1%, according to the IFPI report. Japan, the world’s second-largest market, dropped 0.2% as a 5.5% increase in streaming — led by a 7.2% gain in subscription revenue — was offset by a 2.7% decline in physical revenue. South Korea, the No. 7 market, fell 5.7%. The total Asia region grew 1.3%, however, in part due to China increasing 9.6%.
Some other major markets fared better than the U.S. As Billboard previously reported, U.K. revenues increased 4.8% and Germany rose 7.8%.
Subscriptions Are Stronger Than Ever
Subscriptions are the lifeblood of the record industry, accounting for more than 74% of global streaming revenue and 51.2% of total revenue in 2024, up from 49.1% in 2023, according to the IFPI. Of the global industry’s $1.4 billion added in 2024, $1.3 billion came from subscription streaming.
That said, the U.S. subscription market slowed considerably in 2024. Global subscription revenue rose 9.5% to $10.46 billion — almost double the 5.3% growth rate in the U.S., according to the RIAA. That 5.3% gain was half of 2023’s 10.6% improvement and well under 2022’s 7.2% growth (the 22.2% subscription growth seen in 2021 was a fortunate aberration of the pandemic). While a reversion to the mean was expected in successive years, 5.3% isn’t much, especially in a year when Spotify raised prices.
Ad-Supported Music, On the Other Hand…
Global ad-supported streaming grew just 3% to $3.62 billion, according to the IFPI. That’s a paltry number given the growth of streaming in large emerging markets such as India and Indonesia. But 3% global growth outperformed the U.S., where the RIAA report showed that ad-supported streaming dropped 1.8% and hasn’t had a double-digit gain since 2021.
For all the popularity of subscription music services, consumers will continue to use ad-supported platforms — video platforms like YouTube, social media apps like TikTok and radio services such as Pandora. And for freemium services such as Spotify, the ad-supported tier is a critical gateway to the premium tiers.
But the state of the economy suggests advertising dollars could be difficult in 2025, too, as advertisers tend to pull back their spending at the first signs of an economic slowdown. SiriusXM CFO Tom Barry, speaking at a banking conference on March 11, said advertising started “to see a drop-off” in previous weeks following the Trump administration’s tariff threats. “I would say we’re cautious about where the ad industry is going right now,” he warned.
When it comes to the value of music royalties, some artists have an advantage based on where they live.
Nigerian artists earned more than $43 million from Spotify in 2024, according to the streaming giant’s latest Loud and Clear report. A “significant” portion of those royalties came from outside Nigeria, with exports of the country’s music increasing 49% over the last three years. In other words, people in other countries — many of which provide better royalties than are available in Nigeria — are listening to Nigerian artists, effectively sending their money to the West African country.
Spotify’s Loud & Clear report provides good insight into how royalties are split between superstars, merely popular artists and everybody else. In 2024, 71,200 artists earned at least $10,000 in royalties from the streaming service, up from 66,000 in 2023, while 670 artists earned more than $2 million, an increase from 570 the prior year.
Read between the lines of the Loud & Clear data and you’ll see that royalties have different values to musicians in different countries. If you’re a recording artist in India, where free, ad-supported listening dwarfs relatively cheap subscriptions, you’re better off receiving your royalties from a country like the U.S. where subscriptions are many and prices are high. If you’re an Afrobeats artist in Nigeria, a U.S. stream is worth more than a stream at home.
Trending on Billboard
Economist Will Page found that almost a third of all streams inside the U.S. in 2023 came from artists outside the U.S. The top music exporter to the U.S. was the U.K. — which has roughly the same royalty rates as the U.S. — but the No. 2 exporter was Mexico, a country where a Spotify individual subscription costs the equivalent of $6.49. Colombia, where a Spotify subscription costs the equivalent of $4.12, was No. 6. As Page wrote in his roundup of 2023 global recorded music revenues, Mexican artists’ U.S. streams were worth more than three times what they would have earned had they originated in their home country. For Colombian artists, their U.S. streams were worth more than six times what they would have earned in their home country.
In a global music business driven by streaming platforms, artists can earn more by tapping into more lucrative markets. A Nigerian artist should want more U.S. fans. A Colombian artist gets more from a U.S. stream. It’s a form of arbitrage — buying low and selling high.
In the digital era, choosing where to live is also a form of arbitrage. People with the ability to work remotely are increasingly choosing to live somewhere more affordable. Millions of Americans have moved to states with lower costs of living in recent years, with some leaving the country for safe havens in Europe as political discourse turned sour. States such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee are attractive for the (relatively) cheaper costs of living and lack of state income tax. Digital nomadism goes internationally, too, as people work remotely from faraway places — co-working spaces have sprouted on the Indonesian island of Bali, for example — with a substantially lower cost of living. Dozens of countries offer a digital nomad visa, called a remote working visa.
Musical nomadism isn’t a thing — yet. And this is more of a thought experiment than a serious proposal. Moving to a foreign country would take artists away from a large, lucrative concert market. And unless a musician plans to infiltrate the local music scene in their new home, they would be without the networking and personal connections that foster both creativity and commerce. An artist with children and a spouse would also have to pull deep roots to leave the country. But if an artist only wants to record and release music online, living elsewhere — not just Texas or Tennessee, but a country where the cost of living is far lower than in the U.S. — would improve the economics of music streaming.
