‘The real win is doing this for a living’: Routes,routines and rewards of music managers

Abstract

Studies of the music industry have traditionally prioritized its creative dimensions, especially musicians’ activities. When ‘non-creative’ aspects of music creation are examined, they are typically approached through musicians’ own ‘non-creative’ activities. Despite the insistence of scholars to consider both art worlds and ‘humdrum inputs’, less is known about music managers. As a result, their working lives and experiences remain underexplored. Therefore, we ask: what are the routes, routines and rewards that typify contemporary music management in Europe? Based on a mixed-methods approach, we show that music managers are similar to other DIY professionals. Their careers are often informal and self-directed, shaped by learning-by-doing and mentorship rather than formalized training. Their everyday work demands a combination of business acumen and emotional labour, as they mediate between artistic aspirations and market constraints. While financial stability is precarious, participants describe intrinsic rewards as central motivations for remaining in the field.

Keywords

Do-it-yourself music managers cultural intermediaries self-taught art worlds

Introduction

Sociological studies of the music industry often focus on its creative dimensions, examining elements such as style and genre (Roy and Dowd, 2010), autonomy (Marshall, 2011; Negus, 1995) and musicians’ activities (Crossley, 2023). ‘Non-creative’ activities are primarily discussed in relation to musicians’ own ‘non-creative’ activities. Research in this area explores musicians’ broader working lives (Everts et al., 2022; Vachet, 2024), their entrepreneurial activities (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b; Scott, 2012), alternative business models (Venema and Wijngaarden, 2024) or social media engagement (Haynes and Marshall, 2018a). Less is known about the roles of those involved in the more commercially driven aspects of the music industry, despite Becker's ([1982] 2008) call to see the significance of support personnel in the collaborative nature of artistic production.

As the music industry grows more complex, musicians must navigate not only traditional structures but also vast digital landscapes, evolving business models, and the challenge of transforming artistic identity into a commercially viable career (Hracs, 2012; Hracs and Leslie, 2014; Frenneaux, 2023). The oversupply of music on streaming platforms further heightens the pressure to capture audience attention, making it essential for musicians to strategize and optimize processes (Polak and Schaap, 2024). At the same time, the decline of the ‘corporate era’ of the music industry (Hracs, 2015) - marked by the waning influence of record labels - has shifted many of the ‘humdrum inputs’ or ‘mundane practices’ of the music industry (Caves, 2002; Negus, 1995) to the musicians themselves (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021). In a sense, there is a mainstreaming of DIY practices: increasingly by need and less by choice (Frenneaux, 2023). And yet, many musicians are not able to meet this plethora of demands. Paradoxically, this shift underscores the continued importance of music managers, whose role in coordinating these tasks has become more critical than ever.

Faced with contemporary challenges, musicians must decide whether to retain full autonomy, managing all aspects of their careers themselves, or delegate tasks to a music manager. As careers evolve, the temptation to outsource grows stronger (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021). Music managers are specialized professionals guiding artists between creative and commercial pursuits (Jones, 2012), taking on responsibilities that artists cannot shoulder alone. Now more than ever, managers play a central role in shaping careers ‒ so much so that some scholars describe a growing ‘managerization’ of music intermediaries (Lizé, 2016). Their tasks range from financial administration and promotion to career strategy and negotiations with record labels and industry stakeholders.

Despite their expanding influence, the working lives of music managers remain underexplored. Popular narratives often sensationalize conflicts or scandals (BBC News, 2017; Lindvall, 2009), while academic textbooks focus on marketing or PR rather than the nature of music management itself (Allen, 2022; Anderton et al., 2022). Recent descriptive (MMF UK, 2019, 2020, 2021) and qualitative (Morrow, 2025; Wang, 2025; Webb et al., 2023) studies provide insights but often focus on a single national context. There is thus a need to generalize beyond single-country studies to better understand how music managers navigate this increasingly complex industry. We address this by drawing on DIY literature (Bennett, 2018; Guerra, 2021). Compared to other creative occupations, music management is scarcely institutionalized or professionalized, requiring managers to rely on self-taught skills and experience, supplemented only occasionally by textbooks, handbooks, or classes (Webb et al., 2023). This approach provides detailed insights into contemporary DIY work practices in the music sector.

This article examines the identity and activities of music managers, asking: what are the routes, routines and rewards that typify music management in contemporary Europe? We draw on an extensive survey and qualitative interviews to analyze three key areas: (i) pathways to becoming a music manager, (ii) everyday tasks and (iii) compensation structures. Primary data include an online survey (Music Management in Europe Survey 2023, n = 354) with open and closed questions, as well as seven in-depth interviews for more detailed exploration. Focusing on music managers provides not only a deeper understanding of contemporary music production practices but also broader insights into emerging forms of DIY entrepreneurship and career-building in the creative industries.

Literature review

Arts and commerce in a changing music industry

Like other creative industries, the music industry balances artistic autonomy with the commercial necessity of reaching an audience (Negus, 1995). Artists depend on ‘humdrum inputs’: support personnel who sustain both creative work and careers (Caves, 2003). Throughout much of the twentieth century, these relationships followed a structured model: one party absorbed costs and supplied input before passing the product to the next, who added further expertise (Caves, 2002). In music, record labels traditionally played this role. Once signed, labels assumed responsibility for recording, promotion and distribution, allowing musicians to focus more fully on creative work (Caves, 2002; Hracs and Leslie, 2014). During this ‘corporate era’, artists were either signed or striving to secure a deal (Hracs, 2015).

Music management emerged during this period alongside the growth of recorded music (Jones, 2012). Earlier, the industry revolved around live performance, structured by agents, promoters and publicists (Jones, 2012: 83). As recording expanded, so did the careers of recording artists. Artists and industry players initially assumed that careers, driven by the sale of singles, would be short-lived. But as the popularity of major stars (e.g. the Beatles) became more sustained, careers lengthened. Record companies and artists began pursuing album-based trajectories, increasing the number and complexity of tasks to manage. The music manager became a central node within this expanding network, mediating between creative and commercial aims and balancing leadership with service to artists (Jones, 2012). Managers typically learned the profession on the job (Jones, 2012).

