State Champ Radio songwriters
Page: 2
Sony Music Publishing ruled the Top Radio Airplay, Hot 100 Songs and Country Airplay publisher rankings for its third consecutive quarter of 2023, and Warner Chappell Music surged to No. 2 on the Hot 100 Songs chart — the first time it has held the position since the Hot 100 ranking began in 2019.
For the period spanning July through September, all of the big three publishers benefited from shares in the Afrobeats radio hit “Calm Down” by Rema and Selena Gomez. Sony also benefited from stakes in “Last Night” by Morgan Wallen, which hit No. 5 on the Top Radio Airplay chart, and Taylor Swift’s surprise hit “Cruel Summer,” which reached No. 3 on the quarter’s Hot 100 Songs ranking, four years after its initial release due to its placement as the opening song of Swift’s The Eras Tour.
Last quarter, Tracy Chapman’s Purple Rabbit Music publishing company broke into the Hot 100 and Top Radio Airplay charts (ranking No. 7 and No. 10, respectively) for the first time, thanks to Luke Combs’ cover of her 1988 song “Fast Car.” This quarter, her market share as a publisher/songwriter grew even higher. Chapman finished the quarter as the top songwriter on all three charts, propelling Purple Rabbit Music to No. 5 on Top Radio Airplay and No. 6 on both Hot 100 Songs and Country Airplay.
But she wasn’t the only self-published songwriter to make the charts this quarter. As the sole writer of “Rich Men North of Richmond,” Oliver Anthony Music’s publishing company, Christopher Anthony Lunsford Pub Designee, placed at No. 8 on Hot 100 Songs with a 1.49% market share, surpassing such top 10 perennials as Downtown and Reservoir. Like Chapman, Anthony is the sole songwriter of his breakthrough song.
This is the first time that two independent songwriters have broken into the Hot 100 Songs chart at the same time.
Warner Chappell rose to No. 2 on the Hot 100 ranking for the first time in 19 quarters. Previously, it often ranked third or fourth. “Last Night” by Morgan Wallen, “Calm Down” by Rema and Selena Gomez, and 49 other Hot 100 Songs hits accounted for its strong showing of 18.18% of the market share. The publisher held steady in third place on the Top Radio Airplay chart with 15.87% of the market share, and ranked second on the Country Airplay chart with a 26.2% share.
Universal Music Publishing Group took second place on Top Radio Airplay — where its song placements increased to 52 from 49 in the second quarter — and third on Hot 100 Songs. Combs’ “Love You Anyway,” No. 3 on Country Airplay; “Cruel Summer”; and “Calm Down” were UMPG’s highest-ranked songs.
Kobalt held fast to No. 4 on both Top Radio Airplay and Hot 100 Songs but slid to No. 5 on Country Airplay behind BMG. The latter publisher’s share in Jelly Roll’s “Need a Favor” helped it edge past Kobalt’s 4.59% market share with 4.93%.
BMG and Big Machine Music both climbed in the ranks on the Country Airplay charts this quarter. BMG rose from fifth to fourth ranking, thanks to its share of 12 songs on the chart this quarter, including Jelly Roll’s “Need a Favor.” BMM climbed from eighth last quarter (2.57%) to seventh this quarter (2.97%), thanks in part to Luke Bryan’s “But I Got a Beer In My Hand.”
Concord finished 10th on Top Radio Airplay with 1.37%. That percentage might rise in the fourth quarter due to its acquisitions of Round Hill Music and Mojo Music & Media in September. If Concord’s third-quarter market share was combined with those of Round Hill and Pulse, which Concord also owns but lists separately, it would have finished at No. 5 on Top Radio Airplay with 4.96% and at No. 7 on Hot 100 Songs with 3.1%.
Rounding out the top 10, Reservoir fell to No. 8 on Top Radio Airplay with 1.82%, though it improved on its No. 7-ranked second-quarter share of 1.62%. It rounded out the Hot 100 Songs top 10 with 1.17%. Hipgnosis (1.76%) and Downtown (1.44%) finished at No. 9 on Top Radio Airplay and Hot 100 Songs, respectively.
Additional reporting by Ed Christman.
Even if Spotify’s new royalty model won’t pay artists’ whose tracks don’t hit 1,000 streams in a year, songwriters will still earn money from those plays — for now, at least.
As Billboard reported last month, Spotify is planning to implement three changes to its royalty model early next year that would affect the lowest-streaming acts, non-music noise tracks and distributors and labels committing fraud. Under this new scheme, more than two-thirds of the tracks uploaded to that platform will be eligible to receive royalties — but that, notably, that will only impact about 0.5% of the royalty pool.
Nevertheless, this has sparked debate around the music community, with some questioning the ethics of not paying artists for whatever streams they garnered simply because they were not popular enough. Others supported the plan, citing the paltry sums an artist would be making for under 1,000 annual streams anyway (which amounts to about five cents). Many also believe this new rule could provide alleviate the issue of the royalty pool being divided among the exponentially-growing number of songs on Spotify’s platform, which likely dilutes the amount of money flowing to career artists.
But this change to Spotify’s royalty model does not affect songwriters and publishers payments at all, a source close to the company confirmed to Billboard. It just affects those who are involved in the master recording copyright.
For the uninitiated, there are two copyrights associated with every song released: the underlying musical work (often also called the “composition” or “song”) copyright, which protects the lyrics and melodies written by songwriters, and the master recording (also called the “sound recording”) copyright, which protects the artists’ one specific recording of that musical work.
