Catalogs and Cash:

Tag: music marketing

  • The Michael Jackson Estate’s Biggest Opportunity: Repositioning the 1990s Catalog

    Introduction: A Catalog Imbalance Hiding in Plain Sight

    The catalog of Michael Jackson is one of the most valuable in music history. However, it is also uneven.

    On one hand, his 1980s output—Thriller, Bad, Off the Wall—continues to dominate streaming platforms, SiriusXM rotation, and cultural memory. Meanwhile, his 1990s catalog remains underplayed, under-discussed, and under-monetized.

    Importantly, this is not a quality issue. Rather, it is a positioning problem.

    The 1990s Were Bigger Than We Remember

    Dangerous (1991): A Commercial Powerhouse

    The album Dangerous was a commercial powerhouse. It produced major global hits such as “Black or White,” “Remember the Time,” “In the Closet,” and “Jam.”

    At the time, these songs defined pop music on a global scale. Today, however, they are not programmed with the same consistency as his 80s catalog.

    As a result, a generation of listeners associates Michael Jackson primarily with his earlier work, even though the 90s output was substantial.

    HIStory (1995): The Narrative Shift

    HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I marked a tonal and thematic pivot.

    Key tracks include:

    • “They Don’t Care About Us”
    • “Scream” (with Janet Jackson)
    • “Stranger in Moscow”
    • “Earth Song”
    • “You Are Not Alone”

    These songs were:

    • More political
    • More introspective
    • More cinematic

    And that shift changed how they age—and how they’re consumed today.

    Why the 90s Catalog Underperforms Today

    1. It Doesn’t Fit Easy Listening Lanes

    The 80s catalog is frictionless:

    • Instant recognition
    • Works in party settings
    • Fits “classic hits” formats

    The 90s catalog is different:

    • Slower
    • Heavier
    • More thematic

    Songs like:

    • “Earth Song”
    • “Stranger in Moscow”

    Don’t slot easily into algorithm-driven playlists or radio formats.

    2. The Narrative Became Complicated

    By the mid-1990s, the story around Michael Jackson changed.

    Music was no longer the only lens:

    • Tabloid coverage intensified
    • Public perception shifted
    • Personal controversy became part of the narrative

    That context affects how songs are remembered and programmed.

    Even a #1 hit like “You Are Not Alone” doesn’t receive consistent rotation today.

    3. There’s a “Story Gap” in the Catalog

    The arc is clear:

    • 70s: emergence
    • 80s: peak dominance
    • 90s: unclear positioning

    Without a defined narrative, the 90s catalog becomes fragmented—and easier to overlook.

    The Reframe: The Cinematic, Global, and Burden of Fame Era

    The 1990s catalog shouldn’t be treated as “post-peak.”

    It should be positioned as:

    Michael Jackson’s cinematic, global era—where the music reflects the weight and consequences of unprecedented fame.

    This reframing connects the work:

    • “Scream” → backlash
    • “They Don’t Care About Us” → defiance
    • “Stranger in Moscow” → isolation
    • “Earth Song” → global consciousness

    Now it’s not a scattered era.

    It’s a cohesive narrative.

    How the Estate Can Unlock Value

    1. Use Film as a Catalyst

    A sequel to Michael presents the strongest opportunity.

    Film doesn’t just revisit music—it reframes it.

    If the 90s are presented as a turning point:

    • Streaming spikes follow
    • Cultural re-evaluation begins
    • Under

    The 1990s Were Bigger Than We Remember

    Dangerous (1991): A Commercial Powerhouse

    The album Dangerous produced major global hits:

    • “Black or White”
    • “Remember the Time”
    • “In the Closet”
    • “Jam”

    These were not minor successes—they were defining records of the era.

    Yet today, they are not programmed or remembered with the same consistency as his 80s work.

    HIStory (1995): The Narrative Shift

    By contrast, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I marked a tonal shift.

