On and Off the Record: A Conversation with Kristin Robinson
Billboard's Kristin Robinson stops by to talk about AI, catalog purchases, and so much more
While there are many people in the music business whose writing I follow closely, I don’t think there’s anyone that I’m more engaged with than Kristin Robinson. A Senior Correspondent at Billboard, Robinson is always a step ahead, breaking stories on AI, publishing, and music marketing nearly every week.
Last year, Robinson started her podcast, On The Record. In my humble opinion, it’s the best music industry podcast around. Frankly, the guest list over the first two seasons has been astounding. She’s spoken with hit songwriter Ryan Tedder, Suno CEO Mikey Shulman, Atlantic Record exec Elliot Grainge, popular artist Charlie Puth, and so many others.
Today, she’s taken time out of her busy schedule to chat with me about the catalog purchase craze, why AI might have some benefits, the unexpected rise of Christian music, and a viral debate her recent article set off.
One of your recent stories for Billboard broke containment. You spoke with Chaotic Good, a notable digital marketing firm in the music business. They told you that, “Everything on the internet is fake,” alluding to the fact that they will use fake accounts and fake interactions to create social proof that people are already listening to an artist.
Many people online were upset with this, especially since some of the artists they worked with, like Geese and Mk.gee, are respected. What was your whole take on this situation? I know Chaotic Good removed some client names from their site after the story started blowing up.
I do believe they removed some artists on their website, but they didn’t remove them on Instagram, which I haven’t spoken to them about. The day the interview came out, they were very happy with it. What’s interesting about that interview is that if you work at a label or are an artist manager, you know that this stuff has been going on for years. It’s kind of how marketing works in 2026. Once people are keyed in on a marketing initiative, then the marketing stops working.
When I asked them about the issues with so much on the internet being fake, they argued that they were pushing songs and trying to get artists to succeed in a crowded landscape. They believe their mission is a good one. But I understand why it is a polarizing topic.
Totally. I was aware of this stuff, and I get why it makes people upset. But part of me also doesn’t care that much as long as the music is good.
That’s the thing, though. This stuff only works if the music is good. I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but campaigns like these are run for so many songs. Every label is doing it. Many songs that get this treatment go nowhere because they aren’t good. We’re only hearing about the campaigns that worked.
I do think part of what upset people is that many of Chaotic Good’s clients, like Geese and Mk.gee and Dijon, are known as cool indie acts. We expect major label artists to engage in marketing tactics like this. But these acts are held to some sort of higher bar.
At the end of the day, it is really hard to cut through the noise.
It is. And some of those artists don’t like to post on social media because it creates mystique or they just don’t like it. These are artists who aren’t going to make “Did I just make the song of the summer?” videos on TikTok. This is a way to market music where they don’t really have to be involved.
When you first started at Billboard, your beat was publishing and performance rights. For the last few decades, I feel like that was considered the least sexy part of the business. Now, hundreds of millions of dollars are being thrown around to purchase the publishing catalogs of legacy acts. What is your take on the catalog purchasing craze? Do you expect it to cool off?
There’s no sign of the catalog market slowing down. The prices are still very high. I think everyone has just realized that older songs actually have a pretty predictable rate of return. It’s not a bad place to park your money. The irony is that while these are safe investments for older music, it’s harder than ever to establish yourself financially as an artist.
You’ve written in the past about forgotten hits. So, it’s not like you just have a hit and suddenly your music is generating tons of money for decades. But after a certain point, it does become very predictable how a catalog will continue to perform. Like if you purchased something from 1975, you’d know what to expect in a way you wouldn’t when looking at a song from 2019.
Of course, catalog purchasing is not new. There’s the infamous story from the 1980s where Michael Jackson went behind Paul McCartney’s back to purchase The Beatles’ publishing. But do you think the growing interest in the space is just driven by how much more predictable streaming revenues are?
Yes. Once streaming got embedded in the culture, people started to realize how much data we had access to. Back in the day, when you purchased a CD, you had a single data point. You didn’t know how often people played the CD once they walked out of the record store. With streaming, we get very granular data. Streaming has made the revenue streams for songs much more predictable.
I also think Hipgnosis did a lot for getting Main Street to pay attention to this space. They were overbidding for catalogs, which drove up prices. Those purchases made headlines. They’ve scaled back since then because of some financial difficulties, but they were onto something.
The one part of this space that I’m most skeptical of is letting fans buy fractional shares of songs. Like you could own 0.01% of “Halo” by Beyonce. I feel like you’re just going to get people paying for songs they are emotionally attached to. Something about it just feels sketchy to me.
Royalty streams are also becoming so complicated without involving fans. Like it’s hard enough to get all the money routed to the correct parties already. Getting fans involved will make it more complex. I’m also just skeptical that fans have any interest in this. Some companies have tried, like JKBX. But I don’t think anybody has really cracked the code yet.
Earlier, you noted that while superstar catalogs are predictable investments, it may be harder than ever to make it as an artist or songwriter. When you spoke with Ryan Tedder and David Israelite recently, they brought up how certain format shifts have hurt up-and-comers.
Like back in the day, if I wrote an album cut for Santana’s Supernatural that nobody cared about, I would have made off quite well because everyone was buying the CD just to hear “Smooth.” Packaging brought great benefits to smaller songwriters. Now, unless you’re writing the big hit on, say, Ariana Grande’s album, you’re not going to make off as well. Do you see any way for us to change the system to benefit smaller songwriters?
Unfortunately, I think this is the new world we live in. Even so, I think the rise of social media has opened up the doors for artists and songwriters from places that would not have gotten a shot in the past. The old system was propping up many songwriters, though. Maybe you weren’t rich if you wrote the album cut on the big album, but you could lead a middle class life.
Now, top songwriters will sometimes ask for more to make up for that lost income. I’ve heard that some big writers will only work on a project if certain conditions are met:
