universal music group
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.”
Universal Music Group wants a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit claiming Mary J. Blige’s 1992 hit “Real Love” used a famed 1973 funk sample without a license, arguing the accusers have popped up “out of the blue” to sue over two tracks that “sound nothing alike.”
The case, filed in earlier this year by Tuff City Records, claims Blige’s track borrowed from “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s been sampled or interpolated by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre, Doja Cat and many others over the years.
But in a response on Tuesday, UMG argues that Tuff City’s case is deeply flawed and must be tossed out of court at the outset.
Trending on Billboard
“Now, more than 30 years after ‘Real Love’ was released, plaintiff appears out of the blue alleging that ‘Real Love’ contains an uncleared sample from ‘Impeach the President,’ with no allegations concerning the works’ substantial similarity,” the music giant wrote. “The absence of that allegation is fatal.”
One key claim in Tuff City’s lawsuit is that UMG’s recorded music unit (UMG Recordings, Inc.) has already reached a settlement regarding the use of the “Impeach” sample on the “Real Love” sound recording, but that UMG’s publishing arm is unfairly refusing to do the same for the musical composition.
In Tuesday’s response, UMG confirmed the existence of that earlier settlement over the sound recording, but said it was entirely separate and complete “irrelevant” to a dispute over the composition. UMG’s attorneys said the settlement did not admit that “Real Love” infringed “Impeach” — but that even if it had, Tuff City was “confusing” a basic distinction that lies at the heart of music copyright law.
“Plaintiff … insinuates that defendant infringes simply because non-party UMG settled plaintiff’s claim of infringement [over] the sound recording,” the company wrote. “Because there exist two separate copyrights in music … a work can readily infringe one without infringing the other.”
Blige’s “Real Love” spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992 and reached a peak of No. 7 on the chart. It has remained one of the star’s most enduring hits, with more than 105 million spins on Spotify and a movie adaptation released by Lifetime last year.
Tuff City sued UMG over the track in April, claiming it had “advised defendant repeatedly” about the allegedly uncleared sample, but that Universal had done nothing about it: “Defendant has repeatedly refused to engage plaintiff in substantive negotiations to rectify the foregoing, let alone agreed to compensate plaintiff for the past infringement or on an ongoing basis.”
The lawsuit did not name Blige herself as a defendant nor accuse her of any wrongdoing.
Tuff City, which owns a large catalog of old songs, is no stranger to copyright litigation – filing cases over tracks by Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Christina Aguilera, Frank Ocean with claims that they featured unlicensed samples or interpolations. The company has even already sued over “Impeach the President,” claiming in a 1991 complaint that it had been illegally sampled on the LL Cool J tracks “Around the Way Girl” and “Six Minutes of Pleasure.”
The company has won plenty of rulings and settlements, but the litigation process has not always gone smoothly. In 2014, a judge dismissed one Tuff City case over Jay-Z’s “Run This Town” on the grounds that any alleged sample was “barely perceptible” after multiple listens. In that ruling, the judge chided Tuff City over its approach to the case, saying it “incorrectly … assumes that every copying of any part of another artist’s protected work is infringement.”
In Tuesday’s motion seeking to dismiss the “Real Love” case, UMG directly cited that 2014 ruling – arguing that the two songs “sound nothing alike” and that Tuff City had failed to argue otherwise.
“Unwilling to learn from the lessons of its past, plaintiff again seeks to assert copyright liability without plausibly pleading substantial similarity with respect to the musical compositions at issue here,” the company wrote. “The copyright claim must accordingly be dismissed.”
An attorney for Tuff City did not immediately return a request for comment.
In calling for Universal Music Group (UMG) to move its stock listing and legal headquarters to the U.S. from Amsterdam by next year, board member and billionaire activist investor William Ackman argued the move could make the company more valuable. But financial sources are split on whether that would be the case.
On Friday (Nov. 8), Ackman said his hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Holdings, which owns 10.25% of UMG’s stock, will exercise its right to require the company to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission following violent attacks on Israeli soccer fans on Thursday night (Nov. 7) in Amsterdam, where UMG’s stock is listed on the Euronext exchange. But would the move actually benefit the company, as Ackman seems to believe?
