Trapital by Dan Runcie

hip-hop business + strategy

MEMBER UPDATES

Get smarter on hip-hop. Strategic insights in your inbox.

WEEKLY ARTICLE

No Tour, No Problem for Cardi B


Dan breaks down why Cardi B has held out on a major tour, why she’s on the festival circuit instead, and whether her model is one that other rappers can follow.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SoundCloud | YouTube | RSS

Host: Dan Runcie, @RuncieDan, trapital.co

Links Discussed:

To get all the content Trapital has to offer, become a member.

Why Cardi B Doesn’t Need to Go on Tour

The Bronx rapper has made her money and built leverage from music festivals, residencies, and standalone shows.

Bardi at the 2018 iHeartRadio Jingle Ball (Theo Wargo/Getty Images)

Last week, Cardi B tweeted an insightful yet petty response to a Nicki Minaj fan who questioned why the “Bodak Yellow” rapper hasn’t gone on a major tour yet:

“Or maybe I’m doing festivals and independent solo concerts to prove that I need big tour deal check cause I sell shit out and I perform my ass off… and honey I’m making 750K to a million a show some people do less then that on tour due to stage budget. Learn the business”

The tweet has since been deleted, probably to keep the Barbz–Nicki’s fanbase–out of her mentions. All it takes is one subtweet to stir up drama. It reminds me of how LeBron James often retweets an account named ’73-9 and they LIED’— a not-so-subtle taunt at the 2016 Golden State Warriors. Random acts of pettiness always get noticed, especially by someone like me who spends too much time on Twitter!

Drama aside, Cardi’s tweet addressed an important distinction in live performance. Concerts drive artist revenue, but touring is expensive. An act like Cardi—who’s quickly risen from ‘Love & Hip-Hop’ to the global stage—might leave money on the table if she agrees to terms too early. Meanwhile, artists who wait too long may overestimate demand and scramble to recover costs. But with all the money Cardi earns from festivals, residencies, and standalone shows, does a major tour still make sense for her?

The high opportunity cost of touring

Today’s artists need their tours to look great both in person and on Instagram. Ray Winkler, CEO of Stufish Entertainment—the firm that designed Beyoncé and Jay Z’s On The Run II Tour— spoke on this last year in an interview with Amy X. Wang at Rolling Stone:

“So a show no longer starts when the curtain rises. The show starts the moment the first person takes a picture of it. Getting that moment right – making sure the show looks impressive and enticing before it starts – is a challenge you wouldn’t have thought about, 10 years ago.”

The same is technically true for music festivals, but the festival organizers share that responsibility. The festival’s brand is tied to each artist’s performance. It’s in the organizer’s best interest to help the artist put on the performance of a lifetime. The staff at Coachella and other well-run festivals have the infrastructure in place to maintain a minimum level of quality.

But that’s not the case with concert tours. Do you really think the event staff at the United Center is sweating about what Chris Brown’s upcoming concert will look like on Snapchat? For tours, that burden falls primarily on the act themselves. This includes costs for staging, lighting, transportation, and everything in-between. The more expansive the set, the larger the touring staff and capacity needed to haul equipment from city to city.

This is one of the reasons why touring has a high opportunity cost. If artists make the same amount of money with larger venues and fewer shows, it reduces time and money spent. Now, fans may miss the experience at smaller venues. But it’s a tradeoff every mainstream act needs to consider.

I wrote about this last year in Why Choosing the Right Concert Venue Matters:

Two weeks ago, Aubrey & The Three Migos performed four shows in Madison Square Garden and three shows at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. According to Deadspin, it cost $400,000 in 2006 to rent Madison Square Garden. With inflation, that’s just under $500,000 in today’s dollars. If we assume that rental costs are the same at Barclays, that’s $3.5 million in venue rental costs for the seven shows. These shows were spread across eight nights, which means at least nine nights of hotel and hospitality costs for the entire team in New York City. That’s easily totals over $500 per person, per night.

Instead of hosting these short-term residencies in different NYC boroughs, Drake and Migos can meet the same demand with two concerts on back-to-back nights at the 82,500-person capacity MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. According to Waddell, stadium rental costs for concerts are $1.2 – 1.8 million. On average, that $1.5 million rental fee is $3 million total for both nights—less than the estimated $3.5 million that was spent.