Digitization has reshaped the industry, democratizing recording through ‘platform capitalism’ (Frenneaux, 2023: 127) and reinforcing the need to construct a coherent ‘brand’ or ‘aesthetic’ (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b; Hracs and Leslie, 2014). Developing an artistic identity and engaging in aesthetic labour have thus become central responsibilities for artists (Hracs and Leslie, 2014; Lizé et al., 2022). In a saturated landscape where music supply exceeds human attention (Léveillé Gauvin, 2018), the imperative to ‘stand out’ has intensified. Moreover, musicians’ workloads now include extensive ‘non-creative’ activities necessary to monetize a career (Everts et al., 2022; Everts and Haynes, 2021). The requirement to possess ‘the skills of a legal expert, a financier, and a manager’ (Greffe, 2004: 88) has brought DIY production back to the forefront (Guerra, 2021; Hracs, 2015), as artists continually seek new business opportunities (Morrow, 2018).

These developments have made DIY less a choice than a necessity: artists can operate more independently but are also expected to assume expanding responsibilities ‒ writing, recording, marketing, branding and social media ‒ often as a prerequisite for accessing industry gatekeepers (Frenneaux, 2023). While some combine creative and managerial roles (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021), many continue to delegate these responsibilities to managers.

As a result, music managers have assumed many tasks traditionally performed by other intermediaries, including record labels (Hracs, 2015; Everts and Haynes, 2021; Webb et al., 2023). Yet, the nature of managerial work and managers’ self-identity within the broader music industry (Thompson et al., 2007) remain poorly understood. Research shows that musicians often resist aligning economic and artistic values (Haynes and Marshall, 2018b) and strive for self-reliance (Everts and Haynes, 2021), but it is unclear whether this pursuit of authenticity similarly shapes managers’ dispositions. To address this question, we next situate music managers within the framework of cultural mediation.

Music managers as cultural intermediaries

Given that ‘humdrum’, non-creative activities now constitute a large share of musicians’ work, many outsource these commercially oriented tasks to music managers, who ‘are re-emerging as key intermediaries who catalyze and facilitate new organizational forms and strategic partnerships between creative workers’ (Hracs, 2015: 463). Music managers are true all-arounders, often engaging in diverse responsibilities to bolster the trajectory of musicians’ careers (Wang, 2025). Their ‘hats’ include promoter, planner, mediator, negotiator, entrepreneur and mobilizer of the artists’ social and symbolic capital (Lizé, 2016; Wang, 2025).

Music managers thus play an essential role in artists’ careers. Studies suggest that musicians directly or indirectly connected to managers are more likely to succeed (Dowd and Pinheiro, 2013; Hracs, 2015), highlighting managers’ role in achieving both market recognition and commercial success. Positioned at the intersection of musicians, labels, audiences and other industry stakeholders, music managers exemplify cultural intermediaries (Negus, 2002). Their management role allows them to act as liaisons between artists and industry professionals, directly contributing to the accumulation of artists’ symbolic capital, including reputation, connections and popularity (Balaji, 2012; Dowd and Pinheiro, 2013; Lizé, 2016).

Beyond individual careers, music managers also shape the cultural landscape of the music industry and patterns of cultural consumption (Balaji, 2012). They influence which artists are signed, which music is produced and distributed (Hesmondhalgh, 2006), and ultimately which cultural products reach audiences. By guiding artist representation, branding and marketing strategies, they help construct genre identities, trends and consumer preferences (Hracs, 2015), mediating the exchange of symbolic goods between producers and consumers (Negus, 2002).

Existing research has begun to examine music managers’ activities, responsibilities and rewards. For instance, studies explore management and leadership styles, routines and mental health (Morrow, 2025; Wang, 2025; Webb et al., 2023), and the balance of costs and income (Morrow, 2025). However, much of this work relies on highly localized case studies, qualitative interviews, or ethnographic approaches, often within a single national context (Webb et al., 2023). As a result, there is limited knowledge of how music management operates across broader contexts. In particular, we lack insight into how a diverse group of managers across Europe understand and define their roles, and how they navigate a profession largely shaped by autodidactic learning and a strong DIY ethos.

DIY and music management

The emergence of DIY has traditionally been understood as a reaction to the rise of independent record labels and, more broadly, the dominance of major labels in the established music industry of the late twentieth century (Strachan, 2007). It represented resistance not only to corporate control but also to the increasing commercialization and scale of these institutions (Bennett, 2018). The ethos of DIY diverged from the operational logic of the majors, offering both a philosophical reflection on and challenge to their dominance (Guerra, 2021). Rooted in the punk movement's emphasis on individual autonomy and anti-establishment sentiment, DIY culture traditionally encouraged individuals to articulate their voices through self-initiated cultural production (Crossley, 2023; McKay, 2024), managing all aspects of musical production individually or within small, self-organized teams (Crossley, 2023). Central to this orientation was an ‘anti-hegemonic’ and ‘non-mainstream’ ethic (Bennett, 2018).

More recent research complicates this view, arguing that DIY and commercial activity, independence and professionalism, should not be seen as binary opposites but as intertwined practices (Hesmondhalgh, 1999; Frenneaux, 2023). Contemporary approaches conceptualize DIY as encompassing

[…] a range of alternative and do-it-yourself modes of work and employment not governed by formal qualifications and training, but grounded in knowledge and practical know-how acquired through participation in music and style-based youth cultures and associated consumption, leisure and lifestyle practices. (Bennett, 2018: 140)

This emphasis on self-learning and self-management has increasingly permeated formal music education, as institutions ‒ driven by neoliberal ideologies and enabled by digital technologies ‒ offer courses in entrepreneurship and career development tailored to musicians (Everts et al., 2024). While DIY may still retain anti-hegemonic and non-mainstream elements, ‘…the distinction between DIY and mainstream cultural practice is becoming increasingly less clear cut given the increasing levels of professionalization and entrepreneurialism that characterize and indeed increasingly exemplify much of the contemporary DIY cultural sphere of production’ (Bennett, 2018: 141). These dynamics are not limited to musicians but also extend to managers (Wang, 2025). The rise of music managers does not signal an erosion of musicians’ DIY ethos or a capitulation to major-label logics. Rather, DIY among managers represents a reinterpretation aligned with broader processes of professionalization and entrepreneurialization prompted by the growing complexity of the music industry (Bennett, 2018; Hracs, 2015; Prokop and Reitsamer, 2023). Positioned between commercially driven industry actors and the DIY practices of independent musicians, managers occupy an ambiguous professional space (Jones, 2012).

Responding to Bennett's (2018) observation that analyses of the informal structures through which music workers scale their labor outside formal industry frameworks remain limited, this paper addresses that gap. We examine how music managers enter the profession (through ‘DIY training’ or formal education), the multiple roles they perform within their multifaceted occupation, and how they are compensated.

Data and methods

Data for this analysis come from an online survey (Music Managers in Europe 2023) developed in conjunction with the European Music Managers Alliance (EMMA) between the months of May and October in 2023. A number of questions were adapted from previous survey instruments used in the UK (MMF UK, 2019, 2020, 2021). Using the Qualtrics online survey development and distribution platform, collection commenced in October and November of 2023 by means of an anonymous link, sent to EMMA's national affiliates and social media channels. Along with English, the survey was offered in French, Spanish and Polish language options. The final n for the survey is 354 respondents. Of these, 60% completed the survey. We consulted with our institutional review board during survey development before data collection, who then granted ethical approval. Respondents provided written informed consent via an online form. Participation was voluntary and respondent identity was kept anonymous.

The survey included closed questions on demographics (age, education, race/ethnicity and gender), prior work in music, employment (status, years of experience), skills (acquisition, importance and areas for improvement) and earnings (payment and income) (see Appendix Table 1A for descriptive statistics). Open questions addressed everyday work, including daily tasks, responsibilities and major challenges. Between July and December 2023, we also conducted seven interviews with experienced European music managers (from all over Europe). These interviews informed survey development and provided deeper insight into managers’ roles, routines and job experiences. All respondents had over ten years in the industry, with some having multiple decades of experience. Four identified as men and three as women.

Using interviews and an online survey with demographic, closed and open questions, we employ a mixed-methods approach integrating descriptive and inferential statistics with thematic analysis. We first present a descriptive overview of respondents’ routes into music management, including fields of study and prior music experience. We then describe daily routines and the skills required for these tasks. Finally, we examine the rewards of music management, including an inferential analysis of income accounting for skill acquisition and years of experience.

Results

Routes into music management

Similar to the pathways of DIY musicians (Bennett, 2018), the journey to becoming a music manager is often characterized by networking, serendipitous events, and a touch of luck, rather than following an institutionalized, linear path. As one respondent insightfully remarked, ‘Many of the positions I aim for aren’t openly advertised… it's not always a free market’ [Interview 6]. Another respondent elaborated, ‘There are typically two routes: either you become friends with an artist and end up managing them, or you hold another role within the music industry and eventually transition to management’. This sentiment was echoed in his personal background: ‘I already had a substantial network in music… it turned out that I could leverage my marketing expertise in this field’ [Interview 4]. The networked nature of the music industry, which heavily relies on social capital (Scott, 2012), is therefore evident in the pathways to managerial positions.

This ‘potpourri’ of career pathways is also reflected in the diverse educational backgrounds of music managers. Table 1 outlines the fields of study pursued prior to entering the profession.

Table 1.

Music manager areas of study (n = 250).

Study areas	Freq.	%
Business, administration, management	81	32.4
Arts and humanities	70	28.0
Social science	61	24.4
STEM	12	4.8
Law	11	4.4
Professions (agriculture, education, healthcare)	8	3.2
Secondary education	4	1.6
None	2	0.8
Liberal arts	1	0.4
Total	250	100

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

The most common background is business, administration and management (32%). Though the converse can also be said: the other 68% do not have formal training in business. The interviews suggest that formal education alone rarely leads directly to a management role, which aligns with industry reports from the UK (Webb et al., 2023), and published work (Jones, 2012; Gross and Bennett, 2024) which notes the reliance on informal education in the music management field. Instead, such qualifications are typically combined with networking, informal industry involvement, and what respondents often described as ‘serendipitous’ events, rather than a seamless transition from education into professional practice. Respondent 2, for example, described what they considered a ‘typical’ trajectory into music management, beginning with a background in business, administration and management.

[…] when I went to university at 18 […], I wanted to be a radio DJ and realized that I wasn’t cut out for it. I saw a poster on the wall for the venue inside the university. […] so I started doing that on the side whilst at university and I really loved it. And then the guy who ran the venue put me forward for a job working for [major label]. [..] I quit that eventually and worked doing A&R for seven years for [big three music label]. […] That led me to realizing I was quite jealous of all the managers who were doing the job at the other side that I was not doing, which was kind of being closer to the artist and helping to strategize and build businesses and ideas and that excited me much more than being an A&R. I left A&R and went into management and have been doing it now for 10 years.

Other prevalent fields of education are arts and humanities (28%), or a science field (social science plus STEM equals 29%). Interviewees have specifically noted that degrees focused on music ‒ typically categorized under arts and humanities ‒ have not been essential for their professional endeavours. Respondent 2 articulated this sentiment by stating, ‘I wasn’t interested in the ethnography of music […] I was interested in how music can be taken out into the world and how the mechanics of all that work’.

However, despite business, administration, or management being the largest single category, most respondents do not possess formal education in these areas. Consequently, the business acumen required for music management is often acquired outside established educational institutions, driven by self-initiated endeavours and knowledge-exchange rather than industry standards (Crossley, 2023). As will be further explored, the demand for a diverse skill set ‒ one that transcends a single field of study ‒ is driven by the multifaceted nature of music management work.

We also asked respondents if they worked in the music industry before going into management. Sixty-eight percent indicated that they had (not shown). If they said they did work in music beforehand, we followed up by asking them which area of the music business they were involved in. These are noted in Table 2.

