MBW Views is a series of op-eds from eminent music industry people… with something to say. The following MBW op/ed comes from Pascal Bittard, founding President of digital distributor and artist & label services company IDOL, which was founded by Bittard in 2006 and celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. IDOL works with labels such as City Slang, Erased Tapes, Fire Records, Glitterbeat, Gondwana, Kitsuné, Local Action, Mexican Summer, Soundway, SRD, as well as video game publishers Ubisoft, among others. IDOL also services a number of other artists directly, including Four Tet, and Flatbush Zombies member Erick the Architect. In this op-ed, Bittard examines the risks of excessive levels of venture capital and private equity investment in the music business and argues that true independence allows companies to take a long-term, sustainable approach in the interests of artists and labels.
The lead-up to the European Commission’s conditional approval of Universal Music Group’s $775 million acquisition of Downtown Music sparked a debate amongst industry leaders over access to commercially sensitive data and market share. Those concerns are legitimate. When the world’s largest music rightsholder wants to acquire another significant independent player, questions around scale, competition and concentration naturally follow.
Major labels have often sought market control, which can narrow the channels available for independents and, in turn, threaten diversity and innovation. But an increasingly outdated “major vs independent” framing no longer gives the whole picture.
It’s been 20 years since I founded IDOL. For much of that time, music was not considered an attractive investment. Unlicensed file-sharing, followed by media predictions of the imminent death of physical formats, damaged faith in the industry’s long-term profitability. All-you-can-eat streaming changed that, ushering in predictable revenues that triggered an influx of venture capital and private equity investment.
Since then, our business has become highly capitalized in almost every sector. The turn of the decade saw mammoth funds like Hipgnosis accumulating huge catalogs, with Blackstone committing billions of dollars for stakes in the publishing and masters of some of music’s biggest artists. External capital also extends beyond music ownership and into the systems and services that artists and labels depend on day to day, illustrated by investor-backed rights platforms such as Songtradr and analytics tools like Chartmetric.
This problem is arguably more concentrated in digital distribution, with, I believe, only a couple of distributors solely owned by their founders. Just last month, Insight Holdings Group – an investor linked to DistroKid – acquired Zebralution from GEMA.
Outside interest is something worth celebrating, but it also raises some difficult questions: what are the underlying objectives of these companies that artists and labels rely on, and are they any more “independent” than their major-owned counterparts?
Major labels are far from perfect actors. They pursue scale aggressively, can dominate markets, and it’s right that their influence is scrutinized. But they are, at their core, music businesses. They have always operated in this industry and always will. Their long-term commercial interests are fundamentally tied to the health of the music ecosystem, the protection of rights, and the continued development of culturally valuable repertoire.
By contrast, businesses backed by venture capital or private equity have different incentives. Decisions are often driven by short to medium-term returns on investment rather than a long-term perspective on creative and commercial outcomes. Shareholders can change quickly. Funding can be reallocated, paused or withdrawn if growth targets are missed. Strategies shift. Teams are restructured. Campaign resources are adjusted. In these models, music is not always the end goal – it is the vehicle.
These shorter-term interests can be seen earlier this year when Blackstone – which acquired Hipgnosis in 2024, now rebranded as Recognition Music – sold a large chunk of the catalog to Sony Music for more than $200 million. According to reports, sources have suggested Blackstone would be prepared to divest any individual asset where it can guarantee a strong return on investment.
That is not to suggest that music companies with non-traditional backing are inherently bad, or that outside investment has not supported the careers of countless successful and culturally important artists and labels. Many businesses in this area employ passionate people who live and breathe music, build valuable tools, and contribute meaningfully to the ecosystem.
However, the impact of these differences is felt most acutely by artists and labels. When financial pressure intensifies, risk-taking becomes harder and long-term artist development is deprioritized. Bespoke services give way to standardized, scalable solutions. What may look efficient on a spreadsheet can quietly erode the conditions required for creative diversity to flourish.
By contrast, financially independent companies built around balanced, sustainable models are not forced into redundancy programmes or structural upheaval simply to maximize profitability. Stability comes with this territory – it is a strategic choice rooted in long-term commitment, which is what artists, labels, and the wider sector ultimately need.
It is worth being clear-eyed about what is at stake. True independence is not defined solely by corporate ownership structures. It is defined by the freedom to take a long-term view in the interests of artists and labels. This means bringing specialist knowledge, reactivity and adaptable services, and a willingness to invest patiently in music as a cultural good, one that may take longer to realize commercially than some VC or PE models are designed to accommodate.
With the European Commission’s decision on UMG’s acquisition of Downtown now behind us, and more high-profile acquisitions likely on the horizon, the industry’s debate over distribution and services consolidation must widen. Market share matters. Competition matters. But so too does the source of capital shaping our industry, and whether the companies we rely on are built to serve music over decades, or just quarters.Music Business Worldwide
