# ASCAP Issues



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

Has anyone else experienced issues with ASCAP collecting TV performance residuals on your behalf? 

My film premiered in 2016 on History Channel USA but they said they had no records of any performances and I actually had to send them press reviews/promos for proof. Case was opened more than a year ago with my PRO and still haven't received any updates whatsoever. 

- PRS has reported BBC, Channel 4 in the UK
- SOCAN has reported HBO, TMN in Canada

Do I have any recourse here, anything I can do?


----------



## sndmarks (Oct 15, 2018)

BenG said:


> Has anyone else experienced issues with ASCAP collecting TV performance residuals on your behalf?
> 
> My film premiered in 2016 on History Channel USA but they said they had no records of any performances and I actually had to send them press reviews/promos for proof. Case was opened more than a year ago with my PRO and still haven't received any updates whatsoever.
> 
> ...




Start by confirming that ASCAP has correct cue sheets for the project on file and that they are correctly associated with the project and matched to you. ASCAP issues are relatively rare for me, but they usually take these forms and can be easily corrected with some diligence. Just another thing for the ol' ToDo list.....


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 15, 2018)

Unfortunately you may not get paid for these performances. If the performances were not caught in the ASCAP survey system, they will not pay out. Even if cue sheets are turned in, they will not pay out. It happened to me.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 15, 2018)

Desire Inspires said:


> Unfortunately you may not get paid for these performances. If the performances were not caught in the ASCAP survey system, they will not pay out. Even if cue sheets are turned in, they will not pay out. It happened to me.


I could be mistaken, but I think the only areas where ASCAP uses their survey method is with local television and with radio. For network TV and cable, though, they work the same way as BMI and use the listed network (both cable and broadcast) schedules, so all shows on the History Channel should show up.

My guess is that this is a cue sheet or name issue. Happens to me all the time, especially since the last "e" in "Greene" gets dropped all the time. I've even had instances where my name was spelled correctly, but they came back with the excuse that they didn't know _which_ Mike Greene should be credited ... even though at the time, there _were_ no other members named Mike Greene.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 15, 2018)

A little tangent, since people often complain about the survey method - The original reason for using the survey method was to prevent fraud. The "B" in BMI stands for "Broadcasters" and was (possibly still is?) owned by the broadcasters. Don't quote me on the exactness of that, but ASCAP was started because many composers didn't trust their motives.

Way back when, it was alleged that some radio stations would list songs on their BMI song listings that never really got played, all so they (or people who paid them) could fraudulently profit on _their_ songs, rather than the songs that actually got played. (Unethical behavior in the music business? Hard to believe, right?  )

So ASCAP created a system where they hired people to actually listen to various radio stations and extrapolate a statistical estimate from that. It's a more honest system, but the downside is that for songs that don't get many plays, it's a crapshoot whether they show up in the sample or not. So they may get paid nothing, or (here's the part people never seem to mention) they may get paid _more_ than they should.

Overall, small play songs might get shorted 10 or 20 bucks. (Or 10 or 20 cents. People sometimes have some pretty delusional ideas about how huge their checks should be.) For songs that get played a lot, though, which is where a songwriter _really_ cares whether his check is accurate, it works out pretty close.

That's the nature of statistical surveys. They're accurate with large numbers, but not so accurate with smaller outliers. This is partly why ASCAP used to charge a membership fee. (I think they ended that 10 or 15 years ago?) They didn't want all the composers who would complain that they didn't get a 5 cent check for the dozen plays they got on their local radio station.

The survey method is probably past it's usefulness now in the year 2018 where it's a lot harder to fake what got played and what didn't, so IMO it's now an unnecessary expense. (Which comes out of my checks!) So maybe they'll end it some time soon. Either way, though, the errors associated with the survey method generally don't amount to much, and in songs I've co-written with BMI writers, our checks are usually about the same.


----------



## robgb (Oct 15, 2018)

So it sounds like BMI might be the way to go?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 15, 2018)

Won't this be up to SOCAN since you're in Canada?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 15, 2018)

Mike Greene said:


> I could be mistaken, but I think the only areas where ASCAP uses their survey method is with local television and with radio. For network TV and cable, though, they work the same way as BMI and use the listed network (both cable and broadcast) schedules, so all shows on the History Channel should show up.
> 
> My guess is that this is a cue sheet or name issue. Happens to me all the time, especially since the last "e" in "Greene" gets dropped all the time. I've even had instances where my name was spelled correctly, but they came back with the excuse that they didn't know _which_ Mike Greene should be credited ... even though at the time, there _were_ no other members named Mike Greene.



I know I heard my music placed on cable shows and was told that I would not be paid because the performances were not a part of the survey. 