Given the value of listeners in mature streaming markets, a stream in the U.S. and U.K. is worth far more than a stream in many other countries. Spotify costs $11.99 per month for an individual in the U.S. In Nigeria, an individual Spotify subscription costs the equivalent of $0.84 per month. And if Nigeria is like other developing markets, ad-supported streaming — which returns less value to artists and rights holders — is far more popular than paid subscriptions.
In Nigeria, $1 in the U.S. has the spending power of over $8, based on the difference between Nigeria’s gross domestic product in nominal dollars and purchasing power parity. In other words, goods that cost $1 in Nigeria would cost $8 in the U.S. Other countries provide similar boosts in spending power. In Indonesia, $1 feels like $3.30 in the U.S. In Colombia, $1 has the spending power of $2.70. In Mexico, having $1 is like having $1.90 up north.
Differences in costs of living would make royalties seem far more valuable. A typical 0.35-cent per-stream royalty would feel like 2.8 cents in Nigeria, 1.2 cents in Indonesia, 0.95 cents in Colombia and 0.66 cents in Mexico. An American artist who earns $5,000 from a synch placement would get more from that income by walking across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Musicians who are hesitant to become digital nomads can find solace in the slowly improving streaming economics in developing markets. Mature streaming markets are driven by subscriptions, while developing markets tend to be driven by ad-supported streaming. But it’s widely believed that subscription uptake will improve over time, making those foreign streams worth more over time. And in the U.S., artist-centric policies, rising prices and upcoming super-premium tiers will bring more value to artists and rights holders. In other words, don’t dig out your passport just yet.
Get ready for a new era of innovation by streaming services. That was the message sent by Universal Music Group (UMG) chief digital officer Michael Nash during the company’s fourth quarter earnings call on Thursday (March 6), during which he noted that the label is currently in talks with all of its streaming partners — not just Spotify — about super-premium tiers.
“There’s a continuing wave of innovation that we’ve seen really transform our business and transform the digital landscape in particular, over the last decade, and we anticipate that that’s going to continue as the market grows,” said Nash.
Not that streaming services haven’t been innovating since day one. Listeners have enjoyed new ways to discover music (the growth of playlists, personalized listening and algorithm-driven radio stations), follow their favorite artists (album pre-saves) and view concert listings and lyrics. From 2011 to 2014, Spotify allowed developers (Rolling Stone, Billboard, Tunewiki and Songkick, among others) to build apps that lived inside its platform and utilized its song catalog. Services such as Tidal and Qobuz have made high-fidelity audio a part of their brand identities. And over the years, the types of subscription offerings expanded from individual plans to encompass family plans and affordable student options.
Trending on Billboard
But the type of innovation that Nash referenced is different. Except for high-fidelity audio, streaming innovations haven’t resulted in greater revenue per user — all the features packed into streaming services haven’t cost the consumers anything extra. That’s going to change. The next wave of music streaming will have products and services that carry higher prices. After decades of providing the same service to all customers, streaming platforms will segment the market and offer premium products to a subset of their subscribers.
Super-premium streaming is one component of what UMG calls “streaming 2.0.” On Thursday, CEO Lucian Grainge explained that streaming 2.0 “will build on the enormous scale we’ve achieved thus far in streaming’s initial stage. This next stage of streaming will see it evolve into a more sustainable and growing, artist centric ecosystem that improves monetization and delivers great experiences for fans.” Offering multiple tiers rather than a single subscription plan, Grainge said, “enabl[es] us to segment and capture customer value at higher than ever levels.”
Conversations about superfan offerings have extended as far as concert promotion and ticketing. Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino revealed during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call that streaming services are interested in pre-sale ticket offers. “We’ve talked to them all about ideas on if they wanted inventory,” he revealed on the Feb. 20 call. “There’s a cost to that, and we would entertain and look at that option if it made sense for us in comparison to other options we have for that pre sell.”
Spotify is known to be working on a superfan product — CEO Daniel Ek revealed in February that he is testing an early version — but Nash suggested other streaming services could follow suit. “We’re in conversations with all of our partners about super-premium tiers,” he said. “We think this is going to be an important development for segmentation of the market.”
JP Morgan believes the customer segmentation that Nash referenced will be a component of UMG’s growth over the next 10 to 20 years. “In a streaming 1.0 world UMG was reliant on DSPs raising retail price rises if it was to benefit from a higher wholesale price; in a streaming 2.0 environment UMG has visibility on wholesale price rises that underpin its growth algorithm, while still having potential upside should DSPs raise prices above the minimum,” analysts wrote in a March 6 investor note.
UMG’s market research suggests that 20% of music subscribers are likely to pay for a superfan streaming product, according to Nash. If Spotify reaches that threshold, it will have converted roughly 53 million of its 263 million subscribers into higher-paying customers (as of Dec. 31). It’s already worked for at least one company outside the U.S., as Tencent Music Entertainment has already proven there’s demand for a high-priced, value-added streaming product: Its Super VIP tier, which costs five times the normal subscription rate, had 10 million subscribers at the end of September — over 8% of TME’s 119 million total subscribers. If other streamers can successfully follow suit, new superfan streaming products will generate more revenue for artists, rights owners and streaming platforms — and help the music business continue to grow for years to come.
Though the RIAA has yet to release revenue numbers for recorded music in the U.S. in 2024, early returns from a handful of international markets are in — and they show that digital revenue maintained or gained momentum last year while physical sales slowed from 2023.
