universal music group
Page: 3
Universal Music Group chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge delivered an update on the company’s response to the Los Angeles wildfires on Tuesday, writing in a staff memo obtained by Billboard that while many evacuated employees have returned home, others remain displaced, while some have “lost their homes completely.”
Grainge said the Santa Monica-based company is actively supporting affected employees by providing resources to meet both immediate and long-term needs. Over 100 employees have volunteered to help colleagues through various means, such as offering shelter, babysitting and donating clothes, he said.
Beyond internal support, UMG has been involved in community relief efforts, including volunteering, providing meals and donating clothing and hotel rooms for displaced families. Additionally, Grainge said UMG has made financial contributions to several organizations supporting relief efforts, including the American Red Cross, California Community Foundation, The California Fire Foundation, Direct Relief, Entertainment Industry Foundation, L.A. Regional Food Bank, MusiCares, Music Health Alliance, Mutual AID Network L.A., Pasadena Humane Society and World Central Kitchen, among others.
Trending on Billboard
“What has impressed me the most throughout this tragic event is the fact that collectively we haven’t just made financial contributions, but so many of our colleagues have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work,” he said. “We know that even after every fire is extinguished the road to recovery will be very long. We will be there every step of the way.”
UMG announced earlier this month that it is canceling all of the company’s Grammy-related events, including its artist showcase and after-Grammy party, and will instead “redirect the resources that would have been used for those events to assist those affected by the wildfires.”
Read Grainge’s full memo below:
Dear Colleagues,
I’m writing to update you on our efforts related to the Los Angeles fires. In short, while many of our evacuated employees have fortunately been able to return to their homes, others who are in the most seriously affected areas remain displaced and will be so for some time to come. Some have lost their homes entirely.
We are working closely with those affected employees, providing them a range of resources and support to meet their immediate individual or family needs. Following meetings with the team of UMG leaders that I mentioned in my prior note, we are also determining the best ways to help these employees going forward. And in addition to the company’s support, more than 100 employees have volunteered to help their colleagues—from opening their homes to babysitting, dog walking, donating clothes, and more.
In terms of recovery of the broader community, from Day One we’ve been on the ground helping wherever we can. Whether it’s volunteering at relief organizations, providing meals to first responders and affected community members, donating clothing or providing hotel rooms to displaced families.
And in addition to all this, we’ve made financial contributions to a range of organizations, including the American Red Cross, California Community Foundation, The California Fire Foundation, Direct Relief, Entertainment Industry Foundation, L.A. Regional Food Bank, MusiCares, Music Health Alliance, Mutual AID Network L.A., Pasadena Humane Society, World Central Kitchen, and more.
What has impressed me the most throughout this tragic event is the fact that collectively we haven’t just made financial contributions, but so many of our colleagues have rolled up their sleeves and gone to work.
We know that even after every fire is extinguished the road to recovery will be very long. We will be there every step of the way.
You can read more about these efforts in our latest edition of our All Together Now bi-weekly newsletter.
I’m so enormously proud of the fact that so many of you have shown up to help our community and your colleagues. I’m grateful but not surprised. As a company, this is who we are.
Lucian
Universal Music Group and Spotify have struck a new direct deal, impacting both the company’s recorded music and publishing royalty rates, the companies announced today (Jan. 26). In a statement, UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge said that the deal is “precisely the kind of partnership development [UMG] envisioned” as part of its idea for “Streaming 2.0,” the company’s proposed changes to revamp streaming royalty rates and improve remuneration for its artists on streaming platforms.
Under the new agreement, UMG and Spotify “will collaborate closely to advance the next era of streaming innovation,” according to a press release. “Artists, songwriters and consumers will benefit from new and evolving offers, new paid subscription tiers, bundling of music and non-music content, and a richer audio and visual content catalog,” the press release continues. The deal also includes continued protection for UMG through Spotify’s fraud detection and enforcement systems.
Importantly, the agreement includes a direct deal between Spotify and Universal Music Publishing Group, the first direct deal between Spotify and a publisher since the passage of the Music Modernization Act in 2018. One top publishing executive tells Billboard that this change “sounds like Spotify is raising the white flag” about the so-called “bundling” dispute which has soured relations between many publishers, writers and Spotify since it launched last year. In March, Billboard reported that Spotify’s payments to music publishers and songwriters would be cut significantly to account for Spotify bundling in audiobooks as part of its premium tiers. Instead of paying out royalties for these tiers purely to music publishers and writers, Spotify began splitting the payments between music and books publishers.