I am not sure if the performances were also classified as “local” performances, but I do know the survey supersedes cue sheets for payouts.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 15, 2018)

Mike Greene said:


> This is partly why ASCAP used to charge a membership fee. (I think they ended that 10 or 15 years ago?)



ASCAP currently charges for songwriter and publisher membership: https://www.ascap.com/ome/


----------



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

sndmarks said:


> Start by confirming that ASCAP has correct cue sheets for the project on file and that they are correctly associated with the project and matched to you. ASCAP issues are relatively rare for me, but they usually take these forms and can be easily corrected with some diligence. Just another thing for the ol' ToDo list.....



I thought it was this as well, but I checked the cue sheets and personally sent them in.


----------



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Won't this be up to SOCAN since you're in Canada?



Yes, I've been speaking with SOCAN about this issue and they have opened a case with ASCAP. Unfortunately, there has been absolutely no news in more than a year...


----------



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

Mike Greene said:


> A little tangent, since people often complain about the survey method - The original reason for using the survey method was to prevent fraud. The "B" in BMI stands for "Broadcasters" and was (possibly still is?) owned by the broadcasters. Don't quote me on the exactness of that, but ASCAP was started because many composers didn't trust their motives.
> 
> Way back when, it was alleged that some radio stations would list songs on their BMI song listings that never really got played, all so they (or people who paid them) could fraudulently profit on _their_ songs, rather than the songs that actually got played. (Unethical behavior in the music business? Hard to believe, right?  )
> 
> ...



Thanks for this, Mike! Really interesting to hear how ASCAP came to be and it definitely makes sense to have a more 'independent' agent track performances. What you mention about smaller numbers is likely the issue and speaking with my PRO, it seems that the survey is root of this problem. perhaps it would be best to move on from ASCAP and consider BMI or SESAC.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 15, 2018)

BenG said:


> ... and speaking with my PRO, it seems that the survey is root of this problem.


I doubt that. "The survey" is an all-purpose conversation-ender that people say when they want to shut you up. 

Let me put it this way - You can call ASCAP and they can tell you, _to the penny_, what a minute of music will pay in royalties for each of the cable networks. (I've had these conversations with them many times as I decide whether or not to do certain shows.) Think about it - if it were survey-dependent, they wouldn't be able to do that. Plus, on your royalty statement, "Local Television" is the section where they put the TV survey stuff. Everything else is exact.

I would call ASCAP. Don't tell them you have this problem. Instead, tell them you're considering doing a show for History Channel and you want to know whether it's worth it, so what are the royalty rates. The flunkies who answer the phones might not have this info, but they can connect you to someone who does. Once they do, here's a little head-start info so you can appear a little more savvy - They're going to give you the Prime Time (6pm to midnight) rate. Afternoon (noon to 6pm) is 75% of that, morning (6am to noon) is 50% of prime time, and overnight (midnight to 6am) is 25% of prime time. Once they know that you can do that part of the math on your own, they'll be more willing to keep talking to you.


----------



## John Judd (Oct 15, 2018)

As regards ASCAP, I recently took a bunch of time out and checked for payment on hundreds of cue sheets. Yes, totally psycho. I know, but I was curious. 

Out of those, I found that there were at least 5 that just hadn’t seen any $$. I contacted them with the exact episodes/details/anticipated payout period and inquired as to why I hadn’t seen any payment. A couple months went by with no response at all, then they marked my question as resolved/closed. 

Just because your music is being used in a TV show doesn’t guarantee you will see $$. That’s sad to me. Who absorbed that money?


----------



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

Mike Greene said:


> I doubt that. "The survey" is an all-purpose conversation-ender that people say when they want to shut you up.



Sounds about right 

Thank you for the great idea of calling ASCAP and asking for 'potential' royalties! Definitely going to give them a call tomorrow and at least see what I'm owed for a 9pm History Channel performance. Would there be any way to check how may other performances there have been?


----------



## BenG (Oct 15, 2018)

John Judd said:


> As regards ASCAP, I recently took a bunch of time out and checked for payment on hundreds of cue sheets. Yes, totally psycho. I know, but I was curious.
> 
> Out of those, I found that there were at least 5 that just hadn’t seen any $$. I contacted them with the exact episodes/details/anticipated payout period and inquired as to why I hadn’t seen any payment. A couple months went by with no response at all, then they marked my question as resolved/closed.
> 
> Just because your music is being used in a TV show doesn’t guarantee you will see $$. That’s sad to me. Who absorbed that money?