In the United States, the royalty rates that songwriters and publishers can charge for the composition side of things are controlled by a government entity known as the Copyright Royalty Board. Every five years, the statutory rate structure for songwriters and publishers is renegotiated with the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) as well as Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI) and other groups and individuals who represent the music industry’s fight to raise rates. (Other territories often base their publishing royalty rates off of those set in the U.S.)
Not everyone agrees on what specific rate structure they want, which has led to some infighting, but they all unite behind one principle: songwriters should earn more money. In fact, publishing earns just a fraction what the recorded music side does on streaming overall, the rates are far from equal. Many in the music business wish the current Copyright Royalty Board system could be abolished, freeing songwriters and publishers to negotiate rates in a free market without government interference, but this is unlikely to change, given it would require an act of Congress to overhaul an over one hundred year old law and services, many of which are owned by some of the world’s largest technology companies, would certainly lobby against it.
Those whose interests lie on the recording side, like record labels, get to negotiate directly with streaming services to set their royalty structure. This is why the streaming payment system can be experimented with in the ways seen now through Spotify’s recent changes, as well as Deezer’s new “artist-centric” payment plan, created with UMG. Overall, the publishing side of the business is handcuffed to whatever the current ruling says.
The system of streaming royalty payments for publishers and songwriters for 2023-2027 (also known as “phonorecords IV” “phono IV” or “CRB IV”), the current five year period, has already been set. National Music Publishers’ Association president and CEO David Israelite says it is possible that the next five year period, phono V, could be reconfigured to more closely mirror what is happening on the master recording side but that determination process won’t begin until about early 2026.
“We will have the benefit of watching how this plays out for a while before we ever have to address it, but it’s way too early to speculate what we might do,” says Israelite. Still, he adds, “it is horrible that we are locked in the statutory rate structure where we have no flexibility other than these five year windows but that is our situation… It’s a very different conversation than one company sitting down with another company and agreeing what they want to do [like it happens on the master side]. We are asking a court through litigation or an agreement to set a structure that applies to everyone and to build consensus around that. It’s much harder to change.”
Nashville music publishing company Boom Music Group has severed ties with SESAC Nashville Music Awards’ 2020 songwriter of the year Matthew McGinn, after felony and misdemeanor charges were filed against him on Oct. 28 in Davidson County, Tenn. “Boom Music Group is extremely saddened about the reprehensible events that transpired this weekend with Matt McGinn,” […]
BMI has released its annual report for its fiscal year and, for the first time ever, it hardly contains any financial information.
Such information as how much it collected or distributed in the recently completed year is not revealed in the annual report, even though BMI has historically revealed detailed financial information every year. The report also doesn’t show how much collection and distribution amounts changed from the prior year’s $1.573 billion and $1.471 billion, respectively.
The only information indicating BMI’s financial performance in the year is an observation by BMI president and CEO Mike O’Neill that “every distribution we issued in our last fiscal year was higher than the corresponding one from the previous year.” No further specifics were provided.
The only numbers in the entire annual report that give any indication of how much activity BMI tracked in the year was a note that the performance rights organization processed 2.61 trillion performances, while its membership grew 7% to 1.4 million affiliates, and that it licenses and collects on behalf of 22.4 million works. Dollar amounts only appear once in the 24-page report, when O’Neill states in the opening note that BMI’s November distribution is forecast to be $400 million — which he labeled another record “that would make BMI the first ever PRO to ever distribute this high an amount in a single quarter.” The November quarter is in its current fiscal year, and not a part of the completed year covered in the annual report.
Last October, BMI announced it was switching from a not-for-profit model to a for-profit one. Now, in an opening note to this latest report, O’Neill disclosed the organization’s goal is to distribute 85% of the licensing revenue it collects to songwriters and publishers. The other 15% of collections, he wrote, will cover overhead and allow BMI to achieve a modest profit margin, noting that expenses typically comprise about 10% of revenue. In recent years, BMI’s distribution has been about $90% of revenue.
If BMI creates new M&A opportunities, however, or enters new businesses or offers expanded services, O’Neill said that BMI “will look to take a higher margin on any revenue generated, though always with the goal of sharing that new growth with our affiliates.” In other words, for those business, BMI may not limit itself to a 5% profit margin.
O’Neill also noted that “if BMI decides to seek outside capital or borrow money to invest in new services and opportunities, any repayments will come out of our retained profits and not distributions.”
In the current fiscal year, O’Neill reported that under the new business model BMI’s February distribution was its largest ever, up 6% over the previous year. That was then surpassed by the May distribution, which was up 15% over the corresponding year-earlier period. O’Neill predicted that the next two distributions for the remaining calendar year will follow that trend. For the full calendar year, distributions are projected to be 11% above calendar 2023, the report noted.
Going forward, O’Neill said BMI will announce percentage increases, but apparently will continue to withhold all other financial information.
Seemingly responding to immense pressure from the songwriter community and music publishers who have publicly expressed their unhappiness about BMI’s switch to profitability and its evasion of the many questions they asked, after disclosing the 85% distribution goal, O’Neill’s opening note repeats many of the thoughts he has already shared through open letters on the issue. “We changed our business model last year to invest in our company and position BMI for continued success in our rapidly evolving industry,” he wrote. “Our mission remains the same, to serve our songwriters, composers and publishers and continue to grow our overall distributions as BMI has done each year that I have been CEO. In order to continue this trajectory, we need to think more commercially, explore new sources of revenue and invest in our platforms to improve the quality of service we provide to you. I’m pleased to say that we have already made great progress on delivering these goals.”
