# Anybody using Tunesat?



## rgames (Jun 1, 2012)

I've come across a few library tracks that were not reported, so Tunesat has my attention on their claims that 80% of usages go unreported. I'm not anywhere near 80%, but then again, I don't watch a lot of TV, so maybe they're right?

But the prices seem so high as to be not worth it. Tracking 250 tracks costs nearly $300/month for US/UK/Germany/France. Do you guys really think finding those unreported uses on 250 tracks will net more than $300/month? I find that hard to believe.

Part of the reason is that I'm constantly surprised by what gets a placement, so I have no way to decide what to include in Tunesat's tracking service.

Just wondering if any of you guys have any experience with it - seems like it might be good if you have a really huge library (many thousands of tracks) but otherwise, I just can't seem to justify the cost.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jun 1, 2012)

The answer depends on what will you do with that information? It can be a huge hassle to get ASCAP or BMI to comply with 3rd party tracking data and write you a check, but if you're up to the challenge, and you feel that there's at least $1000/quarter worth of royalties that you should be collecting, then you should do it!


----------



## musicformedia (Jun 1, 2012)

I'm using it with 25 tracks. Made my money back on it - probably double actually. Its well worth it if you know your tracks are being used on TV


----------



## musicformedia (Jun 1, 2012)

midphase @ Sat Jun 02 said:


> The answer depends on what will you do with that information? It can be a huge hassle to get ASCAP or BMI to comply with 3rd party tracking data and write you a check, but if you're up to the challenge, and you feel that there's at least $1000/quarter worth of royalties that you should be collecting, then you should do it!



I just send a spreadsheet of my detections to my PRO each month. 

I wrote a short article on my experience with Tunesat here:

http://www.filmandgamecomposers.com/blo ... usic-on-tv


----------



## rgames (Jun 1, 2012)

musicformedia @ Fri Jun 01 said:


> I'm using it with 25 tracks. Made my money back on it - probably double actually. Its well worth it if you know your tracks are being used on TV


How did you decide which tracks to include in your Tunesat search?

It's a total crapshoot for me - I can never guess what will get a placement in a given quarter. My total library is something like 250 tracks, so I can either track all 250 or try to guess what will get a placement and track only 50 or so.

Kays - I'm with you on the hassle factor. But maybe it's not so bad.

Here's another thought that leads me to think it's not worth it: if 80% of uses go unreported, then the PRO's will net quite a bit of money if they do it themselves. So why have they never done it? Well, I guess they are dinosaurs, but still, dinosaurs like to make money, too.

rgames


----------



## musicformedia (Jun 1, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Jun 02 said:


> musicformedia @ Fri Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm using it with 25 tracks. Made my money back on it - probably double actually. Its well worth it if you know your tracks are being used on TV
> ...



If you want to go with a smaller amount of tracks (which I would suggest), go with 25. Look at which 25 are your biggest sellers over the past year and go with them.


----------



## Mike Marino (Dec 23, 2012)

Richard,

Did you ever end up using Tunesat? 6-7 months later I'm curious if it worked out for you.


----------



## sstern (Dec 23, 2012)

Did you guys have any experience with using Tunesat reports with BMI?
I did a free trial in Tunesat and it found about 100 placements of my music during November 2012. Don't know who to submit those Tunesat reports to exactly and if it would help really.


----------



## rgames (Dec 23, 2012)

I never did sign up - couldn't see how it would be worth it for me.

I didn't know they have a free trial - I need to look in to that.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jan 3, 2013)

Update - I signed up for the trial and uploaded 100 tracks. Sure enough, the uses started showing up within a few days.

But here's the catch: the trial is only 30 days and it captures info only from the time you sign up (i.e. it doesn't capture previous placements). So you won't know if anything was missed for at least 6 months and sometimes more like a year or more.

So I guess you just sit on your free trial data for a year then check back to see if it's worth it.

It does appear to work, though. They give you an audio snippet that includes the detected segment of your track. Pretty cool, really...

If nothing else it could be a handy planning tool - you'll know roughly what your library placement royalties are going to be for the next few quarters if you upload your entire library (or know which ones are likely to be placed, that's the part I'm still hung up on).

rgames


----------



## dgburns (Jan 3, 2013)

Came across this link,maybe there's more to be resolved here-

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permali ... 025tunesat


----------



## reddognoyz (Jan 3, 2013)

I had a convo with the head of tunesat recently, and the issue for me is that ,while tunesat does a fantastic job of tracking your US royalties, ASCAP, will have nothing to do with the tunesat results. They purport to have their own method of tracking, so it gives you results but no clout.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 3, 2013)

Yeah, ASCAP and their "secret formula." So annoying.

Still, I think the Tunesat results would still be useful in that you could learn which shows used your music but didn't put you on the cue sheet. In that case, ASCAP will accept a revised cue sheet and credit you for all airings associated with it.

Or better yet, you could learn which ad agencies used a track on a commercial, but didn't pay you.


----------



## dinerdog (Jan 3, 2013)

The people I know using Tunesat are libraries themselves. When they get a Tunesat report they check them against what they've licensed and find the culprits that way. People who think nobody will know. Tons of unreported stuff, but I've only seen it used that way, not double checking your ASCAP or BMI.


----------



## reddognoyz (Jan 3, 2013)

I think it's great for some people especially for those whole have library music out there. Most of my stuff is cartoon underscore. I do have a modest amount of Library music available and most of it is actually a 50% with the creator/owner of tunesat. It get's tracked pretty well!


