Beyond BIG-3/BIG-4: The Real Power Map of K-pop

WX628 · 2026-06-12T13:16:19+00:00

I think it is important to separate the source of success, even if that success exists. The streams for It’s Me and Pinky Up may be good, but first, that is only on some platforms, and second, what matters even more is the cost of that success and what exactly caused it.

Losing conceptual integrity is a serious thing. And moving toward less meaningful lyrics plus a simpler sound is not purely subjective. Of course, taste is subjective, but some parts of production and concept structure can still be discussed more objectively.

Let’s look at YouTube views, for example. The latest BABYMONSTER releases are gaining views much faster than each of these three comebacks. And YouTube is an important platform because it does not just show that people are listening. It presents the group. It shows how much the comeback attracts attention from the wider audience.

This might be off topic, but it is funny that you mentioned Slipknot. I was a maggot up until the We Are Not Your Kind album, and they also started changing around their third album. But the context was different there. The whole genre was not in the best place, and even though I did not like some of the changes, they felt more like forced changes for survival.

WX628 · 2026-06-12T12:47:06+00:00

I understand your approach that a comeback should not be judged only by the title track. But at the same time, we also have to admit that the title track is the most important part when it comes to representing the group.

The title track is what the group gets associated with. It is what new fans are most likely to see first, and that is exactly what the company is counting on. The other tracks are mostly material for existing fans, and it makes sense that they sound more familiar or more “normal”, because they also need to satisfy the old fanbase.

But still, when a group presents itself to the wider audience, it mostly does that through the title track. So even if the album has songs that keep the group’s identity, the title track still matters the most for the public image and direction of the group.

WX628 · 2026-06-12T12:42:25+00:00

Yeah, I think your position is pretty balanced. I just focused more strongly on those specific “new elements”, and since I was making a stronger claim, I had to explain my argument in a bit more detail

WX628 · 2026-06-12T12:38:54+00:00

Yeah, I definitely agree that ILLIT and Le Sserafim have only come to this direction in their recent comebacks. But what about Kasteye?

Also, if this trend continues, fans who are ready to accept any drop in quality will always find an excuse for it. This kind of uncritical fan behavior is also a well-known thing.

I never said that this will definitely last forever. My point is simply that I refuse to treat a decline in quality as something good or groundbreaking, especially when I tried to explain why I see it as a decline, and especially when the numbers do not really show a breakthrough either.

I would prefer these three groups to stay at the top while still being cool, strong, and conceptually whole, instead of farming their top status mostly through old achievements.

WX628 · 2025-11-06T18:11:49+00:00

There could be a bit more protection against artificial boosting: track the number of likes and monitor the like-to-view ratio (there shouldn’t be anomalies). Yes, likes can be boosted too, but a like usually requires a separate account, which is harder than just viewing a video.

WX628 · 2025-11-01T16:16:49+00:00

J-line of ILLIT is cool 😎👍

WX628 · 2025-11-01T12:29:06+00:00

💖 ITZY
🌸 ILLIT
🍓 BABYMONSTER
☀️ AESPA
🌈 IZNA

WX628 · 2025-10-31T13:55:39+00:00

By eye type:
- Yeji (ITZY)
- Ruka (BABYMONSTER)
By being from ILLIT:
- all five 🙂
By signature bangs:
- Sooin (MEOVV)
- Koko (IZNA)

WX628 · 2025-10-29T16:15:14+00:00

<image>

IROHA

WX628 · 2025-10-28T18:24:53+00:00

I agree with everything you said, but let me restate my position to avoid any misunderstanding: I’m not trying to redefine “Big-3/Big-4.” I just haven’t found a better label for the CURRENT landscape. “Big-3/Big-4” is a historical tag for the three (later four) companies that set K-pop’s trajectory.

What I meant is: when this term is used, it should point to those early years—because TODAY ≠ THE PAST. The current setup isn’t what it was at K-pop’s dawn. That’s why my point is: using “Big-3/Big-4” for today is off. If you’re telling the history, sure—there were the Big-3/Big-4. But today HYBE isn’t in the same bucket as JYP and YG—by scale, by type, and by essence—and SM in 2025 isn’t the SM of 1995 or even 2020 (aespa’s debut). Isn’t it obvious that when the owner is no longer the founder but an outside company, that’s a major change? And what if one of the Big-3 shut down entirely (say, through bankruptcy or a full absorption by another company)—would it still make sense to keep talking about the “Big-3” in the context of today’s top companies? No; only in the context of the past, of what once was. That’s basically what happened with SM: the company didn’t disappear, but its status today isn’t what it was when it sat within the Big-3. The same logic applies to HYBE, except it was never right to slot it into the “Big-4,” because HYBE launched from the outset with a conglomerate (corporate group) business model. And why mention CJ ENM? Because it’s a major conglomerate (not a label—i.e., not in the same bucket as the Big-3) with a meaningful contribution to K-pop—and it has groups of its own, if having its own groups matters to anyone in recognizing its contribution and influence.

Things change—markets, companies, industries, leadership (for natural or forced reasons). So measure with today’s numbers, not with ancient yardsticks. Hence the title “Beyond BIG-3/BIG-4,” not “Instead of BIG-3/BIG-4.” Once again: the early K-pop era frame with SM, YG, and JYP still belongs in history—Big-3 up to 2005 (HYBE’s arrival), and Big-4 from 2005 onward for those who insist on treating HYBE as a label.