He also reiterated that BMI changed its business model to better position the company for success in a rapidly evolving industry. “Our mission remains the same, to serve our songwriters, composers and publishers and continue to grow our overall distributions as BMI has done each year that I have been CEO,” O’Neill wrote. “In order to continue this trajectory, we need to think more commercially, explore new sources of revenue and invest in our platforms to improve the quality of service we provide to you.”
While BMI can accomplish its plans and goals on its own, O’Neill wrote, “We also recognize the opportunity to substantially accelerate our growth by partnering with a like-minded, growth-oriented investor with a successful history of building businesses. Of course, that partner would need to share our vision that driving value for our affiliates goes hand-in-hand with growing our business and building a stronger BMI.”
As Billboard previously reported, BMI is in an exclusive period with New Mountain Capital in a deal to sell the PRO — which is currently owned by radio and television broadcasters — at a $1.7 billion valuation. The valuation, however, sources say, is under downward pressure as negotiations continue.
While stating nothing has yet been signed, O’Neill wrote that the for-profit business model and the strategy outlined “will hold true for BMI whether or not we move forward with a sale.” In other words, BMI will continue to be a for-profit business, regardless of whether it sells or not.
BMI’s October 2022 switch to operating as a for-profit company didn’t cause a big reaction in the music business until a July 2023 Reuters article about the company being put up for sale revealed that it had generated $147 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Then the response was significant – and mostly negative. The fear was that profit would essentially come at the expense of royalty payouts.
Even so, BMI executives and other music business sources familiar with the way private equity funds think about business suggest that songwriters and executives should wait to see how the performance rights organization’s vision, backed by the right strategic partner — such as New Mountain Capital, with which BMI is negotiating — could help them.
BMI has said it is switching models and seeking a buyer in order to respond to a changing market. “We need to continue to invest in our business and explore new avenues for revenue generation,” CEO Mike O’Neill said in an Aug. 18 letter to creators groups that was shared with Billboard, “so we can continue to expand our distribution sources.”
To do that, while delivering the kind of growth a buyer will presumably want, BMI plans to explore new businesses to build a company that can operate at scale, and across national borders, more efficiently than it now does. The idea, according to sources inside and familiar with BMI, is to create a new interdependent royalty-collection ecosystem that will benefit BMI and its potential new owner, as well as its affiliates.
BMI is looking for “a partner who can help us take advantage of new opportunities and provide a new level of investment and technological expertise,” according to a Sept. 5 letter from O’Neill to creators groups published on BMI’s website. New Mountain Capital, which is in an exclusive period to negotiate a deal with the performance rights organization, could be such a partner, executives familiar with the private equity sector suggest, since the firm has a track record of investing in companies to help them achieve significant growth. Since its 1995 launch, New Mountain — which now oversees more than $35 billion in assets and funds — has acquired or founded more than 60 companies, without any going into bankruptcy and without missing an interest payment, according to the company.
In particular, sources familiar with New Mountain Capital point to its investment in Blue Yonder, a software company the private equity firm acquired for $565 million in 2010 and sold to Panasonic in 2021 for an enterprise value of $8.5 billion. The private equity firm, “through continued investment and improvement” helped grow it from a “somewhat sleepy niche company to being the 14th largest software company in the nation,” New Mountain Capital’s CEO Steve Klinsky wrote in the May-June 2022 issue of Harvard Business Review. “We offer the capabilities and access to capital that a large corporate parent would, without forcing companies to become part of a conglomerate culture. At the same time, we bring a fresh, entrepreneurial vision to strategy, talent, R&D, technology, and corporate alliances.”
Still, BMI has not specifically addressed many of the concerns raised by its switch to a for-profit model, which is why songwriters and publishers remain nervous. In fact, on Sept. 18 a letter signed by dozens of lawyers called on BMI to engage in open and honest conversations with affiliates, saying that the PRO owes them the responsibility to respond with “specificity and transparency.”
“I get it that some writers may have legitimate worries because in a vacuum there is not a clear picture of what such a deal could be and how it could be a positive for BMI,” says a veteran music business executive. “But a lot of people with their own interest have been spreading very negative spins with shrill voices that what BMI is doing will be bad for publishers and songwriters.”
In the case of New Mountain Capital, the executive says, they “are nice, smart people” that help businesses add new processes to help them grow substantially and become even more profitable. New Mountain Capital has been studying the music industry for a few years and looked at some substantial deals, sources say, but so far has passed on them until now.
“There is so much negativity out there that doesn’t give this deal the benefit of the doubt,” says another executive. “New Mountain Capital are not corporate raiders; they are intelligent and love the business and want to grow the revenue base so that publishers and writers will be making more money and still make a profit for BMI.”
That’s exactly the kind of approach BMI is looking for, according to executives familiar with its strategy. In its first year as a for-profit business, for example, BMI announced a partnership with the United Arab Emirates company Music Nation to try to establish a public performance licensing and royalty infrastructure there. BMI has also undertaken an “extensive customer service initiative” to enhance the service it provides to affiliates, with plans for an improved online service portal to follow.