While Drake’s demand is high enough to make this choice, artists like Cardi is building her case to get there.

Negotiations with Live Nation

Cardi has gained considerable leverage since earning a mere $70,000 for each of her 2018 Coachella performances (which cost her $300,000 in production costs). From December 2018 – October 2019, she will have performed in nearly 30 music festivals, 13 standalone / mini-tour shows, two Las Vegas residency shows, and counting. For all the acclaim OutKast received for performing in 40 music festivals in 2014, Cardi’s been on that same tip.

Based on Cardi’s popularity, she would probably want a 40-50 show arena tour in all the major markets. She would negotiate with Live Nation—the largest promoter in the world. The more leverage Cardi has, the larger the payment would she get and the more shows she can command. And Live Nation doesn’t play when it comes to negotiations.

The entertainment company has different deals in place with each artist and hates to disclose details. In a 2015 legal brief, one of Jay Z’s lawyers once compared his client’s contract with Live Nation to the Coca-Cola formula:

“Its disclosure would severely undermine Live Nation’s ability to negotiate deals with new artists, as it would significantly change the artists’ bargaining position if they knew the formula Live Nation uses to compensate Mr. Carter. It would similarly compromise Mr. Carter’s bargaining power in the future. Live Nation treats the details of its agreement with Mr. Carter like the formula for Coca-Cola: it is so sensitive that Live Nation shields it from its own employees.”

Alright, relax. That’s a bit dramatic. Especially since many of those details have been shared publicly in past reports. But still, point taken.

Live Nation also has its own opportunity cost to consider. It’s a vertically-integrated behemoth with exclusive booking rights for over 200 venues. If a rising rapper can’t make a compelling case to book the Barclays Center in Brooklyn on the last Friday night in September, Live Nation likely has another profitable event on deck ready to sub in.

In Cardi’s case, she may also want to negotiate a tour schedule with built-in days off. In the past year, she has canceled several performances to rest during her pregnancy, spend more time with her daughter, and recover from plastic surgery. The day-in, day-out, 4-5 shows per week standard is a grind. Acts like Eminem and others have stopped the back-to-back-to-back performances because of the negative impact it has had on their lives.

In a short clip, Cardi B breaks down why her Coachella 2018 performance was an investment.

Waiting too long has its risks too

Cardi B wants to avoid what recently happened to her foe, Nicki Minaj. The “MEGATRON” rapper’s most recent tour is a masterclass in what NOT to do. The U.S. leg of ‘NickiHndrxx’ has essentially been canceled. Nicki and her camp claimed it was due to scheduling conflicts with last year’s Queen album, but several sites pulled the receipts and showed low demand and poor ticket sales.

That tour was an ambitious 30-city arena tour that was well past the peaks of both Nicki and Future. It would have fared much better in 2015 when both “Anaconda” and “March Madness” were in heavy rotation.

For Cardi, it’s been two years since “Bodak Yellow” and over a year since Invasion of Privacy dropped. She’s released a number of recent standalone singles like “Press” and “Money,” and collaborated with Bruno Mars and City Girls to stay on the charts.

By the time Cardi flexes her leverage for the tour she wants, Invasion of Privacy will have run its course. While Cardi B has made up for that with all her live performances, other artists may not be in that position.

Cardi’s not alone in her pursuit of standalone show money. Private events are a whole ‘nother bag. Last fall, Beyoncé did a 45-minute performance at an Indian wedding for a rumored $4 million (a number that seems far too low. I got no proof, but it seems low). In 2015, she earned $6 million in Uber equity from a company show. These high price tags rival the revenue per show from her stadium tours, which are way more costly and expensive to put on.

The same might be true for Cardi. She did a private show in January on Super Bowl weekend, where she danced alongside New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. It’s a low overhead performance because a) like Beyoncé, it’s cheaper to do than anything Cardi would have done on her own tour, and b) Robert Kraft can’t dance.

It’s another option in the growing mix of live performance revenue. This begs to question. Is Cardi B truly holding out for a mega-sized tour deal? Or has she flipped the standard model in her favor?

Maybe that’s why she deleted the tweet.

This article was recapped in the Trapital podcast episode: No Tour, No Problem for Cardi B

Join the music execs and business leaders. Get next week’s Trapital article in your inbox.