    It introduced songs like:

    • “They Don’t Care About Us”
    • “Scream” (with Janet Jackson)
    • “Stranger in Moscow”
    • “Earth Song”

    Notably, these tracks were more political, more introspective, and more cinematic. Because of this, they do not fit neatly into traditional radio formats or algorithm-driven playlists.

    Why the 90s Catalog Underperforms Today

    The 80s catalog is frictionless. For example, it works in party settings, gyms, and “classic hits” formats.

    In contrast, the 90s catalog is slower and more thematic. Therefore, songs like “Earth Song” and “Stranger in Moscow” struggle to find a consistent home in modern programming.

    2. The Narrative Became Complicated

    At the same time, the broader narrative around Michael Jackson changed in the 1990s.

    Music was no longer the only lens. Instead, media coverage and personal controversy began to shape public perception.

    Consequently, even major hits like “You Are Not Alone” do not receive consistent rotation today.

    3. There’s a “Story Gap” in the Catalog

    The arc is clear:

    • 70s: emergence
    • 80s: peak dominance
    • 90s: unclear positioning

    Without a defined narrative, the 90s catalog becomes fragmented—and easier to overlook.

    A Quick Data Check: The Rotation Gap Is Real

    To validate the narrative, it helps to look at real-world airplay.

    Over the last 30 days (April 4 – May 4), the gap is clear.

    On 80s on 8, Michael Jackson has five songs among the most-played tracks. Notably, all five come from Thriller.

    In other words, his 1980s presence is not just strong—it is concentrated around a single, dominant tentpole.

    By contrast, the 1990s tell a very different story.

    On 90s on 9, Jackson has just one song in the most-played rotation: “Black or White” from Dangerous.

    Even more interesting, that track ranks #6 overall—and stands as one of the most-played songs from 1991 on the channel.

    However, despite that strong individual performance, the broader 1990s catalog remains largely absent from rotation.

    At the same time, 90s on 9 tends to skew toward the late 1990s, which may further limit exposure for earlier-decade Jackson releases. Still, that alone doesn’t explain the gap.

    Ultimately, the data reinforces the core point:

    The issue isn’t that the 1990s catalog lacks hits—it’s that only one of them consistently breaks through modern programming filters.

    Why This Matters

    Taken together, this creates a clear imbalance:

    • The 1980s catalog is deep, visible, and repeatedly surfaced
    • The 1990s catalog is shallow in rotation, despite proven success

    As a result, listener perception follows exposure—not history.

    And right now, the exposure is telling a very incomplete story.

    The Reframe: The Cinematic, Global, and Burden of Fame Era

    The 1990s catalog shouldn’t be treated as “post-peak.”

    It should be positioned as:

    Michael Jackson’s cinematic, global era—where the music reflects the weight and consequences of unprecedented fame.

    This reframing connects the work:

    • “Scream” → backlash
    • “They Don’t Care About Us” → defiance
    • “Stranger in Moscow” → isolation
    • “Earth Song” → global consciousness

    Now it’s not a scattered era.

    It’s a cohesive narrative.

    How the Estate Can Unlock Value

    1. Use Film as a Catalyst

    A sequel to Michael presents the strongest opportunity.

    Film doesn’t just revisit music—it reframes it.

    If the 90s are presented as a turning point:

    • Streaming spikes follow
    • Cultural re-evaluation begins
    • Underplayed songs gain context

    2. Create New Programming Lanes

    The solution is not forcing 90s songs into old categories.

    It’s building new ones:

    • Cinematic pop
    • Global anthems
    • Fame and pressure narratives

    Right now, these songs are effectively “homeless” in modern programming.

    3. Lean Into Depth, Not Nostalgia

    The 80s catalog thrives on nostalgia.

    The 90s catalog thrives on meaning.

    That distinction matters.

    Songs like:

    • “Earth Song”
    • “Stranger in Moscow”

    Are not background music.

    They are emotional, thematic pieces that require a different listening context.

    The Business Case: A Mispriced Asset

    Catalog value is driven by:

    • Frequency of play
    • Cultural relevance
    • Licensing demand

    Today:

    • 80s MJ = high-frequency assets
    • 90s MJ = low-frequency assets

    That gap is not about quality.

