State Champ Radio Royalties
Page: 5
In 2022, SoundExchange reported that collections fell slightly to $1.017 billion from 2021’s $1.06 billion — a decrease of about $43 million, or 4.1%. Likewise, distributions fell 3.4% to $959 million from 2021’s $993 million.
However, those collection decreases mainly appear to be due to either revenue or content payout declines from digital services in direct licensing arrangements with labels as well as from foreign collection societies.
Of the $1.017 billion in total collections, $813 million was derived from statutory royalties, while $204 million was paid to SoundExchange via direct licensing deals between labels and services and from foreign collection societies. That’s a drop from the prior year when statutory royalty payments to SoundExchange were $824 million and direct licensing payments were $236 million. So while the statutory royalties fell slightly by $11 million — a decline of 1.3% — the bulk of the decline, or $32 million, was due to a 13.6% fall in direct licensing payments and from foreign societies.
Overall, SoundExchange president/CEO Michael Huppe declared 2022 a “tremendous year” for SoundExchange, in a note leading the organization’s annual report.
“Living up to our mission to foster an equitable music industry where all creators can thrive, the company collected $1.017 billion digital royalties from more than 3,600 digital streaming platforms and distributed them to more than 600,000 creators and rights holders,” Huppe wrote in the note. “In doing so, the company crossed the $[10] billion threshold for distributing royalty payments since its inception in 2003.”
As a percentage of revenue, SoundExchange claims a 6.6% operating administration rate or a 7.2% consolidated administration rate. Either way, the organization claims it has “maintained one of the music industry’s lowest admin rates.
However, expenses grew a whopping 17.5% to $74 million from the prior year’s total of $63 million. While SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, the cost increase could have been due to costs associated with upgrades to the organization’s technological infrastructure.
According to Huppe’s note in the annual report, SoundExchange also “unveiled a suite of next-generation solutions to make the business of music easier and fairer — including a new look, a new website that serves as a resource for creators, publishers, and digital service providers, and a mobile app to give creators easy on-the-go access to their accounts.”
Its expense structure is also undoubtedly impacted by finding and paying the correct rights holders, particularly on the indie artist side of things. According to a press release, “SoundExchange collects and distributes digital performance royalties on behalf of 650,000 music creators and growing.”
Finally, SoundExchange attributed the $10 billion in distributions to date to its “proprietary music tech solutions that turn data into accurate revenue.”
Luke Combs has driven his “Fast Car” to the top five of the Billboard Hot 100 – and Tracy Chapman is riding shotgun.
The surprise success of Combs’ cover has been a minor windfall for Chapman, the sole songwriter of the 1988 hit from her breakthrough debut album. Billboard estimates that Combs’ version has generated about $500,000 in publishing royalties globally from its March 17 debut through June 8. Chapman alone is pocketing a sizable portion of that total.
Most of the royalties have come from 154 million U.S. on-demand audio streams from services such as Spotify and Apple Music from March 17 to June 8, according to Luminate. During that period, “Fast Car” also had 6 million video streams and 28 million programmed audio streams in the United States. The track has also been purchased 86,000 times, while the album on which it appears, Combs’ Gettin’ Old, has been purchased 68,000 times in both digital and physical formats. The United States accounts for more than three quarters of the song’s global consumption — a high ratio not atypical for a country artist.
What’s more, Combs’ success with “Fast Car” has also given Chapman’s original recording a boost. Weekly consumption — measured by track sales and streaming converted into equivalent track units — increased 44% since Combs’ version was released, while average weekly radio spins improved about 11%. That’s resulted in a boost in U.S. recorded revenues of about $54,000, with $13,000 coming from publishing royalties, Billboard estimates. (Warner Music Group’s Elektra Records, not Chapman, owns the recorded music rights.) Interest in Chapman herself appears to have increased, too: U.S. Google searches for the singer almost tripled from the weeks ended March 18 to June 3, according to Google Trends.
“Fast Car,” the first single for Chapman’s eponymous debut album, has been covered by the likes of Sam Smith, Khalid, Black Pumas and English producer Jonas Blue, whose dance version reached No. 2 on The Official U.K. Singles Chart and No. 98 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2016. But in the United States, Combs’ version became the most successful to date by reaching No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 (dated June 17), surpassing Chapman’s original which reached No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1988, and helped her debut album reach triple platinum within a year of its release.
Combs’ “Fast Car” peaked at No. 1 on the Country Digital Song Sales chart (dated June 10) and No. 2 on the Country Streaming Songs chart (dated April 29). It also reached No. 6 on the Country Airplay chart (dated June 17) in just its eighth week on the tally and hit No. 2 on the Hot Country Songs chart (dated May 6), which combines radio airplay and streams. North of the U.S. border, “Fast Car” reached No. 2 on the Canadian Digital Song Sales chart (dated May 6), No. 5 on the Billboard Canadian Hot 100 chart (dated May 27) and No. 36 on the Canada All-Format Airplay chart (dated June 10).
Tracking the ownership of “Fast Car” is like a brief lesson in the history of major publishing dealmaking of the last four decades. Chapman signed a publishing deal with SBK Entertainment prior to signing with Elektra Records in 1987. SBK was acquired by EMI Music Publishing in 1989. Citi took control of EMI in 2011 after private equity firm Terra Firma defaulted on its debt from a 2007 acquisition. A consortium of investors led by Sony Music Entertainment acquired EMI Music Publishing in 2012. In 2018, Sony Corporation bought out the remaining 60% of EMI Music Publishing. But the rights to “Fast Car” reverted to Chapman a few years ago, according to a Sony Music Publishing spokesperson. As sole owner of the songwriting and publishing rights, Chapman can pocket all royalties generated from “Fast Car” and other songs in her catalog, less any fees paid to a third party for administration services.