In Germany, the world’s fourth-largest recorded music market, total revenue grew 7.8% to 2.38 billion euros ($2.53 billion) in 2024, trade group Bundesverband Musikindustrie announced earlier this week. That was an improvement on the 6.3% gain seen in 2023 and the 6.1% gain in 2022. Notably, audio streaming, which accounted for 78% of total revenue, grew 12.6% to 1.86 billion euros ($1.98 billion), an improvement on the 7.9% gain in 2023 but below the 14.0% spike seen in 2022.
The full year ended with the same momentum Germany established in the first half of 2024. Through June, total revenue was up 7.6% and audio streaming was up 12.7%, while physical sales — which were down 11.9% through June — improved in the second half of the year, leading to a less-drastic 7.4% drop below 2023 revenue.
Trending on Billboard
On the physical front, Germany’s vinyl sales improved 9.4% to 153 million euros ($163 billion) in 2024, accounting for 6.4% of total revenue — though they cooled a bit from 2023, when sales increased 12.6%. However, CD sales fell 17.1% to 207 million euros ($220 million) last year, a markedly steeper decline than the 5.9% drop seen in 2023.
In Spain, recorded music revenue grew 9.4% to 569 million euros ($606 million), according to Promusicae, the country’s trade association for the record industry. That was down from growth rates of 12.4% and 12.3% in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Audio streaming totaled 376 million euros, up 14.1% year over year, and accounted for 66% of total revenue. But just as in Germany, physical sales plummeted. Total physical sales fell 13.3% to 54 million euros ($57 million), with vinyl sales sinking 4% after jumping 19.4% in 2023. Meanwhile, CD sales dropped 25.4%, a much sharper decline than in 2023 (when they were down 1.3%) and comparable to 2022 (down 29.2%).
The Spanish market slowed considerably in the second half of the year, leading to end-of-year gains that were six to seven percentage points lower than mid-year results. Through June, total revenue was up 16.6%, while the year finished with a smaller 9.4% gain. Digital revenue fell from an 18.8% gain at the mid-year mark to a 12.6% gain at the end of the year, and vinyl sales were up 11.9% in June but finished the year down 4% — a nearly 16-percentage point swing.
In Japan, the world’s second-largest recorded music market, physical audio sales rose 2% to 148.96 billion yen ($985 million), a worse showing than in 2023 (when they were up 8%) and 2022 (up 5%), according to the RIAJ. And physical music video sales fell 21% to 90.5 billion yen ($598 million), which brought the total physical market down 8% from 2023.
The RIAJ has not yet published year-end digital numbers, though total digital revenue was up 5% and streaming revenue was up 7% through the third quarter. Japan is unlike most music markets in that physical formats remain the dominant moneymakers. Through September, streaming revenue accounted for 35% of total revenue while physical sales — mostly audio formats — accounted for the remaining 65%.
In the U.S., another data point arrived Thursday (Feb. 27) when ASCAP announced that revenue increased 5.7% to $1.84 billion in 2024, with domestic royalties up 5.3% to $1.4 billion and foreign receipts growing 6.8% to $483 million.
As for U.S. recorded music numbers, RIAA figures are likely to be released in March, assuming the organization sticks to prior timings of its release. Mid-year RIAA data showed the U.S. market increased 3.9% to $8.69 billion, with paid streaming improving 5.1% to $5.22 billion. Physical revenue rose 12.7% and was driven by a 17% increase in vinyl sales. Year-end numbers should benefit from Spotify’s U.S. price increase in July.
The IFPI’s release of 2024 global figures, with a country-by-country breakdown, will offer a more complete picture of global trend lines and reveal how the U.S. fared against other nations. That report is typically released each March.
Even before a disruption in January caused by a looming U.S. ban, TikTok’s domination of video-based social media usage had started to wane. The service’s share of U.S. consumers’ time spent using social media apps fell to 29% in the fourth quarter of 2024 from 34% in the prior-year period, according to MusicWatch. In that same time span, YouTube Shorts’ share increased from 24% to 26% and Facebook Reels improved from 16% to 18%, while the “other” category rose one percentage point to 6%, Instagram Reels was flat at 18% and Triller remained at 3%.
That coincided with an overall downward trend in social media use. The average time spent using social media apps per week dropped from 7.9 hours in the fourth quarter of 2022 to 6.5 hours in the fourth quarter of 2024, says MusicWatch principal Russ Crupnick. That’s not an unexpected trend as Americans move further past pandemic-era behaviors, but Crupnick also notes that average times will fall as older, more casual users adopt social media platforms.
Trending on Billboard
Still, that overall decrease doesn’t account for TikTok’s declining share of consumers’ attention. A few years ago, the app seemed like an unstoppable freight train as its influence spread across tech and commerce. It also became a powerful promotional vehicle for artists, many of whom launched their careers by going viral on the platform. Once TikTok proved there was an insatiable demand for short-form video, Instagram and YouTube launched copycat products with Reels and Shorts, respectively. Its impact even spread to Amazon, which launched a TikTok-styled feed for product discovery called Inspire in 2022 (Amazon announced it was shutting down the feature earlier this week). Music streaming services also followed suit: At Spotify, artists can now post short video messages to their fans.