The company has said that its move to a for-profit model made these investments possible. But one music publishing executive, who requested anonymity, wonders “why is it easier to invest in systems upgrades as a for-profit entity rather than as a not-for-profit organization?” One answer: The level of investment would impact distributions to affiliates under the previous not-for-profit system.
Publishing executives also believe that growing outside the U.S. will become a priority for BMI. Most of the growth for royalty collections is now coming from the growth of streaming services, and most of that will be international. Over the past decade, some of the European collective management organizations teamed much with publishers to license repertoire for online purposes across Europe, as European law allows. Such a model could also work in other territories, such as Latin America, Asia, or even the Middle East.
Given the opportunity for BMI outside the U.S., another executive wonders if it could be the first organization to try to rollout a global model, with a global membership. And if so, whether that would re-ignite competition to sign writers around the world.
Meanwhile, some executives speculate about whether New Mountain might be frightened off by the antitrust consent decree under which BMI operates, but “they understand deeply what that means,” says a source familiar with the fund, “and that it is baked into the business.”
Private equity is known for growing profits, not restraining them, but sources familiar with BMI’s thinking say that potential suitors need to understand that the company will prioritize payouts. In fact, a potential deal would not involve an expectation of “insane margins,” says one music industry executive who has worked with private equity. If a sale takes place, said O’Neill in an Aug 19 letter, BMI “would ensure that any partner embraces our mission of prioritizing the interests of songwriters, including their financial success.”
For-profit, for whom?
It’s “easy to assume that if we kept doing business the way we always had, distributions would continue to grow,” O’Neill wrote in his Sept. 5 letter posted on the company’s website. “That is a dangerous assumption to make, because in an evolving industry like ours, you run the risk of settling for a larger slice of a shrinking pie. Our goal is to grow that pie to your benefit.”
So far, in the three quarterly distributions since BMI announced its shift to a for-profit model, combined payouts were 9% greater than the same periods of the previous year. That’s almost as good as the 10.2% increase to $1.471 billion that BMI distributed in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, when overall revenue grew 15.6% to $1.573 billion, when it was still operating as a non-profit. (BMI is not releasing how much distributions increased for the full year ended June 30, 2023, and it will no longer release any company-wide revenue results, sources say. Instead, it will provide more information to songwriters and publishers to help them measure BMI’s payments in comparison to the past, and in some cases, if songwriters so request, to other PROs.)
Some songwriters and executives argue that, if BMI is sold, affiliates deserve some of the revenue from that sale. But as one industry executive familiar with private equity points out, it’s actually surprising that BMI’s owners – radio and television stations – didn’t sell it a long time ago.
“For over 80 years, you have had owners — all for-profit companies with their own businesses — and yet they didn’t make any profit on BMI,” that executive says. “And I guess it would be unseemly for them to pull dividends out at the same time they are paying licensing fees.” At the same time, he adds, those owners had to watch SESAC and GMR come along and build very profitable businesses.
SESAC, which is considerably smaller than BMI, was sold to the private equity firm Blackstone for about $1 billion in 2017. Ironically, at the end of 2018, one of Blackstone’s investment funds acquired a passive minority equity stake in New Mountain Capital, a fact that U.S. regulators could look at, if New Mountain Capital moves forward with its BMI acquisition.
“The fact is that the broadcasters own BMI; and they are entitled to sell it,” the executive says. “I understand that the music industry likes the status quo, but if you start with the premise that the owners will sell, then you would want them to sell it to someone who is decent and understands the industry. It’s not smart to push [New Mountain Capital] away with a big outcry, because you don’t know who will come along next.”
There is also the potential for BMI to grow into a more modern company in a way that benefits the entire industry, the source says. “Take a year or two and see how things roll forward and how things shake out. If [BMI] songwriters are happy, then they can stay; and if not, then they can look to make a move.”
A coalition of songwriter and artist groups have expressed that they are “extremely disappointed and upset” with BMI in a letter to the firm’s CEO and president Mike O’Neill. Obtained by Billboard, the letter is written in response to last week’s news that the performing rights organization may sell to private equity firm New Mountain Capital for around $1.7 billion, according to multiple sources.
Consisting of Songwriters of North America (SONA), Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), Music Artists Coalition, Artist Rights Alliance, and SAG AFTRA, the coalition’s new letter asks O’Neill for “real, substantive answers” to questions they posed to the company leader in a previous letter from Aug. 18, citing that O’Neill’s original response did “not answer any of [their] questions.”
The Aug. 18 letter addressed three major concerns: BMI’s profits; the proceeds from any potential BMI sale; and what may happen operationally at BMI in the event that the organization is sold.
Five days later, on Aug. 23, Billboard reported that BMI was, in fact, in the process of selling. Spurred by that report, the coalition wrote their second letter to O’Neill, asking for the executive to respond to songwriters “prior to taking any other action” towards its possible sale. “If you do not want to provide us with written answers, we are happy to meet with you as a group,” it says.
They also call out BMI for responding to their last request by saying that there was an uplift in BMI’s distributions last year. “Of course distributions went up — all PROs’ revenue went up,” the new letter reads. “This does not answer any of our questions. And it does not explain where the $145m EBITDA (as reported by Billboard today) came from and why that money was not distributed to songwriters.”