Table 2.

Areas of music before going into management (n = 185).

Area of music	Freq.	%
Live/touring	70	37.8
Record labels	60	32.4
Marketing and communication	54	29.2
Artist/musicians/creator	50	27.0
Business	31	16.8
Publishing	21	11.4
Journalism, TV, radio	10	5.4
Legal	7	3.8
Music retail	4	2.2
Export office	3	1.6
Music distribution	2	1.1
Recording and production	2	1.1
Other	9	4.9

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

A number of paths lead into the role of music manager, but the top four include live/touring (38%), record labels (32%), marketing and communication (29%) and as artists, musicians, or creators (27%). These findings largely echo existing textbooks on music managers in the UK (Webb et al., 2023).

Routines

In an open question, we asked respondents ‘[h]ow would you describe your daily tasks and main responsibilities to someone who has no idea what a music manager does every day?’. Table 3 presents the results of a thematic analysis of these answers. The most frequently mentioned set of tasks fall under business and negotiations (59%).

Table 3.

Thematic analysis of everyday tasks (n = 196).

Theme	Freq.	%
Business and negotiations	117	59.4
Planning and project management	96	48.7
Networking, communications, and relationships	86	43.7
Marketing and promotions	64	32.5
Administration and scheduling	60	30.5
Career planning and coaching	61	31.0
Broad and varied	45	22.8
Emotional labor and well-being	24	12.2
Public relations	20	10.2
Facilitating creativity	17	8.6
Aesthetic decision-making	16	8.1
Troubleshooting and problem solving	15	7.6
Paternalism (and related metaphors)	7	3.6
Staying up-to-date W/industry changes	7	3.6
Attending gigs	3	1.5

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

Our interviews show that managers oscillate between many roles, for example, of an entrepreneur, administrator, therapist, parent and hustler. Yet, descriptions by interviewees and survey findings exhibit a notable consistency in the core elements of music manager routines. Respondent 1 characterized the role as involving

[…]always kind of working on the big picture strategy of where you’re at with your other kind of partners around the artist […] the manager makes sure [each partnership] is working effectively.’ Another emphasized ‘strategic planning for an artist […] and giving practical shape to the artist's creative wishes’ [Interview 4]. Some respondents even employed metaphorical language to convey the essence of their work: ‘You take your peer by the hand and you just look at the top of the mountain. Half of it is written or discussed and half of it is improvised’ [Interview 5].

In general though, respondents highlighted a focus on daily logistics, which encompass a wide range of activities from contract negotiation and campaign planning to sending emails, organizing meetings and providing emotional support. As Respondent 4 noted, ‘Everything is dealt with… phone calls take up a big part of the day… emailing… making strategic action plans’. However, the dynamic nature of the profession means that each day demands a unique skill set, as articulated by another respondent: ‘There is never an average day. No band is the same. No person you work with is the same’ [Interview 6]. Within this broad range of activities, two broader themes stand out: DIY entrepreneurship as embedded in their work, and emotional labor (cf. Wang, 2025) and boundaries.

First, many respondents expressed a profound commitment to independence in music management, driven by both necessity and ideology. The DIY entrepreneurship approach embodies a value system centred on self-reliance, often seen among musicians (Everts and Haynes, 2021). As Respondent 6 succinctly puts it: ‘[Music management] is DIY to the max’. Interview 2 elaborates on this, describing the manager's role as transforming ‘a copyright and ‘an idea’ into ‘a business’, guiding the artist through every stage - from contract negotiations to market expansion decisions, often informed by streaming or social data’. This perspective clearly reflects entrepreneurial thinking, treating an artist's career almost like a start-up venture. Other respondents emphasize the practical application of this ethos: ‘If the artist doesn’t have someone for a specific job, you either do it or find someone who can’ [Interview 5]. Common activities include self-managing video production, social media, pitching to radio [Interview 6], cold-emailing venues, and maintaining contact databases [Interview 7].

However, the DIY approach often arises not only from ideology but also from structural constraints such as limited label support, reduced funding, or personnel shortages (Bennett, 2018; Guerra, 2021). For instance, Respondent 3 explained: ‘I had to let go of our assistant […] I have to use a lot of my time in some very tiny bitty administrative tasks […] that we don’t currently have the funds to hire an assistant’. Financial limitations thus compel managers to prioritize artists’ careers pragmatically rather than romantically.

Second, respondents emphasized the significant emotional dimension inherent in music management ‒ a characteristic that was also observed by Wang (2025) ‒ particularly when artists heavily depend on their managers. This reliance can blur boundaries, creating pressure to be constantly available and supportive. Some interviewees likened the manager-artist relationship to that of a parent and child, highlighting the asymmetry of emotional responsibility: ‘Even with the best business boundaries in place, there is somewhat the role of a parent […] especially if it's a one-to-one relationship’ [Interview 1]. This dynamic becomes especially pronounced when managers work with artists who struggle mentally or lack motivation: ‘It's frustrating when you need to push artists for what should be in their own interest’ [Interview 4]. Several respondents noted the necessity of regulating their emotional expressions to maintain professionalism and protect working relationships. For instance, one mentioned, ‘Sometimes when I get really frustrated, I’ll send an email I shouldn’t have sent’ [Interview 2]. Another explained the need to rewrite emails multiple times when angry: ‘take a couple of breaths and write it again’ [Interview 3]. These examples reflect Hochschild's concept of emotional labor (1983), where managers must often suppress or reframe their emotions to remain effective, particularly during conflict resolution. It is therefore unsurprising that Wang (2025) refers to managers as ‘emotion workers’.

The struggle to maintain boundaries was evident in the interviews, as the intensity of the role frequently spills over into personal life. One respondent shared, ‘I’ve had a burnout… my colleague was the one to tell me “go away and see you in a month”’ [Interview 3]. This dynamic illustrates the invisible cost of emotional labor ‒ it is not only reactive (solving crises) but also proactive and preventative, ensuring others do not reach collapse while risking their own well-being. Managers particularly feel this weight, as they are ‘taking responsibility for really, I guess, somebody else's career […] as a manager, you are’ [Interview 1].