Exactly why TikTok lost share in 2024 isn’t clear. “It’s hard to say,” says Crupnick. “Is this a function of all the political nonsense going on around the app? Is it a function of YouTube and some of the competitors catching up a little bit? Is it a little bit of exhaustion with music on social video? Or is it all three?”
Whatever the case, this reshuffling of the landscape has led artists to flock to other platforms and eroded TikTok’s dominance as a promotional vehicle. Experts who spoke with Billboard about TikTok’s decline described a changing social media landscape in which the platform remains a powerful marketing tool but has lost some of its allure and potency. For a variety of reasons, consumers are spending more time at TikTok’s competitors, and artists are thus seeing more opportunity at platforms such as YouTube and Instagram.
One factor in TikTok’s decline in market share is YouTube and Meta successfully leveraging the scale and scope of their respective platforms to become serious contenders in short-form video. YouTube, in particular, has succeeded in integrating Shorts into a platform that used to be occupied only by long-form videos. “I think YouTube has done a good job of building an ecosystem,” says J.D. Tuminski, founder of Casadei Collective Marketing Agency. “They do a lot of education for artists and labels about building the Shorts ecosystem that feeds into the bigger picture of music video content and lifestyle content.”
Jenna Rosenberg, head of operations and marketing at Gorilla Management, agrees that YouTube has benefitted by combining short-form and long-form videos. “I think when people are watching the longer videos [on YouTube] they can easily get sucked into the short-form part of that platform as well, and vice versa. Whereas TikTok, it’s literally just the vertical short-form content.”
At the same time, YouTube and Instagram are increasingly seen as friendly to creators. “Anecdotally, YouTube and Meta pay better than TikTok,” says Tuminski. “Also, the TikTok creator fund is always shifting. There are different thresholds that you have to meet to be able to earn on there, and they’re not always clear.”
TikTok, on the other hand, is seen as prioritizing some of its e-commerce initiatives. TikTok Shop, for example, allows creators to stream live videos and sell goods and merchandise. In January, TikTok Shop sales were up 153% year-over-year, far exceeding the growth rates of Chinese e-commerce platforms Shein and Temu, according to Bloomberg. While live shopping may be a sensible practice for a TikTok influencer, musicians tend to shy away from that kind of activity — and as a result, they aren’t flocking to TikTok Shop. “An artist isn’t necessarily going to go on TikTok Live and say, “Hey, come and buy my vinyl,’” says Rosenberg. “It’s just very uncomfortable for them.”
The standoff between Universal Music Group (UMG) and TikTok may also have played a part in shifting sentiment around the app in the music community. In February 2024, UMG began pulling its content from TikTok over a disagreement about compensation, among other factors. For many artists and labels, that dust-up was “a warning sign” that TikTok’s dominance in social media wasn’t secure, says Dan Roy Carter, managing director of digital consultancy Carter Projects. “Deals fell apart, carefully designed viral campaigns became eye-watering wastes of budget, and acts who had built their presence reliant on TikTok were left very much bent out of shape.”
“I think a lot of folks were looking for alternatives, even before all the political things that are going on,” says Tuminski. Artists want to work with brands they trust, he adds, and they will go where their fans are. If one service isn’t providing what they want, “they’ll go to somewhere that makes a little bit more sense to them.”
Things have worsened for TikTok in 2025 due to a pending shutdown in the U.S., although President Donald Trump provided a stay of execution when he entered office. The looming ban caused traffic to decline, however, and pushed people to download alternatives such as RedNote. As of this week, TikTok has lost one-tenth of its U.S. users since the first week of January, according to Similarweb data published by The Information.
Still, TikTok remains a powerful and influential force in music and entertainment. By 2024, a third of U.S. adults used TikTok, while almost six in 10 teens (57%) say they use the platform daily and 16% say they’re on it “almost constantly,” according to Pew Research. People use TikTok mostly for pop culture and entertainment but also viral music and dances, humor and comedy, personal stories, fashion advice, product recommendations, politics and, for 5% of U.S. adults, news.
“There is still huge value in TikTok as a platform for music discovery and promotion, and perhaps their ability to tap into merch, ticketing, and conversion to paid streaming will usher a second coming,” says Carter. “But its days of being the only horse are seemingly coming to an end.”
NFTs are back — but don’t worry about holding onto your wallet. At least in the music business, the NFT (non-fungible token) is quietly starting a second, more practical life far removed from the deafening hype that surrounded the digital assets just a few years ago.
At the beginning of the decade, some artists made millions selling NFTs while celebrities were helping legitimize them, with stars like Justin Bieber, Snoop Dogg, Madonna and Paris Hilton all buying NFTs from the then-hot Bored Ape Yacht Club collection. Then, predictably, the NFT bubble burst in fantastic fashion. In less than a year, Bieber’s Bored Ape, which he purchased for $1.3 million, was worth around $69,000.
NFTs were often a bad investment, but the underlying technology still has many believers. Last week, Sony quietly launched a music NFT collection on its Soneium blockchain platform. The fact that Sony — the larger company, not Sony Music Entertainment — is investing in Web3 technology may come as a surprise, but its efforts go back more than a year. Sony Network Communications, later renamed to Sony Block Solutions Lab, revealed in September 2023 that it had created a joint venture with Startale Labs to develop “a blockchain that can become the backbone of global web3 infrastructure” and create “killer web3 use cases to drive the adoption of web3.” Eleven months later, Sony announced the development of the Soneium blockchain that will form the infrastructure for those so-called “killer use cases,” with the goal of expanding Web3 technology and services to a broader audience and “build[ing] a world where web3 services permeate people’s daily lives.” The launch of Soneium was announced on Jan. 14.