“It could noticeably increase UMG’s value because even though it will make your taxes a little higher and you’re going to spend a whole lot more on expensive securities lawyers, it gives you access to the giant U.S. retail market, and UMG is the perfect kind of company for retail investors,” says Erik Gordon, a professor at University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.
Trending on Billboard
In the U.S., more than 62% of individual adults own stocks, a group referred to as retail investors. While big institutional investors, like Pershing, account for about three-quarters of the trading volume on U.S. stock markets, like the Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchange, retail investors are a powerful and growing group. Since the start of the pandemic, when retail investors on Reddit fueled a run-up in the share price of companies like GameStop and AMC, more than 30 million new investors have opened brokerage accounts, according to a University of Missouri study.
Right now, four institutional investors control nearly 60% of UMG’s current pool of stock. In his post last week, Ackman argued that lack of liquidity — in part because only a slim portion of UMG’s stock frequently changes hands — could improve if UMG listed in the U.S.
“UMG trades at a large discount to its intrinsic value with limited liquidity in significant part due to it not having its primary listing on the [New York Stock Exchange] or Nasdaq Exchange and not being eligible for S&P 500 and other index inclusion,” he wrote.
Ackman’s argument is essentially that if UMG lists and starts trading in the U.S., its value will make it an important stock in U.S. financial markets, which in a few years will earn it inclusion in a major index, says Gordon. Getting included in an index, like the S&P 500, creates more demand for a company’s stock because mutual funds and exchange traded funds that track the S&P begin to buy the stock.
Over the weekend, UMG stated that Pershing can request that UMG list in the U.S. if it sells at least $500 million worth of its own UMG shares as part of that listing.
“If I had to guess, Ackman will end up with the right to sell his shares in the U.S. public market and that the company will issue new shares in the U.S. so that Ackman isn’t the only guy selling,” Gordon says.
One equity analyst believes UMG would not become a more valuable company if it moved to a U.S. exchange because its shares already trade at a premium to shares of Warner Music Group (WMG). In a Nov. 1 investor note, J.P Morgan analysts wrote about the premium, arguing that “UMG should trade at a significant premium to WMG…to reflect greater scale, a better track record for growth and consistent margin expansion, best-in-class management and better governance.”
According to Billboard’s calculations, UMG shares were recently trading at a roughly 17 times multiple trailing 12 months adjusted EBITDA, while WMG shares were trading at about 11 times multiple.
UMG moving its stock to an American exchange also comes with another downside: the operational expense that U.S.-listed public companies face from shareholder lawsuits.
“One area U.S. issuers have to manage, unlike non-U.S. issuers, is the volume of shareholder litigation that gets brought in the U.S.,” says Michael Poster, a music industry lawyer at Michelman & Robinson. “It’s expensive to deal with litigation, there are a lot of fees associated with managing, settling and litigating the claims, and it’s frankly a distraction for management. Those things contribute to making trading in the U.S. more expensive from an operational point of view.”
Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO and Concord Music Group have filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution company TuneCore, accusing them of “massive ongoing infringements” of their sound recordings, including tracks by Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, ABBA, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, DJ Snake, Aqua and more. The companies are seeking “at least $500,000,000” in damages.
In a complaint filed Monday evening (Nov. 4) in Manhattan federal court by Andrew Bart and Gianni Servodidio at Jenner & Block, UMG, ABKCO and Concord Music Group accuse Believe of being “overrun with fraudulent ‘artists’ and pirate record labels” and distributing copies of those fraudulent recordings to various streaming services and social media sites.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim that “Believe makes little effort to hide its illegal actions” and that the allegedly infringing recordings are “often minor variants on the names of… famous recording artists and titles of their most successful works.” The complaint says the alleged fraudsters attempt to avoid detection of the allegedly infringing recordings — some of which, they claim, are “sped up” or “remixed” versions of popular songs — by using misspellings of popular artist names, including “Kendrik Laamar,” “Arriana Gramde,” “Jutin Biber” and “Llady Gaga.”