“Fast Car” is a rarity in an age of sampling, interpolations and Taylor Swift’s re-recordings. Outside of holiday music, cover songs rarely appear in the top 10 of the Hot 100 singles chart. In fact, the last time a cover entered the top 10 of the Hot 100 was Anna Kendrick’s version of “Cups,” a folk song written in 1931 and recorded by Hendricks for the movie Pitch Perfect that reached No. 6 in 2013. Prior to “Cups,” two cover versions from the TV show Glee appeared in the top 10: “Don’t Stop Believin’” (originally by Journey) in 2009 and “Teenage Dream” (originally by Katy Perry) in 2010. Chapman earns some royalties when “Fast Car” is sampled or used in an interpolation – Chris Brown‘s 2017 song “Runaway,” for example — but she keeps 100% of the songwriting and publishing royalties of cover songs.
During the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) annual meeting on Wednesday (June 14), the trade organization said it calculated total U.S. publishing revenue at $5.6 billion in 2022, up from $4.7 billion in 2021 — a more than 19% increase year over year.
During his presentation at the meeting, held at Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Center in New York, NMPA president/CEO David Israelite further noted that $5.6 billion figure does not include monies likely owed to publishers after the Copyright Royalty Board’s recent ruling upholding a rate increase for streaming services, rising gradually from 11.4% to 15.1% of service revenue for the 2018-2022 period. Once that increase is retroactively applied later this year, publishers’ should see a substantial additional payday.
Based on revenues earned in January and February 2023, compared to the same two months from 2022, Israelite said publishing earnings are up 27% so far this year. That’s due to a number of factors, including an increased royalty rate from streaming services that’s now set at 15.1% of revenue in 2023 and will increase gradually to 15.35% in 2027. Streaming services raising their subscription prices have also contributed to higher revenues, as well as growing diversity in publishers’ revenue streams.
Since 2014, when U.S. publishers earned $2.2 billion, annual revenues have grown more than 160% overall, according to the NMPA.
Breaking down revenue categories, performance royalties made up 48% of revenue — dropping below 50% for the first time. That fall in percentage, however, was “because the growth in other categories has been so significant, specifically with regard to synchronization,” Israelite said. Synch revenues made up 26.07% of earnings, mechanical 20.27% and other 5.37%.
Elsewhere during the event, NMPA executive vp/general counsel Danielle Aguirre announced that the organization had also distributed $66 million to its members from legal recoveries and settlements last year. “This is equal to a 456% average return on your dues,” she said, adding that the amount collected brings the NMPA’s all-time legal recovery number to $1.2 billion.
In a blockbuster announcement, Aguirre also revealed that NMPA members were suing Twitter over allegations of widespread copyright infringement, with dozens of music publishers seeking hundreds of millions in damages for infringing over 1,700 songs. If the claims are proven, the social media giant could be forced to pay as much as $255 million in damages.
Apart from Israelite’s state of the union address, which provided publishers with key analysis on the successes and pitfalls of the previous year, the meeting also doled out awards to several individuals. Among them, the organization honored RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier with the NMPA Industry Legacy Award, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois with the NMPA President’s Award for his leadership in passing the Music Modernization Act and the CASE Act, Brandi Carlile with the Songwriter Icon Award and Ashley Gorley with the first-ever NMPA Non-Performing Songwriter Icon Award.
Coming out to perform in honor of Carlile was Allison Russell, who performed Carlile’s “This Time Tomorrow”; and Brandy Clark, who performed Carlile’s “You and Me on the Rock.” Coming out for Gorley was special guest Luke Bryan, who performed two Gorley-penned hits: “What Make You Country” and “Play It Again.”
This story is developing.
Federal prosecutors are formally moving to seize R. Kelly’s money held by Sony Music and Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), saying it will be used to pay victims and fulfill outstanding fines.
Two years after they won a jury verdict convicting the disgraced singer of sex trafficking and racketeering, prosecutors in Brooklyn have asked a federal judge for so-called writs of garnishment against the label and publisher — court orders that would compel the two companies to hand over funds tied to Kelly.
Sony Music and UMPG are believed to be “in possession of property” belonging to Kelly that could be used to pay down the $504,289 that he currently owes in victim restitutions and criminal fines, the feds argued.
It’s unclear how much of Kelly’s funds each company currently holds. A court ruling in March disclosed that Kelly’s royalty account with Sony held $1,544,333 as of 2020.
Neither Sony Music nor UMPG immediately returned requests for comment on the filings.
After he was sentenced last summer to 30 years in prison on the sex trafficking and racketeering charges, Kelly was ordered to pay more than $480,000 in fines and restitution. After he was sentenced again in February on separate child pornography convictions in Illinois, another $42,000 was tacked on.
Thursday’s filings are the latest efforts by the government to collect on those judgments. Last fall, prosecutors confiscated nearly $30,000 in Kelly’s prison commissary account. But the feds have competition for that money.
R. Kelly victim Heather Williams, who won a $4 million civil judgment against the singer, is also seeking to tap into the Sony Music account — as is Midwest Commercial Funding, a property management company that won a separate $3.5 million ruling against Kelly over unpaid rent at a Chicago studio.
In March, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Williams had priority to the funds over Midwest Commercial Funding because she was the first to properly demand the money from Sony. But that ruling left unclear whether she’ll enjoy similar priority over a slew of additional monetary penalties that Kelly owes to victims as a result of his federal criminal convictions.
Federal prosecutors in both Illinois and New York declined to comment on that decision at the time.
In a statement Thursday (June 1), Kelly’s lead attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, told Billboard that she and her client believe that the restitution order against him is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. But she said they have “no opinion” on prosecutors seeking to garnish funds held by Sony Music and UMPG.
