In this blog post, I will examine the influence major entertainment agencies wield in the popular music market and the process by which idol culture has taken shape, and assess how this industry structure might negatively impact the diversity and qualitative development of popular music.
Idol culture is one of the cultural phenomena with a massive ripple effect on the public. One can truly appreciate this impact by examining the social characteristics of teenagers and young adults—the primary consumer base of idol culture—and their reactions. Here, the term “idol singer” refers primarily to relatively young singers who are admired by audiences in their teens and twenties. While there may be debate over whether songs performed by idols or dramas featuring them can be considered art, since those who enjoy them constitute a significant portion of society, we will include them all under the category of popular art for the purposes of this discussion.
A significant number of idols are strategically developed by major entertainment agencies to align with the styles preferred by audiences in their teens and twenties. Teenagers and people in their twenties, who form the core demographic of idol culture, often still rely on financial support from their parents; as a result, they may be relatively less concerned with practical issues such as making a living, and they may not yet have accumulated sufficient consumer experience. Consequently, they tend to actively purchase not only the albums of their favorite idol singers but also derivative products such as photo books, concert tickets, and various merchandise featuring them. Furthermore, unlike middle-aged adults, teenagers and young adults—who devote relatively less time to economic activities—invest a significant amount of time in participating in fan culture and are often very active in it. Concerns about idol culture stem from these characteristics of the idol and fan culture.
Dwight McDonald, an influential 20th-century cultural critic, presented a theory offering insight into popular culture as a whole in his work ‘A Theory of Mass Culture’. He viewed popular art negatively, focusing on the intrinsic nature of popular culture as a form of culture produced for the purpose of mass consumption. He argued that, since culture produced for mass consumption cannot fully reflect the diverse tastes of individuals and must instead conform to the average tastes of the public, it risks excluding individual expression. Nevertheless, he explained that the reason many people enjoy popular art—which is often regarded as lowbrow—is either because they are unaware that it is inferior, or because, even if they are aware, they cannot break the habit of consuming it; furthermore, even artists who once produced highbrow art have come to create works similar to popular art in order to make a living. For these reasons, he pointed out that, as the saying “bad money drives out good” suggests, popular art is problematic not only because it appeals to the average tastes of the masses but also—and more critically—because these average tastes end up influencing high art as well. Consequently, he characterized popular art as a “double murder of art.” McDonald’s theory can also be applied to the evaluation of idol culture.
Since idol culture is produced by corporations aiming to generate profit, it is inevitably closely tied to market economic principles. From a corporate perspective, teenagers and young adults are a demographic that demonstrates active purchasing intent and consumption centered around their favorite idols; therefore, the idol market targeting this demographic is a sector capable of generating significant profits. Although corporations are the primary creators of culture—including music and artists—their primary goal is not to pursue the qualitative growth or musical diversity of popular music, but rather to maximize profits by producing music and content that a large number of consumers are likely to purchase. Meanwhile, teenagers and young adults, who have easy access to idols, may have relatively little exposure to diverse music and may still be in the process of developing their musical tastes. Consequently, music tailored to the tastes of these demographics may fail to sufficiently incorporate musical diversity or experimentation in the pursuit of commercial success. To stand out to this audience, idol singers often focus on visual effects—such as provocative costumes or flashy performances—rather than expressing their musicality to qualitatively enhance the public’s musical tastes. Some idol music is composed primarily of electronic sounds and simple melodies, designed to be suitable for the stage even while performing intense routines. From the very beginning of the creative process, such songs may prioritize ensuring that the artist can perform stably on stage over considerations aimed at enhancing the public’s musical tastes. Furthermore, as visual performances have gained prominence, some idol singers invest significant time and money into enhancing their appearance or preparing costumes and stage productions that highlight their dancing, rather than focusing on improving their vocal skills. This trend in idol culture has led to a phenomenon where the primary commodities in the popular music market are no longer just the music itself, but rather the artists—who combine music, performance, image, and content—and their intellectual property (IP). A key point to note here is that when companies producing popular culture treat music as their primary product, their revenue is limited to sales of digital tracks and physical albums; however, when they structure their products and content around artists, they can generate revenue through various channels—not only from the songs the artists perform but also from dramas and variety shows in which they appear, live performances, commercials, photo shoots, merchandise, and other derivative products. In fact, major entertainment agencies today are diversifying their revenue streams beyond albums and digital music to include concerts, video content, advertising and appearances, merchandise, and intellectual property businesses. Therefore, the current structure of the pop culture industry—where idol singers are evaluated based not only on their music but also on various factors such as their appearance, performance, and image—is closely linked to the corporate interest in utilizing artists as a form of comprehensive content. It can be interpreted that this market structure has been systematically shaped by corporate strategies.
