# I love ASCAP royalty day!!!!!!!



## Ah_dziz (Oct 9, 2012)

I always forget about it and then notice my bank balance has mysteriously grown. I guess I should buy some stuff now.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 9, 2012)

BMI for me but yes... nice


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 9, 2012)

Yes, this morning was a good morning - literally.



gsilbers @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> BMI for me but yes... nice



Does BMI have the same quarterly dist. dates as ASCAP?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 9, 2012)

PRS is not due for another week. :cry: 

D


----------



## rgames (Oct 9, 2012)

I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.

I make 100x - 1000x more money on up-front payments vs. back-end. Yet there are those who believe we should fight for those paltry royalty payments...

I guess if you have a bunch of placements on major networks it might be good. But if you're licensing tracks through libraries that cater mostly to the cable channels then I just don't see how it's worth anybody's time unless you're getting thousands of placements.

rgames


----------



## Rob Elliott (Oct 9, 2012)

rgames @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.
> 
> I make 100x - 1000x more money on up-front payments vs. back-end. Yet there are those who believe we should fight for those paltry royalty payments...
> 
> ...




Amen brother. Show me the money....now.


----------



## MacQ (Oct 9, 2012)

But the guys doing a lot of syndicated children's cartoons are making a KILLING on the back-end. That said, they can HAVE those jobs. I don't want to have to write wall-to-wall dense mickey-mousing. I'm getting a tempo-track headache just thinking about it! Haha.

~Stu


----------



## Daryl (Oct 10, 2012)

rgames @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.
> 
> I make 100x - 1000x more money on up-front payments vs. back-end. Yet there are those who believe we should fight for those paltry royalty payments...
> 
> ...


Yes, but Richard as I've said before, you are not a professional, and you don't have music in the "quality" libraries. You can't judge based on your own experience, because you are at the bottom end of the market.

Obviously my earnings from PRS are not huge, but they are increasing way ahead of inflation. When added to my share of licensing fees, that is nothing to sniff about, IMO. Maybe you earn more in your day job than I do in mine, but I wouldn't bet on it always to be the case. :wink: 

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 10, 2012)

what passes for a "quality" library these days? FirstCom? Killer? Perhaps things are different in Europe.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 10, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> what passes for a "quality" library these days? FirstCom? Killer? Perhaps things are different in Europe.


I'm thinking of the libraries that have a recording budget for the music they release, have global distribution, have an artistic policy and production team for the writers and albums they brief and are not just some Internet scam site. :wink: 

D


----------



## Ed (Oct 10, 2012)

Well I have only 5 tracks in circulation at the moment but have been extremely surprised by how much royalties they generate. So Im not sure what libs you've got stuff in Richard but you can absolutely make a helleva lot of money if you write a lot of library music that gets good airtime on mainstream TV channels.


----------



## midphase (Oct 10, 2012)

rgames @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.
> 
> I make 100x - 1000x more money on up-front payments vs. back-end. Yet there are those who believe we should fight for those paltry royalty payments...



Let me say this to you...if it wasn't for my ASCAP checks on a shitty year like this year, I would be homeless.

How's that?


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 10, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Yes, this morning was a good morning - literally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



mine was 2 weeks before. 22nd i think.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 10, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> rgames @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.
> ...


I'd be in the cardboard box next to you. In the lean years (consecutive lean years in my case,) ASCAP has saved my skin.


----------



## rgames (Oct 10, 2012)

Daryl - thanks so much for your assessment of my status as a professional, it's especially remarkable since I don't recall discussing anything with you and somehow you know so much. 

Where do I send the check for such wisdom? Can I get more?

Did you read anything I wrote?

As I said, I'm sure there are folks who make good money from broadcast royalties. But getting paid up-front $350 - $1000 per track has, in my experience, provided much more income than broadcast royalties (or even license fees), and those are pretty standard rates as far as I can tell.

And yes, there are tracks that generate decent revenue for long periods of time that do better than $350 - $1000. But on average I still think it's better to get the money up front, even if it means giving up the royalties (which I've never done, by the way, but as I'm saying here, keeping those royalties hasn't done much for me).

Don't get your panties in a wad, guys - I'm not doubting your prowess at making tons of money through royalties. I'm glad for you - seriously. I'm simply stating the fact that there are alternate business models that appear to work better for others.

rgames


----------



## Alex Cuervo (Oct 10, 2012)

I just got a $30 dollar check from BMI. My first. I was over the moon about it.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> Daryl - thanks so much for your assessment of my status as a professional, it's especially remarkable since I don't recall discussing anything with you and somehow you know so much.
> 
> Where do I send the check for such wisdom? Can I get more?
> 
> Did you read anything I wrote?


Sorry Richard, but you have previously stated that composing isn't your full-time job, therefore you aren't a professional, because it's not what you do for a living. Unless things have changed?



rgames @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> As I said, I'm sure there are folks who make good money from broadcast royalties. But getting paid up-front $350 - $1000 per track has, in my experience, provided much more income than broadcast royalties (or even license fees), and those are pretty standard rates as far as I can tell.
> 
> And yes, there are tracks that generate decent revenue for long periods of time that do better than $350 - $1000. But on average I still think it's better to get the money up front, even if it means giving up the royalties (which I've never done, by the way, but as I'm saying here, keeping those royalties hasn't done much for me).
> 
> ...


The reason that people get cheesed off is because you are talking about something to which you have no experience, and in doing so are adding to the call of many broadcasters for the Royalties to be reduced. I know that ITV, for example, tries to argue that nobody watches Nightscreen, so they shouldn't have to pay anything. The argument against is that if nobody watches it, they don't need to broadcast music. :lol: 

OK, let's start again.

1) How many different library tracks do you have available for licence?
2) What's your yearly Broadcast Royalty (ASCAP, BMI, PRS etc)?

Giving out this information may help to see where you're coming from. You and I (and others) may have a very different idea of what constitutes a reasonable return.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 11, 2012)

I'm curious, Daryl- are you this confrontational in every aspect of your life?


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> I'm curious, Daryl- are you this confrontational in every aspect of your life?


I'm not confrontational. I'm just honest and call it like I see it. I don't believe in the silent majority. That way leads to decisions being made that nobody agrees with. You just have look at what happens in politics to see the truth of this.

I also happen to think that Royalties is a very important subject. As composers, we are the only people who have this luxury, and it is a luxury, when compared with other industries. For example, if you are employed to invent something (which is a bit like being employed to write a score), in most other industries the Royalties go to the person who employed you, not the employer. Therefore I can'[t let someone get away with implying that Royalties don't really matter, because they do matter to me.

Do you think that I should not stick up for what I believe to be right? I'm curious to see whether or not you're such a push-over in real life. :wink: 

D


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> Obviously my earnings from PRS are not huge, but they are increasing way ahead of inflation. When added to my share of licensing fees, that is nothing to sniff about, IMO. Maybe you earn more in your day job than I do in mine, but I wouldn't bet on it always to be the case. :wink:
> 
> D



i think thats a good way to build up a pension compared to say whats happened to errrr pensions in general. :lol: 

so if you got the skills like you have to keep those checks coming in i think it must be an enjoyment way to make money.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2012)

George Caplan @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously my earnings from PRS are not huge, but they are increasing way ahead of inflation. When added to my share of licensing fees, that is nothing to sniff about, IMO. Maybe you earn more in your day job than I do in mine, but I wouldn't bet on it always to be the case. :wink:
> ...


That's sort of the way I look at it. The day I decide not to write commercial music any more is the day that my income goes up around £30K a year anyway, because I no longer have production expenses to fund. I also don't know many pension schemes that allow you to retire on near enough 100% of your income. Obviously I can only expect a decent income for around 20 years after I "retire", but I'm sure that will be plenty, when you think that for most years it probably will be 10x what a normal working guy with a pension gets per year.

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious, Daryl- are you this confrontational in every aspect of your life?
> ...



I think all the smileys and winkles don't make up for the fact that you are, indeed, quite unnecessarily rude and confrontational in this situation. I think there are other ways to " stand up for what you believe", ways, for example, that wouldn't get your patronizing behind kicked in a pub where people dislike that sort of nonsense.

Of course royalties matter. What does that have to do with your suggestion that he pull his musical penis out so you can compare sizes? I saw no sign on the door announcing " only those with major royalty checks may enter or discuss royalties properly."

