# $300 per minute of scored music for tv show?



## Greg (Apr 30, 2013)

How do you guys feel about the fairness of this rate? I'm not desperate for work by any means but it is a cool cable show. The music is mostly underscore then evolving into a more developed cue for each scenes 'payoff'

I personally feel it is an acceptable rate if I retain the publishing. 

Opinions much appreciated!


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 30, 2013)

I usually get $3500 per hour show on cable, but i have gone as low as $2000 if I like the production company and trust them. Not sure how that translates for your situation. I score as much of a show as a possibly can 'cause the money in TV is not the upfront money, but the royalties that follow. You have to weigh the odds of the show replaying.

If the show airs a lot the up front money is not a big concern. And get the publishing if you can, but not a deal breaker by any means.

I do not like to say "no" to anyone.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 30, 2013)

Sounds quite reasonable considering you'll be getting PRO royalties too.


----------



## Greg (Apr 30, 2013)

Jimbo 88 @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> I usually get $3500 per hour show on cable, but i have gone as low as $2000 if I like the production company and trust them. Not sure how that translates for your situation. I score as much of a show as a possibly can 'cause the money in TV is not the upfront money, but the royalties that follow. You have to weigh the odds of the show replaying.
> 
> If the show airs a lot the up front money is not a big concern. And get the publishing if you can, but not a deal breaker by any means.
> 
> I do not like to say "no" to anyone.



This is still a grey area for me, I have only ever received a few dollars per airing in royalties on cable shows for a single 60s-2m placement. Seems like in this case, I would have about 20mins of music + theme song in each episode. Network would be National Geographic.


----------



## windshore (Apr 30, 2013)

Royalties for cable will prob not add up to much. The deal might be worthwhile if you are able to keep publishing.


----------



## JJP (Apr 30, 2013)

Most people I know bill on a per episode basis. That way you don't have the producers short-changing music to cut costs or the composer trying to write over everything to inflate the bill.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 30, 2013)

Greg @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> Jimbo 88 @ Tue Apr 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I usually get $3500 per hour show on cable, but i have gone as low as $2000 if I like the production company and trust them. Not sure how that translates for your situation. I score as much of a show as a possibly can 'cause the money in TV is not the upfront money, but the royalties that follow. You have to weigh the odds of the show replaying.
> ...




National Geo does not generate a lot of royalties. I've made more off of Weather Channel Music. Nat Geo can be ruff on composers and picky. The shows i have done for Nat Geo I put myself as the Publisher and get those so...don't say anything and fill out the Music Cue Sheet with you as the publisher.

Do the job as best you can and see what comes of it. Congrats....


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 30, 2013)

JJP @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> Most people I know bill on a per episode basis. That way you don't have the producers short-changing music to cut costs or the composer trying to write over everything to inflate the bill.




This is very true...you might go and renegotiate this way.


----------



## Farkle (Apr 30, 2013)

Jimbo 88 @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> JJP @ Tue Apr 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Most people I know bill on a per episode basis. That way you don't have the producers short-changing music to cut costs or the composer trying to write over everything to inflate the bill.
> ...



For these lower budget cable shows, putting a "per episode cost" is a nice compromise, it allows for the producer to line-item you as a consistent expense. I have several friends who have done this for cable shows, it works out well for everyone.

Remember several things:

1. Cable royalties add up. If you have a series gig, after 2-3 seasons, you can easily get royalty checks of 15-20k, especially if the show runs multiple times in a day.

2. You can re-use cues (ESPECIALLY underscore cues) in later episodes. This allows you to basically "work smarter" in successive seasons, re-using earlier cues, and saving yourself writing time. And no, this is not unethical, it is using the music you wrote for this show to enhance a scene appropriately.

3. For what it's worth, a major animated series on Fox paid exactly this amount (300/min), and composers were all over it, because the royalties were amazing. Granted, that was network royalties, but cable royalties can still be 30-40$/minute, and if you have 22 min of music, playing 2x a day, 5 days a week... it adds up.

4. I'm paraphrasing this great quote from Craig Sharmat... "find ways for your money/art/product to make you money while you're sleeping." Royalties are the holy grail of that.