Figure 1 illustrates the level of importance music managers assign to various skills for the future success of their business and artists, ranked from most to least important.

While most skills were rated as ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’ by respondents, the rankings reveal a notable insight. Among all skills, ‘managing vulnerability, health and/or wellbeing of artists’ received the highest proportion of ‘very important’ responses (63%). This is particularly striking given the pathways music managers take into the field. In addition to acquiring business-related ‘hard skills,’ managers must also develop the ‘soft skills’ needed to support the emotional labor of safeguarding artists’ psychological wellbeing: a pattern evident in both the survey and interviews. Recent research on independent musicians highlights links between anxiety and precarity (Vachet, 2024) and between wellbeing and career development (Musgrave, 2023). Consistent with UK-based findings (Webb et al., 2023), our results suggest that managers are increasingly assuming responsibility for this aspect of artists’ work.

Given that music managers have a very diverse educational background and engage in a wide range of activities, many music managers have to acquire business skills and acumen from informal sources and/or ‘on the job’. We therefore asked respondents to identify how they acquired the skills used in everyday management tasks. Table 4 presents these findings, ordered from most to least frequent.

Table 4.

Source of skills used in everyday music management tasks (n = 209).

Skills acquired	Freq.	%
Through working in the music sector	197	94.3
Self-taught	189	90.4
From a mentor in the music sector	120	57.4
Through working in a different field	103	49.3
From a degree or certificate program in a different field	72	34.4
From a degree or certificate program on music management	53	25.4
Other (please specify)	5	2.4

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

Nearly all respondents reported learning skills by working in the field (94.3%) and teaching themselves (90.4%). This indicates that music management is a do-it-yourself field, similar to other areas of creative production. The DIY approach discussed earlier also serves as a means to professionalize otherwise amateur or disorganized environments. For instance, Respondent 1 mentioned how she ‘saw [things] being done terribly […] and wanted to kind of bring some professionalism to it’.

Despite the prevalence of self-taught skills, more than half (57%) of respondents acknowledged receiving help from a mentor in the field. These findings confirm qualitative research on music managers (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021), and research on learning and knowledge exchange in the creative industries more broadly (Haugsevje and Heian, 2024; Wijngaarden et al., 2020). However, this number was significantly lower in interviews, where respondents - despite emphasizing the importance of mentor schemes for learning - expressed that they ‘could have only wished for one’ during their career development [Interview 2]. Nonetheless, many noted that they learned a substantial amount of tacit skills from their peers.

A small percentage of managers’ report acquiring skills via formal learning. Twenty-five percent of respondents learn skills from a certificate or degree program on music management. Whereas research has shown a steady increase in popular music programs at Higher Music Education Institutions across Europe (Coppes et al., 2025), the number of music management programs is much smaller. Where they have been developed, they have initially been met with a degree of suspicion by people in the industry (Gross and Bennett, 2024). This finding confirms Webb et al., 2023) who state that ‘…music management is open to everyone. This is not a profession based on qualifications but skills’ (6).

Rewards

Morrow (2025) noted that one of the main challenges for music managers is balancing costs and income. The rewards managers receive are as diverse as their educational backgrounds and daily tasks, encompassing both monetary and so-called psychic (i.e., intrinsic) rewards (Longden and Throsby, 2021). Many respondents described creative fulfilment as a central benefit, highlighting the development of artists and involvement in the creative process as deeply gratifying. For instance, Respondent 4 shared: ‘helping with the development of music […] ensuring that the artist is making and recording the best music possible […] that's what I like most’. This sentiment is reflected by Respondent 6: ‘I love doing this because then you have an impact… seeing acts develop, seeing you having an influence on acts developing’. Respondents recounted moments when their acts’ music resonated with audiences: ‘Going to the festival with an artist and seeing the audience, you know, be so happy. That's why I do it’ [Interview 3]. Other rewards include obtaining strategic and intellectual satisfaction. Respondent 2 explained that the strategic aspect allows her to ‘never stop learning,’ while Respondent 4 described how ‘working on a plan around a show… and it all comes together… that is also a success experience’. These successes bring about ‘rushes’ [Interview 6], and even though ‘it doesn’t pay us anything, […] it still rewards us’ [Interview 1]. ‘The real win or the real Lotto’, she states though, ‘is actually that you can do this for a living’.

Focusing on ‘doing this for a living’, the vast majority of respondents reported working on a commission basis: ‘The more you bring in, the more you end up getting paid’ [Interview 1]. Yet, she continued: ‘Everybody gets paid before I get paid and before the artist gets paid, which I think is, in a small national market with the economy of scale, is kind of a fool's game’ [Interview 1]. This commission-based model contributes to income volatility: ‘Our biggest artist quit in 2018 […] another went on maternity leave […] one got sick […] all the money is gone’ [Interview 3]. All respondents described experiencing financial struggles at times, with Respondent 2 dramatically stating: ‘Managing bands is brutal. There's no money there’. Many managers therefore needed to seek supplementary income, as Respondent 5 clearly explained: ‘If I was just a manager, I’d probably make €30,000 a year […] not enough to sustain my lifestyle’ [Interview 5]. Some respondents mentioned additional jobs outside management [Interview 6] or engagement in related activities such as live booking and publishing [Interview 5].

While the interviews provide insights into the volatility and vulnerability of music management, they do not provide data on actual earnings. The survey helps to gain better insights here. Figure 2 presents information on music managers’ yearly gross income (in Euros).

Here, a positive skew to the data is obvious, where most earnings are near the lower end of the distribution. This is a distributional shape that can be seen in other creative industries as well (Been et al., 2024). The majority of managers (65%) earn less than 30,000 Euros a year.

To dig deeper into income differences, we regressed income by categories of skill acquisition. Almost all survey respondents identified as ‘being self-taught’, or acquiring skills ‘through working in the music sector’. Therefore, these are not useful categories as predictors in a model (due to lack of variability). The dependent variable here is ordinal, so we use an ordered logistic regression. The results of a Brant test (χ² = 217.72, p > .05, df = 20) suggest that the model meets the (strict) parallel regression assumption, meaning that this is an appropriate method. Table 5 presents the results of this regression.

