BMI Change in Royalty Calculation Methods

[Paolo]

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.

Hi Michael,
How would that work? Do you mean that they might be receiving a different, but favorable, percentage pay that is different from others? Like a bonus?

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…

I’m fairly new at this (a few years) and just started workin gwith exclusives (for sync money). Do you still feel that exclusives (ones that have been around and are profitable) hold good opportunity?

Thanks!
Paul

[bradymusico]

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.

Totally agree. Though, so many have us have already experienced this huge slump — is there no bottom!?

I’d really like to see a new kind of PRO evolve with REAL transparency and run by efficient, state of the art, tech. If the PROs are going to sustain any of us long term, there is no excuse for them not being at the forefront of the industry, shifting with new trends as they arise, similar to how tech companies compete everyday. Without that type of swift adaptation, eventually, each org will just be left scraping for pennies. It’s all so frustrating.

Ok — back to writing. Take it out on your cues! Looks like today will be a dark, moody, apocalyptic day 🙂 – B

[MichaelL]

I’m fairly new at this (a few years) and just started workin gwith exclusives (for sync money). Do you still feel that exclusives (ones that have been around and are profitable) hold good opportunity?

The only exclusives that I’ve worked for have paid upfront. If you’re talking about formerly non-exclusive libraries, that are now exclusive, I have no experience there.

But, the latter is what I’m referring to as aggregators, because they have acquired a large number of cues (they that didn’t pay for). On the individual composer level in might not be a great thing, but for the aggregator it is. There’s money in volume.

[Paolo]

If you’re talking about formerly non-exclusive libraries, that are now exclusive…

thanks for the reply Michael. This is good news (I think). I was referring to exclusive libraries that were always exclusive. They don’t pay upfront but they pay half of all licensing monies (plus songwriter PRO and sometimes 50% publishing PRO).

[Michael Nickolas]

>A lot of syndicated shows are considered local programing<

I hope this won’t be too off topic. I’m ASCAP and learned about this years ago when I had a cue on Oprah. It paid as a local program, which wasn’t much. I made a fuss, I mean who could not consider Oprah a national show? I pointed out that at the least shouldn’t all the local broadcasts add up to equal one national broadcast? Of course I didn’t get anywhere with my complaint. Now I see it a lot. Steve Harvey being the most recent…

[MichaelL]

Hey Michael,

My shows are on 135 FOX and CW local affiliates every week. Every station airs the same episode during a given week. But…there isn’t a single national feed and the local affiliates get to choose the time-slot. So, they are considered local broadcasts. I guess that’s splitting hairs.

Prior to the 2nd Q of 2014 BMI treated all local performances equally. Now, they factor in ratings. Like Paolo, my shows are not on in prime-time, which doesn’t help.

Broadcasters have long been complaining about, and looking for ways to reduce royalty rates, especially in the era of re-titling. I guess we’re seeing the scales tip in their favor.

If BMI expands this policy to all broadcast performances a lot of people will be hurt.

Maybe they’re just “redistributing the wealth.”

[composer]

http://www.bmi.com/distribution/letter/569791

The policy is explained briefly in the third paragraph of this letter from BMI.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong, please let me know) that they are redistributing the wealth: greater payments to shows with better ratings, smaller payments to shows with poorer ratings. I don’t see any evidence that the total pool of money has changed. Has anyone has seen that information?

[MichaelL]

@composer, I agree. I don’t think the money pool has changed.

It looks like I’ve been very lucky, up until now, as this method was already in place for network and cable, and is just now trickling down to FOX and CW affiliates.

The moral of the story is that nothing stays the same AND, as a show’s rating fluctuate, so will your royalties.

[Abby North]

I was told recently by BMI that they now have a “highly-rated show” bonus, so it appears there’s a redistribution of the same pool of money, based upon ratings.

The other point to consider is all of the PROs keep talking about how their numbers are increasing annually, and yet the creators seem to be receiving less.

I’ve heard from reliable sources that something like 40% of the money is unallocated.

Point being, it’s crucial registrations are accurate and entitled party information is known.

[Author]

Posts