Trending on Billboard
Billboard estimated the losses to be about $150 million in the first year the bundled audiobooks took effect. Now, nearly a year later, Universal Music Publishing Group appears to be back in a better position with Spotify. One source familiar with the deal said it has improved royalty payments for UMPG songwriters, although the two companies declined to state the specifics of how the new publishing royalty model (or the one for recorded music) works.
“Spotify maintains its bundle, but with this direct deal, it has evolved to account for broader rights, including a different economic treatment for music and non-music content,” a Spotify spokesperson clarified in a statement to Billboard.
“[This deal] makes sense,” the publishing executive tells Billboard. “[Spotify is] despised in the songwriting industry. Their main competitor, Amazon, has already left them isolated and alone. And they claim to want to expand into more videos but can’t get deals done. It was monumentally stupid for them to put themselves in this position but perhaps they are finally trying to get out of the bind they put themselves in.”
Grainge said, in his complete statement about the deal, “When we first presented our vision for the next stage in the evolution of music subscription several months ago — Streaming 2.0 — this is precisely the kind of partnership development we envisioned. This agreement furthers and broadens the collaboration with Spotify for both our labels and music publisher, advancing artist-centric principles to drive greater monetization for artists and songwriters, as well as enhancing product offerings for consumers.”
“For nearly two decades, Spotify has made good on its commitment to return the music industry to growth, ensuring that we deliver record payouts to the benefit of artists and songwriters each new year,” Spotify founder/CEO Daniel Ek said in a statement. “This partnership ensures we can continue to deliver on this promise by embracing the certainty that constant innovation is key to making paid music subscriptions even more attractive to a broader audience of fans around the world.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Bernard Beanz Smalls / Bernard Beanz Smalls,
We are not even a month into 2025 and Jim Jones keeps going viral. Capo says he sees nothing wrong with Drake suing Universal Music Group.
As spotted on HipHopDX Jim Jones recently paid a visit to the Broke N’ Frontin podcast. While he discussed a variety of topics regarding his career, the music industry and more it was his very hot take about Champagne Papi that took many people by surprise. “He’s not snitching on nobody. He’s not in a court of law, he’s not personally suing Kendrick Lamar, which everybody seems to think that this lawsuit is about,” he explained. “He’s suing UMG, which is the biggest company that has the biggest bag, n***a.”
Jomo went on to remind everyone that the lines behind this lawsuit have been blurred in the media and made sure to clarify that Drake is not suing Kendrick Lamar. “Y’all associating motherf***ing brussel sprouts with apples. It’s two totally different things. If it was any other thing, I would call a red flag. But this has got no reflection of the street or rap culture.” To hear Jim Jones tell it the Hip-Hop community should be happy for Drake if he is successful in this legal battle. “When Tracy Morgan caught that bag, we were happy for him. So how the f*** we not going be happy about somebody getting a bag from one of the biggest companies that’s been raping everybody anyway?”
You can see Jim Jones discuss Drake, Harlem, Cam’ron and more below.
Pershing Square Holdings chief Bill Ackman won’t get his wish of a Universal Music Group (UMG) de-listing from the Euronext Amsterdam exchange, but the hedge fund king’s push for a UMG listing on a U.S. exchange will nevertheless come to fruition in 2025. UMG announced Wednesday (Jan. 15) that Pershing Square and some of its […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) is firing back at Drake’s lawsuit accusing the music giant of defaming him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” calling the case “illogical” and accusing Drake of trying to “weaponize the legal process.”
In a strongly-worded statement issued Wednesday afternoon (Jan. 15), UMG flatly denied the allegations in Drake’s lawsuit — filed earlier in the day in New York federal court — and sharply criticized its superstar artist for bringing it.
“Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical,” the company wrote. “We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success.”
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit claims that UMG knew that “inflammatory and shocking allegations” in Lamar’s scathing diss track were false, but chose to place “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
But in UMG’s response, the music giant said that Drake himself had often engaged in rap beefs featuring bombastic claims about his opponents — the very thing that he now claims is illegal.
“Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists,” UMG wrote. “He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
Drake’s case repeatedly makes clear that he is not suing Lamar himself, and that he holds UMG responsible for releasing a song that it allegedly knew was defamatory.
In its statement, UMG denied that claim — and said it would defend Lamar or any other artist if they were hit with such a lawsuit.
