I'm not trying to create bad blood. And ya, haters gonna hate hate hate… but despite what you may have read, Taylor Swift is not a billionaire.
Why am I telling you this?
On October 26 at around 8 pm PST, Bloomberg published an article titled:
"Taylor Swift Vaults Into Billionaire Ranks With Blockbuster Eras Tour."
Bloomberg, which had not previously published a calculation of Taylor's wealth, declared her net worth to be $1.1 billion.
Not to be rude, but in my opinion, the Bloomberg article is 80% fluff without much actual net worth justification. Most of the article discusses generalities like the economic impact The Eras tour had on the cities it visited, the recent history of music catalog deals, and Taylor's infamous split with her former record label, which propelled her to re-record all of her songs.
When you drill down, the article claims Taylor Swift's net worth is now $1.1 billion based on "the estimated value of her music catalog and five homes, and earnings from streaming deals, music sales, concert tickets, and merchandise."
Specifically, Bloomberg's $1.1 billion estimate is the sum of:
- $400 million – Estimated value of her catalog
- $370 million – Ticket sales and merchandise
- $120 million – Spotify & YouTube earnings
- $110 million – Real estate
- $80 million – Royalties outside of streaming
I'm not going to spend time addressing Bloomberg's above numbers (though I do think they are off by a few hundred million). My larger problem with this article (and others that typically come from Forbes) is that it smells like a publicity-friendly puff piece built on a tiny teeny morsel of justification backed up by 1,000 words of flattery filler. In my opinion, these articles are primarily written to generate page views.
(Photo by Gotham/GC Images)
What if we declared Taylor Swift a billionaire?
These articles often smell like they were written with a goal in mind. In this case: "What if we declared Taylor Swift a billionaire?" Bloomberg then uses its clout to gather a dozen "industry experts" who reverse engineer a very neat justification for their goal number. They hit publish and print money off an avalanche of ensuing pageviews.
Another suspicious trait is that these articles conveniently seem to drop at very opportune times. Right now is probably the peak of Taylor-mania. Her North American tour is wrapped. Her just-released movie is a smash. She's on TV every Sunday rooting for her hot new NFL boyfriend. And Bloomberg juuuuuusst happened to hit publish on their billionaire-crowning article a few hours before the highly-anticipated release of "1989 (Taylor's Version)", the re-recorded version of her most famous album.
It seems a bit orchestrated.
In my opinion, Forbes appears to work with the subject's PR team before they publish their versions of these too-good-to-true celebrity headlines. You see it over and over. Forbes declares someone a billionaire or the highest-paid XYZ, always right before a big movie or product launch, as if the article is part of a coordinated PR campaign roll-out. Right after the article is published, the celebrity posts a link to social media with a message like: "So humbled. Started from the bottom. Now I'm on Forbes. Wow. #blessed"… almost as if it was part of a plan.
Speaking of Forbes.
On June 1st of this year Forbes declared Taylor Swift one of the richest self-made women in America with a net worth of $740 million. For what it's worth, back in June, our estimate was $700 million, and today it is $800 million.
On June 26, Forbes published an article titled "How The Eras Tour Could Boost Taylor Swift's Net Worth." In this article, Forbes estimated that after 22 dates, Taylor had grossed $110 million. That's gross earnings. "When the bills are paid, Forbes estimates she has earned roughly $30 million." At this point, they updated Taylor's net worth to $780 million.
To repeat, that's $30 million net earnings for Taylor after roughly half of the North American performances. That was late June. Four months ago. Here is the concluding paragraph from that June 26 article:
"[the] Eras could eventually hit a record-breaking $1.4 billion when it ends in August 2024. That, along with earnings from Speak Now (Taylor's Version), a re-record of her 2010 album that drops next week, could push the singer's net worth to around $900 million next year."
June 26 Forbes: Could push the singer's net worth to $900 million next year. AFTER the full Eras tour ends.
October 26 at 8pm PST: Bloomberg publishes its Taylor billionaire article. You'll never guess what Forbes did the next morning.
October 27 at 10:43am PST: Forbes published an article titled…
"Taylor Swift's New Era: The Pop Star Becomes A Billionaire"
They don't mention Bloomberg, but with their own "industry experts," somehow Forbes landed on the EXACT same net worth number! What a coinkydink:
"According to Forbes estimates, she is worth more than $1.1 billion, up from $360 million from June…"
Just like Bloomberg, the rest of Forbes' article is fluff. It talks about other celebrity billionaires like Rihanna and Jay-Z, music catalog sales, and Taylor's infamous split with her former record label, which propelled her to re-record all of her songs.
It's paint-by-numbers content.
To recap:
In late June, Forbes declared that after netting $30 million off the first half of the North American tour, Taylor was worth $780 million and would be worth $900 million sometime in late 2024, when the full tour was totally over. On Oct 26, Bloomberg declares Taylor a billionaire. Fourteen hours later, Forbes says, "TAYLOR SWIFT IS NOW A BILLIONAIRE." Not on pace to be a billionaire when the tour ends. She's a billionaire RIGHT NOW, according to both articles.
One final consideration: Someone's net worth is increased by income that is saved after taxes, managers, agents, promoters, bus driver bonuses, private jet fuel, and maintenance… All these costs typically mean a person like Taylor is lucky to take home around half of their gross income. The difference between $780 million and $1.1 billion is $320 million. For Forbes to increase its estimate, Taylor essentially would have needed to earn $640 million in the last FOUR MONTHS. That just didn't happen. What really happened? In my opinion, Bloomberg hit publish on a splashy headline. Forbes woke up and went, "Shit. We need to do this, too." It's too bad because I was half hoping Forbes would publish a counterargument disproving Bloomberg's headline. In my opinion, that would have been much less fluff and much more facts.
CNW is sticking with our current estimate of $800 million.