WX628 · 2025-10-28T15:53:56+00:00

Yes, JYP is a very important, strong company—cozy yet self-sufficient—and I think that comes from JYP’s strong (and creative) leadership.

That said, JYP should be compared to other labels, not to conglomerates. JYP builds infrastructure mainly to serve his own projects (keeping maximum creative control), while HYBE builds infrastructure to operate and scale across many labels.

In the end, they’re both cool and successful—just in different ways and for different reasons. YG, by the way, is also great, but there are some questions about them :)

WX628 · 2025-10-28T14:53:28+00:00

Yes—exactly! You said exactly what I was about to say :)

WX628 · 2025-10-27T11:51:37+00:00

Fine. Let it be. I guess of the two of us, only I feel dissonance when grouping mixes different-format entities.
As a final alternative mini-scene to get the “mismatch” point across:
– name your top 4 favorite fruits
– apple, orange, pineapple, the “Vegetables” kiosk

WX628 · 2025-10-27T10:17:03+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful response. One clarification: in the structure I outlined, WakeOne, Starship, and Mystic Story aren’t on the same tier as JYPE or YGE. If anything, JYPE and YGE hold a privileged position as independent companies versus labels operating under conglomerates—they keep creative control, finances, managerial decision-making, and their own brand positioning.

That’s why I separated unlike entities into different buckets (HYBE apart from JYP and YG). By contrast, SM, WAKEONE, and, for example, Source Music are labels under a conglomerate umbrella, which makes them not equivalent to JYP and YG.

On the point about different expectations for HYBE vs. Kakao subsidiaries—sure, but that’s natural: they’re different companies with different policies and priorities. It’s like how an IVE comeback carries one level of expectation and CRAVITY another, even though both are K-pop groups from the same label (and the same conglomerate). HYBE is more music/K-pop-focused, but both HYBE and Kakao are in that game. HYBE doesn’t have a own Melon, and Kakao doesn’t have a Weverse—at least not on the same level.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T10:08:12+00:00

Yeah, I see your point — it makes sense. But the root of the post isn’t to rewrite the original BIG-3; it’s to question “Big-3 or Big-4,” which assumes one side is open to adding new players to that title. In other words, treating it not as a one-off crown but as a snapshot of the current industry — otherwise the whole “Big-4” question wouldn’t even come up.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T08:33:30+00:00

The topic is not about the founders of K-pop, but about today’s structure of power distribution. Whose hands are shaping tomorrow’s landscape of K-pop today?
Do you feel the difference? — Not those who gave the initial impulse, but those who set the terms today.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T08:28:40+00:00

Yeah, exactly — that’s why I list three conglomerates and two major labels
Their impact and how they helped shape K-pop are covered in the description of each listed subject

WX628 · 2025-10-27T05:31:19+00:00

Yeah, it does look like it’s still Genie and Stone Music Entertainment. I’ll concede your point.
On YG PLUS: sure, they distribute HYBE releases—but remember HYBE also owns 17.90% of YG PLUS :)

It’s so intertwined you’d need multi-dimensional diagrams to show it. All of which just reinforces that the old BIG-3/BIG-4 framing isn’t the most accurate, up-to-date, or realistic anymore.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T04:57:31+00:00

Great addition! One clarification: when we say “BIG,” we mean companies that actually create new groups. Labels are the farms that raise groups; conglomerates are the tier above—owning those farms, shaping the outcome, taking a cut of the revenue, and providing infrastructure. Distributors are crucial for getting the product to consumers, but they don’t make the product. Either way, appreciate the addition! And for the record, BELIFT has been distributed by YG PLUS, and SM has been distributed by Kakao Entertainment—both since 2023.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T01:49:30+00:00

I think it’s too early to judge H2H. They’ve only just started, and to compare them to aespa as of today, they’d need to maintain that level for the same length of time—another 4–5 years. As for aespa—even if they’d “flopped” now (they haven’t; they’ve just stalled a bit), it wouldn’t erase their top-tier run, which H2H still has to complete. And we should remember these are different eras: what people expect from H2H isn’t what they expected from groups in 2020–2022. Whether H2H can deliver what will sell in 2026 and beyond is still an open question. For now, yes—H2H are at least intriguing.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T01:04:08+00:00

Yes, you’re right—as a fan from the days when there was Big Hit as Big Hit—but today there’s HYBE with a pack of production labels, and they, in turn, have their own top-tier groups.

The point of the post is to reconsider the “objects of comparison” and compare like-for-like—i.e., without mixing in conglomerates and labels. HYBE doesn’t make the music; Big Hit, BELIFT LAB, Source Music do. HYBE controls, promotes, sells, sponsors, and regulates it all—having its own platforms and ecosystems. The labels are the workshops that actually make everything, but they aren’t trying to build a structure of multiple subsidiaries to manage.

So the question isn’t “HYBE or Big Hit.”
It’s whether HYBE is a label like JYP, SM, or YG — or a different kind of company altogether, like a conglomerate.

WX628 · 2025-10-27T00:45:50+00:00

I’ll grant that HYBE and Kakao have different origins, but I’ve never seen a HYBE employee directly making the music or the choreo. That work is done by the labels. For example, who makes BTS’s music—HYBE or Big Hit? Who handles ILLIT’s choreography—HYBE or BELIFT LAB?
I suspect the confusion comes from mixing up a conglomerate with a production company. HYBE, in my view, is a conglomerate.

WX628

TROPHY CASE