“We have not and do not engage in defamation—against any individual,” UMG said in the statement. “At the same time, we will vigorously defend this litigation to protect our people and our reputation, as well as any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”
Drake and Lamar exchanged stinging diss tracks last year, culminating in Lamar’s knockout “Not Like Us” — a track that savagely slammed Drake as a “certified pedophile” and reached the top of the charts. In November, the star filed stunning legal petitions suggesting that he planned to sue UMG, claiming that the company had artificially boosted a song that contained defamatory statements about him.
Earlier on Wednesday, Drake made good on those threats — filing a federal lawsuit that claimed UMG had boosted a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a pedophile, severely harming his reputation and even putting his life in danger.
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers wrote in their complaint. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
The accusations — and Wednesday’s response statement — represent a remarkable rift between the world’s largest music company and one of its biggest stars. Drake has spent his entire career at UMG, first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint that was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Source: Carmen Mandato / Getty
Drake has officially brought the US Justice system into his “beef” with Kendrick Lamar. The Toronto rapper has filed a lawsuit for defamation against the Universal Music Group (UMG), his own record label.
Drake’s new lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us”:
“It was just three days after UMG originally published the Recording and Image that Drake was targeted at his Toronto house by armed intruders in the 2024 equivalent of ‘Pizzagate.’”https://t.co/EVhVle8tsx pic.twitter.com/fMwDvoWQLp
— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 15, 2025
Earlier, it was reported that Drake had dropped his initial legal petition against UMG and Spotify, where he claimed both entities had manipulated the plays of Kendrick Lamar’s scathing “Not Like Us” to his detriment. Per usual, Drizzy was met with scorn due to even the idea of brining the authorities into a rap battle.
But alas, it was only dropped so the 6 God could raise the ante, as reported by Variety, on Wednesday, January 15, he filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing UMG of defamation due its promotion of “Not Like Us,” where K. Dot likens him to a pedophile, amongst other derogatory (to the delight of many listeners) accusations. Per Drake, UMG knew that Kendrick Lamar’s claims were all lies, but they promoted the song anyway and “chose corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists. UMG saw an opportunity, seized it, and continued to fan the flames.”
The suit contends Drake’s issue is with UMG boosting “Not Like Us” and not with Kendrick Lamar, technically.
Reports Variety:
Although Lamar’s lyrics are at the heart of the lawsuit, it clearly places the blame on Universal for releasing, distributing and promoting the song: “This lawsuit is not about the artist who created ‘Not Like Us,’” it suit reads. “It is, instead, entirely about UMG, the music company that decided to publish, promote, exploit, and monetize allegations that it understood were not only false, but dangerous.” However, Drake seems to have backed down on claims that UMG and Spotify conspired to falsely boost the song’s streaming numbers; those allegations were strenuously denied by both companies. Ironically, Universal distributes both Lamar’s and Drake’s music — both artists own their recent master recordings via their companies — and has for the majority of both artists’ careers. The suit claims that because Drake’s current deal with UMG is nearing the end of its term, the company is attempting to devalue his music and profile in an effort to gain more-favorable terms in a renegotiation.
Now Drake is really getting cooked on the Internets. See for yourself in the gallery.
Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl performance just got that much more highly anticipated.
This story is developing.
Drake has filed a lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over allegations that the music giant defamed him by promoting Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” claiming the label boosted a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a pedophile and put his life in danger.
Hours after his attorneys withdrew an earlier petition, they filed a full-fledged defamation lawsuit Wednesday against his longtime label – claiming UMG knew Lamar’s “inflammatory and shocking allegations” were false but chose to place “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”
“UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” the star’s lawyers write in a complaint filed in Manahttan federal court. “UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation.”
Trending on Billboard
In one of the lawsuit’s most vivid accusations, Drake claims that the release of “Not Like Us” has subjected him to risk of physical violence, including a drive-by shooting on his Toronto area home just days after the song was released.
“UMG’s greed yielded real world consequences,” his lawyers write. “With the palpable physical threat to Drake’s safety and the bombardment of online harassment, Drake fears for the safety and security of himself, his family, and his friends.”
Notably, the case does not target Lamar himself — a point that Drake’s attorneys repeatedly stress in their filings.
“UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal, but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists,” Drake’s attorneys say.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is yet another dramatic escalation a high-profile beef that saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks last year, culminating in Lamar’s knockout “Not Like Us” — a track that savagely slammed Drake as a “certified pedophile” and became a hit in its own right.
Drake shocked the music industry in November when he filed petitions suggesting he might sue over the fued — first accusing UMG and Spotify of an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song, then later claiming that the song had been defamatory. But those cases were not quite full-fledged lawsuits, and Drake withdrew one of them late on Tuesday.
Now it’s clear why: In Wednesday’s lawsuit, he formally sued UMG over the same alleged scheme, claiming the label “unleashed every weapon in its arsenal” to drive the popularity of Lamar’s track even though it knew the lyrics were “not only false, but dangerous.”
“With his own record label having waged a campaign against him, and refusing to address this as a business matter, Drake has been left with no choice but to seek legal redress against UMG,” his lawyers write.
The filing of the case represents a doubling-down for Drake, who has been ridiculed in some corners of the hip-hop world filing legal actions over a rap beef. It also will deepen further his rift with UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic.
In his complaint, Drake’s lawyers said the label opted to boost “Not Like Us” despite its “defamatory” lyrics because they saw it as a “gold mine” — partly because UMG owns Lamar’s master recordings outright, but also because it could use the song to hurt Drake’s standing in future contract talks.
“UMG’s contract with Drake was nearing fulfillment … UMG anticipated that extending Drake’s contract would be costly,” his lawyers write. “By devaluing Drake’s music and brand, UMG would gain leverage to force Drake to sign a new deal on terms more favorable to UMG.”
This is a breaking news story and will continue to be updated with additional details as they become available.
Professional basketball player and “Tweaker” rapper LiAngelo Ball has signed a label deal with Def Jam and Universal Music Group (UMG), according to ESPN reporter Shams Charania. On Monday (Jan. 13), Charania, whose main beat is NBA news, tweeted that the recording deal for Ball, who performs under the name G3, was confirmed by “a […]
Billionaire hedge fund investor and Universal Music Group director Bill Ackman is a step closer to de-listing his Pershing Square Holdings from the Euronext Amsterdam exchange, a move that Ackman — whose Pershing Square company has owned around 10% of stock in the Universal Music Group since 2021 — has advocated for UMG to do, too.
The Euronext Amsterdam approved a plan for Pershing Square Holdings to de-list, with the closed-end fund’s last day of trading to be Jan. 30. The investment vehicle will consolidate trading of its shares on the London Stock Exchange, where it was co-listed in 2017 and where the majority of its trading happens.
Ackman and his family own more than 20% of the fund, and in November he advocated for moving the fund and UMG’s listing from the main Netherlands’ stock exchange after fans of an Israeli soccer team were attacked in early November in Amsterdam.
Trending on Billboard
UMG said at the time that it will review and decide what is in the best interests of all shareholders.
In a separate announcement on Thursday, Pershing Square said it distributed around 47 million shares of Universal Music Group stock, or roughly 2.6% of its overall stake, to investors as part of a planned wind-down of one of the funds Pershing Square initially used to purchase UMG shares from Vivendi in September 2021.
Pershing Square, which managed the closed-end fund called PSVII, said it decided to distribute, rather than cash out, the UMG stock “because we believe that UMG stock is substantially undervalued at its current share price, and the tax-free stock distribution enables our limited partners to continue to own UMG shares.”
Pershing Square continues to own around 140 million shares, equal to a 7.6% stake in UMG, through its core funds — Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., Pershing Square, L.P. and Pershing Square International, Ltd. — Bill Ackman, Pershing Square employees and other affiliates, according to a company statement. UMG is still Pershing Square’s largest single holding.
As of Dec. 31, Pershing Square said UMG has had a total return of “46% including dividends over the approximately three-and-one-quarter-year life of the investment.” The company said that is better than “the S&P 500’s 37% return and the Amsterdam Exchange Index’s return of 21% over the same period.”
In the ‘00s, The Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan looked at the disruptive nature of early social media platform MySpace and saw the death of the record label. It didn’t exactly work out that way — not with MySpace, not with Facebook, not with TikTok. In fact, the major music companies became adept at using these platforms to break artists and perpetuate their market power; if there’s a breakout song on TikTok, labels rush into an old-fashioned bidding war. While social media certainly disrupted the music business, it didn’t uproot the traditional record label model.