Is there another $1 billion in global publishing royalties that rights holders can gain by using better technology? That’s what Kobalt CEO Laurent Hubert says.
When Kobalt was bought by Francisco Partners last September, the disruptive innovator known for its publishing administration clients like Karol G, Phoebe Bridgers and Max Martin said that a primary goal of this next chapter would be growing its little known and even less understood global digital rights collections society for compositions, the American Music Rights Association.
In the months since, Kobalt and its new owners have refined their strategy for scaling this “unpolished gem,” as Francisco Partners and Kobalt board director Matt Spetzler calls AMRA. Their first hurdle? Explaining what exactly the global mechanical and performance rights society focused on collecting digital-specific income can accomplish. “Too few people know what AMRA does,” says Hubert.
In an industry where, according to CISAC’s 2021 annual report, over 36% of global music publishing revenue royalties come from digital sources — a figure AMRA says will grow to 80% within five years — Kobalt believes AMRA can better leverage its technology and its direct agreements with digital service providers to streamline digital royalty collection across 212 countries, cutting out the friction or delays of a traditional performing rights organization (PRO). Their biggest licensees include some of the largest DSPs, like Spotify and Apple Music, but they are also working with promising new brands like China-based TikTok rival Kuaishou and others.
AMRA says it is a one-of-a-kind service, providing clients faster turnarounds for royalty collection (in six to nine months), more precise accounting for digital royalties and audit rights, and greater transparency that its executives say make AMRA clients and the wider industry a lot more money.
How much? AMRA CEO Tomas Ericsson estimates that clients can gain “as much as 30%” more royalties in certain regions. Hubert contends that if his companies can reduce the percentage of money that leaks from the $8 billion to $9 billion of royalties collected by the global music industry on the publishing side, excluding writer’s share — “leakage” that stems from high intermediary costs, poor matching, undercollection and underlicensing — AMRA and other players in the industry could grow the pie by another $1 billion for collection and distribution. AMRA could be a tool to help accomplish that, Hubert says.
Ericsson explains that AMRA can go to streaming services and “offer the entire catalog for Kobalt music publishing and an additional three publishers and an additional 180 writers to these streaming services, and we can give them those rights globally under one license. [The streaming services] report to us directly, and they pay us directly.
“In doing so, we can avoid a lot of noise, high fees, inefficiencies, poor technology and local issues,” Ericsson says.
Since its acquisition by Kobalt in 2015, AMRA has distributed almost $500 million in digital royalties on behalf of songwriters and rights holders. Managed as a separate entity under the Kobalt umbrella, AMRA generated $117.3 million in revenue in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, and the company currently expects AMRA will generate $150 million in revenue during this fiscal year. Hubert declines to provide specific financial targets but says he expects double-digit revenue growth this year from AMRA, and that its growth rate will substantially exceed Kobalt’s.
Apart from its DSP licensees, AMRA works with songwriters such as Julia Michaels, Lindsey Buckingham, Sam Hollander and independent publishers like Sundae Music Publishing, Anthem and Spirit. It’s also partnering with functional or mood-music companies, such as Strange Fruits, Vanity Snare Music, Lullify Music and Acrylic Records, whose music is popular on passive-listening playlists. Kobalt remains AMRA’s largest licensee, Ericsson says.
Kobalt, AMRA and its new owners are aligned on their aim to massively scale AMRA. Those owners are Francisco Partners, a California-based private equity firm that favors tech-forward music companies; MUSIC, the firm of music industry veteran and investor Matt Pincus; and Dundee Partners, the quietly influential family office of Stephen and Sam Hendel whose investments range from The Knitting Factory to the Fela! musical to music investing platform JKBX. Kobalt founder and chairman Willard Ahdritz and Hubert also have equity stakes in the company and have signed long-term contracts to remain in their roles.
Through interviews with all those stakeholders, AMRA’s emerging growth strategy has three prongs. The first is to expand its list of publishing clients, looking for small, medium and large indie publishers.
At a faster and larger clip, AMRA also aims to exploit opportunities with other niche music genres in the Latin and African markets in a bid to replicate the success it had partnering with mood-music companies. It also aims to take on more clients on the “long-tail end of the business” — songwriters who may not be published or affiliated but have steady streaming income.
This last prong of the strategy reflects the influence of Francisco Partners. In the past two years or so, the firm has invested $2 billion in six music companies, five of which are geared toward music creators, ranging from audio production and DJ’ing software and hardware to a plugin platform with marketing, distribution and authorization services. Managed under the umbrella of SoundWide, Francisco Partners says these companies have a combined 7 million users.
“We have seen the marketplace has shifted and grown around the creator community,” Hubert says. “We have the capabilities from a scaling and tech stack perspective to go after that market.”
AMRA faces hurdles if it’s to maintain formidable growth. Tracking digital royalties is challenging, given metadata errors and fast-growing use cases. The association is also held back when it comes to nondigital royalties, where existing laws and collection societies prevent it from operating as swiftly or accurately as it can with digital revenue. Songwriters in particular are the most restricted: They can use AMRA to collect their digital performance and mechanical royalties, as well as offline royalties, but the offline royalties still pass through a traditional PRO before reaching AMRA, meaning the writer will be charged two fees: one from the traditional organization, then a “significantly lower” fee from AMRA. Also, although AMRA collects in 212 countries, two of the world’s most royalty-rich nations, China and the United States, are not part of their offering due to local laws.
Still, AMRA will bring all of its promised efficiencies to the digital side, which is what the company anticipates will far outweigh offline royalties soon. The company believes it to be uniquely positioned to collect those royalties. As it likes to say: “AMRA is a category of one.”
BMI enjoyed a double win Tuesday (March 28) in a federal rate court decision that will increase the royalties the performance rights organizations’ songwriters earn at live events.
