# "Bypassing" a publisher



## Carles (Jun 27, 2019)

Weird title, I know.
Actually a question about synch/mechanicals.

Let's say that you're working with a publisher "A", whose main sub-publisher is "B", so it's expected to make most of the income from "B" territory.

As I understand, you get a placement in "B" territory, so the sub-publisher "B" (once paid by the client) pays Mr. "A" whatever percentage they've agreed (let's say 50% to make things easier in this example), and from that payment, your publisher pays you whatever percentage they've agreed (let's say again a 50%).
At the end, you're getting 25% of what the client did pay originally. Is this assumption right?

If so, and I can sign with "B" directly rather than "A", when I get a placement in "B" territory (assuming the direct agreement with "B" is also 50%), will I get actually 50% of what the client did pay?
(it seems obvious but this biz is so plenty of rare deals and conditions that one never knows what's obvious and what's not anymore)

So, (when possible) is always more profitable to try to sign your tracks with "B" directly or may for some reason be more profitable to work with "A" and why?


----------



## Soundlex (Jun 27, 2019)

Because B is usually a bunch of people who don't know how to talk to a composer. That's what B do all day and I've been dealing with B and A directly and even if you can make seriously more money by bypassing A, it can the worst thing ever to deal directly with B...it really is a matter of staying mentally sane. Hope this helps.


----------



## Carles (Jun 27, 2019)

Soundlex said:


> Because B is usually a bunch of people who don't know how to talk to a composer. That's what B do all day and I've been dealing with B and A directly and even if you can make seriously more money by bypassing A, it can the worst thing ever to deal directly with B...it really is a matter of staying mentally sane. Hope this helps.


That's a good reason (actually a -very good- one for me) but we are assuming that your relationship with A is good and B don't know how to talk to a composer.

To be more specific, I'm not talking about that you're already working with some nice guys and you want to bypass them to make a bit more money (I agree with you, to me the people behind the business matter more than a few bucks up or down)

In my hypothetical scenario you have never worked with any of both, so the same "A" could be a picky publisher and don't feel comfortable with them back and forth with non justified modifications while "B" could otherwise just let you do as far as you keep the quality high as they are too busy as per entering in personal picky preferences, so you are not sure who you are going to find behind the curtain.

Would you still (blindly) bet for "A"?


----------



## Soundlex (Jun 27, 2019)

Well, if your first emails with B are ok and you feel you can deal with the way they handle it, yes, choose B, your bank account will thank you (but that's assuming that you also know how to negotiate because B can end up paying you less than A since they know they are dealing directly with the composer...). I've been in situations where they even try to bypass the agent for dealing directly with me thinking I'll say yes to whatever they will offer.


----------



## Carles (Jun 27, 2019)

Soundlex said:


> Well, if your first emails with B are ok and you feel you can deal with the way they handle it, yes, choose B, your bank account will thank you (but that's assuming that you also know how to negotiate because B can end up paying you less than A since they know they are dealing directly with the composer...). I've been in situations where they even try to bypass the agent for dealing directly with me thinking I'll say yes to whatever they will offer.


I can read about all sort of deals and ethics within the Production Music biz, in fact so many that at some point, despite it's clear to me what kind of deals are not acceptable at all, even with those apparently "ethically correct" still feels like if walking on a mine-field :D
Perhaps that's why we feel safer with the publisher we are working with since years.

Based on your response, I guess that in the scenario subject of my question, the best option, (since is unknown to you who's behind in both cases) perhaps the best would be to try to reach both, so at least you can get a very basic impression about who is who based on those early emails (of course assuming that the deal details are the same). I guess in some cases a couple of emails can tell enough about the guy behind.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 27, 2019)

I used to work with B who handled all payments and communication with A. Life was easy and I just made music. One day B disappeared (very long complicated story) and I started working directly with A. I got paid 10 times more and A only paid 50% of what they were paying before. We were mutually happy. Regardless, it was really nice having B as a buffer but I got along nicely working directly with A for over ten years. Mutual trust was an important factor.


----------



## Carles (Jun 27, 2019)

synergy543 said:


> I used to work with B who handled all payments and communication with A. Life was easy and I just made music. One day B disappeared (very long complicated story) and I started working directly with A. I got paid 10 times more and A only paid 50% of what they were paying before. We were mutually happy. Regardless, it was really nice having B as a buffer but I got along nicely working directly with A for over ten years. Mutual trust was an important factor.