From personal experience, I would not have a problem taking that gig, especially with responsible and accurate PRO cue registering and tracking.

I hope this helps!

Mike


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 30, 2013)

If you call ASCAP or BMI, they can tell you exactly what your per minute royalty rate, as well as theme song rate, would be for National Geographic.


----------



## Ed (Apr 30, 2013)

Farkle @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> And no, this is not unethical, it is using the music you wrote for this show to enhance a scene appropriately.



Well, it is a bit cheeky since they can have a music editor do that. If you're paid to write original music, then you should probably write original music. That said, I'd certainly reuse stuff, because some people just want to watch the world burn ya feel me?


----------



## Farkle (Apr 30, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> Farkle @ Tue Apr 30 said:
> 
> 
> > And no, this is not unethical, it is using the music you wrote for this show to enhance a scene appropriately.
> ...



Awesome quote, Ed, I Love it! And yes, I totally see your point, one (the composer) is being hired to create custom music, and not rehash stuff from before.

I mean, it's a case by case basis, right? I've been in situations where the composer was swamped, and talked with the music editor, and they re-used appropriate cues that "captured the emotion" from an earlier season, and dropped it in, because the project needed to hit a deadline, the music worked for the scene, and the composer could then work on other cues.

Also, in film scores, you see this all the time, esp. with older scores, even Hermann... If you listen to Psycho, Hermann "Come Sopras" several cues identically, saving himself time to write. Alan Silvestri does the same thing in Back to the Future and Predator. They need a similar sounding cue to an earlier one, and they reuse material.

As always, this is my take on it, and I certainly respect all others' opinions... I'm just one dude, trying to make some music. 

And, I don't want to derail this thread. Ed, this could be a very interesting topic, but if we want to open this up to discussion (which I'm all for), we'll start a new thread, is that cool?

Mike


----------



## Greg (Apr 30, 2013)

Feel free to take my topic into any direction you want!! There has been so much useful information already, plenty to ponder while negotiating. Thanks all!


----------



## Greg (Apr 30, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> If you call ASCAP or BMI, they can tell you exactly what your per minute royalty rate, as well as theme song rate, would be for National Geographic.



I actually tried that and this was their reply:

With the change in royalty distribution methodology, which was implemented in 2012, we can no longer estimate what royalty rates will be prior to a distribution. One of the most important factors that is now included is the Nielsen rating. Each episode rating will affect how royalties are processed so you will not longer see one consistent rate for a show throughout a quarter but will see the earnings fluctuate with each airing. Without knowing those ratings, which are supplied until the distribution, we have no way to tell what to expect in earnings.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 30, 2013)

> Well, it is a bit cheeky since they can have a music editor do that.



But it's normal. I saw Michael Kamen do that - he said something like, "Okay, we have enough music for this film."

That's an exaggeration out of context, but you get the point.


----------



## sluggo (Apr 30, 2013)

$300/minute? 20 mins per episode? ($6000/episode) Nat Geo?
That's is NOT the Nat Geo I know. Typical rate for early 2000s. But today that is a GREAT gig. Glad they are paying what they should be paying.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Apr 30, 2013)

Thing is, when you make a deal per minute, you end up going to a spotting session and they ask for :20 here, :40 there and you end up with 6 minutes of music. 

Usually. 

Not all the time.

Depends on the producer.


----------



## reddognoyz (Apr 30, 2013)

I agree with Nick. That's a pretty decent budget by todays standards. Do you have a music contract? Often it's a work for hire aka complete buyout, which means they get the publishing. 

If they are paying you $300 per minute of produced music, that's not quite as groovy, but I've seen that rate paid to composers at music houses, so it's not unheard of.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Apr 30, 2013)

Greg @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> I actually tried that and this was their reply:
> 
> With the change in royalty distribution methodology, which was implemented in 2012, we can no longer estimate what royalty rates will be prior to a distribution. One of the most important factors that is now included is the Nielsen rating. Each episode rating will affect how royalties are processed so you will not longer see one consistent rate for a show throughout a quarter but will see the earnings fluctuate with each airing. Without knowing those ratings, which are supplied until the distribution, we have no way to tell what to expect in earnings.