Trending on Billboard
“Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy” in “pursuit of rapid growth,” the lawsuit claims, adding that the company has “turned a blind eye” to the infringing content that makes its way to social media and streaming services through its platform.
Additionally, lawyers for UMG and the other plaintiffs say that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to the record labels. It is “telling,” they add, that after YouTube resolves these conflicts regarding the rightful ownership of these sound recordings, “Believe continue[s] to distribute the exact same track to other digital music service providers and to seek royalties for use of that track from those providers.”
This is not the first time bad actors have been accused of using YouTube’s content management system to claim royalties that are not rightfully theirs. In 2022, two men in Phoenix, Arizona pled guilty to claiming $23 million worth of YouTube royalties from unknowing Latin musicians like Julio Iglesias, Anuel AA, and Daddy Yankee despite having no actual ties to those artists. To facilitate claiming those royalties, the two men, operating under the company name MediaMuv, used AdRev, a rights management firm owned by Downtown.
“Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement,” said a spokesperson for UMG in a statement. “Their illegal practices are not limited to cheating artists on major labels but artists on independent labels as well — including artists on the independent labels within the trade bodies of which Believe is itself a member. It’s no wonder that Believe has been outspoken against the streaming reform principles for which so many major and independent labels have been advocating. Why? Because such reforms would undermine and expose their system of building scale and market presence by distributing music for which they have no rights and illegally collecting royalties to enrich themselves and their co-conspirators.”
The complaint specifically charges Believe with direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, direct infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings, contributory infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings and vicarious infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings.
Representatives for Believe and TuneCore did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
It’s been a busy year for TuneCore’s parent company Believe. On March 1, the French music giant, which was publicly traded on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, announced that its board of directors had approved the move to take it private and that there was an “interested party” looking to acquire it. First, however, the bidder was requesting due diligence information and financial data ahead of making a formal bid. Later that month, the name of the bidder was revealed when it was announced that Warner Music Group (WMG) had issued a formal notice to disclose its interest in acquiring Believe, which also owns publishing administrator Sentric as well as labels like Naïve, Nuclear Blast and Groove Attack.
In early April, however, WMG called off its plans to submit a formal offer. The label did not elaborate on its decision, stating only that it was made “after careful consideration.” On April 19, Believe’s board of directors announced it was supporting an offer to take the company private at 15 euros ($15.98) per share from a consortium of funds managed by TCV, EQT X and Believe chairman/CEO Denis Ladegaillerie. The board’s three independent members unanimously voted in favor of an opinion that the bid was in the interest of minority shareholders.
Fraud and copyright infringement have been hot-button issues in the music business as the industry becomes more and more democratized, offering anyone the opportunity to release music in hours — sometimes minutes — at the click of a button. In response, TuneCore, along with CD Baby, Distrokid and other competitors, set up “Music Fights Fraud,” a coalition designed to stop bad actors from hopping from service-to-service to release songs they don’t own the rights to. A number of initiatives, including Credits Due, have since launched to try to fix metadata problems in the music business that can leave artists susceptible to royalty stealing and fraud, particularly on sites like YouTube.
Still, despite these efforts, TuneCore and other DIY distributors have been accused of allowing bad actors to use their sites to upload infringing or fraudulent content. In August 2020, Round Hill Music’s publishing arm sued TuneCore for “willful and unauthorized use” of 219 of their sound recordings. And in 2022, Billboard reported that some music executives believe Create Music Group games the system on YouTube to claim royalties, with one label source claiming the company was doing so “egregiously.”
Just last month, TikTok also rang the alarm bell about fraudulent content when it backed out of licensing negotiations with Merlin, a coalition of indie labels and distributors, to allegedly curb users uploading works they don’t own the rights to on the platform. TikTok said it would instead pursue individual licensing deals with labels and distributors that it considered to be safe.
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.
