- This topic has 25 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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!
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”.
An extra 5% is a huge amount of money going to a few lucky, greedy a__ holes.
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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.