Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OK…like I said…no conspiracy theories.
A lot of people including Mark Northam (FMN) and Moses Avalon have written on this subject. The sad fact is that background music on cable TV is at, or near, the bottom of the food chain. (I think that been replaced by internet /youtube).
Here is a three part article by Moses Avalon the discusses ASCAP, BMI and SESAC>
http://www.mosesavalon.com/why-you-should-wait-to-join-ascap-bmi-sesac/
The answers are out there. You only have to look.
_Michael
So once you inform your pro you are leaving, at what point do you reregister your cues with the new pro?
You don’t. If your removing works, you have to provide ASCAP with a complete list of the works to be removed and ALL THE PARTIES IN INTEREST, which would include other writers and publishers. You give the same information to BMI, along with a confirmation of release from ASCAP, and they handle it. YOUR PUBLISHERS HAVE TO AGREE TO MOVE YOUR WORKS.
Do you contact retitle libraries to have them update your pro info?
I don’t know the answer to that. I’ve never re-titled, probably never will. But I think that would be pretty messy. But I think….ALL of your publishers would have to agree to move the re-titled works. You cannot have the same work in ASCAP and BMI.
Lastly, how do old cue sheets to changed to your new pro?
The producer of the shows that I write for was kind enough to update the cue sheets.
If you read the full thread. You’ll see an explanation of how things work. ASCAP has very clear rules about when you must notify them. You can elect to leave cues with ASCAP. If you want to move cues the publisher(s) must agree. In that case, they have to notify ASCAP that they are removing the works.
Several things to consider:
1) I only moved removed works from ASCAP that are published by my own publishing company, and are part of my own library.
2) All of my older library cues are staying with ASCAP, and the respective libraries’ publishing companies. ASCAP will still pay me for those. I just did a new collection for an exclusive library that I’ve written for before. All of my old tracks stay with their ASCAP publishing entity. The new ones will go to their BMI publishing entity.
3) Moving made sense for me for very specific reasons.
4) I think moving cues from several different re-title libraries would be very difficult. You have to get all of them to agree and cooperate.
5) I’m a lawyer. I’m used to filing documents and fighting to get things done. The process was far from easy….because I was removing works.
6) It’s much easier if you just switch going forward.
Hope that helps,
MichaelL
@Blind, no it isn’t just reruns of old shows. This article explains syndication better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_syndication
As far as most of your music being on cable, there is far more cable programming than network programming. It’s a safe bet that the majority of writer’s placements are on cable.
@Greg, I’m not going to jump on the “conspiracy theory” bandwagon. That only makes people look crazy.
However, the PRO’s collect a certain amount from broadcasters in annual blanket fees, whether they pay you or not. You can do research on what happens to undistributed royalties.
I believe that Mark Northam (FMN) has written on this subject. Maybe Gael MacGregor can explain, if she reads this.
The short answer is, I’m not sure there’s a connection between detecting and collecting, because broadcasters pay a blanket fee. Detection only tells the PRO’s who get’s what slice of the pie. If they don’t detect all of your performances, there’s pie leftover. The real question is who gets the leftover pie?
Hi euca,
The first concept the you need to understand is that my co-writer / co-publisher was not a writer. He is a publisher. For business reasons, I traded half of my writer’s share for half of his publishing share. So, we are really talking about my cues, not his cues and my cues. Everything is identical, one and the same.
So, to answer your question, for the 2nd Q distribution of 2012 BMI paid him 4.5 x more for my cues than ASCAP paid me for my cues. Maybe that isn’t so bad when you’re talking about a few dollars, but when you’re adding zeros onto those numbers it’s painful.
What BMI just paid for the 2nd Q of 2012 was 2x what ASCAP me paid for the the previous three Q’s combined.
Comparing my ASCAP Statements from June/July of 2012, with my BMI Statement, BMI paid me 5x more. Just so you understand this clearly, there is no other music involved, like other library cues. I am talking about 5x more for the same cues, same episodes and same day parts, same days of the week (reruns). In other words, there are no variations that would account for the difference.
Looking at the statements side by side, ASCAP simply failed to detect 75% , or more, of the performances. And, in the case of one cable show, where they did catch all the performances ASCAP paid 30% less per minute (the weighting formula).
That is probably not the case with Network programming. But, out of all the places our music gets used, how much of it is Network programming? Maybe these differences will be resolved when ASCAP adopts digital detection.
_MichaelL
Long explanation Deleted.
In my case, everything was identical..cues, day parts, episodes. ASCAP simply missed 75% of the performances, which they admitted, but were not willing to correct, even when provided with cue sheets three times and with copies of my co-publishers BMI statements.
_MichaelL
My situation was complicated because I have several publishing companies, one with ASCAP and two with BMI. Not only did I switch as a writer, I moved all of my tracks from my ASCAP publishing company to one of my BMI publishing companies.
ASCAP requires that you provide written notice within a 90 day window, based upon your affiliation date. You can get that information online now in your account access under “my membership.” Once you notify ASCAP, it doesn’t become effective for about 6 months.