Boyd Muir, who serves as executive VP/CFO/president of operations at Universal Music Group (UMG), has been promoted to COO, the company announced Thursday (Oct. 31). Muir, who has been the company’s CFO since 2010, will hold the titles of both CFO and COO while UMG undergoes its search for a replacement. “Boyd’s done an outstanding […]
Strong subscription revenue, improved margins and successful new releases by Sabrina Carpenter, Chappell Roan and Post Malone helped Universal Music Group (UMG) post revenue of 2.87 billion euros ($3.16 billion) in the third quarter, up 4.3% year-over-year (4.9% at constant currency).
Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) reached 621 million euros ($683 million), up 8.2% from the prior-year period. The Amsterdam-based company’s adjusted EBITDA margin improved to 21.6% from 21.1% in the prior-year quarter and was helped by cost savings from the organizational redesign announced in February and lower A&R and marketing costs, CFO Boyd Muir said during Thursday’s (Oct. 31) earnings call.
If not for a one-time gain in the prior-year quarter, the revenue growth rate would have been 7.6% and adjusted EBITDA growth would have improved to 10.8%. Last year, Universal Music Publishing Grou (UMPG) recognized the accrual of a catch-up payment from the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) Phonorecords III ruling. That resulted in revenue of 53 million euros ($58 million) and added 11 million euros ($12 million) to UMPG’s adjusted EBITDA.
Trending on Billboard
UMG had a typically strong quarter of chart-topping new releases. CEO Lucian Grainge noted during the call that Carpenter’s album Short n’ Sweet, released on Aug. 23, went to No. 1 in 15 countries and topped the Billboard 200 albums chart in the U.S. for four non-consecutive weeks. Elsewhere, Roan’s The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess topped Billboard’s Album Sales Chart in September, while Malone’s latest album, F-1 Trillion, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 and also summited the Top Country Albums chart. Island also has a top 10 hit song in the U.K. with Gigi Perez’s “Sailor Song,” which peaked at No. 28 in the U.S.
The recorded music division improved 5.4% to 2.15 billion euros ($2.36 billion) on the strength of a 7.6% improvement in subscription revenue. Other streaming revenue, however, dropped 0.8% (up 0.3% at constant currency) to 354 million euros ($389 million). Physical sales dropped 2% to 288 million euros ($317 million) while licensing revenue jumped 20.4% to 325 million euros ($357 million). Subscription growth was negatively affected by “just over a percentage point” from “ongoing challenges” in the home fitness subscription market and the departure of the record label 10K Projects to Warner Music Group, said Muir. Lower CD sales in Japan were partially offset by strong vinyl sales, he added, especially in the U.S.
Muir affirmed UMG’s previously announced guidance of an 8% to 10% compound annual growth rate for recorded music subscription revenue through 2028. UMG may not always hit that target range in any given quarter, however, and Muir reminded listeners that the fourth quarter marks one year since a Spotify price increase that has helped UMG — and other record labels — experience a surge in year-over-year subscription growth.
UMPG improved 1.8% (2.2.% at constant currency) to 500 million euros ($550 million). Excluding the CRB accrual, publishing revenue was up 22.4% (22.9% at constant currency). Digital revenue grew 0.3% to 295 million euros ($324 million), synchronization royalties jumped 18.5% to 64 million euros ($70 million) and mechanical revenue climbed 12% to 28 million euros ($31 million). Performance royalties fell 4.7% to 101 million euros ($111 million).
UMG’s Bravado merchandise division had revenue of 237 million euros ($261 million), up 4.4% from the prior-year period. The company attributed the growth to stronger direct-to-consumer sales and higher touring merchandise sales. In the U.S., Bravado benefitted from the touring activity of such artists as Slipknot, Imagine Dragons, Nicki Minaj, blink-182 and Malone, according to Muir.
LONDON – Independent labels trade body IMPALA is calling on regulators to investigate Universal Music Group’s acquisition of [PIAS] over concerns that the deal restricts competition in the global record business and “narrows options for artists and labels.”
[PIAS] co-founders Kenny Gates and Michel Lambot announced earlier this week that they were selling their remaining shares in the indie label group to Universal Music Group (UMG), which already owns a 49% stake in the company, for an undisclosed sum.
The deal gives UMG full ownership of [PIAS]’s services division [Integral], which provides physical and digital distribution services to more than 100 indie label partners including ATO, Beggars Group and Secretly Group and will henceforth merge with Virgin Music Group.