A representative for BMI replied to the letter in a statement to Billboard a few hours after its receipt, saying, “Relying on the past has never sustained a business for the future. Our goal is to stay ahead of the changing industry and invest in our business to grow the value of our affiliates’ music. Any path forward would prioritize the best interests of our songwriters, composers and publishers, including their financial success. Our focus is on delivering for our affiliates.”
BMI’s changing business model has been the source of concern and confusion within the music industry since March 2022. At that time, it was reported that the performing rights organization had hired Goldman Sachs as an outside advisor to explore new strategic opportunities for growth. As a non-profit organization since its inception over 80 years prior, the Goldman Sachs news signaled a major shift for BMI and was rumored to include a possible sale to an outside firm. In August 2022, however, Bloomberg announced that BMI had ditched its exploration of such a sale. A few days later, Billboard reported that the PRO laid off “just under 10%” of its workforce, about 30 people, in order to approve “efficiency” during “uncertain economic times,” said O’Neill in a company-wide email.
Last October, BMI announced that it would be switching from its non-profit status to become a for-profit company. O’Neill explained to Billboard that the company made this switch because “growth requires investment, not just maintenance… This new [commercial] model will grow at a faster rate.” Given the fast-shifting performance royalty landscape, moving from in-person to mainly digital collections, BMI appeared to want to invest more in modernizing its operations with its new model.
This summer, BMI resurfaced the potential of selling to an outside firm. In a memo to staff in late July, O’Neill said that the company has been increasingly interested in a sale over the last year. He added that by leveraging the company’s new for-profit model and recent investments made into BMI to improve its operations, BMI “has only intensified outside interest.”
Read the songwriter groups’ full letter here:
Mr. Mike O’NeillBroadcast Music, Inc.
Re: BMI
Dear Mike:
We were extremely disappointed and upset to read the announcement of BMI’s sale to New Mountain Capitol.
Songwriters have real questions and deserve real answers before any further action is taken. While we appreciated you responding to our letter, all of our questions went unanswered.
Your response was that distributions went up last year. Of course distributions went up – all PROs’ revenue went up. This does not answer any of our questions. And, it does not explain where the $145m EBITDA (as reported by Billboard today) came from and why that money was not distributed to songwriters.
We understand that a deal has been agreed, but has not closed. Prior to taking any other action, we are giving you another opportunity to provide songwriters with real, substantive answers to the questions we posed.
If you do not want to provide us with written answers, we are happy to meet with you as a group.
Sincerely,
Black Music Action CoalitionMusic Artists CoalitionSongwriters of North AmericaSAG-AFTRAArtist Rights Alliance
BMI has accepted an offer to sell to New Mountain Capital, a private equity firm that has been quietly looking at music assets over the last few years, according to sources. It’s unclear if the deal has been signed yet.
Sources suggest that New Mountain Capital will pay about $1.7 billion for BMI which claims $145 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in its first year acting as a for-profit entity, which was announced last October. That suggests that BMI — aka Broadcast Music Inc. — is trading on a nearly 12 times EBITDA multiple. Since BMI has no debt, it’s likely that New Mountain Capital will use a healthy level of debt to finance the deal.
According to New Mountain Capital’s website, the firm has $40 billion in assets under management and chases a “growth-oriented, value-add investment approach, rather than reliance on excessive risk, as the best path to high and consistent long-term returns.” The firm has made investments in such industries as software, business services, information and data, logistics and financial services among a few other sectors.
Besides New Mountain, sources say, bidders included Apollo Global Management, Brookfield Asset Management and its music investment Primary Wave, and RedBird Capital Partners. New Mountain and Brookfield/Primary Wave became the finalist, until BMI accepted New Mountain’s offer. Moreover, sources add that Moelis & Co. has been acting as an advisor to New Mountain while BMI has acknowledged that it hired Goldman Sachs to explore a strategic partnership.
BMI first put itself up for sale last year and at the time said it was switching from a not-for-profit operation to a for-profit company. In its fiscal 2022, before it switched to a for-profit entity, BMI reported that it collected $1.573 billion, while distributions totaled $1.471 billion. While the company has stated that the move is being made to benefit its affiliates and will allow the company to spend more money on developing technology and infrastructure so it can better services and songwriters, the strategy shift has caused consternation among songwriters and publishers.
Last week, a group of songwriters and creative advocates wrote a letter to BMI asking how such a move would benefit songwriters and questioning whether the profit would come at the expense of songwriter payments. The groups that signed the letter were Black Music Artists Coalition; Music Artists Coalition; Songwriters of North America; SAG-Aftra and Artists Rights Alliance.
Since its formation in 1940, BMI has been operating as a not-for-profit organization, paying out all of the money it collects to songwriters and publishers, even though it was a private company. In response to the songwriter and creator organization letter, BMI president Mike O’Neill said that because of its first year acting as a for-profit entity, it has allowed the company to upgrade its services portal, including new dashboards, among several other initiatives. He also said in pursuing a BMI sale, the company “would ensure that any partner embraces our mission of prioritizing the interests of songwriters, including their financial success.
BMI declined to comment for this story, and other firms mentioned didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment or couldn’t be reached.
Publishers should get ready to welcome a royalty windfall now that the Copyright Royalty Board has printed its Phonorecord III final determination in the Federal Register — the last step to make the new rate structure official, concluding a more-than-four-year royalty row between publishers and streaming services.
The question is, how much that bonus will be.