I took no issue with the content of your post. I do take issue with the tenor of it.

As to whether I'm a push-over in "real life" (as if someone should act differently behind a screen, what nonsense!), make your own determination. I guess I'll throw some smileys at the end of this post to defuse the direct nature of it. :wink:  :D :lol:


----------



## Daryl (Oct 11, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> ...


In your opinion I am confrontational and rude. You are entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that just because a part-timer doesn't earn much from Royalties, it is not a legitimate reason to accept that they are not a good source of income.

Anyway, you know where I stand, so I won't waste any more of your time. 

D


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> ...



That's sensible. Ditto.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> George Caplan @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> ...



yup youre dead on correct there. slightly off the topic but maybe not of course the pension system there in the uk is different to here in the states. what has happened there quite a bit as here is that terrible phrase quantitative easing and what qe has done more or less in the uk because of the pension system is to ruin your annuity rates. i always hated pensions in the uk for our clients based on the idea that it becomes a lottery thru those annuity rates and subsequent qe action. but the idea to be able to retire on 100pc of your inc is what its all about and not have to rely on the vagaries of rates at any given moment. i can go back to the early nineties in the uk and remember when the annuity rate was around 11pc but that was because of another fiasco that arose at the time same as now only in reverse. too many pension investors let the tax tail wag the dog and its a bit of a con.
and of course you dont need to retire if you dont want to.

royalties only go to musicians composers larry? what about my clients that were authors?

:lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 11, 2012)

Didn't realize this was an author's forum as well, george.


----------



## Ed (Oct 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> 1) How many different library tracks do you have available for licence?
> 2) What's your yearly Broadcast Royalty (ASCAP, BMI, PRS etc)?
> 
> Giving out this information may help to see where you're coming from. You and I (and others) may have a very different idea of what constitutes a reasonable return.



Also makes a difference what libraries, as you mentioned before. I mean I could make a library right now and get tracks registered, doesnt mean anyones going to hear them.



> I also happen to think that Royalties is a very important subject. As composers, we are the only people who have this luxury, and it is a luxury, when compared with other industries. For example, if you are employed to invent something (which is a bit like being employed to write a score), in most other industries the Royalties go to the person who employed you, not the employer. Therefore I can'[t let someone get away with implying



Yea Ive made this observation before. Most other work dont get anything back end like music can. 

I remember a story I remember being told by a fairly successful media composer that he has a friend who only writes library music and has a ton of money and a yacht. I also have other stories of some of the major players in library music and they sure are grateful royalties exist.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 11, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> what passes for a "quality" library these days? FirstCom? Killer? Perhaps things are different in Europe.



Good question. I do most of my work at the BBC, and in their studios the Play consortium is used far more than anything else in my experience. The big hitters there are KPM, Extreme and CPM (was Carlin), with Kosinus, Music House, Selected Sound and a few others also getting some use. I appreciate that there are big labels not on Play, and chances are others use them heavily - Universal, Bruton, Chappel, FirstCom, Immediate - but perhaps it's just my circle that gravitate to Play.

As for the general subject, the huge diversity of experience here is quite telling. I'd say if you are writing a lot of library music and your royalties are poor, it's time to look at changing labels. Royalties, I've maintained for years, are the shining beacon in an industry of financial gloom and misery. The system broadly works, but it works better in some cases than others. My work is in BBC kids TV, and it (broadly) works very well (though after 10 months the PRS still haven't resolved a duplicate cue sheet problem, I know they EVENTUALLY do sort these things out).

My financial experience is pretty much the inverse of Richard's. That's not to say that the system will work well for everyone. If Richard is doing ok with upfront payments in the field he is in - terrific. But it might not hurt to look around to see if there are ways of making the system work better for you.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 11, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > what passes for a "quality" library these days? FirstCom? Killer? Perhaps things are different in Europe.
> ...



Guy-your post hits home with me, very much so.

For about 25 years, my main sources of income were residuals and creative fees from advertising work. I'm fortunate to have three small union pension from the musicians union and the two actor/singer unions in the U.S. that have very recently combined into one. I did receive royalties, because BMI does (or did) collect a small amount for commercials that play on network television, however, my best year for royalties alone, from commercials, was probably about 30k U. S. I have some non-advertising tv work still airing from 30 (!) years ago, and I'm STILL collecting small amounts from that as well as some more recent things for Disney, so I get the royalty thing quite well.

