- This topic has 130 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Does anyone else have the concerns that I have about the threat to the beautiful Royalty?
Does anyone worry that some day, The big juicy TV networks may say farewell to ASCAP, PRS, BMI, SESAC, GEMA, SOCAN, BUMA, SACEM, etc…All those wonderful PROS that collect money for us and write us checks?
Does everyone understand how important it is to be focused on cue sheet compliant music libraries and publishers? Am I in the minority on this concern?
Hi, interesting topic!
I’m personally looking at RF clearly for what it is as another income stream flowing right with PRO back-end writing, usual suspects, etc. Simply another source that exists to admin existing tracks to. And to my current feeling of the writing game, something to pursue.
I should probably come out and say I feel I’m nearing the end of Composing personally. I’ve grown tired of the game that comes with it, that’s just me! Having been Composing full-time for ten years, between writing direct for shows, exclusive and non-exclusive catalogs, I am now just getting a chance to come up for air, and I’m kinda meh about the game! 🙂
I’m looking at the admin side of the RF market positively and heading there. I found I’ve personally amassed over 6000 finished tracks in ten years of writing that I have not deployed yet to any publishers, and an additional 3500 at last count already in shows, productions, exclusive and non-exclusive catalogs. Sound crazy!? probably yes! but full-time twelve hours a day that long and that’s where I’m sitting! So where does that put a guy like me in the RF mix?
I’m always looking at things positively but I’ve grown personally outright tired of the gate-keepers, the catalog owners who reject 99.9 percent of the non exclusive music offered for back-end and advertise proudly that they do, ummm yet the same companies readily put their entire catalog on display on their websites online, to think some of those rejected Composers might be savvy business people?? and take it on themselves to simply copy the blueprint of music on their respective sites and deliver it to every other catalog out there? hmm?
I’ll see how it goes but I’m looking at RF open minded and open eyes and seeing where it fits in the current business model positively and moving forward.Does everyone understand how important it is to be focused on cue sheet compliant music libraries and publishers? Am I in the minority on this concern?
I do think it is very important, as I said in my previous post many, if not most RF libraries are cue sheet compliant.
This is a side issue completely, it has nothing to do with most of RF models, without going through every library I would say there are very few who demand no PRO affiliation or cue sheets , the majority do.
I really don’t get why you cant accept the reality of this. Its not my opinion it is a fact, and it is in black and white in the library listings.
If PRO cue sheet compliance is an issue for you put your tracks in those libraries I mentioned in my previous post, or look up all the ones here on the MLR that do.
To do that MA you need to be a member of the forum, you may be surprised what you find.
Please not lets get side tracked by a non issue and concentrate what libraries are good for composers, whatever model they are called, and lets accept that may differ on an individual or track basis. Clever people diversify and do not put all their eggs in one basket.
I have to ask again as no one is answering this question:
Because of the rapid growth of RF, Does anyone worry that some day, The big juicy TV networks may say farewell to ASCAP, PRS, BMI, SESAC, GEMA, SOCAN, BUMA, SACEM, etc… All those wonderful PROS that collect money for us and write us checks? Does anyone else have the concerns that I have about the threat to the beautiful Royalty?
@DW, I am aware of every RF library business model, and have researched every site and or participated and have actively sold on some of these sites. I understand that many take PRO info for cues that go to broadcast, but do you seriously believe these people are filling those cue sheets out who buy there? I have my reservations. Before you highlight this second question, please answer the one above first.
I am heading out for the evening and hopefully everyone will chime in with an opinion about my concern. I shall look back on Monday.
PS Is anyone in this forum making more in RF sales as opposed to PRO Royalties?
OK I will bow out and let others chime in, to finish..
1. MA your assumption is that most of RF music gets used in PRO situations, in my experience it doesn’t. Yours may vary, I can only speak for myself. The RF libraries I deal with do make sure the cue sheets are filled out when applicable, as it is their interest to do so as they are collecting the publishers share.
2. I make more off license fees than PRO for the tracks I have in RF libraries. Important difference !!!!
3. As a total of my income I make more money from PRO, but a lot of that isn’t library music.All this tells you is my situation. It is more than likely completely different to everyone else’s .
If your real issue here is “do RF libraries demand proper cue sheet filling” then that is a different discussion and thread IMHO, and to answer your first question as you asked me to…
Because of the rapid growth of RF, Does anyone worry that some day, The big juicy TV networks may say farewell to ASCAP, PRS, BMI, SESAC, GEMA, SOCAN, BUMA, SACEM, etc… All those wonderful PROS that collect money for us and write us checks? Does anyone else have the concerns that I have about the threat to the beautiful Royalty?
No, because of all the answers I gave above. The question is hypothetical, you use the word “may” which is different to the actual case today. IF the situation you describe was true then I would have an opinion, I really find it difficult to discuss hypothetical situations which are not really the point of this thread.
I really was going to stay away from this, but it’s so silly that it cannot be ignored.
The companies that own the networks, also own publishing companies. I would not be surprized if they own a share of some larger libraries.
It’s called vertical integration. (Of course, the BBC is owned by the British government, which has a vested interest in keeping its citizens employed, probably more so than saving money by shopping RF libraries).One library that I have written for since the mid 90’s is owned by a giant media/entertainment/communications company. Their library is vertically integrated into its operations, as well as marketed outside through sub-publishing agreements.