The primary consumer base of idol culture—teens and people in their 20s—is exposed to new music and singers primarily through various mass media and platforms, including TV, the internet, YouTube, and social media (SNS). Consequently, marketing through advertisements and online content continues to play a significant role in determining the success or failure of idols. Advertisements that can reach a large number of consumers—such as large digital billboards installed in downtown areas with high foot traffic or commercials aired during “prime time” when TV viewership is high—require significant investment. Coupled with online platform ads and recommendation systems, viral marketing through social media, and promotional activities leveraging fan communities, the means available to large, well-funded entertainment agencies to promote rookie idols have become even more diverse. This is why idols affiliated with major agencies are more likely to increase their name recognition by taking advantage of greater promotional opportunities. Conversely, idols affiliated with relatively smaller agencies may find it difficult to secure opportunities to showcase their appeal to the public in the first place. As a result, influence in the idol market tends to be concentrated around a few major agencies. Currently, in the South Korean popular music market, the so-called “Big Four” agencies—HYBE, SM Entertainment, JYP Entertainment, and YG Entertainment—exert significant influence; in 2024, album sales by artists affiliated with these four agencies accounted for approximately 62% of the total market. This concentration of influence among major agencies can serve as another factor affecting the diversity and competitive structure of popular music.
As mentioned earlier, being signed to a major agency can in itself have a significant impact on an idol’s success or failure; therefore, aspiring singers who have not yet debuted may find themselves in a situation where they have no choice but to accept the agency’s demands, even if the contract terms are unfavorable to them. Aspiring singers who become “trainees” at major agencies despite accepting these unequal contract terms often wait until after they have debuted, achieved success as singers, and gained the leverage to negotiate with the agency before raising concerns about their contract terms or treatment. When a dispute arises between an artist and their agency, a company that manages many popular idols may restrict the artist’s activities by exerting pressure on broadcasters regarding the artist’s appearances during negotiations or by leveraging the appearance status of other idols under its management. As a result, an artist who objects to unfair contract terms may find themselves unable to maintain the same level of activity they had before the dispute arose. When a few major entertainment agencies wield excessive influence in the cultural sector in this way, the public is likely to be exposed not only to talented idols who have gained popularity through free competition but also to a concentration of similar-looking idols created according to the agencies’ interests and market strategies. This can undermine the qualitative diversity of popular culture. Furthermore, since companies can maximize profits only by producing singers who align with already established public tastes, they are likely to focus on repeatedly producing singers with a high probability of market success rather than making efforts to nurture musically mature artists who experiment with new styles.
Applying McDonald’s theory, the above points can be summarized as follows. Idol culture can be viewed negatively because it homogenizes the aesthetic standards of a public whose musical tastes have not yet fully matured and attracts public attention through sensational and flashy performances. Furthermore, the phenomenon of a few large entertainment agencies dominating the pop music industry—by producing idol culture—can make it difficult for artists not affiliated with these agencies to pursue their careers, thereby limiting the public’s opportunities to experience a wider variety of music and new musical experiments. In this sense, the homogenized idol culture produced by major entertainment agencies can be linked to the critical concept of the “double murder of art” as described by McDonald.
Of course, even if the popular culture created by major entertainment agencies is superficial and lacks depth, it also serves a positive function by providing enjoyment and comfort to the public who consume it. If we value its ability to lift the spirits of its audience and relieve stress, we cannot evaluate idol culture solely in a negative light. However, one of the important functions of art is to satisfy the sensory desires of its audience through diverse vicarious experiences. Therefore, the significant value of art stems from diversity, and if the homogenized idol culture created by major entertainment agencies threatens this diversity, it can be argued that its negative effects outweigh its positive ones.
The public is not so ignorant as to fail to recognize the negative impact that idol culture—stemming from the oligopoly of major entertainment agencies—has on the cultural landscape. Adolescents and young adults who enjoy idol culture also possess the ability to discern good music and can judge what helps refine their musical tastes. Nevertheless, the reason they have largely been limited to consuming art that is skewed toward commercialism and mass popularity—as is the case with current idol culture—can be attributed simply to the fact that they have had relatively few opportunities to encounter good music. In other words, in the absence of sufficient conditions to mature their musical tastes, the public’s only means of satisfying their desire for art has inevitably been to focus on the flashy and sensational performances of corporate-produced idols. One of the key causes of this problem is an industrial structure in which a small number of companies wield excessive influence in the popular music market. While this culture is designed for mass production and popular consumption, an industrial structure where a handful of companies dominate the popular music market hinders the diverse development of singers, prevents the public’s musical tastes from maturing, and can have a negative impact on the diversification of popular music. Therefore, rather than uniformly rejecting idol culture itself, we need to acknowledge the enjoyment and cultural value it provides to the public, while at the same time critically examining whether the structure in which economic and cultural influence is concentrated in a small number of large entertainment agencies stifles musical diversity and new artistic endeavors.