The federally adjudicated decision in BMI’s rate case against Live Nation, AEG and the North American Concert Promoters Association (NACPA) awarded a 138% increase in rate to 0.5% of the event’s revenue. It also expands that revenue base to include the full price of concert hall VIP packages and box suites, tickets sold directly to the secondary market and servicing fees received by the promoters.
Previously, the revenue definition only reflected earnings directly from the face value of primary market ticket sales.
The rate and expanded revenue base applies to the period of mid-2018 through Dec. 31, 2022.
On the flipside, Southern District of New York Judge Louis Stanton, who handed down the rate court decision, rejected BMI’s attempt to ditch the historical 10% discount fee that the trade group and its promoters get for helping to administer the license on behalf of BMI. As well, BMI’s effort to expand the revenue base to also include sponsorship and advertising revenue was also rejected.
“This is a massive victory for BMI and the songwriters, composers and publishers we represent,” BMI president Mike O’Neill said in a statement. “It will have a significant and long-term positive impact on the royalties they receive for the live concert category. We are gratified the Court agreed with BMI’s position that the music created by songwriters and composers is the backbone of the live concert industry and should be valued accordingly. Today’s decision also underscores BMI’s continued mission to fight on behalf of our affiliates, no matter how long it takes, to ensure they receive fair value for their creative work.”
“We advocated on behalf of artists to keep their costs down, and managed to hold the increase to less than 1/3 of BMI’s proposed increase,” said a Live Nation spokesperson in a statement. “This will cost the performers we work with approximately $15 million a year spread out over thousands of artists, and cost increases for Live Nation directly are not material.”
Prior to this decision, BMI and the live concert industry have been operating under a license negotiated in 1998 that was renewed twice through June 30, 2013. That agreement called for promoters to pay a performance licensing rate of 0.3% of revenue for concert venues with under 10,000 seats, and 0.15% of revenue for venues with over 10,000 seats. That rate, and the revenue definition that only covered primary market ticket sales, also served as the interim rate until this decision came down today.
AEG did not respond to immediate requests for comment. The NACPA could not be reached for comment.
French streaming service Deezer and Universal Music Group announced this month that they are partnering to develop and test new potential payment models that would more fairly reward artists, similar to a partnership UMG launched in January with Tidal.
While the streaming services and labels are still a long way off from implementing new streaming royalty payment models, Deezer’s chief executive Jeronimo Folgueira spoke with Billboard about some of the ideas being explored and the economic imperatives that are driving his company to push for a new way to pay rights holders.
Deezer has long advocated for changing payment systems. How have the company’s views evolved?
We were, I believe, the first to really embrace the concept of user-centric, which means that the artist gets a share of the payments that the user that listens to them pays, instead of a global pool. We could never do it unilaterally [because] we have not been able to get the majority of labels to agree to an initiative so far. To do it right, you really need a consensus from the industry and obviously, there are so many players involved that it’s difficult to get that. I do believe [an artist-centric] system is much better than the current system we have, but no system is absolutely perfect. There were some flaws, and that’s why there was so far resistance from some labels. I believe that there are a lot of elements in the artist-centric initiative that Universal is pursuing that make sense and could make something like [user-centric payment systems] even better.
You often mention the importance of “growing the pie.” What do you mean?
When the discussion is about sharing the same pie there are always winners and losers and it’s very difficult to get consensus. That’s why if you focus on growing the pie then you can have a discussion also about the distribution of that pie because some will win and some will win double. One of the things that I’m really excited about in this discussion is … also figuring out ways of monetizing fandom better. If we can find ways to increase the [average revenue per user] on the way, that would be a win for the artist, for the labels and for the platforms like us.
How does that fit into Deezer’s overall growth strategy?
Basically, today 100% of our revenues come from selling access to the catalog. So you pay $10.99 and you get access to the full catalog. But we don’t let users pay for anything else on the platform. We know that we have a lot of fans of artists on Deezer but we cannot monetize them in any other way. And the artist is struggling to monetize them in other ways because they don’t have direct access to the fans. We believe that working together with the label and the artists to figure out ways of helping the artist directly access their fanbase and monetize that fandom would benefit us and them as well.
What’s in it for you?
If we only change the compensation model there is nothing in it for Deezer except that we will be a platform where artists are remunerated better. It will give us a bit of differentiation but economically it will not really change anything.
If we find ways of monetizing better, let’s say, if we would allow fans to subscribe directly to artists, we would have an additional revenue source that we would share with labels and the artists, which will improve our growth and profitability profile. It is important to be more fair in terms of payout but to have a financial impact, we also care a lot about growing the pie. I fully share [Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl‘s] view. Music is extremely undervalued. We are very keen on working with Universal, but we are also keen on working with all the other labels like Warner, Sony, Believe and all the indies to make the industry better by monetizing better and then sharing that pie in more fair ways.
Do you have to “grow the pie” in order to pay artists more?
There’s not enough money right now for us all. First of all, music is undervalued. We’re giving too much for too little. Second, with the current monetization model, there is really not enough money for everyone. The platforms like Deezer or Spotify, we’re not making enough profits. And many artists are struggling to make a living. So for the system to be viable we need to grow the pie. That has to be the number one focus.
At the risk of asking a naïve question, what if the share of the pie that has historically gone to the labels shrank? Is that just impossible?
So basically the artists get more, and the DSPs get more and the labels get less? The thing is that it is a fragile ecosystem with a lot of negotiation power in the hands of the labels. You [the DSPs] do need a full catalog. The labels are not going to hand their money to us or to the artists. Instead of having that fight — which is what we’ve been doing basically for the last 10 years — it is a far healthier discussion to be had working together to grow the pie especially because music now is extremely undervalued. The piracy days are long gone. This is the right time to have the discussion. One of the things that doesn’t help is that a lot of the distribution is in the hands of companies that don’t have music as a core business.