Really unfortunate to hear! Especially considering I took less upfront for the entire writers/publishers share...:/


----------



## sndmarks (Oct 16, 2018)

BenG said:


> Really unfortunate to hear! Especially considering I took less upfront for the entire writers/publishers share...:/


While I've never had issues with my shows that aired on History Channel, some of their sister networks have been problematic. Spent the better part of 2 years tracking down issues on a show that airs within their family of networks only to discover that the production/network was submitting incorrect cue sheets. Took another 2+ years to review and fix and resubmit all the cue sheets (hundreds of them). 9-12 months after that, I saw the moneys that should have been paid originally. Ultimately, administering your library can be an active, sizable job unto itself - but you're the only one looking out for your interests so it's important work. Even though it took a good bit of time and involved corrections to other composers' accounts, ASCAP untangled the mess and got me $$ I was owed.


----------



## BenG (Oct 16, 2018)

I think one of the main problems here is that I am a SOCAN member and can't directly speak without ASCAP which leaves with with little that I can do personally. Since it's not 'their' money, few representatives seem to care about the issue and have no desire to actively solve anything. 

Fwiw, I did call ASCAP this morning per Mike's suggestion and they were able to look up my affiliation via my SOCAN membership. That said, they refused to divulged any royalty figures, answers or support which is a bit frustrating...


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 16, 2018)

BenG said:


> Fwiw, I did call ASCAP this morning per Mike's suggestion and they were able to look up my affiliation via my SOCAN membership. That said, they refused to divulged any royalty figures, answers or support which is a bit frustrating...



SMH.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 21, 2019)

Got my first BMI statement. Glad I switched!


----------



## BenG (Jun 21, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Got my first BMI statement. Glad I switched!



Funny. I just received my first royalty cheque from ASCAP for performances in 2016. Also, have no idea of how many performances were recorded, when they aired or on which network they played...


----------



## jonnybutter (Jun 22, 2019)

Mike Greene said:


> A little tangent, since people often complain about the survey method - The original reason for using the survey method was to prevent fraud. The "B" in BMI stands for "Broadcasters" and was (possibly still is?) owned by the broadcasters. Don't quote me on the exactness of that, but ASCAP was started because many composers didn't trust their motives.



ASCAP predates BMI by many years. ASCAP predates _broadcasting_. I believe one of the original members of ASCAP was John Phillip Sousa! I think they originally used the survey method because that's all they had, but I'm sure there's more to the story!


----------



## dannymc (Jun 22, 2019)

jonnybutter said:


> ASCAP predates BMI by many years. ASCAP predates _broadcasting_. I believe one of the original members of ASCAP was John Phillip Sousa! I think they originally used the survey method because that's all they had, but I'm sure there's more to the story!



well they need to stop using it. its 2019, there are no excuses anymore especially since other PRO's don't use such a ridiculously outdated system. 

Danny


----------



## dgburns (Jun 22, 2019)

Socan is IMHO, the best PRO in the world at the moment. Vast initiatives being placed into big data harvesting and a few years back they made a big push into pursuing international performances, and I can attest that the result was material, to say the least.

There will always be room for improvement, but I for one feel that there has been alot to feel good about.

As to errors in submitted cue sheets, etc- well that falls squarely on the people involved in those projects. Socan can only act on the information provided.

It pays to be proactive. And be happy that the system works as well as it does, again IMHO.

The data BMI, ASCAP and SESAC have to navigate dwarfs just about any other PRO, even with sweeps in place. Can we please cut them a bit of slack?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 29, 2019)

dgburns said:


> The data BMI, ASCAP and SESAC have to navigate dwarfs just about any other PRO, even with sweeps in place. Can we please cut them a bit of slack?



No. They need to do better.

I’d pay $100 a year ($25 deduction from royalties per quarter) if it would help to bring in more royalties. But if the PROs did get that from each member, they would get comfortable with that money and go back to slacking off. It’s just how big systems work.

So us composers are screwed in the interim.


----------



## dgburns (Jun 29, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> No. They need to do better.
> 
> I’d pay $100 a year ($25 deduction from royalties per quarter) if it would help to bring in more royalties. But if the PROs did get that from each member, they would get comfortable with that money and go back to slacking off. It’s just how big systems work.
> 
> So us composers are screwed in the interim.



Last post from me on this point. Saying ‘we’ are screwed is a statement written without much consideration for the myriad of variety each and every creator is faced with. Please consider learning as much as you can about the work that the PRO’s do so as to arm yourself with the proper knowledge and understanding to navigate your earning potential.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 29, 2019)

dgburns said:


> Last post from me on this point. Saying ‘we’ are screwed is a statement written without much consideration for the myriad of variety each and every creator is faced with. Please consider learning as much as you can about the work that the PRO’s do so as to arm yourself with the proper knowledge and understanding to navigate your earning potential.



I don’t feel like arguing. So I’ll just say that I am no fool and will continue to fight for what is mine. One way or another, I am going to win.


----------