Trending on Billboard
One of the applications on Soneium is a new fan marketing platform through which companies can issue NFTs. So far, two of Sony’s music divisions, Sony Music Entertainment France and Sony Music Publishing (Japan), issued NFTs as “demonstration experiment[s]” for its entertainment companies to “provide new value to creators and fans through web3 services.” In France, Sony celebrated the second anniversary of a Web3 community called Sunny B. 1991 by distributing limited-edition NFTs to the community. In Japan, Sony will distribute limited-edition NFTs to coincide with a live event for the girl group SANDAL TELEPHONE.
Sony’s blockchain push comes at a time when music companies are increasingly targeting superfans through digital platforms and merchandise offers. “NFTs are uniquely suited for this because they are programmable digital assets that can evolve over time,” says Cherie Hu of Water & Music, a music industry research and consulting practice. NFTs and their “smart contracts” — self-executing code on the blockchain — allow artists to create membership experiences that can evolve over time. And because NFTs use decentralized technology, they aren’t reliant on any one platform or company — a notable advantage when a country can outright ban a social media platform. “This is quite different from traditional fan clubs, where fan data is otherwise fragmented and hard to act upon from the artist’s perspective,” says Hu.
Sony’s slow launch of its blockchain ambitions will ultimately be helpful to other companies in the music space, says David Greenstein, CEO of two blockchain-related startups, Sound and Vault. “Any legacy company that’s trying to innovate, I have a lot of respect for because I think the industry needs more innovation,” he says. Three years ago, releasing high-priced yet useless NFTs was seen as innovative. In 2025, innovation means using blockchain technology, cryptocurrency and NFTs to create consumer-friendly products that bring artists and fans together.
A fresh approach to NFTs makes sense now that the market is tanking. NFT trading volume fell 19% in 2024, according to DappRadar, making it the worst year for NFTs since 2020 and far below their height in 2022, when they boasted $57.2 billion in trading volume. Last year’s leading NFT collection was Pudgy Penguins, which goes far beyond Web3 by selling plushy toys in brick-and-mortar retailers and sponsoring the uniforms of Spanish soccer club CD Castellón. Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs still generate a relatively large amount of sales activity, but prices in the last 30 days were down about 91% from their highs in 2022.
As enthusiasm for NFTs waned, some worthwhile experiments went belly up. Universal Music Group’s foray into NFTs was Kingship, a virtual band comprised of three Bored Ape characters and a rare Mutant Ape. The 5,000 NFTs, which would unlock music and other perks for owners, quickly sold out in July 2022. The group landed a sponsorship with M&Ms in 2022 and a Kingship game launched on Roblox in 2023. But by all appearances the project is now dead, and Kingship NFTs that sold for 0.23 ETH three years ago (approximately $300 at the time) are trading for less than 0.002 ETH ($5) today.
“There’s going to be very fruitful, better things that come out of [blockchain technology] that are non-speculative, just because the technology is awesome,” says Greenstein. His latest company, Vault, allows artists to build relationships with fans and creates a blockchain-based digital wallet for each user. But Vault has made a conscious choice to put the technology in the background, and although “everything is Web3 enabled,” he says, it’s not germane to the fans’ relationship with artists. “Nobody asked what the tech stack of Spotify is,” he points out. “They just use the product.”
Sing, a Seattle-based startup that sells both digital collectibles and physical merchandise, also puts Web3 technology in the background. “We don’t talk about NFTs,” says CEO Geoff Osler. “We don’t lead with that, because I don’t think people care.” But Sing has the same end goal as early NFT proselytizers: to facilitate a relationship between artists and their biggest fans while allowing artists to realize more value from those relationships. “We think that artists should make a great deal more money than they already do on the releases,” says Osler. “And that there’s this overall feeling — at least among superfans — that there’s a gap in the market. People want to own their music and own that connection with the artists.”
Speculation isn’t gone, but it’s migrated. Blockchains like Solana that have lower transaction costs and higher speeds than Etherium have become “hotbeds” for the trading of memecoins, says Hu. Rather than pump money into NFTs, people are buying into the TrumpCoin and the Hawk Tuah coin. “In certain segments of pop culture and politics, I’d say the appetite for high-risk digital assets remains really strong,” she says.
But players in the music space seem content to focus on practical use cases and leave the speculation to memecoin hustlers. “Once we come out of this period, and people start to accept blockchain tokens, there’s some very, very interesting stuff that the technology will enable,” says Osler. “But for now, meet them where they are. Let’s sell them records from artists they love. Show them there’s this amazing digital stuff that goes along with it, and that it’s collectible, and just leave it at that.”
For two decades, the price of a music streaming service was frozen at $9.99 per month. Prices only began rising in 2022, leading to improved economics for both streaming companies and rights holders. Now, streaming platforms are closer to taking another leap forward in monetization.
The next phase of the music business, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said during the company’s earnings call on Wednesday (Feb. 5), is tailoring experiences to “different subgroups” such as lucrative superfans. In fact, Spotify has already developed something for these subscribers, and Ek is currently testing the unnamed product. “I’m personally super excited about this one, and this is a product I’ve been waiting on for quite some time as a super fan of music,” he said. “And I’m playing around with it now, and it’s really exciting.”