While various industry estimates are all over the place with some even reaching another $400 million, by Billboard estimates, the just announced determined rates — finalized eight months after the 2017-2022 term expired — could yield up to another $250 million in underpaid mechanical royalties flowing from digital services to publishers and songwriters.
Now, digital services like Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube and Pandora have six months to review and adjust past payments made for U.S. mechanicals to the new rates. Doing that will take a complicated assessment of past payments and applying them under the new finalized structure.
The ruling increases U.S. mechanical royalties each year during the five-year period using a multi-pronged formula based on choosing between either the royalties calculated using a “headline rate” tied to a percentage of the streaming service’s total revenue; or another pool that is calculated by using the lesser of either a percentage of total content cost — i.e. what’s paid to labels — or 80 cents per subscriber. Under the new finalized determination — which for the percentage of service revenue prong, is the same as the initial determination for the 2018-2022 term — the headline rate increased from 11.4% of service revenue in 2018 to 12.3% in 2019 to 13.3% in 2020 to 14.2% in 2021 and to 15.1% in 2022.
From there, performance royalties that are negotiated with and paid out to rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI are subtracted from the all-in pool, leaving just the mechanicals behind. The mechanicals are then measured against a 50-cents-per-subscriber floor, and whichever is bigger becomes the final mechanical royalty pool paid out to publishers and songwriters.
Until an appeal of the initial CRB rate determination initiated by independent songwriter George Johnson and joined by most of the big digital services sent it back to the CRB in July 2020, most of the streamers had been paying royalties under the high escalating rates from the initial Phonorecords III determination. But with the remand, in the fall of 2020, most services reverted to paying music publishing royalties using Phonorecords II rates from 2013-2017 while the appeal was sorted out. As an example, looking at just 2020 rates, that meant digital services abandoned the royalty structure that paid 13.3% of service revenue or 24.1% of total content cost and switched back to using the prior headline rate of 10.5% of service revenue and 21% of total content cost.
(This article uses rates and math associated with what’s known as the stand-alone portable streaming model — i.e., a single paid subscription — because it’s the dominant model that produces the most revenue in the U.S. marketplace. The rate formula has different percentages and parameters for other models like bundled, ad-supported, family or student tiers.)
Under the CRB judges’ final determination published in the Federal Register, the Phonorecords III royalty calculation keeps the escalating rate structures for on-demand streaming for the percentage of revenue prong in the formula but abandons an escalating rate structure for the cost-of-content prong. So, in the case of a single paid subscriber, that prong will apply 21% of total content costs to build an all-in pool to cover both mechanical and performance royalties, instead of the previously used — from the initial 2018-2022 determination announced in 2019 — annual escalating rates that in 2022 would have culminated at 26.1% of total content costs. That means in months where the total content cost became the all-in prong, the streaming service most likely overpaid publishers under the new rate structure.
In addition to eliminating an escalating rate structure for that prong, the CRB judges reapplied a ceiling for the total content bucket limiting what digital services would have to pay publishers. The initial 2018-2022 determination took out the ceiling mechanism, which would have meant that every time labels negotiated a higher rate, the music publishers and songwriters would also automatically benefit by a higher rate. Now, services reviewing their previous payments will need to measure the total cost of content bucket against the 80-cents-per-subscriber ceiling. Whichever of those two buckets is lower is then measured against the headline bucket and, this time, whichever is larger is chosen as the all-in bucket.
Reinstating the ceiling and jettisoning the escalating rate structure for the total content all-in pool could mean publishers were actually overpaid tens of millions of dollars for the 2018-2020 years, Billboard estimates based on Mechanical Licensing Collective and Harry Fox Agency royalty calculations data obtained from publishing sources. That amount, however, will be more than offset by the hundreds of millions of dollars in additional payouts that digital services will have to make for 2021 and 2022.
Billboard doesn’t have all the data necessary to calculate mechanical revenue on a month-by-month basis for each digital service, but looking at overall payments and reports to the Mechanical Licensing Collective can provide a simplified ballpark estimate on how much is owed to publishers and songwriters over the Phonorecords III five-year period.
First, let’s look at the first three years when it’s likely that services overpaid publishers and songwriters because they used the since-abandoned initial determination’s escalating percentages for the total content pool when calculating royalties. With Spotify, for example, according to data obtained by Billboard for the streamer’s Premium Individual tier, the headline rate royalty bucket won out most of the time for two of those years — 2019 and 2020 — to become the all-in bucket. Since the headline bucket rates are the same before and after the remand, it’s likely there were relatively minimal overpayments during that period. In 2018, however, Spotify’s total cost of content bucket appears to have won out all year — and that was at a higher rate of 22%, not the remanded 21%, and without a ceiling. So, in that year alone, Spotify likely overpaid by as much as $10 million on that tier alone, Billboard estimates, and is due to receive that money back from publishers and songwriters.
Based on that, and not knowing what kind of label licensing deals all digital services have, Billboard calculates — and some industry financial sources agree — that as much as $50 million in over-payments might have been paid by the digital services to publishers and songwriters overall during the 2018 through October 2020 period.
For that period, any overpayments will mostly be sorted out directly between the digital services and the publishers because the Mechanical Licensing Collective — created following the Music Modernization Act was signed in 2018 — hadn’t begun operating yet. Though, the organization will need to be involved in in recalibrating royalty payments that came from unmatched and unpaid royalties, which digital services turned over for those years at the MLC’s inception.