There have been numerous other game-changers over the years that failed — on their own, at least — to radically alter how major labels do business, including independent distribution. After TuneCore launched in 2006, major labels continued to sign artists and own their intellectual property, albeit to broader “360” deals that incorporated more than recorded music rights. Nor did the advent of streaming by itself reshape the structure of major record labels. The artists with the most streaming success are involved with major labels in one way or another, be it a traditional record contract, a joint venture or, in rare cases like Taylor Swift, a distribution deal.
Trending on Billboard
Corgan may have misjudged social media’s sole impact on record labels, but he wasn’t entirely wrong about its ultimate influence. When combined, social media, independent distribution and streaming form a potent combination that has changed the balance of power and induced major labels to change how they promote music around the world. This dynamic isn’t exactly new, but it was never clearer than in 2024. This year, major labels have increasingly embraced the role of being service providers to those parties who prefer to remain independent and retain ownership of their intellectual property.
A few years ago, Universal Music Group (UMG) was pouring money into superstar acquisitions such as Bob Dylan’s and Sting’s song catalogs. More recently, the company has been focusing on its artist services model. In the last three months alone, UMG acquired indie label group [PIAS] and agreed to acquire Downtown Music Holdings for $775 million, though the proposed deal has encountered opposition from the independent music community and will need to pass regulatory scrutiny before being finalized. The company also purchased Outdustry — which has an artist- and label-services arm that focuses on China, India and other high-growth emerging markets — and bought a stake in Chord Music Partners, giving UMG distribution and publishing administration duties for the more than 60,000 songs in the investment vehicle’s catalog.
In fact, 2024 played out much like UMG CEO Lucian Grainge said it would. His January memo predicted the company would continue to expand globally and offer labels outside of mature markets a “full suite of artist services” while “acquiring local labels, catalogs and artist services businesses.” To be fair, UMG was already on that path: In 2022, it acquired m-theory’s artist services company and installed its founders, JT Myers and Nat Pastor, as co-CEOs of Virgin Music Group to expand Virgin’s independent music division globally.
Warner Music Group (WMG) appears to have sensed the shifting landscape, too, as there has been a noticeable shift in messaging during Robert Kyncl’s tenure as the company’s CEO. In the Stephen Cooper era, WMG was the music community’s leading investor in Web3 startups. In contrast, Kyncl has chosen to focus on expanding WMG’s footprint globally. WMG briefly signaled its interest in acquiring Believe in March and April after the French company announced a CEO-led effort to take the company private. Notably, Believe has a global label services business and a presence in developing markets that take advantage of the “glocalization” of local markets and global streaming platforms’ ability to help music travel across borders. WMG ultimately passed on pursuing Believe, but Kyncl has followed his peers’ interest in emerging markets, purchasing stakes in Indian companies Divo and Global Music Junction.
The service model isn’t an entirely original approach. Grainge wrote that UMG is “creating the blueprint for the labels of the future,” but UMG is doing what major music companies have always done: following trends and buying independent companies that established a particular market. Sony Music already bought into the service model with The Orchard and AWAL, the latter purchased in 2022 for $430 million. Independents such as Believe, OneRPM and Symphonic Distribution have become established players by combining distribution and artist services, while investors have poured money into independents such as Create Music Group — which this year raised $165 million at a $1 billion valuation — and gamma, which is backed by $1 billion.
But the well-established blueprint was never more of a hot commodity than in 2024. In the music business, nothing signifies the relevance of a business model like the major labels’ desire to buy it and integrate it into their systems — especially when the largest music companies feel they have no choice. The holy trinity of social media, independent distribution and global streaming platforms has given artists an alternative to the much-derided major label record contract. Artists who want to own their intellectual property and have more creative control have never had more of the tools necessary to be independent. That includes financing options, such as advances from well-funded independents or royalty advances from a new breed of financial services companies. When there’s no need for radio promotion and shelf space at brick-and-mortar retailers, the independent model looks a lot more attractive — not only for artists but for the major labels that have become increasingly keen on buying into it.
Ironically, the major labels’ acceptance of the independents’ business model means the music business is becoming less independent. Trade groups such as the Association of Independent Music and IMPALA quickly spoke out against UMG’s agreement to purchase Downtown, just as they did with Sony Music’s purchase of AWAL. U.K. regulators ultimately concluded that AWAL was a “relatively small player” and that the deal did not substantially reduce competition. Time will tell if competition watchdogs feel the same about UMG’s much larger purchase of Downtown. In any case, the independents have proved that artist and label services businesses are a good fit for the modern music business. The next step was always going to be consolidation.