In attempting to re-start my career post-advertising, which has become 95% licensing, I have gone with whoever doesn't charge fees. The Taxi model makes no sense to me whatsoever, though I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has found it to be profitable. The idea of paying to submit music is ludicrous to me. I have a fairly large and growing library of music that I wrote, produced and own, and I intend it to become a supplemental income. Are these European sources that you mention (what's Play, btw?) the sort that accept quality submissions? Thanks.


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2012)

Here's something I think is missed in this discussion: the royalty system is old-school and on its way out.

Think about it: 

1. What do you get for internet royalties? Answer: zero.
2. How is media going to be delivered 10 years from now? Answer: via the internet.

Do the math. Making it worth your while with up-front payments is the way of the future.

Take a look at ASCAP - back in June, they announced that vocal royalties are being significantly cut. We saw the effect of that change in the most recent payments. That means ASCAP is paying a *lot* less in royalties. You think that's going to change? Unlikely - the PRO's will continue to cut royalties in the coming years.

The PRO's probably will figure out a way to take care of legacy royalties (to some extent) but guys like me who have been collecting for only a few years will be left out. It's a different business model - it's that simple.

It's not better or worse - just different. You still need to make sure you're getting paid - there's more emphasis on the up-front payment just like in most other businesses.

Plumbers don't get a royalty every time you flush your toilet - they set their rates so the up-front makes it worth their while. That's where we're headed.

Again, not better or worse, just different.

rgames


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 11, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Here's something I think is missed in this discussion: the royalty system is old-school and on its way out.
> 
> Think about it:
> 
> 1. What do you get for internet royalties? Answer: zero.



This is actually incorrect. I get PRS and MCPS royalties from BBC Iplayer, youtube, etc.



rgames @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Take a look at ASCAP - back in June, they announced that vocal royalties are being significantly cut. We saw the effect of that change in the most recent payments. That means ASCAP is paying a *lot* less in royalties. You think that's going to change? Unlikely - the PRO's will continue to cut royalties in the coming years.
> 
> 
> rgames



Is this not *good* news for score writers? That more of the money will be allocated towards straight instrumental music? It doesn't mean that ASCAP are paying out less, just that they have reallocated more away from the 'background song' classification?


----------



## cc64 (Oct 11, 2012)

Problem is, the producer's have been using the back-end lottery to lure us into accepting lower front-end fees for decades. 

Now, each time we get offered little money(most of the time) we all take into account the possible back-end to figure out if it will make it worth our while in the end. 

I don't think it's going to be easy to bring back better front-end money now that filmmakers are used to paying next to nothing for music.

Qui vivra verra!

Claude


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> Is this not *good* news for score writers? That more of the money will be allocated towards straight instrumental music? It doesn't mean that ASCAP are paying out less, just that they have reallocated more away from the 'background song' classification?


Unfortunately no. They simply reduced the amount paid for vocals to match what is paid for instrumentals. They did not raise instrumental rates. Actually, they supposedly did raise instrumental rates but it's minute compared to the drop in vocal rates.

So every indication is that ASCAP is, in fact, paying significantly less in royalties as of the most recent pay cycle.

Here's the kicker: can you ever really know? The point is that it's a waste of time to try to figure it out - just make sure you get paid enough up-front, then you don't have to guess what someone else is doing on your behalf. Take care of yourself.

rgames


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 11, 2012)

rgames @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Synesthesia @ Thu Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Is this not *good* news for score writers? That more of the money will be allocated towards straight instrumental music? It doesn't mean that ASCAP are paying out less, just that they have reallocated more away from the 'background song' classification?
> ...



As far as I understand it, it's not ASCAP that decides to give less money to it's songwriters, but ASCAP collects less money itself. Therefore, the payments go down. Is this not correct?


----------



## rgames (Oct 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> As far as I understand it, it's not ASCAP that decides to give less money to it's songwriters, but ASCAP collects less money itself. Therefore, the payments go down. Is this not correct?


It's probably true that ASCAP is collecting less - but it's also true that they significantly reduced the amount they pay out to ASCAP members.