Greg I think we are naming "A" and "B" differently thus I'm not 100% sure how to read your answer, but I understand that in your case you went from your publisher to their sub-publisher directly (which should imply more money per-se, double in my example) but also, as result of the change, you had also the pleasure to deal with the right people. Good on you man! 
With all those horror stories about this biz, it's always welcome to read some optimistic notes time to time 
(seriously, I'm happy with the ethics and the genuine "friendship" or "niceness" of the publishers I know first hand, but cannot say that the same is applicable to everybody in base to what I read out there)


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 27, 2019)

Carles, you're right I got A and B mixed up, but you got the idea. I my case, I was meeting people in person and there was a culture of mutual trust (in Japan). If you have a chance to meet your partners in person, I would urge you to do so, as it can establish a bond that is more solid than via e-mails.


----------



## Soundlex (Jun 27, 2019)

Carles said:


> I can read about all sort of deals and ethics within the Production Music biz, in fact so many that at some point, despite it's clear to me what kind of deals are not acceptable at all, even with those apparently "ethically correct" still feels like if walking on a mine-field :D
> Perhaps that's why we feel safer with the publisher we are working with since years.
> 
> Based on your response, I guess that in the scenario subject of my question, the best option, (since is unknown to you who's behind in both cases) perhaps the best would be to try to reach both, so at least you can get a very basic impression about who is who based on those early emails (of course assuming that the deal details are the same). I guess in some cases a couple of emails can tell enough about the guy behind.


Yes, you can know a lot just over simple emails!
But it's true like @synergy543 said that meeting them is even better!


----------



## muk (Jun 28, 2019)

Carles, in my limited experience your assumption is not correct. For the contracts I have it works like this: 50% go to the publisher (A), 50% go to me. If a subpublisher (B) is involved, it is 25% for A, 25% for B, 50% for me. I. e. my share is always 50% of the total royalties.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2019)

muk said:


> Carles, in my limited experience your assumption is not correct. For the contracts I have it works like this: 50% go to the publisher (A), 50% go to me. If a subpublisher (B) is involved, it is 25% for A, 25% for B, 50% for me. I. e. my share is always 50% of the total royalties.


That's not usually the case. It is as far as Broadcast Royatlies, but not as far as sync/mechanicals. I've never, ever come across the situation you describe.

As far as the original question, most reputable A Publishers wouldn't give you a deal for just one territory. It would either be the whole world (including B) or nothing. I say most, but I can't think of a single one, to be honest...!


----------



## muk (Jun 28, 2019)

What I described above goes for royalties. For sync/mechanicals the deal is actually even better for me in this case: it's 60% for the author, and 40% for the publisher. But sync/mechanicals vary a lot from publisher to publisher, and it also depends on whether there are upfront fees, in which case the publisher usually keeps all of the sync/mechanicals. The same is true if there are a lot of costs involved for the publisher (live recording, mixing, mastering etc.). As far as I know there really is no standard deal for sync/mechanicals.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2019)

muk said:


> What I described above goes for royalties.


I don't think that was what Carles was talking about, because as a PRS member, it would be illegal for any Publisher to take more than 50%.


muk said:


> For sync/mechanicals the deal is actually even better for me in this case: it's 60% for the author, and 40% for the publisher. But sync/mechanicals vary a lot from publisher to publisher, and it also depends on whether there are upfront fees, in which case the publisher usually keeps all of the sync/mechanicals. The same is true if there are a lot of costs involved for the publisher (live recording, mixing, mastering etc.). As far as I know there really is no standard deal for sync/mechanicals.


I can tell you that the standard for sync/mechanicals starts at 50% of fees received, and this means after the Sub Publisher has taken their cut. However, the issue is confused by upfront fees which may or may not be recoupable, and, as you say, sometimes less than 50%.


----------



## Carles (Jul 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> As far as the original question, most reputable A Publishers wouldn't give you a deal for just one territory. It would either be the whole world (including B) or nothing. I say most, but I can't think of a single one, to be honest...!



I think that it was already clear to me (I never heard about a one territory deal neither).

Sorry if I've worded it a bit messy. I did mention territories because unless the publisher is one of the "big guys" directly (who may have global representation) usually a mid-small publisher has different sub-publishers for different territories (and their agreements also can vary from one to another I guess), so in my example I wanted to make sure that the hypothetical placement is happening in the very same territory (for instance both cases UK using MCPS/PRS rates) and the agreement between composer and publisher is also exactly the same (50% sync/mechanicals and 100% writer's) for both.