Who are you referring to?
I’m talking to the tech giants. Three key players here are tech giants, and their core business is not really music. Then you have two independents, one that is very big — Spotify — and then Deezer. We are truly music; it is our duty and necessity to work together with the labels to make the whole ecosystem better and bring the value of the music to where it should be.
Where does the initiative with UMG currently stand?
There is nothing that we are testing yet, and we don’t have a deadline. But we are starting to work on different models of compensation that we could eventually test that would solve a lot of the issues we see today.
During a recent earnings call, Universal Music Group chairman and CEO Lucian Grainge said he wanted a new model where “artists are rewarded for the fans they bring in [to subscribe to streaming services] and the engagement they drive [on those platforms].” How can you determine which artists drive subscriptions?
That is very difficult to know and quantify. This is one of the areas where we are working with Universal to figure out if there is a way to measure, quantify it and use it for payment or not. That’s part of the exercise. That is one of the most tricky ones. There are other areas [such as] if a user goes and searches for an artist and song, that has more value than if they just go and listen to that stream in a lean-back experience. A stream that is heard as part of a playlist is not as valuable as when you go proactively to a platform, look for a song and play that song. You as a fan care about that song more. We agree with that as a concept but the question is how do you apply that in a model that is easy to implement and explain? There needs to be transparency [so] everyone understands how things get calculated and how people get remunerated. It’s easier said than done. This is why we need to work with Universal but also with other labels to do that exercise. First, we have to agree with the principles. And then you have to find a pragmatic way of actually doing it.
Could you walk me through the different models you are exploring?
I cannot go into that level of detail right now because we are in a very exploratory phrase. We are looking at what is feasible, what impact does it have and, based on that, we will have a proposal to test. But it’s too early to explain these models.
Have you seen any examples of streaming services that have done a good job of encouraging active fan experience?
Video and music are very different so you cannot really draw comparisons between the two. I don’t think anybody has cracked it, and that’s why Universal is working with us. We would love to be the first ones to figure out the new model that makes sense. SoundCloud made an announcement with Warner Music around user-centric, but they haven’t disclosed anything. Since they are a private company, we do not know how that has worked or played out.
Where are the majority of Deezer’s users based? Could the results of the Deezer and UMG experiment be applied on a global scale, or would differences in listening behavior in different markets limit the wider applicability of the study?
We are a global company with a presence in 180 countries. We have a large user base in France — less than half of our subscribers — then we have a lot of subscribers … in Brazil and then a bit everywhere else. Our model will have a big impact on the French market because there we are a massive player, but the learnings can be applicable anywhere in the world.
However, Lucian has mentioned that he sees different models for different platforms at different stages of their development in different countries. I think there is some merit in that. Our Brazilian business is very different from our French business and American business. You might need different models as you go through different stages in a market. Right now, it’s one model that came up really quickly, built 15 years ago on the back of piracy, and that model fits all. I think in the future we need more flexibility.
Is there anything I didn’t ask that you wanted to highlight?
Something that is really important is that we are working really closely with UMG because they are the largest label in the world. And they are a very important player and you cannot change the system without having Universal on board. I’m really excited that Lucian is leading this discussion and trying to make the industry better for everyone.
But I want to make sure it is well understood, as well, that this should benefit all real artists, whether they are from Universal, any other label or independent. We want to reward real artists that create real music. This is not to benefit Universal alone in any way. This is not a Universal-centric payments system. We’re working together to make the industry better for everyone who creates high-quality content.
You said a better system will reward “real artists” and “high-quality content.” What is the opposite of that? And should it not be rewarded in this new system?
There is a whole discussion on what are we going to do when machine-generated music comes because it is going to happen. There is not that much yet, but I think it’s a matter of months before we start getting flooded by machine-generated content, and we need to think about how we’re going to handle it. The other thing is it’s not the same that an artist creates new music and creates a fan — is a real artist in a way — compared to, for example, people that do a cover…. Those streams are not as valuable to us as the original song from the original band. The same thing with sounds that get uploaded, for example, the sound of the washing machine for people who need that to sleep. The sound of rain is not as valuable as a proper album created by an artist recorded in a studio. The fact that the recording of rain gets more streams than Lady Gaga, I find that astounding. We have to do something about it. It is hurting the user experience. We cannot flood the catalog with poor-quality stuff.
What should be done, and is this part of artist-centric royalties or another initiative?
We are trying to address that problem as part of the artist-centric discussion. We believe there are things we can do with the artist-centric model that will create the right incentives and will solve part of that problem. Yes, there are other areas where we might be stricter about the rules of what can be uploaded to the platform or not. We will explore all the different options. Obviously taking a big part of the economic incentive [away] is a big part of the job.
In 2022, about 57,000 artists earned more than $10,000 in royalties from Spotify, the company disclosed Wednesday (March 8) in the latest report published to Loud & Clear, a microsite that provides transparency into the amounts Spotify pays to creators on its platform.
That works out to just 0.6% of artists on Spotify making at least $10,000 in royalties. But using Spotify’s narrow definition of “professional or professionally aspiring” artists, more than a quarter of that group earned more than $10,000 on the platform in 2022.
How did Spotify get to that figure? Of the 9 million artists who have uploaded music to Spotify, 3.4 million have published 10 or more songs. From that group, only 213,000 artists average at least 10,000 monthly listeners, an amount Spotify calls “the beginning of an audience.” For context, newcomer Peyton Parrish, the No. 99 artist on Billboard’s Artist 100 chart, has 1.26 million monthly listeners on Spotify. There were 57,000 artists with at least 120,000 monthly listeners in 2022, according to Loud & Clear.