See here: 

https://www.change.org/petitions/ascap- ... m=30540365

Again, you have no way to know if the reduction in artist payments is consistent with the reduction in payments to ASCAP, so take care of yourself by making sure you get more up-front.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Oct 11, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Oct 11 said:


> Think about it:
> 
> 1. What do you get for internet royalties? Answer: zero.
> 2. How is media going to be delivered 10 years from now? Answer: via the internet.



I get what you're saying...but I should point out that my latest statement had $139.73 from Netflix!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 11, 2012)

Larry - Play is here (hopefully you can see and browse from the US - there's also an ad for a new replacement website that might be worth checking out) - http://www1.playproductionmusic.com/pages/home/login.cfm (http://www1.playproductionmusic.com/pag ... /login.cfm)

Paul is right re the internet and royalties. It's the job of the PRS, ASCAP etc to make sure that as delivery mediums change, the money is still fair. It's easy to be doom and gloom, but it's not always borne out in my experience. For example, rates on BBC2 have dropped massively in the past few years. But rates on the dedicated childrens channels - though massively lower the BBC2 - have crept up a bit. And they repeat stuff on there relentlessly, so a bit more of an awful lot amounts to a significant increase. Just an example - the system really can work and adapt.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 12, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Good question. I do most of my work at the BBC, and in their studios the Play consortium is used far more than anything else in my experience. The big hitters there are KPM, Extreme and CPM (was Carlin), with Kosinus, Music House, Selected Sound and a few others also getting some use. I appreciate that there are big labels not on Play, and chances are others use them heavily - Universal, Bruton, Chappel, FirstCom, Immediate - but perhaps it's just my circle that gravitate to Play.


Yes, the PLAY system seems to have a lot of general usage with the BBC. However, a lot of independent programme makers for commercial channels are locked into Audio Networks (pause for spitting), precisely because it's just about free for the Production Company to use anything they like. Luckily the music is mostly cr*p, but even so it has caused the documentary usage fees, in particular, to be cut drastically, to the point that some of the bigger libraries are not even commissioning albums aimed at documentaries.

D


----------



## Daryl (Oct 12, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> Larry - Play is here (hopefully you can see and browse from the US - there's also an ad for a new replacement website that might be worth checking out) - http://www1.playproductionmusic.com/pages/home/login.cfm (http://www1.playproductionmusic.com/pag ... /login.cfm)
> 
> Paul is right re the internet and royalties. It's the job of the PRS, ASCAP etc to make sure that as delivery mediums change, the money is still fair. It's easy to be doom and gloom, but it's not always borne out in my experience. For example, rates on BBC2 have dropped massively in the past few years. But rates on the dedicated childrens channels - though massively lower the BBC2 - have crept up a bit. And they repeat stuff on there relentlessly, so a bit more of an awful lot amounts to a significant increase. Just an example - the system really can work and adapt.


This is always going to be a difficult one, because the broadcasters will try to pay as little as possible. However, the Royalty system is not going away, because for every industry there are Royalties paid for inventing/creating something. It's just that in our industry we are in the fortunate position that we expect to be paid up front as well. That is the only danger area, as far as I see, but programme producers are actually on our side with this one, because if broadcast Royalties disappear, they will be expected to pay proper fees and production budgets, which won't suit them at all. :lol: 

D


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2012)

Daryl @ Fri Oct 12 said:


> programme producers are actually on our side with this one, because if broadcast Royalties disappear, they will be expected to pay proper fees and production budgets, which won't suit them at all. :lol:
> 
> D



Absolutely my experience too. And you're right about Audio Networks - I occasionally do indie gigs that say that's all they use.


----------



## MichaelL (Oct 15, 2012)

midphase @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> rgames @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate ASCAP royalty day. Always makes me feel exploited.
> ...




If it wasn't for BMI, I'd actually have to practice law.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 15, 2012)

My hopes for the future are pinned on BMI. We shall see.

I will say this-in my business, fees went from an average of 10K to "hey, my brother-in-law has a band, they could do it for $200. What will you charge?"

I don't see anything but a downturn in upfront fees going forward. Even if that didn't happen, so many doors have closed for musicians' revenue, I'd be loathe to suggest any one source isn't a good option to pursue and support.


----------