Targeting superfans is part of Spotify’s current focus on launching new products. Ek called 2025 “the year of accelerated execution,” meaning the company “can pick up the pace dramatically when it comes to our product velocity.” Exactly how these new products will be monetized and ultimately impact artists and rights holders is unknown. But Alex Norström, Spotify’s co-president/chief business officer, hinted at both higher price points and an a la carte approach when he told analysts that “future tiering” and “selling add-ons to our existing subscribers” are two of the ways Spotify thinks about increasing average revenue per user.
Trending on Billboard
Recently updated licensing agreements with Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG) also hint at the pending arrival of superfan products and additional pricing tiers. In announcing renewed deals with Spotify, both UMG and WMG cited their agreements’ ability to enable new paid subscription tiers and exclusive content bundles.
Sony Music and independent distributors and publishers have not announced a similar renewed agreement, however, and new licensing agreements with all of them would be necessary for the kind of product Spotify has described, says Vickie Nauman of digital music advisory and consultancy CrossBorderWorks. “If there is a superfan layer that is built around sound recordings, then it’s going to require licensing with revenue share between platform, publishers, labels and PROs,” she says.
Exactly what Spotify’s superfan product will look like and require from artists remains to be seen. Nauman hopes Spotify will learn from past mistakes. “I’m not sure what the killer features for a superfan might look like, but whether niche apps or DSPs, this cannot require the artist to do much if anything,” she says. “We have a long history of failure of initiatives requiring artists to post on social, port their fans to a new app and deliver custom content, and this simply doesn’t work. Artists want to be artists.”
New licensing deals also open the way for a more expensive, high-resolution audio tier which Spotify first began teasing in 2021. “Of course, the success of launching with a limited content pool depends on what’s on offer with the new service, but there’s not a big downside to launching a new service that has limited hi-res music, where the selection of music is highly likely to increase over time,” says digital music veteran Dick Huey of consultancy Toolshed. “I doubt that adding hi-res music to Spotify will be particularly controversial, in particular because they’ll bring an upsell to labels, that of higher subscription costs. Also, because other services already offer hi-res music.”
Whatever the final product, streaming services’ targeting of superfans — if history is any precedent, competitors will follow Spotify’s lead — will produce incremental revenue for Spotify and more royalties for creators and rights owners. The new additions could also help reduce artists and songwriters’ frustrations about the economics of streaming music that have plagued Spotify. As for subscribers who opt into the new offerings, they’ll get more features and artist access in return for higher fees. In short, these new iterations of Spotify should create a win-win-win for all parties in the equation.
January is not even over and 2025 already feels like a peak year for animosity toward Spotify — and that’s saying something given the criticism the company has attracted since emerging in 2008 as a potential savior for a piracy-riddled music industry. Even though music and commerce have always been uncomfortable partners in a marriage of necessity, the relationship has never been sourer.
Call it “the Spotify paradox.” Streaming — led by Spotify — has made the music business the biggest it’s been in 25 years, allowed unsigned artists to reach fans around the world, revived the popularity of local language music and enabled artists to sell their catalogs at valuations unthinkable a decade earlier — and yet discontent has never been greater. Industry revenues are soaring, but many artists and songwriters are struggling and angry.
Part of the disgruntlement can be explained by simple math. There are more songs by more artists chasing a finite amount of listeners’ attention. Spotify had a catalog of 35 million songs at the end of 2017, according to its F-1 filing. At the end of 2023 — the latest count available — Spotify had over 100 million tracks and 5 million podcasts. That’s nearly a threefold increase in catalog in just six years. And although its subscribers grew more than threefold to 236 million from 71 million over that time span, Spotify’s success at keeping its listeners engaged is such that the per-stream royalty — the metric people associate with economic health and fairness — is lower than that of its peers. (See Liz Dilts Marshall’s recent article that ranks streaming services by per-stream royalties, according to a report from catalog investor Duetti.) Global recorded music revenues have improved greatly over that time span, rising 81% to $28.6 billion in 2023 from $15.8 billion in 2017, according to the IFPI.
Trending on Billboard
But as industry revenues have consistently grown, individual artists — whose numbers are growing fast because barriers to entry no longer exist — don’t feel like they’re receiving a fair share of the bounty. Discontent is so noticeable because, in part, there are more artists to complain. Three decades ago, it required a record contract to enter the commercial music world. Today, anybody can do it. Luminate tracked an average of 99,000 new tracks uploaded to DSPs per day in 2024. That’s about 36 million new tracks competing for listeners’ attention each year. On Spotify alone, 5 million artists had a catalog of at least 100 tracks, according to the company’s latest Loud & Clear report.
Of course, per-stream payouts could be improved if Spotify encouraged people to listen less, thereby reducing the number of songs paid out from a fixed pool of money and raising the average per-stream royalty. With less music streamed, the average payout would shoot well beyond its current 0.3 cents per stream. But that would be counterproductive. In the streaming world, growth comes from keeping people engaged and, ultimately, turning them into paying subscribers. Turn away listeners and they could end up at social media platforms, where payouts are even skimpier, or broadcast radio, which pays artists and record labels nothing.