Table 5.

Ordered logistic regression predicting income category of music managers (n = 144).

	Coef.	SE
Skills acquired
Through working in a different field	−0.56	0.35
From a mentor in the music sector	0.70*	0.33
From a degree or certificate program on music management	−0.75	0.40
From a degree or certificate program in a different field	−0.72*	0.35
Experience (in years)	0.08**	0.02
Cut 1	−0.06	0.46
Cut 2	0.51	0.46
Cut 3	1.14	0.47
Cut 4	1.98	0.50
Cut 5	3.22	0.55

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

When controlling for other factors in the model (i.e., other skill sources and years of experience), those that say they acquired skills from a mentor have a higher probability of earning more than those that say they did not (coef. = 0.70, p < .05). There is also a negative and significant effect on earnings when acquiring skills from a degree or certificate in a different field (than music management) (coef. = ‒0.72, p < .05). Figures 2 and 3 visualize these significant findings.

Figure 3 presents predictive margins for income categories, depending on if music managers indicate that they acquired skills from a mentor or not (controlling for other factors in the model).

While the differences are modest, those who learned skills from a mentor have slightly higher predicted margins across the distribution of income categories 20 k to 100 k or more. The lowest income category (0‒9999 Euros) on the left of the figure shows that those who did not learn skills from a mentor have higher predictive margins (.470) than those that did learn skills from a manager (.333). In other words, there is a financial advantage to learning from a mentor in the field.

Figure 4 presents the predictive margins for those that indicated that they acquired skills from completing a certificate or degree program outside of music management.

Conversely to Figure 3, those who acquired skills through degrees outside the field show a higher predicted probability of lower earnings. This suggests a financial penalty for transferring skills from non-field-specific degree programs. Taken together, the model and predictive margins indicate that where music managers acquire their skills significantly shapes predicted earnings. In particular, having a mentor within the music sector yields tangible financial benefits, providing quantitative support for prior qualitative findings (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021). At the same time, a notable result is the apparent earnings penalty associated with degrees outside music management.

Conclusion and discussion

Because of the lack of data on music managers within our study area, we took an inductive approach to the analysis. Subsequently, what we found was that routes, routines and rewards of music management confirm emerging theories on the changing nature of DIY practices (Hesmondhalgh, 1999; Bennett, 2018; Frenneaux, 2023) under platform capitalism. This is admittedly a paradoxical finding: the artist manager as a DIY actor.

Looking into the three subtopics we tackle above, each tell a different story. Here we tie these three stories together into an overview of music management as a profession. While a high percentage of music managers (relative to most populations) have a college or university education, the majority of which did not specifically study business. This is important to note because the most frequently mentioned set of daily tasks is business and negotiations. The high percentage of music managers that come to the job from other parts of the music business (e.g., live and touring) suggests that skill transfers are intrasectoral, meaning that they come from inside the sector but in adjacent professions.

Ostensibly, this means that for some, business skills develop while working in other areas of music and on the job. For example, some may develop business skills from the daily challenges of being road managers (transport and lodging costs, payout, merchandise sales, per diem, etc.). This is evident when looking at where music managers say that they acquired the skills they use every day. Almost all respondents say they gained these through working in the sector and teaching themselves. These are the strongest arguments for considering music management a DIY profession of informal learning. This has important consequences for the pressures involved with being a music manager, and the kinds of rewards that come with the job.

Two points are salient here. First, respondents note the importance of managing the wellbeing of artists ‒ a job they were most likely not formally trained for, yet one that ‒ given the growing evidence of mental health challenges in the music industry (Musgrave, 2023; Webb et al., 2023) ‒ is increasingly important. Considering the ‘collateral damage’ that music managers can take on with these demands, we find ‒ similar to Jones (2012) and Wang (2025) ‒ that music managers are required to develop both the ‘hard skills’ involved with business and the ‘soft skills’ of doing emotional labor (Hochschild, 1983) needed to tend to artists. And they have to develop these on their own. Second, we find empirical evidence that it matters where music managers acquire skills. Those who have picked up skills from a mentor in the field have better financial outcomes ‒ which provides further evidence for qualitative observations on mentorship in music management (Jones, 2012; Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021) and the creative industries more generally (Haugsevje and Heian, 2024; Taylor and Luckman, 2025).

Surprisingly, we find that there is an income penalty for those that gain skills from degree programs outside of the field. So, while we argue for seeing music managers as actors who gain informal knowledge from a variety of sources, they tend to do so from within the music sector. What this might mean is that there is an unobserved ‘network effect’: music managers with mentors are more ‘plugged in’ to existing networks than those without, and also more so from those from outside fields. If so, these network connections might yield (financial) rewards similar to what others have found in music (Janosov et al., 2020) and other areas of the creative industries (Martin et al., 2023). This indicates that some of the inequalities in creative production also transfer to music management. For example, the privileged position of (upper) middle-class managers was often noted in the interviews, showing again that class may play a significant role in who gets to be successful. Though a more thorough analysis is needed here.

While our analysis provides a clear picture, several limitations should be noted. The survey was developed in collaboration with the EMMA, and its distribution was shaped by the organization's membership, potentially biasing the data and excluding some subpopulations. Nevertheless, around 40% of respondents came from outside the membership pool. Without a census of music managers, we cannot assess the extent of this bias. Future research could identify underrepresented groups and include their perspectives. Another limitation is that some artists self-manage (Szostak and Sułkowski, 2021); due to data constraints, we treat managers and artists as distinct. Despite these limits, our data remain the most comprehensive on European music management to date.

Response to our survey, though modest in number, was enthusiastic: 42% of respondents indicated interest in participating in an interview, suggesting that music managers are eager to be heard. While our interviews provided rich insights, more could be done. Future research could expand the number of participants across sub-populations and, beyond music management as a whole, examine subtopics such as gender and racial differences, which are evident in other creative sectors.