In other words, the networks will not just wake up one day and say “let’s shop RF from now on, it’s so cheap, ha ha ha stupid composers.” They make money from the pros as well as pay money to the pros. They have a stake in the game
There is not a one to one correlation between what the networks pay in annual fees to the pros, and each piece of music that gets used. So, use of RF music by the Networks does not foretell the end of PRO royalties.
Business is far more complex than that. The reality of what happens behind the scenes is far more sophisticated than silly decisions made on a whim.
In my opinion the future might look like this:
1) More vertical integration of libraries into networks
2) RF companies, like AS, might be a prime targets for acquisition, by larger media companies that want to increase their holdings.
Now, let’s look at the elephant in the room…the one assumption upon which all the worry about royalties must be based: that broadcast, as we know it, will even exist.
Will over-the-air broadcast, that pays all those “fat & juicy” royalties even exist five or ten years from now, or will it be replaced by internet streaming? Internet streaming, much like radio, pays fractions of a penny in royalties compared to broadcast ( and even cable) TV.
So, if you really want to worry about the future, I’d worry more about what is going to happen when everyone is watching what used to be called television, on their iPads and iPhones. That’s when the “fat & juicy” days will be over. That is what the libraries are pondering…how to make money in that environment, which is just around the corner.
When that happens, which composers will be most affected, the ones who are heavily invested in, and dependent upon, broadcast royalties, or the ones who developed a non-broadcast dependent revenue stream?
So, to make it simple. Things will change, in some manner, whether we like it or not. You cannot live in the past. You cannot turn the clock back. The best you can do is prepare.
If our business is like any other business then we will either work harder for less, or learn to work smarter.
Arguing about business models is really pointless, kind of like debating which umbrella is best in a hurricane.
Move on. Get busy.
_Michael
+1000 for Michael’s last post. Spot on.
Okay Michael careful, those oracle bashers are out there! 😉
No worries, Art. I’ve got my Teflon Oracle suit on. 😀
Great post MichaelL, could not agree with you more!
I just looked this up as a possible marker for royalty rates in the future for broadcst streaming.
Spotify pays now .007 cents per stream or $7 for 100 K streams.
Now in a future where TV streaming is the norm what will the royalty rate be then.In the UK BBC radio pay £39.46 ($66.02) per 3 min song, which translates roughly into 1 million Spotify streams equalling 1 BBC radio play. WTF!!!
Interesting times ahead, TV is different I know but that is a pretty dire stat and it makes sense that a similar alteration to the royalty rates will ensue.
I would suggest that RF libraries would be the least of your worries if diminishing PRO revenues were your concern going forward.
Here are some sources of real world information and law, not hypotheticals and “what ifs?”
Fact: the PROS do not determine royalty rates. In the US, they are statutory.
For in depth info go here: http://www.loc.gov/crb/
For a simple layperson’s explanation read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Royalty_Board
Pay particular attention to the part about rates being determined by the “willing buyer and seller.”
This is the rule / formula by which that Copyright Royalty Board determines royalty rates.
Why does this matter? When you put your music into a gratis license situation how much are you selling it for? Zero dollars. Correct.
When that library charges broadcasters, nothing, or some nominal amount, let’s say $10,000 for a blanket license covering 50,000 cues, what is that per cue? Twenty Cents ($.20) per cue. As a result of gratis licensing that becomes the number that the CRB looks at when establishing royalty rates. That’s for broadcast. Web-streaming, only pays a fraction of what broadcast pays. So, if you look closely, web-streaming is paying something like $.0019 per performance.By being short-sighted and pouring tracks into “PRO” oriented libraries that do gratis, or cheap, blanket licenses composers are trading their future for nominal short term gains. To put it bluntly, composers are screwing themselves, because they are setting the level of future royalties by essentially charging nothing for their music now.
So, the possible end of “fat & juicy” PRO royalties has nothing to do with network decisions or RF libraries. It has everything to do with the uncertain future of broadcast, and current business practices that will impact future royalty rates.
Blaming RF libraries for the hypothetical demise of Pro royalties is a red herring that keeps composers feeding, the very system that will have the most negative impact on future royalties.
If streaming becomes the dominant method of transmission, it would not be unrealistic for many composers to see the position of their Pro income vs. RF income reverse. In that case, we’d all better hope that the RF model thrives.
_Michael
Glad no one is worried that RF will ever make those beautiful broadcast royalties disappear. Now I can go load up those RF libraries with all the ammunition I have. I shall make money from every angle possible. I may even undercut you guys in RF and charge $16.97 a track.
Joking aside, I am glad no one shares my worries. I really do love my royalties and can’t wait to hand them down to my kids some day as Johny Pearson most likely has with his great theme “Heavy Action”. His Children will get to collect for another 50 years or so.
Joking aside, I am glad no one shares my worries. I really do love my royalties and can’t wait to hand them down to my kids some day as Johny Pearson most likely has with his great theme “Heavy Action”. His Children will get to collect for another 50 years or so.
Seriously? Is it really possible that you completely miss the point that broadcast PRO royalties are tied to the future of broadcast television, which will most certainly not resemble anything like we have today? Nor, do you understand that networks are vertically integreated companies with a stake in receiving pro money, not avoiding it. You really just don’t get all of this?
Or, are you yanking our chain just for the sake of argument?At the rate with which technology is changing the definition of broadcast, you should be more worried about what you will be earning in 5 years, not what your children will earn in 50 years.
Oh well. No bickering. I’m done.
Good luck.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.