Many people see that royalties from purchases are fairer than streaming royalties, but listening and buying habits have changed how the money flows. As more people streamed more often, artists and songwriters received less money from old formats. In the fourth quarter of 2017, AM/FM radio accounted for 48% of Americans’ time spent listening to audio while streaming (including YouTube and podcasts) took a 26.5% share, according to Edison Research. By the fourth quarter of 2023, AM/FM commanded just a 36% share, while streaming (including podcasts) accounted for 45%. (Including audiobooks, which are both streamed and downloaded, that number rises to 48%.) Owned music’s share of listening — a.k.a. sales of CDs, vinyl and downloads, which fell sharply over that time span — dropped from 13% in 2017 to 4% in 2023. Also, in the streaming economy, new artists are competing for royalties with older songs. In the U.S. in 2024, catalog music (defined as more than 18 months old) accounted for 73.3% of total album equivalent consumption, according to Luminate.
Much of the discontent over Spotify, however, is less wonky and more human. The company’s actions have become widely seen as antithetical to the artists it claims to support. A turning point came in December when Harper’s ran an excerpt from Liz Pelly’s Mood Machine, a book that reveals, among other things, how Spotify bought music from nameless musicians to infuse some playlists — namely background music such as “chill” where brand names aren’t necessary — with cost-saving alternatives to professional musicians who would receive royalties for each stream. This alleged use of “fake” musicians has been reported in music circles for years, but Pelly’s book, in part because of its deep reporting and previously unknown details, captured mainstream attention rarely attained by a music industry topic that doesn’t involve Taylor Swift.
The Harper’s article, and Pelly’s ensuing book tour, spawned a flood of reviews and reaction articles about how Spotify devalues music, hurts artists, gives users a poor listening experience and is an algorithm-driven song-picker that provides its users only an illusion of choice. But the onslaught of Spotify coverage at old-school media is nothing compared to the countless videos uploaded to YouTube over the years. Enter a search phrase such as “Spotify hurts artists” or “Spotify royalties” and you can wade for hours through such topics as Spotify’s change in royalty payouts (“Spotify no longer paying artists for streams in 2024?”) and explainers on royalty accounting (“Spotify doesn’t pay artists….this is why”).
Contributing to the storm clouds was Spotify’s scheme to lower its royalties to songwriters and publishers. Last March, Spotify incensed the songwriting community when it adopted a lower mechanical royalty rate by contending its premium subscription tier’s music-and-audiobook offering qualified for a reduced royalty rate granted to bundles of digital services. Unsurprisingly, the publishing community, including numerous Grammy songwriter of the year nominees, said they wouldn’t attend Spotify’s Songwriter of the Year Grammy party, which ended up being canceled in the wake of the fires in Los Angeles. Earlier this week, a U.S. court agreed with Spotify, saying the federal royalty rules are “unambiguous” and rejecting the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s lawsuit arguing that Spotify was not actually offering a bundle of services.
Writing the biggest checks of any streaming service doesn’t get Spotify out of this paradox. This week, Spotify announced it paid $10 billion to the music industry in 2024, a tenfold increase from a decade earlier. That figure implies Spotify generated nearly 20% of the global music copyright, assuming 2024 saw an 8% increase from Will Page’s latest estimate of $45.5 billion in 2023. As Spotify’s payments to the music industry increased tenfold over the last decade, streaming’s growth helped compensate for declines in CD and download sales, and global recorded music revenues more than doubled from 2014 to 2024. But, again, aggregate industry gains don’t capture the experiences of individual artists who feel cheated by streaming economics.
Help could be on the way — someday. If it’s higher per-stream royalties artists want, then changing how royalties are calculated could make a difference. Currently, a streaming service pays royalties by divvying up all users’ subscription and advertising revenue amongst all the tracks streamed during a given month. Whether or not you listened to Taylor Swift, your subscription fees go into the same pile of money funded by Swift’s fans. An alternative method that has gained some traction is a user-centric approach that pays artists from each individual listener. Under this scheme, a listener’s subscription fees, or advertising revenue, goes only to the artists that person streamed. That’s a more favorable approach for album-oriented and niche artists and less appealing for popular songs that get repeat listens. So far, only SoundCloud has adopted the user-centric model.
Artists’ royalties also stand to benefit from efforts to clean up streaming services’ catalogs. Spotify and Deezer have signed on to Universal Music Group’s plan to reward professional musicians by demoting “functional” music and incentivizing distributors to crack down on fraud. Deezer has removed tens of millions of low-quality tracks, and anti-fraud measures may explain why the number of daily new tracks uploaded to streaming services fell about 4% in 2024, according to Luminate. But not all artists feel like they are benefiting from these changes. Spotify’s move to limit royalty payments to tracks with at least 1,000 streams was widely seen as harmful to developing artists (as seen in this column on the streaming threshold from Ari Herstand).
The Spotify paradox may never end, but artists can adjust to their new environment. In 2014, Swift’s catalog was removed from Spotify by her record label, Big Machine Label Group. Earlier that year, Swift had penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that argued “music should not be free” and urged artists to “realize their worth and ask for it.” Her entire catalog returned to Spotify and other streaming platforms in 2017. Did the economics of streaming change during Swift’s three-year hiatus? No, not really. Licensing deals may have extracted marginally better terms for artists and record labels, but streaming royalties are still a fraction of a cent per stream. One thing that changed was that more of Swift’s fans became subscribers to Spotify, Apple Music (which launched in 2015) and other streaming platforms. Today, free streaming still exists, and a stream is still worth a fraction of a cent, but Swift is a case study in how to cultivate a vibrant streaming business while reviving the lost art of album sales.