    It’s about positioning.

    The 1990s catalog is a mispriced asset that requires narrative activation to unlock its full value.

    Conclusion

    The music is already there. The hits already exist.

    What’s missing, however, is the story.

    Until the 1990s era is reframed as a distinct and essential chapter—defined by scale, pressure, and global ambition—it will remain underutilized.

    Ultimately, this represents one of the clearest opportunities in modern catalog management.

  • Miles Davis and the New Blueprint for Legacy Catalog Marketing

    Legacy catalog marketing used to be treated as a relatively straightforward exercise. Reissue the music, celebrate the anniversary, maybe place a few ads, and hope a familiar audience returns. That model still exists, but it is no longer enough. In a fragmented media environment, the most effective legacy campaigns do more than remind people that the music exists. They create new entry points into the artist’s world. That is why Miles Davis offers such a useful modern blueprint.

    What makes Miles especially instructive is that the music is only one gateway into the catalog. The artist also carries visual identity, cultural mystique, fashion credibility, historical importance, and an aura of cool that can travel far beyond jazz audiences. When that broader identity is activated well, it can lead people back to the recordings even if the first point of contact was not a song. That is a crucial lesson for anyone thinking about long-term catalog value.

    In the modern attention economy, artists are often rediscovered through image, story, and adjacent culture before they are rediscovered through audio. A younger audience might first encounter Miles Davis through street style content, photography, documentaries, social media clips, or editorial features about his influence and presence. Only then does the listener go back to the music. That path still counts. In fact, it may become increasingly important for older catalogs whose commercial future depends on crossing generational boundaries.

    This changes how rights holders should think about activation. A legacy campaign is not only about pushing streams directly. It is about strengthening the total cultural footprint of the artist. Fashion partnerships, museum-like storytelling, visual retrospectives, curated content, archival releases, interviews, and centennial programming can all build momentum that eventually supports streaming and licensing. Some tactics have an immediate earnings effect. Others work more indirectly by deepening relevance.

    Anniversary years are especially powerful because they create a natural media hook. They give estates, labels, publishers, and partners a reason to coordinate activity around a moment that feels newsworthy. But the strongest campaigns do not rely on the anniversary alone. They use it as a frame for a broader narrative about why the artist still matters now. In other words, the timing helps, but the story has to travel on its own merits.

    Miles Davis also shows the value of professional estate collaboration. Legacy rights are often most effective when the estate and the operating company are aligned on goals, quality, and strategy. That alignment allows activations to feel coherent rather than opportunistic. It helps ensure that commercial moves support, rather than dilute, the artist’s image. In the catalog world, stewardship and monetization are not always in conflict. When done well, they reinforce each other.

    There is also a broader business insight here. Streaming growth for legacy artists does not always come from obvious music-first marketing. Sometimes the path is global, cross-disciplinary, and cumulative. A fashion article, a cultural essay, a documentary mention, a social clip, and a well-timed reissue may each contribute only a little. Together, they create rediscovery. Catalog value often grows through this kind of ecosystem effect rather than one giant switch being flipped.

    For investors and operators, that means legacy value should not be thought of as static. The catalog is not merely sitting there collecting passive nostalgia income. It can be activated through identity, context, and culture. The better the team understands the artist’s broader mythology, the more ways it has to create demand.

    Miles Davis is a strong example because his appeal reaches beyond jazz purists. He represents taste, edge, reinvention, and visual sophistication in addition to musical greatness. That makes him unusually adaptable to modern forms of cultural storytelling. But the underlying lesson extends more broadly. Legacy artists remain economically relevant when rights holders stop treating the catalog as just audio and start treating it as a living brand archive.

    That is the new blueprint for legacy catalog marketing: do not just remind the audience of the songs. Rebuild the world around the artist, create multiple points of entry, and let cultural curiosity pull listeners back into the music. When that happens, streams rise, licensing gets easier, and the catalog becomes active again.