Trending on Billboard
Also falling under UMG’s control because of the share sale is the [PIAS] Label Group, home to indie imprints Play It Again Sam, harmonia mundi, Spinefarm, Source and partner labels such as ATO, Heavenly, Mute and Transgressive. Despite the change in ownership, [PIAS] says its label group business will remain completely autonomous.
In response, IMPALA and several of its associate national trade groups are calling on competition regulators to launch an investigation into what it described as “unchecked concentration in the music market [which] continues to be a serious problem.”
“The bottom line is UMG’s acquisition of [PIAS] will increase the power of [UMG] across Europe and beyond, including the U.K. and the USA, and IMPALA expects regulators in these jurisdictions to take action,” said the Brussels-based organization, which represents over 6,000 indie music companies in Europe, in a press release on Friday (Oct. 18).
Helen Smith, IMPALA’s executive chair, said she “expects” regulators to review the [PIAS] acquisition “and answer the question the industry is asking about how it is possible for UMG to gain more market share after it was already considered too big?”
“A share deal is one thing, this is something else,” said Smith, who is calling for competition officials to assess how the deal impacts physical and digital music markets, including distribution services, “as well as the impact on competitors, digital services, artists and fans.”
Geert de Blaere, the chair of Belgian association BIMA, said that while the Belgian market owes a debt of gratitude to [PIAS] for showing entrepreneurs what is possible, the impact of the company’s takeover by UMG “will be structural, significant and long lasting” for the independent music business.
“This is completely different to a share deal as UMG takes over the market share of [PIAS]. Scale and stability in the whole independent sector will be lost. Incremental shifts in the market across the majors leverages disproportionate influence in the hands of a few companies. Each time that happens the result is more control over how the market develops,” said de Blaere in a statement.
Supporting calls for an investigation, IMPALA chair Dario Draštata said the deal strengthens UMG in terms of market share, “eliminates a principal competitor” and “narrows options for artists and labels.”
Representatives for UMG and [PIAS] did not respond to requests for comment when contacted by Billboard.
The acquisition of [PIAS] by the world’s biggest music company further grows the dominant market share enjoyed by UMG and follows the expiration of a 10-year ban on the music giant acquiring certain music companies or catalogs in Europe.
Those restrictions were placed on UMG in 2012 by the European Commission as one of the conditions of the company’s $1.9 billion takeover of EMI going ahead. As part of that process, the European Union’s executive branch forced UMG to divest the Parlophone Label Group, which was bought by Warner Music Group (WMG) for around $750 million, as well as the offloading of numerous EMI entities in Europe, and the Chrysalis, Mute, Sanctuary and Co-op Music labels.
To receive regulatory approval to buy EMI, UMG committed to not re-acquire any of the assets sold, or re-sign any artists signed with labels it had divested for a period of 10 years. Just a few months after that decade-long ban expired in September 2022, Universal acquired a 49% minority stake in [PIAS], which owns some of those previously off-limits catalogs, including Co-op Music.
On Tuesday (Oct. 15), UMG announced it had grown its minority interest to full ownership, following Gates and Lambot’s decision to sell their controlling stake.
The acquisition of [PIAS] by UMG is part of a growing trend of major labels looking to the independent sector to increase their market share, either by enhancing their distribution offerings for indie artists and labels or by investing in, or buying, independent music companies.
In 2019, UMG acquired independent distribution and marketing company Ingrooves Music Group. One year later, Sony Music bought J. Erving‘s digital distribution and label services company Human Re Sources from Q&A, followed in 2021 by its purchase of artist services company AWAL and Kobalt Neighbouring Rights from Kobalt Music Group.
Major indie label acquisitions over the past decade include WMG buying Netherlands-based Spinnin’ Records in 2017 and Sony Music’s purchase of U.K. dance label Ministry of Sound in 2016.
On a smaller scale, WMG has been steadily growing its recorded music interests in Central and Eastern Europe, buying minority stakes in Croatia’s Dancing Bear Music, Slovenian independent label NIKA and Serbia’s Mascom. And this week, WMG Benelux announced the acquisition of Dutch label Cloud 9 Recordings.