For 2021 and 2022, however, once the MLC began operating, the organization will be responsible for managing any royalty adjustments, once the new data and additional funding is received from the digital services.
In 2021, U.S. digital services reported $9.76 billion in estimated service revenue to the MLC, while the all-in publishing revenue totaled $1.31 billion — or 13.38% of service revenue — according to Billboard estimates based on MLC data obtained by Billboard. Taking a simplified across-the-board approach applying that year’s 14.1% headline rate against the total revenue of $9.76 billion would deliver nearly $1.39 billion in mechanical royalties — a $80 million bonus to publishers and songwriters.
For 2022, the payouts will likely be even greater. That year, digital services reported $10.78 billion in service revenue to the MLC and paid out a total of $1.45 billion in mechanical and performance royalties — or 13.5% of total revenue. Applying the 15.1% headline rate for that year produces about $1.63 billion in all-in publishing revenue — making for an extra $175.1 million in mechanical royalties.
Combined, 2021 and 2022 could yield an additional $255 million in mechanical royalties, by Billboard‘s best estimates. Depending on how much services can claw back from overpayments made during 2018 through October 2020, Billboard estimates publishers and songwriters will receive a windfall of $200 million to $250 million.
Once those payments are settled, it will be up to publishers to figure out payments to their songwriters under the new rate structure.
Beyond the windfall expected due to adjustments for over payments in 2018-2020 and the much larger underpayments in 2021-2022, Billboard estimates that the MLC holds an additional $350 million or so in unmatched or unclaimed royalties. In March of this year, the MLC reported to Billboard that it had paid out over $200 million of the $427 million pool in mechanical royalties it was handed from the years prior to when it began operating on Jan. 1, 2021. Sources say that since then, the prior 2021 unclaimed and unmatched pool has been further reduced with a total of almost $300 million now paid out. That leaves around $130 million in unclaimed royalties.
But what about 2021 and 2022? Since the MLC began, it has been matching about 90% of royalties from recordings to songs. In addition to the remaining 10% of songs that are not yet matched to recordings, there are songs building up the unpaid royalties pool because their credit claims do not add up to 100%. If a portion of a song’s credits are not claimed, that portion of the song’s royalties goes into the unclaimed and unmatched pool. Consequently, the overall payout rate the MLC is making nowadays comes out to about 84% of mechanical royalties received from digital services, according to sources, which is a considerable improvement compared to the 68–72% digital services matched and paid prior to the MLC’s launch.
In 2021, digital services paid the MLC about $675 million in mechanical royalties, Billboard estimates, and in 2022, they paid about $740 million. If 16% of the royalties for those two years are unmatched or unclaimed, that would make for another $225 million. And when 2018-2020 is added in, the MLC has a little more than $355 million in unmatched or unclaimed royalties still to be doled out to publishers and songwriters.
In addition to the publishing royalties still held by the MLC, Billboard estimates the finalized CRB rate determination will result in $50 million in overpayments to publishers for the 2018-2020 period and about $250 million in underpayments for 2021-2022. Within those totals, some of those adjustments will impact the $350 million or so unmatched and unclaimed royalties still held by the MLC.
While the Radio Music Licensing Committee awaits an appeals court decision in its so-far unsuccessful attempt to combine rate court proceedings with ASCAP and BMI under a single judge, the trade group has filed federal petitions to begin the processes separately in the Southern District of New York.
Usually, such rate proceedings petitions are initiated after negotiations between the performance rights organizations and the RMLC prove fruitless. Under these petitions, the PROs will each make the case for what rate it thinks their songwriters and publishers are entitled to receive when their songs are played on the radio. This time out, for the period of 2022-2026, the RMLC is seeking to maintain the same rates it had under the prior agreement which covered 2017-2021.
In July 2022, the RMLC tried to get ASCAP and BMI combined into a single rate proceeding, thus showing its hand that it felt rate negotiations had failed. For decades, each PRO had its own separate rate proceeding, but about seven or eight years ago, the RMLC began a new rate court strategy of trying to assign market share to the four U.S. PROs — ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and Global Music Rights — in attempt to keep the rates in parity with market share, irrespective of each PRO’s song catalog. In filing its petition to consolidate the rate proceedings to the Southern District of New York, which oversees both rate proceedings and the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees, the RMLC said the act was justified by the Music Modernization Act of 2018 that changed how the the Southern District assigns the rate court proceeding.
The step to combine the rate proceedings into one was seen by some music industry executives as a further attempt to pursue that rate strategy. Having a single judge, instead of bifurcated rate court proceedings, could benefit the RMLC because it would likely pit BMI and ASCAP against each other, vying for a higher rate than the other with both PROs arguing over market share.
But in May this year, Southern District Court Judge Stanton ruled against the RMLC’s consolidation petition so the radio trade group subsequently appealed that decision. The Second District Appeals Court has yet to issue a ruling on the RMLC motion, but in the meantime, the RMLC is getting the ball rolling with the rate court by filing amended petitions on BMI on Aug. 10 and on ASCAP on Tuesday.
Despite filing petitions for the two rate court proceedings, the RMLC petition for the ASCAP rate court proceeding says that if the Second Circuit Appeals Court ultimately agrees with the RMLC position to combine the two rate court proceedings into one, “it reserves all rights at the appropriate time” to pursue a unitary action against ASCAP and BMI.
