How AnyColor Inc and Cover Corporation display talent payment differently

 AnyColor Inc and Cover corporation display their talent payment in significantly different ways. Most confusion comes from these datasets. Page 51 of their FY26 Q2 report directly explains direct variable cost is explicitly tagged as:  Includes fees paid to VTuber, various platform fee, and cost of merchandise and event related sales.

Side note, this is poorly translated in my opinion since the terminology can be plainly translated to:

1. Google Translate: This includes compensation paid to VTubers, fees to various platforms, and manufacturing costs related to merchandise and events.

2. DeepL: (Casual) Payments to VTubers, fees to various platforms, and manufacturing costs for goods and events

3. DeepL (formal) Remuneration paid to VTubers, fees charged by various platforms, and manufacturing costs associated with merchandise and events 

(Japanese version of the same page)

Page 53 mirrors that number when breaking down the allotment of Cost of Goods and Sales as well as SG&A. These are itemized to show where this "Cost of Sales" is distributed by AnyColor. (The orange box contains a most items listed in Cover's report)

Where as Cover Corporation breaks down the actual amount only spells out the VTuber pay in a small chart form and excludes this comparison. Instead they only show the amount relative to over all Cost Of Sales. One COULD ( and has every right to ) question the comparison on the basis "manufacturing costs." However, it's much harder to compare which part is manufacturing talent merchandise because this now includes digital assets being sold (think HoloEarth), new 2 and 3D models now being developed in-house on Unreal(which counts towards COGS and accounts for a significant proportional increase in their spending) among other things.. You really have to stretch and weave a relative narrative of where does that expense end for manufacturing physical and digital goods in that category and what's being covered through "Other." Further exacerbating the that category is Q2's 550 million yen right off for unsold goods. As they should have been included in cost when they are manufacturing, they now "paid" for it twice for its liquidation. This 550m Yen "one time expense" should have been accounted for under "depreciation and amortization." But it wasn't. So... what else IS being accounted for in the manufacturing costs and how can you possibly compare it to AnyColor?

Cover and AnyColor do convey their information in drastically different fashion which can make it hard to compare. For the sake of comparison, if we include manufacturing (minus the 550 yen write off for Q2) 

Cover's numbers do come more in line with AnyColor's. However, the ambiguity and specific dispersion of revenue is a mixture of performance quotas, specific profit sharing, merchandise sales and contract agreements between talent and agency. That being said revenue between each agency is relatively equal, yet the accounting and financial results show Cover Corporation still pays their talent a decreasing amount compared to the revenue the company brings in. And 2026 onward might show us several other Hololive (and maybe Nijisanji EN) talent walk away due to differences with management and company direction. Why? Because 2026 had 2 laws go into effect which the talent can begin demanding compensation for and the agencies must pay them or else the talent has the right to refuse the request.