The difficulty for me was that my writer and publisher affiliation dates are 6 months apart. So, the notification and release periods didn’t line up.
If your tracks are published by other publishers, you can elect to leave them with ASCAP, and just switch to BMI going forward. Otherwise, you’d have to get all of your publishers to agree to move your tracks. And, each of them would have to give ASCAP notice based upon their affiliation date. Sound confusing?
I have another writer who contributes to my libraries, and he decided to switch as well, because I place his music in the same shows. We lucked out because his notification period and my publishing company’s notification period are the same. So, I’ll move all of his works to my BMI publishing company on the same date the he becomes a BMI member.
One other curious thing that I discovered during this process…if your have older titles that were “paper registered” with ASCAP, prior to when they built their database AND those titles never earned any royalties, they simply don’t exist as far as ASCAP is concerned. Those titles aren’t in their system!
As I said, your milage may vary. My situation arises from the fact that all of the music in question is broadcast in syndication outside primetime. For regular network broadcasts and top tier cable, the differences may be minimal.
Cheers,
_MichaelL
Finally! The process of switching from ASCAP to BMI took about 1.5 years!!! It should only take about 6 months, depending upon your affiliation date. My move was complicated because I moved my publishing too.
Although, BMI missed my first distribution, which was to be January 11, they were stellar and true to their word in providing an adjustment ASAP.
Was it worth the hassle and aggravation???? Absolutely. BMI paid five times (yes 5x) more than ASCAP for the exact same cues in the exact same shows.
The difference is that ASCAP missed about 75% of the performances, because of its data collection / survey methods. ASCAP also paid less per minute due to its weighting formulas.
YMMV.
_MichaelL
You guys are motivating me to go through the “reject” folder on my catalog drive. 😉
Does it still add up to 50% of the revenue? If so, what is the difference between AudioSparx being the publisher and AudioSparx allowing the writer to be the publisher?
It’s the other way around. On the royalty free level you are allowing AudioSparx to be the publisher, if you chose to have them administer your publishing. Like I said, you need to ask them what they mean by administer and how much of the publishing percentage they take. My understanding, if you go that route, is that they administer your catalog no matter what library it’s in.
Non-exclusive re-titling libraries do not administer your publishing. They re-title your music and make money from their publishing.
Non-exclusive royalty free libraries, generally make their money from upfront license fees not back-end publishing royalties.
However, AudioSparx, specifically offers composers the option of having them administer their publishing. In that case they do take a percentage of your publishing in addition to a percentage of the sync fee.
With respect to what “administration” means you can ask them, or get Donald S. Passman’s All You Need to Know About the Music Business, or Jeff and Todd Brabec’s Music Money and Success.
Please keep posting Mark. It sounds like a great product and I encourage you to do so!
+1
Mark…you’re a vital part of this community, who has provided composers with many opportunities, through MusicLoops/PIR and offered valuable insight to composers on how to succeed in this business. You’ve been a more active participant on this forum than many libraries, and have given far more than you are potentially asking in return for your product.
_MichaelL
Thanks Art and Mark for your replies.
Cheers,
MichaelL
I think Mark’s product is a great option for an additional revenue stream.
I don’t see it as a threat to existing RF sites. You will not be able to duplicate the investment of dollars and man hours of libraries like AudioSparx and Musicloops.
My questions for Mark and Art are:
1) What size catalog do you think is necessary to make a viable option,
2) how much variety should the catalog have
3) is it manageable for one (or two) people without taking away too much composing time?
I’m definitely interested.
_MichaelL
I wouldn’t go jumping off any bridges. As I said, who knows IF, and when, streaming might replace broadcast and cable.
As long as there’s money to be made from broadcast and cable, streaming will be another option…for people who want it.
Demographics play a big part in this. Younger people, who were born attached to mobile devices, will be the primary market for streaming. Older people may be less inclined. There may be differences between urban users and rural users.
Other factors come into play. In the US, the government tries to make sure that everyone has access. For example, when over-the-air broadcast went digital, set-top converters were made available cheaply (or free) for folks who don’t have digital TV’s or cable.
Remember too, that the PROs have a huge stake in this, they along with PMA libraries are fighting to keep per performance royalty levels up.
In a best case scenario, streaming royalties become icing on the cake, a new revenue “stream” so to speak. In a worst case scenario, the paradigm is turned upside down and broadcast royalties become the icing on the cake. In either case, don’t look for an overnight shift.
You also need to keep in mind that library music, in many cases, is not a forever thing. Your cues, as I often say, have a best-when-used-by date. Unless you write fairly ageless cues, there’s sort of a bell curve to the lifespan of most tracks. As such, what you’re writing today stands a good chance of reaching the end of its useful life, by the time (if and when) streaming replaces broadcast/cable.
How might this effect composers? If it takes more and more cues to earn the same amount of money, or less, it is possible that part-time composers will find it harder to justify the time and expense necessary to continue.
As with any industry /job, you need to look past today, and plan for the future. Simply worrying about it won’t help.
_MichaelL