The ASCAP rate proceeding covers the current five-year term which began on Jan. 1, 2022. In the prior term (2017-2021), RMLC said it paid a combined 3.51% of net revenue as a royalty pool for the two PROs, with ASCAP getting 1.73% of that based on market share claims it made at the time — which the RMLC now says was “a representation that turned out to be false.” Meanwhile, BMI received 1.78% of radio stations’ net revenue.
Nevertheless, in May 2022, according to the petition, the RMLC asked ASCAP and BMI if they would be willing to roll forward the combined 3.51% of net revenue royalty pool, provided that ASCAP and BMI would agree on a mechanism for assessing each of their market shares.
Although the rate level would be the same, the RMLC implies it is actually an increase because the combined ASCAP and BMI share of total performances on RMLC stations likely has diminished since when the prior agreements began, the RMLC argues in its petition.
Meanwhile, it looks like BMI is requesting a rate increase from 1.78% to 2.95%, according to what the RMLC states in the BMI petition; while the RMLC ASCAP petition doesn’t disclose the rate ASCAP is seeking.
The RMLC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The RMLC would rather continue to waste time and money on expensive litigation than simply paying songwriters a fair royalty for the use of their music,” ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews said in a statement. “It’s not that complicated. Simply treat music creators who support your successful and profitable businesses with dignity and respect and everyone wins.”
While the PROs and the RMLC wait for the rate court proceedings to make a determination, all parties have agreed to an interim rate that allows radio to continue to play music without copyright infringement.
The Copyright Royalty Board’s final determination for royalty rates for making and distributing phonorecords for the 2018-2022 term (aka Phonorecords III) were published by the Federal Register late last week, following a legal review — and close check for typos — by the office of Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter.
The majority of the rates determination is no surprise. Since the official remand by an Appeals Court in October 2020 — which followed a March 2019 appeal by digital services of the CRB’s February 2019 rates determination for the 2018-2022 term — the CRB judges had been wrestling with different aspects of the complicated mechanical rate formula cited by the appeal courts, with various aspects of the rates determination coming out in dribs and drabs over the last eight months.
As is already known, the CRB judges stayed with the escalating rate structure for the all-in percentage of revenue prong, which covers both mechanical and performance royalties, for on-demand streaming for the 2018-2022 period.
(The 21% of total content cost is for performance royalties are determined by a separate process but whatever was agreed to be paid to ASCAP, BMI and the other performance royalty organization is subtracted from the all-in bucket in one step of the process to determine one of the mechanical rates bucket.)
That rate structure escalated from 10.5% in the prior five-year term of 2013-2017 to 11.2% in 2018, 12.3% in 2019, 13.4% in 2020; 14.2% in 2021, and 15.1% in 2022. But in moving to the other all-in prong — the total cost of content prong, i.e. what the services pay the record labels — the CRB judges re-installed the ceiling, which prevents publishers and songwriters from automatically being rewarded when labels and artists negotiations higher rates from the services; and the judges abandoned the earlier escalating rate structure from its initial 2019 determination for the total cost of content prong, which similarly rose in annual increments from 21% of what’s paid to labels to 26.1% over the five year term. Instead, the judges stuck with 21% of total content cost for the full five-year term — the same percentage it had been in the previous five years.
(This article mainly uses the percentages from what’s known as the stand-alone portable streaming model, i.e. the main on-demand streaming vehicle, which at Spotify is known as the paid subscriber tier. The ad-supported rate is 22% of what’s paid to labels.)
In other moves, the CRB stuck with 9.1 cents per song for physical and downloads and 24 cents per ringtone for Phonorecord III. In Phonorecords IV, for 2023-2027, the royalty rate for ringtones would remain the same but the per song rate will earn 12 cents per track or 2.31 cents per minute of playing time or fraction thereof, whichever amount is larger for physical products and permanent downloads. Also, that rate will be subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment.
Before an Appeals Court remanded a significant part of the CRB rate determination for 2018-2022 back to the CRB, digital streaming services were adhering to the structure of the initial determination which means that for some 33 months the formula applied the higher rates for the total cost of content prong without a ceiling. As such, industry sources speculate that some digital services overpaid during that period — and Billboard estimates that they might have over paid by $50 million.
But after the remand most services reverted back to the 2013-2017 rates of which used the headline rate of 10.5% of revenue, and consequently most industry financial sources suggest that the service underpaid from October 2020 through December 2022. Consequently, Billboard estimates that digital services collectively might owe $200 million to $250 million for the latter period. Looking at the two period, with the earlier one 2018-2020 partially offsetting the later period of 2021-2022, that could mean a $200 million windfall for publishers and songwriters.
Now that this has all been settled, the Mechanical Licensing Collective—working with required updated information from the digital services—has six months from the Aug. 10 date to make adjustments in what has been paid and what may still be owed from 2021 and 2022, the two years the MLC has been in operation. It will also have to rectify any under or over payments for unclaimed and unpaid royalties from the earlier periods before it began operations— a responsibility it was handed as part of the Music Modernization Act.
But besides the unpaid royalties, any needed adjustments to the rest of the payments made to publishers and songwriters during the 2018-2020 period will be handled by the digital services, likely with the help of their third party vendors, i.e. Music Reports Inc and the Harry Fox Agency.
The Phonorecords IV rate determination for 2023-2027 preceded the final determination for Phonorecords III, as it was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 16, 2022.