Trapital is written by Dan Runcie: info [at] trapital.co

Mathew Knowles on Beyoncé’s Streaming Strategy, Solange’s Marketing, and Dinner with Jay Z or $50,000

Mathew Knowles, founder and CEO of Music World Entertainment came through the Trapital podcast to talk shop with Dan about Beyoncé and her streaming strategy with Netflix and Tidal, Solange and BlackPlanet, and the burning internet question: Would you rather have dinner with Jay Z or $50,000?

Listen: Apple Podcasts | SoundCloud | Overcast

Host: Dan Runcie, @RuncieDan

Links Discussed:

Why Chance the Rapper Started Selling His Music

The 26-year-old rapper changed his strategy for his debut album, Owbum. Will it be enough to recapture his momentum?

Your boy Lil’ Chano back in 2014, before the “3” hat (Getty Images)

Chance the Rapper’s rise to stardom was a moment. The Chicago rapper proudly pushed record labels away to maintain ownership of his masters, publishing, and distribution. He put his music out for free and earned revenue solely from touring, merchandise, and endorsements. Mainstream culture gave him the praise of a critical darling with the coverage of an A-lister. (There was literally a 2016 article GQ titled How Chance the Rapper’s Life Became Perfect). Lil’ Chano from the 79th leaned into his status and challenged anyone that questioned it.

But times have changed. Later this month, Chance will release his ‘debut album,’ Owbum. Fans can now pre-order to purchase on his website. Recently, his seminal mixtapes—10 Days, Acid Rap, and Coloring Book—were also placed on streaming services where he can start earning money off the music.

The man who “never wanted to sell my music because I thought putting a price on it put a limit on it and inhibited me from making a connection,” now sells his music. His site has more bundle options than Amazon on Prime Day.

To be fair, the 26-year-old shouldn’t be tied to one tactic forever. His ownership grants him the control to make these moves when necessary. But the shift says a lot about the current streaming landscape. It says even more about the limitations of Chance’s initial business model.

Why charting matters

The “No Problem” rapper hinted in a 2017 Complex interview that he might sell his next album:

“I think I might actually sell this album. That’s, like, a big step in itself. I kind of hate the fact that I can’t chart, really. I can chart, but the way they have the streaming shit set up is weak as fuck. It’s unfair. 1,500 streams is the equivalent to one [album sale]. Nobody listens to their songs [1,500] times when they buy it—fuck outta here!”

It’s a fair point, but in a more recent November 2018 interview on The Joe Budden Podcast, Chance said that Coloring Book could have went #1 if he wanted it to:

“My shit wouldn’t have debuted at #8 if I hadn’t done [the exclusive deal with Apple Music], my shit would have been #1. There was only one place you could get my shit from. If you know my numbers, I’ve done crazy numbers on live mixtapes and DatPiff. I’ve done crazy numbers on SoundCloud. Imagine if Coloring Book came out and it was on Spotify, and on Tidal, and on Apple Music and on SoundCloud the first day it dropped? I got rid of numbers and money that I got to do that.”

So which one is it? Is it “Oochie Wally” or is it “One Mic”??

In 2016, Chance had all the momentum in the world. The Apple deal was a catalyst that further boosted his run. That two-week exclusivity deal gave Chance top placement on the digital streaming provider’s front page, two commercials during the NBA Finals, and $500,000 that Chance spent on ads.

But a lot has changed since then. Based on numbers, fans haven’t checked for Chance’s recent solo music. His last five singles came and went. He recently tried to launch a viral dance challenge for one of those singles, “Groceries,” but it didn’t gain much traction. Without that same momentum and without streaming exclusives, that boost needs to come from elsewhere.

Chance wants the Billboard charts to provide that bump. The charts matters to him (and most artists) because they grant artists the exposure, recognition, and vanity they desire. For Chance, he hopes that his album bundles will take Owbum to the #1 spot, elevate him back to the top of media culture, and everything will be Gucci.

This adjustment should help, but there are still other challenges to address.

The challenge with loss-leader strategies

Chance is now “officially” monetizing his mixtapes, but the real cycle started years ago. These projects are now in harvest mode where Chance can reap the benefits of his back catalog. He’s already milked his mixtapes for most of their short-term value.

This is especially true for Coloring Book. Remember, Chance went on not one, but two international tours to promote the mixtape. He hosted the Magnificent Coloring Day music festival in Chicago. He sold millions of dollars worth of hats, performed at numerous other music festivals, landed endorsements deals, and more.