Finally, we employed a theoretical frame drawn largely from sociology (the production of culture perspective) and the cultural and creative industries literature, reflecting our expertise. Other perspectives lie outside our current scope. For instance, field theory (Fligstein and McAdam, 2015) could illuminate how self-taught newcomers, aided by mentors, become established incumbents over time, potentially explaining the disadvantage faced by those entering with degrees from outside the field. While we have incorporated insights from music management scholars, we have largely set aside broader business management theories, which could help explain observed patterns. Future work might compare sectors similarly reshaped by platformization. Likewise, theories from information science and digitization could further illuminate music managers’ practices amid the mainstreaming of DIY approaches.

In conclusion, what our empirical findings show is that whether you view music managers as ‘humdrum inputs’ (Caves, 2002), cultural intermediaries (Negus, 2002), or support personnel (Becker, [1982] 2008), they come to the profession through a process of self-invention. But they do not merely emerge from the ether. They obtain skills through informal means, working within the music industry in another capacity. Though business skills are crucial, many of the tasks they have to complete are above and beyond these. While popular mythologies of music managers depict them as financially driven, the data we present here suggest that (for many) this is not likely true. Instead, we should consider how intermediaries share important characteristics with those in adjacent positions who have to make a name and a place for themselves in the arts, where doing it yourself is no longer simply an ethical position, but increasingly an entry requirement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the help of the following parties: Jess Partridge and Petra Kauraisa at the European Music Managers Alliance (EMMA), Paul Bonham at Music Managers Forum UK (MMF UK), Frank Kimenai, Julian Schaap, and the members of the Rotterdam Popular Music Studies (RPMS) research group for providing helpful feedback on manuscripts and survey development, audience members at Eurosonic 2024 and De Dag van de Sociologie 2024 for helpful questions and critiques, as well as anonymous reviewers and editors.

ORCID iDs

Thomas Calkins

Yosha Wijngaarden

Baiyi Liu

Ethical approval and informed consent

This research was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication (Approval Number: ETH2324-0084). Informed consent was obtained for all survey and interview respondents prior to data collection.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Creative Europe (Project Number: 101053717).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Data are not made publicly available in the interest of preventing identifiability of respondents.

Appendix

Table 1A.

Descriptive statistics.

	Mean	SD	Median
Age (n = 302)	40.9	11.1	40.0
Experience in years (n = 273)	12.4	9.1	10
Ethnicity (n = 279)	%
Non-White and Mixed	28.3%
White/Caucasian	71.7%
Gender (n = 285)
Male	46.3%
Female	51.9%
Non-binary/third gender	0.7%
Prefer not to say	1.1%
Education (n = 282)
College degree (BA, MA, PhD or equiv.)	68.1%
Region (n = 293)^a
Northern Europe	25.9%
Central and Eastern Europe	12.3%
Southern Europe	7.9%
Western Europe	53.9%
Income (n = 261)	%	Cum. %
0–9999	39.8%	39.8%
10,000–19,999	14.2%	54.0%
20,000–29,999	11.1%	65.1%
30,000–49,999	14.9%	80.1%
50,000–99,999	12.6%	92.7%
100,000 or more	7.3%	100.0%
Work hours (n = 218)
Full time	56.0%
Part time	44.0%

Regional categories derived from the European Union (2023) are as follows:

Northern: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden.

Central and Eastern: Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.

Southern: Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

Western: Andorra, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK.

Source: Music Management in Europe Survey 2023.

References

Allen

(2022) Artist Management for the Music Business: Manage Your Career in Music or Manage the Music Careers of Others, 5th edition. Routledge.

Anderton

Hannam

Hopkins

(2022) Music Management, Marketing and PR (1st ed. Sage Publications. Limited.

Balaji

(2012) The construction of “street credibility” in Atlanta’s hip-hop music scene: Analyzing the role of cultural gatekeepers. Critical Studies in Media Communication 29(4): 313–330.

BBC News (2017) Alanis Morissette’s manager admits stealing almost $5 m from artist. BBC News, 19 January. United Kingdom. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38673219.

Becker

(2008) Art Worlds. Reprint 2019. University of California Press.

Been

Wijngaarden

Loots

(2024) Welcome to the inner circle? Earnings and inequality in the creative industries. Cultural Trends 33(3): 255–272.

Bennett

(2018) Conceptualising the relationship between youth, music and DIY careers: A critical overview. Cultural Sociology 12(2): 140–155.

Caves

(2002) Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. First paperback edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press.

Caves

(2003) Contracts between art and commerce. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(2): 73–83.

10.

Coppes

Calkins

Berkers

(2025) How institutional leaders see higher popular music education in Europe: An empirical scoping of the field. Journal of Popular Music Education 9(3): 273–295.

11.

Crossley

(2023) Doing it with others: The social dynamics of do-it-yourself musicking. DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(1): 79–94.

12.

Dowd

Pinheiro

(2013) The ties among the notes: The social capital of jazz musicians in three metro areas. Work and Occupations 40(4): 431–464.

13.

Everts

Berkers

Hitters

(2024) Licensed to rock (or so they say). How popular music programmes at higher music education institutions create professional musicians. Cultural Sociology 19(4): 462–483.

14.

Everts

Haynes

(2021) Taking care of business: The routines and rationales of early-career musicians in the Dutch and British music industries. International Journal of Cultural Studies 24(5): 731–748.

15.

Everts

Hitters

Berkers

(2022) The working life of musicians: Mapping the work activities and values of early-career pop musicians in the Dutch music industry. Creative Industries Journal 15(1): 97–117.

16.

Fligstein

McAdam

(2015) A Theory of Fields. Oxford University Press.

17.

Frenneaux

(2023) The rise of independent artists and the paradox of democratisation in the digital age: Challenges faced by music artists in the new music industry. DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2): 125–137.

18.

Greffe

(2004) Artistic jobs in the digital age. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34(1): 79–96.

19.

Gross

Bennett

(2024) What is music business management?: A critical conversation on music, knowledge, and power in the university. In: Arditi

Nolan

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Music Industry Studies. Springer Nature Switzerland, 581–604.