A similar data point came from Spotify’s integration with Songkick, Ticketmaster and other ticketing platforms: In 2022, 189,000 artists had at least one ticketed concert or event. Spotify says that “demonstrat[es] professional activity outside streaming.”
The number of artists making at least $10,000 on Spotify increased 144%, up from 23,400 in 2017. The upper echelon of Spotify payouts grew at about the same rate: 1,060 artists made more than $1 million in royalties in 2022, a 130% increase from 460 in 2017.
But the growth in the number of artists hitting these mile markers hasn’t kept pace with the overall growth of the platform. From 2017 to 2022, Spotify’s subscriber base grew 189% to 205 million, the number of ad-supported monthly active users rose 217% to 295 million and total revenues (which now includes some podcast advertising) increased 187% to 11.72 billion euros ($12.4 billion).
On Feb. 21, The Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) announced to its members that it had hit an important new milestone roughly two years after launching — distributing $1 billion in royalties to music rights holders with a current match rate of over 89% for streaming data to a musical work in the MLC database for 2022.
The MLC is a Nashville-based non-profit which was established by the Music Modernization Act (2018) as the designated organization to collect and distribute mechanical royalties under a blanket license for streaming services. At the time, the industry was fraught with a growing pool of royalties from streaming services that were sitting unallocated because the composition’s owners could not be found. The creation of the MLC was designed in hopes of alleviating this issue.
The organization officially opened its doors Jan. 1, 2021 and since then, it has been tasked with not only collecting and distributing current mechanical royalties currently coming in but also trying to match that pool of $427 million in royalties from before its inception that never made it to its proper owners. So far, it has matched over $300 million of that $427 million pool. While some in the industry have nicknamed this pool of money “black box” royalties, The MLC prefers to use the term “historical unmatched royalties.”
To explain how The MLC reached its $1 billion milestone and to answer questions about how the Copyright Royalty Board’s Phonorecords III ruling will affect The MLC and when unmatched royalties will be divvied to rights holders based on market share, CEO Kris Ahrend gave an exclusive interview to Billboard.
The MLC has paid out $1 billion to rights holders thus far. Why does this first billion feels so significant to you and your team?
It’s a massive amount of money and to know that we have built a process that has allowed us to make connections that that have generated that much revenue is incredibly rewarding for us but more importantly for rights holders. That’s a billion dollars that has gotten to rights holders that will allow them to continue to create. With the rates going up for Phono IV, I think we’ll reach our second billion much quicker than we reached our first, so we’re excited and looking forward to see how much more we can pay out this year alone.
What are some of the initiatives that the MLC has taken on that has helped you achieve this 90% match rate per month?
By establishing this central place for rights holders to go to register works and to see the results of their work, whether it be the public search of our database or within our member portal, we have increased visibility that has led to an enormous influx of data on our part. We’ve received and processed well over 18 million registrations for songs since we began full operations a couple of years ago. The simple formula for us is data drives dollars. The significant amount of data we’ve received has been a big factor in helping us drive up match rates.
This is a lot of data to handle and a quick influx of info over just a few years. Have you scaled up your staff to make sure that the data is being monitored properly?
We’ve been growing from the beginning. From the time I joined a little over three years ago until today, we now have a team of more than 110 people working at the MLC. For the first two years our largest team was our support team. We recognized that the big initial challenge was helping people understand how the MLC works. In the last year, the group that eclipsed our support team is our matching team. These people try to make the connections between the sound recording data they receive and the song data in our database. They’re reviewing millions of lines of data every month to try to make more connections every month to impact overall match rates.
We are waiting on the Copyright Royalty Board to fully finalize Phono III rates. This could happen any day now, and whenever that happens, streaming services and the music business will have to come together to go back in time and make sure payments from 2018-2022 are in alignment with the new headline rate. How will the MLC handle this recalibration?
As for Phono III, we will certainly be ready when the Phono III rates are finalized. The DSPs [digital service providers] will have some time after the rates are finalized to redeliver all of their data and likely to make some incremental payments, but when that happens, we’ll be able to hit the ground running. There are three different areas of royalties that will be impacted when this happens. Two of these involve the MLC, one does not.
The one that doesn’t is all the royalties that DSPs paid out in 2018, 2019 and 2020 before the MLC’s blanket license began. The DSPs have to correct the royalty payments that they made. That’s not something we can be involved in.
But the second and third pieces we will be involved in. The second part is correcting the unpaid royalty data that the DSPs transferred to us. We will need to correct that. For all the historical unmatched royalties that we received that relate to the Phono III period, the DSPs will have to redeliver all of their data for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Potentially in incremental payments. Once we have that new data, the payments will begin processing and paying out within a matter of months.
The third piece is the 2021 and 2022 blanket royalties that we paid out under guidance from the Copyright Office. We’ve paid out royalties thus far at the Phono II rates so we know those will have to be corrected. Again, the DSPs will have to redeliver their data for 2021 and 2022 to us and then we have to calculate how much each stream is owed under the new rates and process the adjustment.
This is a process that will begin within a matter of months after we get the data from the DSPs and that process will play out probably throughout next year.
Is there a more specific timeline you are trying to follow with reconciling these 2021 and 2022 royalties?
Right now we are hopeful we can process a year of adjustments over six months. That’s across all DSPs. We would look to process the adjustments for 2021 in the first half of 2024 and then the 2022 adjustments in the second half of 2024.
Do you have staff members that are aiding this process specifically?
We’ve been building the technology that we need to do all of this for several years now. It’s something we’ve been preparing for from the beginning because the rates for Phono III weren’t finalized when we launched. There’s no extra people, it’s the same teams that are dealing with our technology and DSP relations that are managing that transition.
NMPA chief David Israelite has recently spoken about his hope to reform the CRB and increase the likelihood of timely settlements between publishers and streaming services to avoid something like Phono III happening again. What is the MLC’s stance on CRB reform?