It was a blessing and a curse. His team did a fantastic job maximizing Coloring Book’s useful life, but it didn’t set Chance up for longevity beyond the mixtape run.

His business model—give the music away and make money off tour/merch—reinforced a challenge that businesses with loss-leader models can face. Discounted items place pressure and urgency on higher-margin items to recoup losses as soon as possible. This puts short-term wins in conflict with longer-term goals. Most artists in the streaming era deal with this dynamic to some extent, but it was more pronounced for Chance. Not only was his financial success tied to its viability, but he also wanted to back up all that game he was talking. The more money made from Coloring Book, the quieter his haters got.

The loss leader challenge is heightened in music. Fans can stream all the Chance music they want and never buy a concert ticket or hat. It’s a very different relationship than video games, where loss leaders are dependent. A high-priced game like Red Dead Redemption 2 is useless without a loss-leading video game console like PlayStation 4.

The narrow focus on Coloring Book has also impacted merchandise tactics. He made $6 million (and counting) from his popular “Chance 3” hats, (the “3” stands for Coloring Book, his third mixtape). But ChanceRaps.com still prominently sells these same hats with the current album bundles. Most of his diehard fans already copped these hats. What’s new this time around? If his fanbase hasn’t grown in the past year, it’s tough to sell the same items again to the same audience.

Other artists continuously update their merch game. The clothing sold often coincides with a new album, deal, or trend. It creates an informal recurring revenue stream from diehard fans who want to rock the latest gear.

Kanye West has mastered this. In 2007, he sold the stunna shades from “Stronger.” In 2013, he sold the $120 white tees that sold out. In 2016, he sold all the ‘I Feel Like Pablo’ merch. And now, it’s Yeezys. But imagine if Ye was still out here selling stunna shades? That would be foolish.

A screenshot from chanceraps.com

Chance the Distributor?

Chance’s ultimate goal, beyond getting Owbum to chart at #1, is reaching the masses with his music. In turn, it extends his platform to show other artists what’s possible. His relevance also maintains his influence with Chicago city politics, philanthropy, and other economic interests.

Selling his music is an initial step, but if Chance wants to ensure he will chart now and in the future, he should consider a short-term distribution deal to push his music. Nipsey Hussle did this with Victory Lap. The late rapper’s partnership with Atlantic Records helped him get samples cleared faster, tap into the label’s resource pool, distribute his music, and have money on deck to pay collaborators.

Nip negotiated the terms he wanted and maintained his ownership. Chance has the leverage to do the same.

Chance’s critics would have a field day if given another opportunity to question the rapper’s independence. (I can hear a Joe Budden rant in my head right now). But that shouldn’t matter. That Atlantic deal didn’t impact Nipsey’s credibility as a spokesperson on ownership. It shouldn’t for Chance either.

Another opportunity for Chance (down the road) is to start or acquire an artist distribution service. It might seem counterintuitive at first, but it supports two of his goals.

First, Chance would have an opportunity to prove that he’s not just “special” as others have claimed. He could prove that his model works by providing select artists with the support needed to succeed while maintaining ownership. Personally, I believe that Chance had a number of subjective factors that fueled his rise (just like it has for Lil’ Nas X), but it’s still worthwhile to pursue. Chance enjoys proving doubters wrong and can give other artists the distribution support they need. If he succeeds, it’s a win-win.

Second, it keeps Chance relevant between projects. Coloring Book and Owbum will be three years apart. He’s not the type of artist who drops a new album each summer. If Chance ran a company that helped artist follow the playbook that helped him, he could stay top-of-mind without releasing his own music. If he got press coverage for creating the type of change he wants to make in the hip-hop, it would fuel his brand.

A lot has changed since Chance dropped Coloring Book. The streaming world is (a bit) more mature since the wild wild west of 2016. It closed some doors, but opened new ones too. It’s a great position for Chance to be in.

For years, critics questioned his indie status, the replicability of his model, and more. Now all eyes are on him. Let’s see whether his shift in strategy is enough to run back his own success.

Join the music execs and business leaders. Get next week’s Trapital article in your inbox.

Trapital is written by Dan Runcie: info [at] trapital.co

Trapital Podcast Launches July 8. Subscribe today!


I wish I had a dollar for every time someone asked me to start a podcast! After many requests, I’m excited to extend Trapital brand to a new format.