Wow, that is the first I heard of that approach to weighing their distributions. >8o 

Not sure I have noticed that in my statements as of yet. If this is indeed true, it will certainly make things interesting for me in a fabulous way right now...however, it is the long-term that concerns me in a far greater way. Remember friends, it is life plus 75 years for domestic distributions right now and life plus 50 years internationally.

Anyone else care to share or contribute on this?


----------



## Ed (Apr 30, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> Wow, that is the first I heard of that approach to weighing their distributions. >8o
> 
> Not sure I have noticed that in my statements as of yet. If this is indeed true, it will certainly make things interesting for me in a fabulous way right now...however, it is the long-term that concerns me in a far greater way. Remember friends, it is life plus 75 years for domestic distributions right now and life plus 50 years internationally.
> 
> Anyone else care to share or contribute on this?



Yea seems crazy since its well known that the Nielsen rating doesnt fit reality anymore, with more and more people not watching in real time, and choosing other ways to watch the shows such as catch up and on demand services. Unless they find a way to measure how people consume these days, its only going to seem like less and less people watch Tv


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 30, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> Brobdingnagian @ Tue Apr 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that is the first I heard of that approach to weighing their distributions. >8o
> ...



thus, the reason for the writers strike a few years back.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 30, 2013)

also, 
only masters that air domestically have the v-chip for Nielsen ratings. nat geo shows distribute globally which is where it actually generates revenue. domestic usually only pays for the show. broadcast licenses abroad are very lucrative so its good to have good pro rep oversees. EU and latin america (brazil too) 
those countries redub in their langauge but use the same music. 

so ill keep saying in open forums like this for composers to ask for a small percentage of international publishing when there is low upfront payment. 

EST/VOD deals are very low ballers. would usually have like 20 tv shows in one deal. and i dont think netflix and the like pay music royalties. id like to know though.


----------



## jeffc (Apr 30, 2013)

This is getting a bit off topic from the original poster, so my apologies in advance.

But on topic - that's a pretty good rate these days. Although I've never been paid by minute, always per episode.

re: weighting. I can only speak as to Ascap. But the big change that recently happened was that they changed the weighting for background instrumental vs featured songs. I don't have the specifics, but it's good for BI, it basically increased that weight and now a song that's not an on-camera featured song, isn't paid that super high weight anymore and the extra from that has now increased BI rates. Good for composers. Not so good for songwriters who would get huge feature rates for a song that was used just as background. Ascap also has some type of bonus system if your show is highly rated, not sure of the specifics, I had a few that hit it and it was a nice bonus. Not sure if the ratings of every show are calculated in, don't really think that's possible.

Also, yes there are royalties on Netflix through Ascap at least, not great, but not too bad. At least it's being tracked, as that's definitely the future....

JC


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 30, 2013)

> the Nielsen rating doesnt fit reality anymore, with more and more people not watching in real time



Actually I've read that Nielsen is starting to track recorded viewing too. It's a bonus from an advertising sales point of view.

But you do have to wonder how long the standard business models for TV can last. I hate paying $200/month for ten channels we do watch and 500 of home shopping for doilies, and I'm not the only one.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 30, 2013)

jeffc @ Tue Apr 30 said:


> re: weighting. I can only speak as to Ascap. But the big change that recently happened was that they changed the weighting for background instrumental vs featured songs. I don't have the specifics, but it's good for BI, it basically increased that weight and now a song that's not an on-camera featured song, isn't paid that super high weight anymore and the extra from that has now increased BI rates. Good for composers. Not so good for songwriters who would get huge feature rates for a song that was used just as background.


I'm kinda hazy on this, too, but my understanding is that ASCAP got sued by one (or more) networks for overcharging them, so to pay for the settlement, they eliminated the BV (background vocal) feature rate status. I think they might have raised the BI (background instrumental) rate so they could convince the membership this is "good news," but my guess is it's only slightly, if at all, since the real purpose of this was to cover their shortfall. But I could be misinformed.