We aren’t active participants in the CRB process, but the headline message that you’re hearing is the one that we would echo: It’s imperative that rates be set ahead of time so that we can manage our process with the right rates from the outset. Anytime we introduce additional complexities into a process that is already quite complex, we have to redo work.
There are more DIY creators than ever. What are some ways The MLC is trying to help meet these creators where they are at, tell them about the MLC and help them collect the money they are owed?
There are three different ways.
First, education. We recognize that administration is very complicated and that very few creators get into the business of creating with an interest in administration. We’re trying to put out materials that explain in really simple terms how digital administration works.
Second, tools. We also now have a suite of member tools that are as effective for the smallest creator as they are for large publishers and administrators. We have tools that allow members to register works individually or in bulk. We have a claiming tool that allows members to search all works for which not all of the shares have been claimed. And our matching tool now allows rights holders to search all of the unmatched data that came in under the blanket license with the exception of a few last files for one DSP, Spotify, that we’re still working through all the historical data from. This tool is not only a really helpful tool for rights holders, but it’s also illuminating the black box for the first time, which is a huge step toward eliminating it.
Lastly, we have our Distributor Unmatched Royalties Portal (DURP) which has allowed any distributor of sound recordings to access the data for unmatched uses of songs that we can identify as originating from their distribution platform. Those indie distributors are often serving people who both wrote and performed the recordings that are being distributed. They can literally see which of their customers might be missing out on mechanicals for the digital uses of their sound recordings and songs. Our hope is that those distributors will now use that data to engage with their customers directly,
Is there a distinction between what that The MLC considers to be an “unmatched” royalty or a “black box” royalty?
We don’t use the term “black box” anymore because we have largely illuminated the black box, which is to say our members have full visibility into the unmatched sound recording data that we receive and can search through it and propose matches to songs they have registered. The data is no longer in the dark – that’s a huge step toward helping people find their share of money that may have been missing.
We break down the royalties pending distribution into three buckets, two of which are most relevant for this conversation. Those two are “unmatched” and “unclaimed,” so an unmatched royalty dollar is a royalty dollar that we have not been able to associate with a song in our database. Unclaimed royalties or those royalties that we have been able to match to a song, but we can’t pay out because not all of the rights holders with shares of that song have claimed their shares. That’s a really important distinction because it’s not about our inability to make the connection to the song. It’s the fact that the writer or the administrator hasn’t claimed their share.
It’s hard to argue offering a transparent user portal isn’t a good thing, but still, allowing so many people the access to see what songs and royalties have and have not been claimed can leave them up for incorrect or fraudulent claiming. Why does The MLC believe this fully transparent outlook is the best system despite the risks it poses?
It is one of the stated objectives of the Music Modernization Act to bring greater transparency to this part of the market. I firmly believe that transparency is always a good thing, even where there may be bad actors. The more transparent the data, the more likely it is that rights holders can see evidence of those bad actors in order to address it. We certainly spend an enormous amount of time and effort looking for any evidence of bad actors. What we are hoping to create is a large group of knowledgeable empowered creators who are actively managing their rights, and as long as they are actively managing their rights, that diminishes significantly any opportunity that anyone else might have to to do anything inappropriate.
As generative AI tools become more and more popular for music makers to use, many anticipate a deluge of new songs into the market, even more than what we have now. It will likely also mean more DIY, unsigned creators than ever. Do you believe this could cause any challenge or strain to the MLC to try to reach this fast-growing cohort of new musicians?
The tools are always going to evolve. I think as long as AI powered tools enable real people to create meaningful and impactful music, they’re a good thing. If the tools make it easier for people to create, then that will increase the number of songs in the market. That will also increase the amount of data that we have to process, so it will be a challenge for the MLC. But we’re already talking about a market with well over 100 million sound recordings and we already have 30 million musical works in our database. [A number of these 30 million musical works have multiple recordings available, explaining most the discrepancy in the two figures.] So I’m not sure how much additional growth itself is going to change the challenge in front of us. We’re already managing an incredible amount of data.
The MLC is charged by the MMA to divide up whatever remaining unmatched historical money you have and distribute it out to rights holders based on market share after two years. Critics say this will provide a financial windfall to the major publishers. Since the MLC is about two years in, I wanted to check in and see if this distribution is in progress?
One of the misnomers about that mechanism is that it would only result in distributions to the majors or for the large companies. In reality, what the market share mechanism means is that we will distribute any remaining royalties on a pro-rata basis to anyone we’ve paid. Self-administered songwriters who collected from us in 2021 will be eligible to receive a pro-rata portion of any remaining royalties from 2021 that we are not able to distribute. So everyone who gets paid will essentially get paid a little bit more for each stream that they were paid on.
In terms of the timeline, the law said the historical activity had a two years window from the time the blanket licenses began, but the blanket license royalties is set to a three year period. We have not yet reached that three year period for the blanket royalties, and for all royalties — blanket or historical — we have not yet taken any steps toward eventual distribution on that basis.
In the case of the majority of historical unmatched monies, we still don’t have the final rates or the final amounts that we will have to distribute [because of the delay of Phono III.] We are not going to proceed with any market share distribution for the historical money until we’ve gotten all of the Phono III rates finalized and have attempted to match and pay out that money.
Again, for the blanket money, we haven’t yet hit that minimum period, but also we would not rush to that outcome. We’re going to let the data tell us whether there is still benefit to trying to match and pay out, or if we reached a point where we’re no longer seeing new progress. The whole point of that market share payout mechanism was to ensure that the MLC did not sit on pools of unpaid money indefinitely.
The intent behind that provision was to ultimately get that money back to rights holders and to make sure we don’t sit idle with it for years or decades. Given this was the intent of Congress, we will honor that intent. For right now, though, we are focused squarely on getting the data in and paying out as much as possible.
