Adore and NewJeans in Focus as the System’s Vulnerabilities Emerge

Hybe’s implementation of a multi-label structure has brought greater diversity and a dispersed revenue base, but it also reveals vulnerabilities tied to heavy dependence on individual artists. The industry has noted that market reactions and disputes can amplify revenue swings across labels, making overall earnings less stable.

NewJeans, under the Hybe label Adore, faced a court ruling on the termination of their exclusive contract and has begun preparing grounds for appeal after the decision on the case on the 30th. The court found the termination of the exclusive contract to be valid, and Adore has said it will support NewJeans’ activities, though the timeline for their return remains unclear as the dispute drags on.

Proponents of the multi-label model argue it can strengthen a company’s competitiveness by varying genres and concepts and also broaden the industry’s ecosystem. Yet Adore’s first-half sales fell 72% year-on-year to 17.2 billion won, while Hybe’s overall first-half revenue reached 12,062 billion won with operating profit of 875 billion won, aided by a diversified revenue mix across labels such as Big Hit Music (1,890 billion won), Pledis (1,631 billion won), and Source Music (3,874 billion won). As a result, the core IP NewJeans helped support solid performance despite the ongoing dispute, underscoring the resilience of Hybe’s earnings structure.

Industry observers say the goal of creative autonomy must be balanced with parent-company oversight to prevent unexpected gaps in activity and to avoid potential conflicts over direction. After the Adore-NewJeans controversy, Hybe executives reiterated at the March shareholding meeting that “the multi-label value is solid” and that the focus would be on expanding a clearly defined, multi-home, multi-genre system globally. Some voices argue that Bang Si-hyuk’s influence remains in the Hybe-style multi-label framework and that adjustments are necessary to prevent disputes over artistic direction. Legal and industry sources caution that without balancing label autonomy with proper corporate governance, creative direction could be distorted and internal conflicts could recur.