Former Adore chief Min Hee-jin officially registered a new company called OOAK in Sinsa-dong, Seoul in October 2025. However, this move comes at a tense moment: it overlaps with the ongoing dispute over NewJeans' contracts and has already drawn wide attention. Meanwhile, industry observers worry about the limits of a start-up agency's capital and infrastructure. On the other hand, many say OOAK could mark a real experiment in a creator-centered business model.
Min Hee-jin: Fresh start or a new battleground?
Case summary
In short, Min Hee-jin set up a company. On October 16, 2025, company registration records show a corporation named OOAK was established in Sinsa-dong, Gangnam. Min is listed as the only internal director, and the initial capital is recorded as 30,000,000 won (about $22,000). The company's stated purposes include artist management, music and record production and distribution, concert and event planning, brand and advertising services, and the manufacture of electronic and recorded media.
The timing is notable because the registration came roughly one year after Min left Adore. Previously, Min built her reputation at major companies where she led branding and production work. In particular, she is widely credited as a guiding creative force behind NewJeans, the K-pop girl group that became a global breakout. Therefore, expectations and anxieties about OOAK coexist in the industry.
Background and significance
The context is complex. First, Min's move is not just a standard job change; instead, it reads like a crack in the long-standing system that favors large labels. Meanwhile, this fracture could force a rethinking of institutional norms and power relationships within the music business. Therefore, OOAK's launch can be seen as a deliberate test of a creator-led approach to pop production.
An independent producer often symbolizes a redistribution of power toward artists and creators. However, the new agency clearly starts at a disadvantage in funding and global distribution networks compared with major firms. Therefore, any nascent label must lay out concrete plans for funding, investor outreach, and commercial partnerships. In practice, these constraints will shape what OOAK can prioritize in its early operations.
Arguments in favor
First, supporters hope for a return of creativity. They argue Min's independence could give artists and producers more autonomy to experiment. Meanwhile, critics of big-company procedures say those bureaucratic systems can suppress individual artistic identity. Therefore, a small producer-led label could operate more nimbly and be more open to musical risk-taking.
Second, decision-making could shift toward artists and producers, which matters. If true, this shift may raise artistic quality and strengthen brand identity. On the other hand, it could also improve transparency on revenue sharing and artist rights. Moreover, direct fan engagement, crowdfunding, and diversified income streams (merchandise, intimate shows, licensing) are realistic alternatives for a smaller company.
Third, there are overseas precedents to learn from. Indie labels abroad have often favored long-term career development over short-term blockbuster hits. They frequently start small, grow a global fanbase, and then scale distribution through selective partnerships. Therefore, OOAK could become more than a short-lived curiosity; it may be a mid- to long-term laboratory for a different way of running pop acts.
Arguments against
However, risks are substantial. Detractors point first to the obvious: limited capital and weaker global networks are real handicaps for a new agency. Moreover, transferring artists during an unresolved legal dispute—specifically the ongoing lawsuit over NewJeans' exclusive contracts—raises clear legal risks. If litigation drags on, the result could be inactivity for the artists, reputational damage, and lost income.
Legal uncertainty places real burdens on an artist's career and on the loyalty of a fanbase.
Second, the distribution, marketing, and partnership capabilities of a major label are hard to replace quickly. Therefore, international tours, global streaming campaigns, and major advertising deals may be difficult to execute at the scale that NewJeans' success would normally demand. In particular, star-driven projects require large upfront investment; raising that capital is rarely easy for a newcomer. Consequently, a misstep in initial strategy could translate directly into missed opportunities for artists.
Third, from a fandom perspective, changes in management can fracture communities. Fans often want predictable activity schedules and consistent brand management; a transfer of representation can create uncertainty. Therefore, critics urge careful legal and managerial planning and recommend a phased transition to preserve industry stability and to protect artists.
Judgment and outlook
The court ruling will matter. Specifically, the outcome of the lawsuit about NewJeans' contracts may be a watershed for the Korean pop industry. If the ruling favors the artists, producer-led independent models could gain momentum. On the other hand, if the court upholds the incumbent label's rights, new firms should pursue more conservative, phased approaches. Therefore, industry actors and fans alike are watching court developments closely and will judge subsequent moves accordingly.
Regardless of the judgment, OOAK needs to focus on fundamentals: how it prepares for launch, manages capital, attracts investors, and builds cooperative networks. Meanwhile, transparent communication and staged business plans will be essential. In short, operational discipline and clear messaging will be central to OOAK's chances of success.
Summary and recommendations
The takeaway is straightforward. OOAK's founding is a real test of whether a creator-centered model can work at scale in the current industry. However, material constraints and legal exposure remain significant. Therefore, a balanced strategy is required.
The balance between creative freedom and operational stability will likely determine success. Concretely, OOAK should prioritize financial transparency, targeted external investment, strategic distribution partnerships, legal risk management, and strengthened fan communication. Moreover, a careful business plan and clear capital management will be critical for attracting investors and ensuring operational continuity. Meanwhile, industry-wide discussion about structural reforms could build longer-term trust.
Finally, this case offers both an opportunity and a warning. The opportunity is for greater creative diversity led by producers and artists. The warning is the danger of going independent without adequate preparation. Therefore, artists, producers, agencies, fans, and regulators must all find complementary roles to guide this transition. If they do, the process could help the industry mature.
Key point: OOAK shows the potential to strengthen creator rights, but the company must manage funding and legal exposure carefully to increase its prospects for success. Which side do you find more persuasive: promise or peril?