----------



## rgames (Jan 3, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Thu Jan 03 said:


> ASCAP will accept a revised cue sheet and credit you for all airings associated with it.


This is the part that confuses me - let's say Tunesat's "80% Unreported" claim is correct, that means ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are going to have to come up with a BUNCH more cash to pay people who start reporting the results from Tunesat. Obviously, they can't do that, so what's going to give?

The only solution I see is that Tunesat becomes its own PRO or the others use it as the basis for payouts. The ASCAP "sampling" methodology isn't going to cut it any more - Tunesat has shown the way of the future and the PRO's need to sign up.

As I've said before, Tunesat is doing what the PRO's should be doing, themselves.

rgames


----------



## sstern (Jan 3, 2013)

I think after getting reports from Tunesat, BMI/Ascap should contact TV stations and request the unpaid money. Thats their job, no?


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 3, 2013)

rgames @ Thu Jan 03 said:


> This is the part that confuses me - let's say Tunesat's "80% Unreported" claim is correct, that means ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are going to have to come up with a BUNCH more cash to pay people who start reporting the results from Tunesat. Obviously, they can't do that, so what's going to give?
> 
> The only solution I see is that Tunesat becomes its own PRO or the others use it as the basis for payouts. The ASCAP "sampling" methodology isn't going to cut it any more - Tunesat has shown the way of the future and the PRO's need to sign up.
> 
> As I've said before, Tunesat is doing what the PRO's should be doing, themselves


First, "80% unreported" isn't possible. They're going to try and tell me that 80% of the shows don't have cue sheets? Or that 80% of the cues on a cue sheet are left blank. 80 freakin' percent??? I don't think so.

Even so, as a couple guys (including me) have already said, you don't take Tunesat's results to your PRO. You take the results to whoever it is who screwed you.

If it's for an ad, you make the agency pay you your license fee. ASCAP isn't involved with that. (Although I suppose you could also then register the commercial with ASCAP, but there's hardly any money in TV commercial royalties. Personally, I stopped bothering to register them years ago.)

If it's a TV show and your cue didn't get registered, then you have the production company fix (or submit) the cue sheet. Late or fixed cue sheets are fairly common. That's not going to bankrupt ASCAP.

As far as Tunesat replacing PRO's, ASCAP specifically, you might be confused about how their sampling methodology works. Here's a rough breakdown of how ASCAP works:

1. First, for all network shows (both broadcast and cable,) there is no sampling. The networks simply tell ASCAP what show aired when and that's that. Simple. ASCAP and BMI work identically for these. That's why for network shows, ASCAP (or BMI) can give you an exact figure for what you'll make per minute for any given network. No sampling, no statistical mumbo jumbo.

2. For local and syndicated shows, the sampling comes into play. But this is not *song* sampling. It's *show* sampling. One of their surveyors thumbs through channels and writes down, _"KVIQ aired 'Hip Hop Living' between 6:00 and 7:00 on Sunday."_ He'll look in the TV listings or call the station and ask which episode aired. From there, they'll do their statistics magic and estimate how many airings there were in the rest of the country for that episode. Then to the cue sheet to see who gets paid.

That's how ASCAP works.

If Tunesat tried to use it's system and be its own PRO, it would be *huge* undertaking. Inputting data off a cue sheet is cheap and easy. But electronically trying to listen for every single song on every single station? The overhead costs (as their rates indicate) would be enormous. It wouldn't work and I doubt even Tunesat would suggest such a thing.

Tunesat's purpose isn't to keep the PROs honest, it's to keep your *clients* honest.


----------



## schatzus (Jan 3, 2013)

I had the understanding that the PROs don't take the Tunesat info anyway?
I am with ASCAP so I am not sure of other PROs but that is what I understood.


----------



## rgames (Jan 3, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Thu Jan 03 said:


> you don't take Tunesat's results to your PRO. You take the results to whoever it is who screwed you.


I know ASCAP doesn't recognize Tunesat reports but the point still holds: if their claim of 80% is correct, there will be a lot of people back-filling cue sheets as Tunesat becomes more popular. ASCAP will, in theory, have to pay on those, right?

I, too, am skeptical that 80% unreported is anywhere close to correct, so that's the fundamental disconnect.

Also, the huge undertaking you mention appears to be done already - Tunesat claims to be tracking pretty much everything that would generate a decent royalty. I've had tracks on there for only five days and it's already found three uses on three different networks. Again, though, I won't know if those cue sheets were submitted or not for at least six months. So the value of that information is still unclear to me. But it does appear to do what it says it will do.

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 3, 2013)

rgames @ Thu Jan 03 said:


> if their claim of 80% is correct, there will be a lot of people back-filling cue sheets as Tunesat becomes more popular. ASCAP will, in theory, have to pay on those, right?


I don't think ASCAP is too worried about it. First, the 80% claim is insane. I'd bet money that even 50% is ridiculous.

Aside from that, I'd bet that the vast majority of undiscovered uses they find are nickel and dime stuff as far as PRO royalties go. First, like I said before, ad royalties are absolute peanuts. Way under what instrumental background cues pay. I'll bet the majority of instances that Tunesat says are "unreported" are really just times where guys like me don't even bother registering because it's not worth the effort.

Second, any show that pays significant royalties has a composer or library who's keeping close tabs on whether payments are what they should be. If mistakes get made, they get corrected already, because a guy like me checks to make sure he sees the name of each episode on that cue sheet.


----------

