ANYCOLOR bundles licensing revenue; Cover Corp reports it alone

The setup

ANYCOLOR's business includes licensing its VTubers' intellectual property to outside companies for merchandise, media appearances and tie-up advertising. The company's own annual securities report for the fiscal year ended April 2026, a Japanese-language filing described here in English, is where that licensing activity is disclosed in financial terms.

What the documents show

The report defines a 'Promotion' revenue area made up of three components: tie-up advertising, IP licensing, and media appearances, and states this combined area brought in ¥7,874 million for the fiscal year, up from ¥7,059 million the year before. Critically, the filing does not break IP licensing out as its own figure within that total; the three components are described in prose but not separately quantified. By contrast, Cover Corp's own annual securities report discloses a standalone 'Licensing/Collaborations' revenue line of ¥4,440 million for its fiscal year ended March 2024, a genuinely separate figure rather than a bundled one.

The craft

For anyone trying to size the licensing side of either business, this is a real limit on comparison: ANYCOLOR's ¥7,874 million Promotion figure cannot be treated as an IP-licensing number, since it also contains tie-up advertising and media appearances, while Cover Corp's ¥4,440 million figure can be, because Cover Corp chose to disclose it alone. Blending the two into a single market-size figure for VTuber licensing would overstate what either filing actually supports.

Keeping the creator in control

How an agency discloses licensing revenue is a governance choice, not a technical requirement, since both companies operate a single reportable segment and could each choose their own breakdown categories. Editorially, a more granular breakdown, like Cover Corp's, gives outside observers, including talent, a clearer view of how much of an agency's income rests on licensing a character's image rather than the performer's own streaming activity.

• Is a cited 'licensing revenue' figure for ANYCOLOR actually the broader Promotion-area total?
• Does a comparison between the two agencies account for their different revenue-category definitions?
• Would a company disclosing licensing revenue separately, as Cover Corp does, change how its licensing deals should be evaluated?

ANYCOLOR's own filing bundles IP licensing into a wider Promotion figure; Cover Corp's discloses licensing on its own. Reading each agency's number inside its own definition, rather than merging them, is what the disclosure actually supports.