Brace yourself, ultra-patriotic protectionists: English-language music from countries such as the U.S. is losing market share around the world — and even in its home markets.
Despite the U.S. owning the world’s most powerful culture machine, people in other countries want to listen to music performed in their native languages. According to Luminate’s 2024 year-end report, music from the U.S. and other English-speaking countries accounted for a lower share of global premium streams in 2024 than the prior year. The United Kingdom had the biggest drop in market share, falling 0.47 percentage points to 8.59%, while the U.S. dropped 0.44 points to 44.29% and Canada fell 0.39% to 3.34%.
In the Philippines, where English is spoken by roughly half of adults, music from the U.K. and U.S. were the biggest losers of market share while local Filipino music gained an astounding 3.32 points. In Japan, where local music has always outperformed English-language music, local music gained 1.35 points while the U.K., U.S. and Canada all lost market share. In Brazil, home to a thriving local music scene, homegrown music gained 0.78 points while the U.K. and Canada both lost market share.
Trending on Billboard
The shift away from English-language music isn’t happening only in countries where English is not the primary language. In the U.S., homegrown music lost 0.2 percentage points of market share. The same dynamic is seen in the U.K., where homegrown music lost 2.7 percentage points. In English-speaking Australia, music from Australia, the U.S. and Canada all lost market share.
So where did English-language music’s market share go? Mexico was the country of origin with the biggest market share increase in 2024, rising 0.88 percentage points to 4.69% of global premium streams. Brazil owned the second-largest increase, rising 0.33 points to 4.47%. India, which has a distinct local music market and a large diaspora, was third, increasing 0.21 points to 1.42%.
Often, a historical connection between countries could help explain the increasing popularity of one country’s music. In the U.S., music from neighboring Mexico, a major cultural influence for regions far beyond the border states, was the top gainer with an increased market share of 0.56 percentage points. In the U.K. and Australia, both members of the Commonwealth, music from another Commonwealth nation, India, gained 0.13 points and 0.16 points, respectively. Importantly, people of Indian ethnicity account for 2.9% of the U.K.’s population and 3.1 % of Australia’s population.
Local music is also thriving in France, a country not singled out in Luminate’s report. Azzedine Fall, Deezer’s direct of music & culture, says more musical genres performed in French are hitting the charts in the country. “[French-language] rap music is still dominating everywhere in the charts, but we have room for artists doing this kind of Ed Sheeran kind of stuff,” he says. “There is Pierre Garnier, for instance. He’s like the French version [of Ed Sheeran], and it’s kind of a new trend, like the return of pop rock music.” French-language rap has been popular for decades, adds Fall, but pop rock music performed in French is a newer phenomenon: “You would never hear someone doing rock in French 30 years ago.”
The rise of local music in the streaming era is a relatively new phenomenon that was described in a 2023 paper by Will Page and Chris Dalla Riva titled ‘Glocalisation’ of Music Streaming Within and Across Europe. Glocalization—a portmanteau of “global” and “localization”—explains how local music became more successful in a globalized, digital economy. In streaming’s early days, English-language music often dominated charts at the expense of local artists. In 2012, local artists accounted for less than a fifth of the top 10 songs in Poland, France, the Netherlands and Germany, according to the paper. But a decade later, local artists owned 70% of the top 10 in Poland, Italy and Sweden and 60% in France (but just 30% in the Netherlands and 20% in Germany).
The trend toward successful local music is likely to continue, says Romain Vivien, global head of music & president, Europe at Believe. The tools available to music producers “allow for more creation, faster and wider distribution to reach audiences more directly and accurately, and for a wider and more diverse artist community,” he says. It’s a perfect recipe for local labels and producers who create music in many different genres, says Vivien, “while bigger and more global structures sign fewer artists, across fewer genres and invest a lot to try to make them global stars.”
That’s not to say music from the U.S. has fallen out of favor. Artists from the U.S. still had the largest global market share of premium streams in 2024 at 44.29%, and the U.S. ranked No. 1 on Luminate’s Export Power Score, a measure of a country’s ability to export music globally. In fact, the U.K. and Canada rank No. 2 and No. 3 on Export Power Score, topping No. 4 South Korea and No. 5 Germany. The U.S. also gained market share in some places, too, albeit in primarily English-speaking countries: U.S. music rose 2.4 percentage points in the U.K. and 1.7 percentage points in Australia. English-speaking Ireland also gained share in the U.S., U.K. and Australia, likely because of Hozier’s global hit “Too Sweet” (which was the No. 8 song globally in 2024 with 1.71 billion on-demand audio streams, according to Luminate).
As in years past, English-language music also dominated the Luminate report’s lists of top albums and songs. The lone non-English language song to appear in a top 10 list was “Gata Only” by Chilean artist FloyyMenor. The track was a worldwide hit and had great success in the U.S., too, reaching No. 27 on the all-genre Billboard Hot 100 and topping Billboard’s Hot Latin Songs chart for 14 weeks in 2024 en route to ranking No. 1 on the year-end Hot Latin Songs list.
Still, the slight decline in English-language music marks a sharp contrast with present-day “America first” jingoism. Changes in music technology mean U.S. music won’t crowd out local music in other countries, and a catchy song can become popular anywhere in the world. Politicians can build a border wall, but they can’t stop music from coming in.