Forbes Recently featured The Chainsmokers on their highest-paid list of musicians and artists. The duo of DJs who came together in New York made over $40 million in 2018, and they have proven to be a force because of the way that they create music and reach out to listeners. Take a look at why this duo has made so much money and how they are improving their overall presence in popular culture.
- The Earnings
The earnings for 2018 are something that might shock people who think that DJs are not real artists. These two men have been on the charts all year with songs like Paris and Closer, and they have been touring in support of their album while releasing new music. They have done many different appearances, and they have been partnering with different media makers who are using their music. Their partnerships have brought them to other shows that allow them to reach a larger audience, and their online streaming sales help them raise revenues quickly.
- Their Profile
The Chainsmokers have some wonderful hits that people will know even if they are not familiar with the duo at all. The people who are watching what The Chainsmokers are doing will be amazed that this duo always seems to show up somewhere new. They have been able to increase their profile by being heard in commercials, working with TV and movie markers, and by playing shows all over the world.
- They Can Remain On This List
The Chainsmokers can remain on the earnings list for musicians because they have tapped into a unique market. There are many people who want to live in a world of pop/DJ music, and there are others who I know them from the clubs. These two groups come together to make a wonderful audience for this band that earns them millions every year.
The Chainsmokers are a great example of how powerful music can be. They have reached people through their music while also creating a following that will buy their music, come to their shows, and recognize them on the radio.
The question of whether EPS (Earnings Per Share) is good or bad needs to be settled if owners of corporations want their companies to continue existing. Ignoring the answer to this important question will jeopardize their company’s ability to make profit and thus endanger their existence. Thankfully, Jeremy Goldstein has an answer to the question and has a solution to the problem that will satisfy both parties in the equation. His extensive experience in settling disputes of companies versus their employees will have a bearing on whether EPS is good or bad for a corporation.
Advocates of EPS claim that it is beneficial not only to the employees but also to their employers. Meanwhile, EPS detractors say that it will be disastrous to a company and to a larger extent, to the nation’s economy. Goldstein, who is a principal in Jeremy L. Goldstein and Associates, LLC proposes a compromise between the two sides. In the absence of another option, both parties should hear what Goldstein has to say.
EPS is basically a way to gauge the profitability of a corporation. It is a figure that can be calculated using the formula: EPS = (Net Income – Preferred Stock Dividends)/Average Outstanding Shares. As such, the company’s profit is broken down by its particular EPS on a per share basis. In other words, EPS is a way to show a company’s value.
The opponents of EPS say that there is a dark side to this system. They claim that because of the very competitive nature of trading and shares, company owners and corporations could use EPS to their advantage. If they use EPS with wrong motives, they could create a financial picture that shows the results they want, no matter what the actual financial situation is. They can do this to boost their income or sales. EPS, according to its detractors, could also endanger favoritism among the ranks of employees in a company.
Meanwhile, proponents of EPS are enthusiastic about its supposed benefits. They say EPS will encourage employers to increase the salaries of their workers. Furthermore, they say that it will encourage stakeholders of the company to sell or buy their shares. If only these two factors are considered, EPS could really be considered as beneficial to both employee and employer. Learn more: http://officialjeremygoldstein.com/philanthropy/
It is therefore obvious that these two sides will be in conflict with each other over the EPS issue. In this scenario, Goldstein is proposing a compromise. He suggests that instead of removing EPS, a company should make its owners and top executives more accountable to their actions. If the top management echelon will be more responsible with their decisions, there is no need to deprive employees with their deserved pay hikes. The employees will be happy to do their jobs and the company’s production will increase and so will its income and profit.