- This topic has 23 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by Abby North.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 22, 2015 at 2:50 pm #19486MichaelLParticipant
As if this business isn’t challenging enough, BMI has changed the way it goes about calculating our royalties.
Did anyone other than me see a drop in BMI royalties this quarter? Did you blame it on missing cue sheets?
Well, here’s a bit of bad news. I contacted BMI’s director of distribution in Nashville. They now include Neilson ratings for local programing when calculating our royalty payments. (A lot of syndicated shows are considered local programing).
So, depending upon how many people are actually watching the shows containing your music, your royalties will either go up or down. As shows fade so will your royalties.
January 22, 2015 at 4:14 pm #19488PaoloParticipantWell, here’s a bit of bad news
Hi Michael,
Isn’t it supposed to go “I’ve got good news and bad news…” ๐
Yes, I also saw a drop in my BMI royalties this past quarter. I just assumed that most of the airings were in the 11pm to 8am hours in non-prime time and that’s why the payments were lower.
My first BMI inflicted wound was a few years ago when they did away with partial feature (PF) payments (going forward and retroactive) for prominent background instrumental cues.
But this is good to know. Thanks for sharing the pain…I mean news ๐
Paul
January 22, 2015 at 4:32 pm #19489Art MunsonKeymasterAs if this business isn’t challenging enough, BMI has changed the way it goes about calculating our royalties.
The new “Spotify”! Really have to move to SESAC, if they will let me in!
January 22, 2015 at 4:52 pm #19490Desire_InspiresParticipantASCAP did the same thing last year.
One quarter they made a big deal about raising the royalty rate payout. The next quarter my royalties decreased by a third. I didn’t figure it out until I compared the royalty statements for the two quarters. Of course there was no mention as to why the royalty rate dropped.
We have to roll with the punches I guess.
January 22, 2015 at 5:27 pm #19491composerParticipantSo, is the same pool of money being distributed differently? Or is there a change in the overall amount of money distributed for TV placements?
Or, in other words, will our royalties increase for shows with more viewers and decrease for shows with fewer viewers?
Thanks for sharing this information.
January 22, 2015 at 6:42 pm #19492MichaelLParticipant@composer, I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know how they are treating cable, which is where the bulk of people’s TV placements seem to be.
I have theme songs on 5 TV shows in syndication. The same songs, same shows, same number of performances, every quarter. Some of the shows have been on for as long as 15 years. Nothing has changed. But, because of BMI’s new calculation method the numbers dropped by 30%.
@Art, I’m not sure that there’s a safe haven. As far as I know, SESAC is privately owned, which means anything could change if the owners want to increase their profits.
January 23, 2015 at 2:08 am #19493KubedParticipantthere was a significant drop on the money i get from one daily show.I had about 10% less cues on this show in the Q2 of 2014 but the money was like 30-35% less.
I noticed that in Q1 they were paying something like $1-1.2/per sec but in the January statement it was like $0.8/per sec.
I think MichaelL is right.January 23, 2015 at 5:23 am #19495MichaelLParticipantI think MichaelL is right.
Unfortunately Kubed, it’s not speculation on my part. This is what I was told directly by BMI’s Director of Distribution in Nashville.
Linking royalties levels to a shows Nielson ratings is their new procedure, going forward.Whether or not that means shows with high ratings get more, I don’t now. That would be nice. But, they will just stay status quo.
I’ve been in this business long enough to realize that nothing permanent. There’s is not always a linear trajectory of royalty growth with catalog growth. Some cues do age out. Shows come and go.
Things change.Over the course 35+ years I’ve seen things cycle through a number of bell-shaped patterns.
With the exception of a tiny minority, it’s often roller coaster ride.
January 23, 2015 at 5:58 am #19496OverDubParticipantI do know my last 2 BMI statements have been pretty disappointing. Both were around half of what the previous 4 quarters were. Any SESAC writers out there? I’d like to see how their numbers have been? I know there are a ton of factors involved though.
January 23, 2015 at 7:44 am #19497Art MunsonKeymasterThis may just be a fanciful idea on my part but what about starting a petition using http://www.change.org? As it says on their site:
“A petition is a public message to one or more decision makers, asking them to do something. Name the person or group who should receive your petition. Later, you’ll be able to add their contact info so they are notified when people sign.”
If we could make enough noise via social media about this maybe we could make a change or at least get our voice heard in a very public way.
January 23, 2015 at 8:07 am #19498bradymusicoParticipantUnfortunately Kubed, it’s not speculation on my part. This is what I was told directly by BMI’s Director of Distribution in Nashville.
Linking royalties levels to a shows Nielson ratings is their new procedure, going forward.Ugh — this is terrible MichaelL. I had a similar drop with ASCAP last year with a syndicated show, which is what led me to start my SESAC transition. Sure, things may change at SESAC as well but at least with a smaller pool of writers, I am hoping they do more to take care of their own. Could be a total crapshoot but feels like the right move (for me) now.
With broadcast TV on it’s way out the door, this is a scary time for writers. The PROS really need to get of their asses and start figuring out what the future is going to look like for all of us. I know they were pushing Congress last year but this is really something that needs to be attacked on multiple fronts. A petition might be a good way to start, Art!
January 23, 2015 at 8:16 am #19499guscaveGuestThanks for the heads up MichealL. I saw a huge decrease on my last BMI statement as well, but haven’t had time to go over it in detail.
Art; I think the petition is a good idea. I also think that a lot of composers may not realize what’s going on and think this decrease in distribution is simply less placements.
If there’s a way we can educate composers (and some libraries) on this, I think we can get something positive happening for us all.
January 23, 2015 at 8:27 am #19500PaoloParticipanta lot of composers may not realize what’s going on and think this decrease in distribution is simply less placements.
Exactly! That’s what I thought until I read Michael’s post.
IMHO: if there’s less money in TV then it makes sense that everyone would make less money. It seems like the trend/petition might be best served with libraries: if a track is exclusive, then we get a share of snyc fees and not just PRO money (since that’s on the decline for TV).
January 23, 2015 at 8:34 am #19501MichaelLParticipantWith broadcast TV on it’s way out the door, this is a scary time for writers.
I mentioned that before, yet it seems to get ignored as writers continue to funnel their music and dreams into that market.
My personal opinion is that writers, no matter what PRO they belong to, are facing a sort of tsunami. In my opinion, television composers are going to experience the same kind of royalty devaluation that songwriters have with with the transition from radio to services like spotify and pandora.
Composing has been democratized by cheap technology and, as a result, composers’ compensation has dropped proportionately (except for a very tiny minority). That horse has left the barn and it’s not coming back.
January 23, 2015 at 8:41 am #19502MichaelLParticipantIMHO: if there’s less money in TV then it makes sense that everyone would make less money. It seems like the trend/petition might be best served with libraries: if a track is exclusive, then we get a share of snyc fees and not just PRO money (since that’s on the decline for TV).
I’m not sure that there’s less money in TV for everyone. IMO it is being concentrated in the hands of those aggregating the most cues.
I said a long long time ago that the shift from non-exclusive to exclusive was not really about music editors being tired of getting the same cues from multiple libraries. It is about building something that can be sold for a lot of money. Consider the sale of Premium Beat, for example.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.