My guess is that the composer's income from sync/mechanicals should be double if the publisher is one of the "big guys" self-represented in that territory than using a publisher who has to share his cut with the "big guy" (well, actually vice-versa).
I know that's basic math, but as said, given how twisted this business can be sometimes, I wouldn't be surprised that I may be missing something and such a logical basic math won't be actually so simple to calculate and not so logical, so just wanted to hear some opinions.


----------



## Carles (Jul 1, 2019)

muk said:


> For sync/mechanicals the deal is actually even better for me in this case: it's 60% for the author, and 40% for the publisher.


I've never heard about such a deal (in any case, just otherwise). Good on you man!


----------



## Carles (Jul 1, 2019)

muk said:


> Carles, in my limited experience your assumption is not correct. For the contracts I have it works like this: 50% go to the publisher (A), 50% go to me. If a subpublisher (B) is involved, it is 25% for A, 25% for B, 50% for me. I. e. my share is always 50% of the total royalties.


I did believe that for quite a while, so I always had the idea that no matter if you are working for a label sub-published by "B", for another label also sub-published by "B" or "B" itself directly because at the end "you are making your 50% anyway", but while this is true for the two publishers sub-published by "B" (assuming your agreement is identical), working with "B" directly seems to be another math, at least in mostly cases, thus my question.


----------



## Carles (Jul 1, 2019)

BTW, not that I'm in position of choosing "Universal" or "Warner/Chappell", etc. over any of my publishers (I wish!) but just out of curiosity.


----------



## Carles (Jul 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> I can tell you that the standard for sync/mechanicals starts at 50% of fees received, and this means after the Sub Publisher has taken their cut. However, the issue is confused by upfront fees which may or may not be recoupable, and, as you say, sometimes less than 50%.


And (to make it even more confusing) even more than just upfront fees, in some cases the share may vary to compensate recording expenses, or mastering expenses, and never in my case but I've heard also taking an extra cut to compensate promotion expenses and cover art expenses (or a sum of several of these) or even not any actual expenses but just "because of the publisher reputation"... and we are talking about mechanicals only here, also broadcast royalties are expressed differently, sometimes as 50/50 (publisher/composer) sometimes as 100/100 (publisher's/writer's).


----------



## Daryl (Jul 2, 2019)

Carles said:


> My guess is that the composer's income from sync/mechanicals should be double if the publisher is one of the "big guys" self-represented in that territory than using a publisher who has to share his cut with the "big guy" (well, actually vice-versa).


Yes, if you're with Universal, for example, you should only lose the original percentage agreed, as long as the sub Publisher is part of Universal. Occasionally these extra "agents" will take a small cut to cover running costs, but it shouldn't be the full whack.

However, be warned that some Publishers try to obscure what's going on, even going as far as to deny that they own the foreign "agent", just so they can collect extra money.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 2, 2019)

Carles said:


> And (to make it even more confusing) even more than just upfront fees, in some cases the share may vary to compensate recording expenses, or mastering expenses, and never in my case but I've heard also taking an extra cut to compensate promotion expenses and cover art expenses (or a sum of several of these)


Yes I've heard of that, and I disagree with it fundamentally. The only reason it's acceptable in commercial music is that if you're being paid an advance of £50million, it may well be that the Publisher never gets their money back at all (how EMI went bust...!). For library music, it seems rather unfair for the composer to take all the risk.


Carles said:


> or even not any actual expenses but just "because of the publisher reputation"... and we are talking about mechanicals only here


That is definitely abhorrent to me.


Carles said:


> also broadcast royalties are expressed differently, sometimes as 50/50 (publisher/composer) sometimes as 100/100 (publisher's/writer's).


Yes this is true, but it means the same thing.


----------



## Beluga (Jul 2, 2019)

It is my understanding that you sign a track away exclusively to a publisher. Then this publisher cannot be "bypassed" for that track in any way.

The publisher has sub-publishers in different regions of the world. These sub-publishers takes 50% of the sync fee (and probably the pushisher's share) and send 50% to the publisher who sends 50% of that sum to the composer. So the composer sees 25% of the sync fee if generated by a sub-publisher.
The composer always keeps 100% of the writer's share.

If you want to sign a track directly with a sub-publisherI can't see why this would be a problem, you are free to do so unless you have some kind of exclusivity agreement with the previous publisher.


----------