Here’s what to expect:

  • Conversations with guests who have made the strategic moves covered in Trapital
  • Short solo episodes that discuss key themes from Trapital articles

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SoundCloud | YouTube | Overcast | RSS

The first episode on Monday, July 8 will be with Mathew Knowles, Founder of Music World Entertainment and the father of Beyonce and Solange! We talked about my article Beyonce’s Streaming Strategy, Explained, his marketing strategy, and more. You’ll love this episode.

Trapital members also got to send in a few questions for Mathew for our lightning round. (If you want dope opportunities like these, become a Trapital member!)

Shoutout to Ashley Stewart on the podcast artwork. She runs Patent Ventures, a consultancy for startup development in the cultural arts and personal care sectors. Check out her work. (she’s also a Trapital member!)

Please do me a favor. Tell at least one friend to subscribe to the podcast. Word of mouth is still the best way to grow.

Thanks y’all!

Dan

Level up on hip-hop business. Join the movement. Strategic insights in your inbox.

How Billboard Can Fix the Album Bundles Issue

DJ Khaled via Billboard

It’s time for the Billboard 200 to place more weight on streaming and less weight on album bundles.

The Billboard 200 has never been perfect, but lately it’s become a joke. It rewards those popular enough to sell records, yet smart enough to finesse a broken system.

Ironically, those who’ve complained the most have tried to game the system but fell short to those who gamed it better. That’s why DJ Khaled lawyered up against Billboard. If his disqualified energy drink bundles counted toward his first-week album sales, then Father of Asahd would have outsold Tyler, the Creator’s Igor. It’s also why Nicki Minaj publicly scolded Travis Scott last year for his promotional tactics that pushed his Astroworld album past her Queen album.

Khaled and Nicki were both salty, but their comments are a symptom of Billboard’s flawed system. Billboard’s desire to preserve album sales has turned first-week sales numbers into a contest to create heavily-subsidized bundles that won’t piss off the industry.

Billboard says that it plans to tighten its rules on merchandise bundling, but it needs to make meaningful changes. More value needs to be placed on streaming. In turn, this would devalue album sales and curb the reliance on bundles. The streaming era has turned the music industry upside down. It’s time for its primary performance tool to get with the times and do the same.

Embrace the streaming era

These bundles combine items that superfans want (e.g. merchandise) with items that artists want to sell but fans don’t need (e.g. physical/digital albums). It’s like a cafe with mediocre coffee and reliable Wi-Fi. Sure, it might be jam-packed with customers. And yes, coffee sales are probably strong. But we all know what would happen if the internet cuts out.

Currently, it takes at least 1,250 streams to equal an album sale on the Billboard 200. On ad-supported streaming services, it’s 3,750 streams. An album sale counts as long as it’s sold for at least $3.49 or bundled with another item where the digital album is priced as an add-on. Also, the consumer must opt-in to show intent to consume the album by redeeming a code or a similar measure.

Last year, I bought Meek Mill’s Championships bundle. I spent $3.50, got a redeemable code for the digital album, and got a free six-month trial to Tidal. Looking back though, I can’t tell you whether I actually listened to the digital album I bought or just streamed it directly.

The whole thing is ridiculous, but it’s easy to see how Billboard got here. The current methodology helps account for the difference in revenue for streams vs. albums. It also helps equalize chart placement for genres of music where streaming has yet to take over, like rock and country.

But no one metric can fairly measure for revenue, equalize for consumer behavior differences across genres, and accurately represent the current music landscape. The numerous objectives make it easy to find loopholes and manipulate the system.

Streaming’s business model still has its issues, but that’s not Billboard’s job to fix or normalize for. That’s for the record labels, DSPs, and artists to negotiate. Instead, the weekly charts should focus more on the consumption of music. The average music fan doesn’t even stream 1,250 songs in a month. If that average song is four minutes, that’s over 80 hours of music– much higher than the 25 hours of content per month that Spotify reports that its average subscriber listens to.