Will you be announcing when this market share payout process begins?
The MMA requires us to publicize when we do eventually move to a market share distribution for any period. So that is not something that’s going to happen as a surprise. Again, we’ve no plans to do any market share distributions this year at all. Probably not next year either.
The process of collecting public performance royalties from DJ sets has long been a tricky one in the United States, with uneven data collection processes often obscuring what songs are played at dance festivals. That makes it difficult for artists with the rights to the music to get paid what they’re due.
But one music market with a firm grasp on the performance royalties collection and distribution process as it relates to the dance world is The Netherlands, where electronic music is deeply woven into the country’s social fabric.
Buma/Stemra, one of the world’s most progressive collective management organizations (CMOs) for electronic music producers, operates within a live music market that generated 34 million euros ($36 million) in public performance royalties in 2022. Of this revenue, 7.2 million euros ($7.6 million) came from dance festivals, with roughly 1 million euros ($1.1 million) from clubs, making dance music comprises a quarter of the Netherlands’ total performance royalties
Since dance music incorporates so much different music from different artists in a set, that leaves a lot of rights holders to be identified. For this, Buma/Stemra uses audio fingerprinting technology that monitors and identifies songs played during sets.
“In the Netherlands, we have such a wide range of successful DJs with worldwide success,” says Juliette Tetteroo, accounts manager of dance events at Buma/Stemra. “As Buma/Stemra, that’s also why we find it really important to be at the front of developments like fingerprinting technology.”
For its fingerprinting, Buma/Stemra primarily uses Amsterdam-based DJ Monitor, an electronic music monitoring technology. DJ Monitor functions much like Apple-owned audio-recognition mobile app Shazam, identifying tracks within its library — a database of roughly 100 million songs submitted to DJ Monitor by global performance rights organizations (PROs) — and creating set lists for any given set with 93% accuracy, the company reports. (Billboard‘s recently published lists of the top 50 tracks and the top 50 artists played at Dutch dance festivals in 2022 was made with data collected by DJ Monitor.)
DJ Monitor is one of a number of music recognition technologies, including Pioneer’s KUVO, that can make the monitoring and reporting of DJ sets easier and more accurate. Buma/Stemra says that DJ Monitor has the highest identifying rates of all audio fingerprinting technology.
DJ Monitor is currently employed by CMOs in France, Germany, Finland, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and The Netherlands, where it fingerprints 70% of all festivals. (Another fingerprinting company, Soundware, is also used by some Dutch events.)
Buma/Stemra’s work collecting performance royalties from a given event begins well before any tracks are even played. The CMO begins by determining licensing fees for any given event; for festivals with revenue lower than 110,000 euros ($116,000), the festival organizer pays the standard 7% licensing rate for events. This percentage is based on the assumption that more than two-thirds of songs played during the course of a given event are in Buma/Stemra’s repertoire. (If the event organizer provides a setlist showing that less than two-thirds of the music played was Buma/Stemra repertoire, the licensing fee drops to between 3% and 5%.)
For festivals with revenue higher than 110,000 euros, the event organizer provides Buma/Stemra with audio from the events to be fingerprinted. The festival can submit the audio manually, or upload it to the Buma/Stemra server, where it is then fingerprinted by DJ Monitor. The festival can also let DJ Monitor monitor audio during live performances, in which case DJ Monitor tech is implemented at every stage at the festival.
For bigger events, Buma/Stemra pays for fingerprinting costs, as, they say, it serves their goal of paying royalties on every song played at a given event.
“Our goal is to work towards one-on-one collection and distribution,” says Tetteroo. “It is all about the quality of what we do. [Paying for fingerprinting costs] also helps in encouraging organizers to pay, because they know that the money they pay goes to the composers and their publishers of the songs that have been paid. This is why we happily invest in technology that points in this direction.”
Buma/Stemra receives hundreds of songs from any given festival, given that most events host multiple stages and often run for three days. DJ Monitor typically identifies between 80% to 90% of this music (more than 80% if monitoring electronic music; 90% if monitoring open format/pop music) and sends formatted lists of the data to Buma/Stemra. Buma/Stemra imports this data, 60% to 70% of which is typically imported automatically — given that roughly that amount of music from any given event is recognized as something already in the Buma/Stemra database.
The percentage that’s not automatically recognized goes to an outsourced supplier in India that works to manually identify it. Money collected from a festival is then divided and paid out based on a system that assigns points to songs.
Given that a certain percentage of songs aren’t recognized, hundreds of hours of unclaimed music aggregates over the year because, says Buma/Stemra’s music processing manager Rob van den Reek, “we have a real lot of festivals here in the Netherlands.”
Buma/Stemra publishes this unclaimed music on their website, where artists can find and claim their songs. Artists are able to make a claim for up to three years after the song is posted online. If no one has claimed it after three years, the money owed to all unclaimed music is divided between rightsholders included in what’s called a “reference repertoire” — or a Buma/Stemra-compiled sample of common songs played at festivals. Introduced four years ago, this claiming system adds another layer of transparency — and more opportunity for creators to get the money they’re owed.
“Transparency is one of the benefits that stands out the most from the way we work,” says Buma/Stemra marketing manager Annabel Heijen. “That’s where we’ve made the most progress.”
There is one fault with the Buma/Stemra system that’s in the process of being addressed. Currently Buma/Stemra pays out based on the length of a full song that’s registered — not how much of it was actually played in a DJ set. If a song was registered at a length of three minutes, but only played for two minutes, Buma/Stemra pays based on that full, original timestamp. Buma/Stemra is currently building a new system that will pay out against the real timestamp identified during DJ sets that the organization expects to release by the end of 2023 or early 2024.
