BMI TV Royalties Down?

Home Forums General Questions BMI TV Royalties Down?

Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
  • #42710 Reply

    It varies depending on which section i.e. network, cable, internet,etc. could range from a dozen to two or three dozen placements per page. Sometimes even more.

    #42749 Reply

    Yup my were down to and pages were up!

    Reams of Hulu, Amazon Prime etc. at 0.0000001 cent etc!!

    O Lordy!

    PS International is continuing to outpace USA.

    #43011 Reply

    Re: number of line items.
    It depends on the TYPE of line item, how many titles per episode, etc.. Impossible to really be detailed and specific, but I tend to average around 50 placements per page.

    377 pages on this latest statement.

    Compared to 2012 Q4, the dollar figure for Q4-2022 was 3X’s larger. But the quarter was definitely down compared to more recent quarters. Of course in the last 10 years I’ve added countless titles, and uncountable placements. Probably 1500+ titles added in (sorry uncountable) shows worldwide.

    Statement pages went from 35 pages in Q4 2012 to 377 in Q4 2022.

    Not a happy comparison…. IMO, not a bright future on the financial end. But I’ll get naysayed for saying it. LOL. Best of luck to all!

    #43662 Reply

    This may need it’s own Thread Art but this is definitely disturbing news. It is just so sickening how Private Equity is just drooling to get their hands on these royalties so they can pay less, and pocket more. It’s a huge disappointment that the BMI board of directors allowed the PRO to convert to “For Profit”.

    BMI will pay songwriters and publishers a smaller portion of its revenues as a for-profit company – while upping its own margin from 10% to 15% of collections. Will its members tolerate this change?

    An extra 5% is a huge amount of money going to a few lucky, greedy a__ holes.

    #43663 Reply
    Art Munson

    Yes it is Music1234 but I’m not surprised. Once I heard they were going “for profit” I assumed they would be screwing us over again. Sigh.. Hard to get too get excited about writing anything.

    #43664 Reply

    It’s that same old con artist story of “We will create new revenue streams for the artists under this new model and …blah blah…” Every time a CEO has written that message, the exact opposite occurrs. Shutterstock and Envato used that same playbook. They preach “new and more revenue streams” (with subscription services)…but the reality for artists is just a pay cut and devaluation. It should be illegal for any and all performing rights organizations to be privately owned and “For Profit” because their very job is to ensure that music writers get paid. It’s an overt conflict of interests. The interest now shifts to “pay the artist less, so we the owners and investors in the company, make more profits.”

    The one bright side is a record payout coming up. I guess when record collections come in, the boys at the top say “dang, we are making this happen, so we deserve more.” It’s laughable how Goldman Sachs is “advising” BMI for a potential sale. GS is just doing a massive, easy, money grab. Shameful!

    #43763 Reply

    Definitely anticipating any kind of bright side after my last two consecutive lower than usual payouts.

    Can you explain how this means an upcoming record payout? Not sure I caught any of that in the articles about this. Thanks!

    #43764 Reply

    BMI could increase their profit by paying writers less, which motivates writers to leave, or even stop writing.

    OR they could increase their profit by paying writers more, and improving overall service to writers, which motivates writers to join, or even to be more productive.

    Yes, I know … wishful thinking

    #43845 Reply

    Hey everyone, wish I had better news. Once again my royalties are down significantly in all of 2022 and 2023 as compared to every year previously, and I’ve been doing this for many years. My statements were fairly consistent for years and years up until the statement paid on 5/20/22 which was for 4th Quarter 2021. Ever since then, I’ve noticed a sharp drop-off in income, like 40% or so from 2021-present. So I decided to do a deep dive in analysis and this is what I found. From 2014 to present, my minutes of usage are way way up, from about 2000 minutes per quarter in 2014 up to about 8500 minutes per quarter so far in 2023. However, dollars per minute is way way down, from $7.87 per minute in 2014 to $1.10 in 2023, with a significant drop starting 3rd quarter 2020. I’m waiting to hear back from BMI on this, but my hunch is that streaming services are paying way less than cable, and we all know that streaming market share has increased greatly since COVID. Unfortunately this is starting to look like another effect of the commoditization of music (and media in general). Sadly, now I have to take a serious look at if it’s even worth spending my time writing new library music as compared to pursuing other business ventures. Let me know if anyone has similar results, and I’d be happy to share how I figured this out if anyone is interested.

    #44038 Reply
    Woodland Hills

    I find myself in a similar predicament, experiencing a substantial decline of 50-60% in my royalties. This poses a significant challenge for me, given the high overhead I contend with. The root of the issue seems to stem from BMI’s shift to a for-profit model, resulting in a drastic reduction in my royalty earnings.

    Upon reaching out to BMI to address a specific concern—where my wife, who is affiliated with ASCAP, earned twice as much as I did for a lucrative track—their response was disheartening. BMI explained, “It boils down to the different methodology BMI and ASCAP use in calculating performances. Performance royalties are never going to be the same for what ASCAP pays and what BMI pays because of the different ways we calculate.”

    Given these challenges, I am contemplating a switch to either ASCAP or SESAC, as it appears that BMI composers are facing significant disadvantages in this current landscape.

    #44040 Reply

    The situation now is almost the reverse of what it was in the past. In the early 2000s, I was told to switch from ASCAP to BMI because BMI paid better for TV performances. In 2011, I was in a position with co-writer to see that BMI wasn’t necessarily paying more than ASCAP per performance, but that ASCAP’s survey system was often missing as much as 60% of the performances, compared to BMI. I switched from ASCAP to BMI and royalties for the same tracks (TV theme music) more than doubled. Three years later, in 2014, BMI changed how it calculates royalties to include, among other things, a show’s ratings, and royalties tanked, despite having the same number of performances for several long-running syndicated TV shows. The result was an absolute disaster. Royalties dropped 75% and quite literally forced me to choose another path. Recently, I noticed another drop and contacted BMI. They did, in fact, discover an error, but also said that broadcasters are no longer paying the same amounts that they used to. Whether that’s a different variation on BMI’s previous explanation regarding its change in methodology, I don’t know. I’d be tempted to switch back to ASCAP, but knowing how many performances slipped through the cracks makes me hesitant.

Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
Reply To: BMI TV Royalties Down?
Your information:


Forgot Password?

Join Us