Referencing the major labels’ pursuit of key independent labels, Draštata, who is also president of Balkan indie label trade association RUNDA, said the practice was becoming an “issue across Europe.”
“The loss of such big players for the independent sector compounds the competitive impact and the risk is that this trend will continue,” said Draštata in a statement. “We have been signalling the problem of creeping dominance for many years and it’s time for a new competition approach to address this question.”
The founders of indie label group [PIAS] have announced they are selling the remaining shares they hold in the company to Universal Music Group (UMG), making the music giant the firm’s majority shareholder.
In an announcement on Tuesday (Oct. 15), Kenny Gates said he and his [PIAS] co-founder Michel Lambot were selling their shares to UMG, which acquired a 49% stake in the company in 2022, to “allow us to offer a truly global distribution and services platform to the independent music community.”
Financial terms were not revealed for the deal, which expands upon a strategic global partnership between the two companies that began in 2021. When UMG acquired the 49% stake in [PIAS] for an undisclosed sum the following year, Gates and Lambot retained majority control of the company.
Trending on Billboard
Ownership of [PIAS] now appears to be fully in the hands of UMG, although representatives of the European indie label group and UMG declined to expand upon the information contained in Tuesday’s press release.
Details that have been confirmed as part of the new arrangement include the merger of Virgin Music Group and [PIAS]’s services division [Integral], which provides physical and digital distribution services to more than 100 indie label partners including ATO, Beggars Group and Secretly Group.
The newly combined teams will provide “independent entrepreneurs with world class services and access to a bespoke, stand-alone international distribution network,” said [PIAS]. Reps for the firm and UMG declined to comment when asked if the merger would result in any job losses.
The [PIAS] Label Group, which includes the indie labels Play It Again Sam, harmonia mundi, Spinefarm, Source and partner imprints such as ATO, Heavenly, Mute and Transgressive, will remain completely autonomous, said the company. Artists signed to or distributed by those labels include Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Kneecap, Sofiane Pamart, Sleep Token, Arlo Parks and Black Pumas.
“I am selling my shares not my soul,” said Gates, who will remain CEO of [PIAS] and sit on the Virgin Music Group main board and advisory group, in a statement.
“Since agreeing [to] a strategic alliance with UMG in 2021 we have found them to be supportive and engaged partners who have added real value to our offering,” continued Gates, describing the decision to relinquish the founders’ remaining shareholdings in [PIAS] as a “pragmatic one.”
The company’s existing leadership team will continue to steer day-to-day operations “and nothing will change culturally or commercially for our existing clients and partners,” said Gates, who co-founded [PIAS] with Lambot in Brussels, Belgium, in 1983.
Lambot said that despite initially having “some concerns” about partnering with UMG in 2021, the experience has surpassed his expectations.
“Our relationship to date has been fruitful, convivial and everything we hoped it would it be,” he said. “This new phase, which will see us working even closer together promises to be an exciting new era for [PIAS], our staff, our partners and the artists we represent.”
“I’ve known Kenny and Michel for decades, beginning in the 80s when we were all signing bands from emerging scenes in Europe,” added Lucian Grainge, chairman/CEO of UMG, in a statement.
“Since that time, Kenny and Michel have built [PIAS] into a company that stands for authenticity and the best in independent music,” Grainge added. “And it is those qualities that are not only important to me personally but that also make [PIAS] a perfect fit for UMG’s entrepreneurial and creative culture.”
“We are delighted by all that’s been accomplished over the past three years together, and we look forward to working with Kenny and Michel and their entire team, including their family of artists and labels, to further build [PIAS]’s legacy,” said UMG executive vp/CFO/president of operations Boyd Muir. “Their experience and insights have significantly helped to grow this dynamic area of our business. Completing the acquisition of [PIAS] Label Group and [Integral] reinforces our best-in-class label services operations and enhances our ability to support the independent artist and label community globally.”