20.

Guerra

(2021) So close yet so far: DIY cultures in Portugal and Brazil. Cultural Trends 30(2): 122–138.

21.

Haugsevje

ÅD

Heian

(2024) Sustainable creative careers through mentoring: Understanding social resilience in the art field. Poetics 107: 101930.

22.

Haynes

Marshall

(2018a) Beats and tweets: Social media in the careers of independent musicians. New Media & Society 20(5): 1973–1993.

23.

Haynes

Marshall

(2018b) Reluctant entrepreneurs: Musicians and entrepreneurship in the ‘new’ music industry. The British Journal of Sociology 69(2): 459–482.

24.

Hesmondhalgh

(1999) Indie: The institutional politics and aesthetics of a popular music genre. Cultural Studies 13(1): 34–61.

25.

Hesmondhalgh

(2006) Bourdieu, the media and cultural production. Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 211–231.

26.

Hochschild

(1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (Updated ed.). University of California Press.

27.

Hracs

(2012) A creative industry in transition: The rise of digitally driven independent music production. Growth and Change 43(3): 442–461.

28.

Hracs

(2015) Cultural intermediaries in the digital age: The case of independent musicians and managers in Toronto. Regional Studies 49(3): 461–475.

29.

Hracs

Leslie

(2014) Aesthetic labour in creative industries: The case of independent musicians in Toronto. Canada. Area 46(1): 66–73.

30.

Janosov

Musciotto

Battiston

, et al. (2020) Elites, communities and the limited benefits of mentorship in electronic music. Scientific Reports 10(1): 3136.

31.

Jones

(2012) The Music Industries: From Conception to Consumption. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:  Palgrave Macmillan.

32.

Léveillé Gauvin

(2018) Drawing listener attention in popular music: Testing five musical features arising from the theory of attention economy. Musicae Scientiae 22(3): 291–304.

33.

Lindvall

(2009) Behind the music: When artists and managers fall out. The Guardian, 19 March.

34.

Lizé

(2016) Artistic work intermediaries as value producers. Agents, managers, tourneurs and the acquisition of symbolic capital in popular music. Poetics 59: 35–49.

35.

Lizé

Greer

Umney

(2022) Artistic work intermediaries as industrial relations institutions: The case of musicians. Economic and Industrial Democracy 43(2): 793–809.

36.

Longden

Throsby

(2021) Non-pecuniary rewards. Multiple job-holding and the labour supply of creative workers: The case of book authors. Economic Record 97(316): 24–44.

37.

Marshall

(2011) The sociology of popular music, interdisciplinarity and aesthetic autonomy. The British Journal of Sociology 62(1): 154–174.

38.

Martin

Frenette

Gualtieri

(2023) Campus connections for creative careers: Social capital, gender inequality, and artistic work. Poetics 96: 101763.

39.

McKay

(2024) Was punk DIY? Is DIY punk? Interrogating the DIY/punk nexus, with particular reference to the early UK punk scene, c. 1976–1984. DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 2(1): 94–109.

40.

MMF UK (2019) Managing Expectations. Music Managers Forum UK. Available at: https://themmf.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Managing-Expectations-MMF-2019.pdf.

41.

MMF UK (2020) Managing Expectations. Music Managers Forum UK.

42.

MMF UK (2021) Managing Expectations. Music Managers Forum UK. Available at: https://mailchi.mp/99e0c6e89901/zeqcpx6jro.

43.

Morrow

(2018) Distributed agility: Artist co-management in the music attention economy. International Journal of Arts Management 20(3): 38–48.

44.

Morrow

(2025) Music Artist Managers: Remuneration and Retention in the Popular Music Business. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

45.

Musgrave

(2023) Music and wellbeing vs. musicians’ wellbeing: Examining the paradox of music-making positively impacting wellbeing, but musicians suffering from poor mental health. Cultural Trends 32(3): 280–295.

46.

Negus

(1995) Where the mystical meets the market: Creativity and commerce in the production of popular music. The Sociological Review 43(2): 316–341.

47.

Negus

(2002) The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption. Cultural Studies 16(4): 501–515.

48.

Polak

Schaap

(2024) Write, record, optimize? How musicians reflect on music optimization strategies in the creative production process. New Media & Society 27(8): 4773–4789.

49.

Prokop

Reitsamer

(2023) The DIY careers of young classical musicians in neoliberal times. DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 1(2): 111–124.

50.

Roy

Dowd

(2010) What is sociological about music? Annual Review of Sociology 36(1): 183–203.

51.

Scott

(2012) Cultural entrepreneurs, cultural entrepreneurship: Music producers mobilising and converting Bourdieu’s alternative capitals. Poetics 40(3): 237–255.

52.

Strachan

(2007) Micro-independent record labels in the UK: Discourse. DIY cultural production and the music industry. European Journal of Cultural Studies 10(2): 245–265.

53.

Szostak

Sułkowski

(2021) The identity and self-perception of artists-managers. Problems and Perspectives in Management 19(1): 372–386.

54.

Taylor

Luckman

(2025) Mentoring as affective practice. International Journal of Cultural Policy 31(2): 253–266.

55.

Thompson

Jones

Warhurst

(2007) From conception to consumption: Creativity and the missing managerial link. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(5): 625–640.

56.

Vachet

(2024) Toward a sociological explanation of anxiety: Precariousness, class and gender among independent musicians. The Sociological Review 73(5): 1159–1176.

57.

Venema

Wijngaarden

(2024) Blockchain to blockchange? NFTs and DIY entrepreneurship in music production. DIY, Alternative Cultures & Society 2(3): 257–269.

58.

Wang

(2025) Artist Management in the Music Industries: A Sui Generis Form of Management. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

59.

Webb

Bonham

Harmon

, et al. (2023) Essentials of Music Management. Music Managers Forum.

60.

Wijngaarden

Hitters

Bhansing

(2020) Cultivating fertile learning grounds: Collegiality, tacit knowledge and innovation in creative co-working spaces. Geoforum 109: 86–94.