- This topic has 47 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
BMI statements are out. It’s not a pretty picture, at least for me.
I’m seeing continued erosion of performance value. Identical cues and performances that used to pay dollars, are now paying pennies.
Not good.
Statement is not pretty for me either.
More pages, less money.
Yeah… I’ve only been with BMI for 3 quarters and am not impressed. I only made enough this time for a nice steak dinner. Heck, I make a lot more from Pandora streams!
I’m with you. I don’t know what to make of these BMI statements either.
Last quarter, my BMI statement was so bad (at the level it was 3-4 years ago) I had to force myself to not think about it – and I buried it deep inside my hard drive directory. This quarter, it’s way, way up and back to my higher levels.
So maybe next quarter you’ll see a big-bounce back too.
Paul
Most of my placements were on ReelZ channel which is 100% cheesy reality TV. I recently had placements on Discovery so hopefully the future will be better.
Michael,
I’ve had 150,000 to 200,000 annual performances of a small number of TV themes for almost 15 years
Those are very impressive numbers (and speaks to your music’s longevity). I’m looking at my BMI statement right now and other than counting the pages, I don’t see an aggregate number of performance counts. And I would assume you didn’t need to (nor wanted to 🙂 count one by one 150,000 occurrences of performances.
It would be great to also know my total number of annual performances. Could you share where on the BMI website you were able to see your number?
Slightly better than the previous one (around 10%).
My experience is short though,4th statement so far.We (Robin and I) are up about 20% this quarter from last quarter. Some new placements as well as I’m starting to see results from reconciling our Tunesat detections with our statements. As an example I found a commercial, via Tunesat, that BMI was under reporting. I checked it against Comptitrack, reported it to BMI, and that netted us an extra $500 for back payments this quarter.
Sort of a watershed moment for me @composer.
I’ve had 150,000 to 200,000 annual performances of a small number of TV themes for almost 15 years. Despite doubling the number of themes and doubling my ownership shares, I’ve seen a steady decline in the value of performance royalties down to literally $.01.
Today, I realized that at that rate, I can probably generate more money from direct licensing, especially of cues are not PRO registered.
Other’s MMV.
Sorry to hear this, Michael. That’s a stunning number of performances.
A sharp decline in performance royalties is terrifying. For this to work as a business model, that long tail of royalties is, obviously, essential.
I’m starting to see results from reconciling our Tunesat detections with our statements.
I had many, many Tunesat detections that didn’t show up on this statement. (I know there’s a separate thread discussing how long to wait before following up on missed/late cue sheets.)
Good for you, Art, for using Tunesat to your advantage!(I know there’s a separate thread discussing how long to wait before following up on missed/late cue sheets.)
I usually wait a couple of quarters before I start contacting the libraries and BMI.
My royalties come from a handful of TV themes, so it’s simple math. The number of themes + bumpers X the number of shows X the number of stations X 52 weeks per year.
how I did this quarter is unrelated to increased or decreased placements. It’s always identical. So, what I’m actually seeing a change in baseline per performance value.
Ahhh…I see what you mean. thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.