What I do know is that my wife (who I signed up to BMI a long time ago) has now coincidentally become the vocal songwriter in the family. :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2013)

Brobdingnagian @ 30th April 2013 said:


> Remember friends, it is life plus 75 years for domestic distributions right now and life plus 50 years internationally.
> 
> Anyone else care to share or contribute on this?



One composer pal told me that he puts his children on the cue sheet -- they are actually musical -- to capture the longer tail on the royalties.


----------



## Greg (May 3, 2013)

Has anyone had experience in keeping the music publishing rights while scoring for TV? The producer sent me the contract today and said that Nat Geo claims these work for hire terms are 'basically not negotiable'


----------



## sluggo (May 3, 2013)

Greg,
You've come to a public message board to discuss fees and wages amongst mostly semi-professional and aspiring composers. Maybe there are a small handful of pros lurking here. And, of course, HZ.

Look at what is happening...you are getting a decent, slightly above market wage for a cable tv show on NatGeo. They are paying you, and you will get your writer's share. They WILL own publishing. (I'm assuming you will not incur any costs a la live players/studios etc)

Personally I think the discussion of the wages and business here is a little out of line. You should be talking to agents or lawyers if you want real advice. But I don't think this gig will really get their attention. 

If not owning publishing makes it not 'worth while', then you must have MUCH better gigs going on and you can afford to just let this go.

Good luck, if it's advice you seek, I'd say take the gig. Make it good...help the series so it gets renewed and then buy a house in 4-5 years.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 3, 2013)

Yeah - I really dont understand what this whole "I am the composer and want the publishing in addition to the writers and in addition to the fee" thing is. This isn't the first time that this has come up. When you sign on to do work for a client, and it is a WFH, and you get paid, you the composer do not get to keep the publishing. That's the way it works. You get your fee, and you get the writers. Asking to negotiote even half of the publishing is unprofessional, and seems greedy. Greg - if you don't want to do this, send me a pm with the details, and I will take the gig.

Cheers.


----------



## germancomponist (May 3, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 03 said:


> That's the way it works. You get your fee, and you get the writers. Asking to negotiote even half of the publishing is unprofessional, and seems greedy. Greg - if you don't want to do this, send me a pm with the details, and I will take the gig.
> 
> Cheers.



+1

(I didn't want to come into this thread, but I have to set my +1 here)


----------



## Mike Greene (May 3, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 03 said:


> When you sign . . . a WFH, and you get paid, you the composer do not get to keep the publishing. That's the way it works. You get your fee, and you get the writers.


Nope. If you sign a straight work for hire contract without including a separate clause that specifies that you get the writer's share, then you don't keep the writer's share, either. Without that added clause, they can put their own name as composer if they want. They can collect the writer's share and they can give themselves the screen credit. That's what a work for hire is. 

Film studios have us sign work for hire contracts because they don't want any unexpected copyright problems down the road. So they own everything up front. It's not that they want to rip us off, they just don't want a film held hostage 20 years from now by a composer. Work for hire completely protects them forever.

But again, they (usually) don't want to rip us off, so they include a clause saying we get to keep the writer's share of PRO royalties. There's also usually a clause or two about record royalties, should a soundtrack album be released. Neither is an obligation under work for hire. It's just something that's done.

So since there's already a clause weakening the work for hire aspect saying we get the writer's share, what's so greedy about asking for the publisher's share as well? It's certainly not an unheard of request, especially if the budget is low.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 3, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Fri May 03 said:


> RiffWraith @ Fri May 03 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the way it works. You get your fee, and you get the writers.
> ...



Right - that is true. My comment was based on that actually happening, which is typically the way it works.


----------



## Greg (May 3, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Fri May 03 said:


> So since there's already a clause weakening the work for hire aspect saying we get the writer's share, what's so greedy about asking for the publisher's share as well? It's certainly not an unheard of request, especially if the budget is low.



That was my thought as well, I offered a work for hire rate and a rate which I keep the publishing. It's not being demanding or unprofessional, it is just giving them options.


----------