Streaming makes it easier than ever to track consumption. In the music industry’s “hey-day,” consumption was inferred from album purchases, radio play, and media attention. Artists had no objective way to know if their albums stayed in heavy rotation or got listened to once then got stashed away in an old shoebox under the bed. (I know I’m not the only one who used shoeboxes for the albums that didn’t make the cut for CD tower or binder…)

Now that consumption can be better measured, Billboard should take advantage of this opportunity instead of diminishing its importance. Many folks in the industry feel strongly about this. Here’s a quote by Jim Urie, former head of Universal Music Group Distribution, in a recent interview with Variety:

“I absolutely believe that a straight streaming count should be the chart methodology at this point in time. Streaming was close to 80% of the U.S. market last year, and it’s only going higher.  I don’t know why we just don’t jump into the future. There is no competitive advantage to bundling; every label is doing it now. I believe the industry just has to wake up to the reality of streaming.”

 

Here’s Khaled’s bundle that didn’t make the cut. Apparently, Shop.com (screenshot above) encouraged bulk purchases to “push DJ Khaled and Market America to No. 1!” The blatant ask resulted in disqualification.

The ideal solution

Here’s what Billboard should propose:

  • Devalue bundles. If an album is bundled with an item of greater value, the album counts for 1/3 of an album equivalent unit. If an album is bundled with an item of lesser or equal value, it counts for 1/2 of an album equivalent unit. Standalone albums still count as one full album. The weight difference in bundles of greater vs. lesser value accounts for bundles where the album is the primary item.
  • Make 375 digital streams equal to 1 album equivalent unit. If each song is about 4 minutes long, it would take 25 hours (the monthly average) to listen to 375 tracks. This would put consumption on par with the amount of content that the average consumer pays $9.99 / month to listen to. Since $9.99 is the cost of most digital albums in the U.S., it’s a logical benchmark.
  • Count streams equally across platforms. No more weighted tiers for paid vs. ad-supported streams

This solves several issues. First, it places more value on buying standalone albums instead of bundles. It also places more value on streaming without neglecting album sales.

Artists can still sell a bundle if they choose to, but it will now count for less than it did before. This will change how artists market their albums. If a fan wants to use their dollars to directly support their favorite artist, the best way is to buy a standalone album. There’s still an opportunity for artists to manipulate this solution, but the change in value will make it less advantageous to do so.

Equalizing streams is a less-discussed but related issue. This proposal would revert a recent change that Billboard made in May 2018. Here was Billboard’s original rationale for the weighted tiers for paid vs ad-supported streams:

The shift to a multi-level streaming approach to Billboard’s chart methodology is reflective of a global push to measure streams in a revenue-reflective and access-based manner.

The revenue point is true. There is a global push to better measure this. But that’s not the Billboard 200’s job. From a consumption perspective, it still takes the same four minutes to listen to a song—regardless of whether it’s on a paid or ad-supported service. And since many paid subscription services are heavily subsidized through free trials, family plans, and pricing differences across markets, the tiered approach is a bit irrelevant.

Risks to mitigate

This solution will make some folks happy but frustrate others. Many artists have viewed bundles as a loss-leading business expense to ensure high chart placement, which has an expected ROI for future opportunities.

Let’s say that Travis Scott had an operating loss of $5 million for all his clothing bundles for Astroworld. His team likely views it as money well spent. I doubt Travis would have performed at Super Bowl halftime show if Astroworld wasn’t a commercial success.

But with these proposed changes, Travis Scott’s team can still execute an effective merch rollout. Fans will still buy merch even if it’s not tied to album sales.

Some labels will also push back on the decision to equalize streams across paid and ad-supported platforms. But (again!) it’s not Billboard’s job to account for the revenue difference across platforms. The cure for disruption is not to diminish its onset.

Here’s a video of some hypebeast who bought every piece of Astroworld merch. Maybe he should clean his room once he’s done.

There’s a future where the Billboard 200 will rely solely on streaming, but we’re not there yet. Billboard should look at this as the first step in a graduated process.

If meaningful changes aren’t made in this upcoming revision, Billboard may lose its role as the authority on album sales. In some ways, it’s already happening. Each DSP already reports its year-end numbers and makes it public when an artist’s new album breaks a streaming record.

The longer Billboard waits, the more likely that another service tries to replace it. The rest of the music industry has been disrupted by new entrants. It would be naive to think that Billboard, the longstanding incumbent on performance measurement, can maintain its spot if it continues to hold onto the past.

This is the online version of Trapital, the media company that helps you level up on the business side of hip-hop. Join the movement. Get strategic insights in your inbox.

Trapital is written by Dan Runcie. Contact me: info [at] trapital.co