# Royalty Rates



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 2, 2010)

Gents,

Been a longtime member of ASCAP. Many films and series scored. Grass is always greener situation and query....

Can any working composers who are members of BMI or SESAC tell me what they get a Primetime minute for underscore w/ ABC, Discovery Channel and HBO?

I know that each PRO has a different 'secret formula' or weights and measures for compensating us with such things, however, thought I would ask all of my friends here as well.

Numeric answers appreciated.

B


----------



## rob morsberger (Nov 3, 2010)

Terry, if I may: how do you know that the tracking is superior?
And what happens if one switches PROs? Presumably one's back catalog continues to be reported by the old PRO, with the new one reporting going forward?
(Sorry to divert the thread...don't know the answer to your questions, B.)


----------



## midphase (Nov 3, 2010)

Switching PRO's can only happen during specific times of the year (I believe twice a year) and it's a convoluted and not friendly process. And yes, there will be some possible doubling of royalties and some losing of royalties and the system switches over. Probably not worth it if you're counting on the screw up that benefits you.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 3, 2010)

For cable channels (HBO, Discovery, etc) and broadcast networks (ABC, Fox, etc,) the ASCAP and BMI tracking systems are the same. They both simply read the schedules the networks give them and pay based on that.  Payment rates will be (nearly) identical with BMI and ASCAP in those cases, because they each know what the other is paying, so they're not going to let the other have an advantage.

It's in *local* broadcasting (which includes shows like Oprah and Seinfeld in syndication) and radio where their reporting systems are different. BMI is more complete, since they simply just accept all the reportings the various TV and radio stations give them. ASCAP instead uses a survey system where they sample a smaller number of TV and radio stations, then extrapolate out from there. The principle behind ASCAP doing it this way is that it is more honest and less subject to manipulation by lazy or dishonest TV/radio station owners. Years ago (and possibly still today?) BMI was owned by the broadcasters and ASCAP was created by songwriters as a non-profit alternative.

Even in non network and non cable, it all comes out the same in the end. Errors or dishonesty aside, BMI will be more consistent in paying you $100 per quarter for some cue you got in a syndicated (as opposed to network) TV show, while ASCAP might pay $50 one quarter, $150 the next. But neither has an advantage in the long run, and the answer to the question of "Which PRO pays the most" will always be "Neither" (except in a very few oddball cases.)


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 3, 2010)

No worries, Herr Morsberger.

I would most likely leave my catalogue with the old PRO (if possible, as with a fair bit of content already out in the world, I would imagine I would be asking for more trouble than needed sorting out the paperwork - not to mention the mistakes that are bound to happen).

This would be a moving forward situation.

First though, I would like to collect the data I seek anonymously, rather than presenting myself at a rival PRO office and producing a Royalty Statement for them to peruse and woo me over with tales of riches, fair maidens and how greener the grass is...

I am hearing that cable seems to pay better at BMI. However, I have also heard that my film work will be better accounted for at ASCAP with regards to interfacing with foreign PRO's... who knows? 

This forum is called "Working in the Industry," so I thought I would throw out a concerned query for those of us who are. Perhaps also to raise awareness and get a general consensus? Knowledge is power, together we stand, etc...

Yours,
-B


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 3, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Wed Nov 03 said:


> For cable channels (HBO, Discovery, etc) and broadcast networks (ABC, Fox, etc,) the ASCAP and BMI tracking systems are the same. They both simply read the schedules the networks give them and pay based on that. Payment rates will be (nearly) identical with BMI and ASCAP in those cases, because they each know what the other is paying, so they're not going to let the other have an advantage.
> 
> It's in *local* broadcasting (which includes shows like Oprah and Seinfeld in syndication) and radio where their reporting systems are different. BMI is more complete, since they simply just accept all the reportings the various TV and radio stations give them. ASCAP instead uses a survey system where they sample a smaller number of TV and radio stations, then extrapolate out from there. The principle behind ASCAP doing it this way is that it is more honest and less subject to manipulation by lazy or dishonest TV/radio station owners. Years ago (and possibly still today?) BMI was owned by the broadcasters and ASCAP was created by songwriters as a non-profit alternative.
> 
> Even in non network and non cable, it all comes out the same in the end. Errors or dishonesty aside, BMI will be more consistent in paying you $100 per quarter for some cue you got in a syndicated (as opposed to network) TV show, while ASCAP might pay $50 one quarter, $150 the next. But neither has an advantage in the long run, and the answer to the question of "Which PRO pays the most" will always be "Neither" (except in a very few oddball cases.)




Thank you Sir, for this information. Both you and Midphase were responding to my query as I typed my response.

Many thanks for these replies, gentlemen.

-B


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 3, 2010)

Brobdingnagian @ Wed Nov 03 said:


> I would like to collect the data I seek anonymously, rather than presenting myself at a rival PRO office and producing a Royalty Statement for them to peruse and woo me over with tales of riches, fair maidens and how greener the grass is...


Waltzing in and letting them know who you are might not be a bad thing. When I first joined ASCAP, both BMI and ASCAP would often offer advances or other sweeteners if they wanted you. I don't know if they still do this, but it couldn't hurt. I don't see a downside to letting them know what you're doing.



Brobdingnagian @ Wed Nov 03 said:


> I am hearing that cable seems to pay better at BMI.


I was about to say, "You heard wrong," but I'll amend that to, "You heard right, but you were told wrong." :mrgreen:


----------



## rob morsberger (Nov 3, 2010)

interesting and helpful thread on an otherwise not terribly good day. Thanks to all.


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Nov 3, 2010)

"You heard right, but you were told wrong."

THIS is genius! I am going to use this phrase.

Sorry to hear that things aren't going your way today, Rob.


----------