Limp Bizkit and frontman Fred Durst are suing Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the label owes the band more than $200 million, with Durst’s lawyers writing that he had “not seen a dime in royalties” over the decades — and that hundreds of other artists may have been treated similarly.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Oct. 8) in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for Durst and the 1990s rap rock band accused UMG of implementing a “systemic” and “fraudulent” policy that was “deliberately designed” to conceal royalties from artists and “keep those profits for itself.”
“UMG’s creation of such a system, while holding itself out as a company that prides itself on investing in and protecting its artists, makes plaintiffs’ discovery of UMG’s scheme all the more appalling and unsettling,” Durst’s lawyers write, adding that “possibly hundreds of other artists” had also “unfairlyhad their royalties wrongfully withheld for years.”
Trending on Billboard
In a stunning claim, Durst alleges that as recently as August, Limp Bizkit had “never received any royalties from UMG,” despite the band’s huge success during its turn-of-the-century peak. The lawsuit said the band’s albums had all sold millions of copies, and that Limp Bizkit continues to have “millions of streaming users per month on Spotify alone.”
“Despite this tremendous ‘come back,’ the band had still not been paid a single cent by UMG in any royalties until taking action against UMG, leading one to ask how on earth that could possibly be true,” Durst’s lawyers write.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
Durst claims that the current dispute dates to April when he retained new representatives who were “shocked” when he informed them he had “not received any money for any Limp Bizkit exploitations — ever.” He claims UMG had previously told him that he was not being paid because the band remained unrecouped — meaning its royalties still had not surpassed the amount the group had been paid in upfront advances.
“Durst explained that he had been informed by UMG that he had not received any royalty statements because UMG told him over the years that it was not required to provide them since his account was still so far from recoupment,” his lawyers write. “Durst’s representatives, suspicious that UMG was wrongfully claiming Plaintiffs’ accounts were unrecouped, suggested investigating further.”
When Durst’s reps contacted UMG, they say they learned that Limp Bizkit’s accounts actually held more than $1 million in royalties but that the label had “failed to alert” the band about the money. That prompted more suspicion about “UMG’s accounting and payment practices” and an investigation into Limp Bizkit’s records.
They didn’t like what they found. According to the lawsuit, UMG had allegedly failed to issue royalty statements at all during significant periods of the band’s history, including “during the height of Limp Bizkit’s fame.”
“UMG’s failure to issue royalty statements in particular from 1997-2004 — the height of the band’s fame and during periods in which they made record-breaking sales — with respect to its most popular albums suggests that UMG was intentionally concealing the true amount of sales, and therefore royalties, due and owing to Limp Bizkit in order to unfairly keep those profits for itself.”
The suggestion that the band’s albums are still unrecouped is also “highly suspect,” Durst’s lawyers write, citing the band’s huge commercial success during its early years: “Given that Limp Bizkit’s first three albums had already sold several million copies by the early 2000s, the recording funds and costs should have been quickly recouped, and UMG should have started paying royalties on those albums right away — not over twenty years later,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit also points to potential “fraudulent accounting practices” that Durst’s attorneys claim were used by UMG to improperly keep the band in the red and avoid paying royalties.
“But where did this additional $199,676.00 charged to the account come from?” his lawyers write, referring to one such alleged inconsistency. “It seems to have come out of thin air to overdraft Limp Bizkit’s due and payable account in order to defraud Limp Bizkit and show an unrecouped account.”
When those issues were raised with UMG, the lawsuit says the label argued that Limp Bizkit had been paid $43 million in recoupable advances over the years, which explained why the royalties had not started flowing into the accounts until recently. Durst’s attorneys say the label eventually released $1.03 million to the band and $2.3 million to Durst’s Flawless Records, but that they’re owed far more than that.
“Given the vast amounts of money collected by UMG in relation to sales of Limp Bizkit’s and Flawless Records’ albums over the years … UMG is liable to plaintiffs for tens of millions of dollars in copyright infringement, if not more,” the lawsuit reads. “Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that the amounts owed to them by UMG following the rescission of these agreements will easily surpass $200 million.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit seeks not only allegedly unpaid royalties, but also a ruling voiding the band’s contract with the label, the return of the band’s copyrights to their recordings and copyright infringement damages over those rights.