Another thread about Foreign Placements

A creative space for business discussions.

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

jonnybutter
Committed Musician
Committed Musician
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:37 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by jonnybutter » Mon Jan 25, 2016 12:00 pm

With apologies to David, I wanted to have another thread about foreign placements, to try to update our understanding (if any updating is needed) about non-US royalties. There's a library based in the UK running a LOT of listings at the moment and so I thought it might be a pertinent topic for many passengers. [In fact, that library also offers the writer 80% of the 'download fee' (in lieu of a sync fee?) - anybody know how that works?].

I found this thread interesting, but it's a few years old: http://forums.taxi.com/post338692.html? ... es#p338692

Here in the US, royalties seem to be fading as a source of income for writers, at least to some extent. Anybody know what's up internationally?

User avatar
ComposerLDG
Serious Musician
Serious Musician
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:49 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by ComposerLDG » Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:15 am

I don't know that royalties are fading. I suppose it depends on what kind of deals you make. I know that in the US there are no royalties for movie theater performances, while in Europe there are (if I'm wrong, someone please correct me).
Loren DiGiorgi
Uniquely piano-inspired Orchestral | Tension | Hybrid | Trailer
lorendigiorgi.com
www.taxi.com/lorendigiorgi
www.soundcloud.com/ldigiorgi
YouTube
Instagram

jonnybutter
Committed Musician
Committed Musician
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:37 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by jonnybutter » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:24 am

I don't know that royalties are fading. I suppose it depends on what kind of deals you make.
Hey Loren


I don't *know* that they are fading either (that's why I said 'seem to'), but I think there's evidence to support it: I'm assuming that 'tv' will be a mostly internet phenom. in the very near future, and - as it stands now - internet royalties are nothing, because audience is counted differently. Maybe we'll get some new conventions one of these days. I hope so.

User avatar
andygabrys
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:09 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Summerland, BC by way of Santa Fe, Chilliwack, Boston, NYC
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by andygabrys » Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:47 am

jonnybutter wrote:
I don't know that royalties are fading. I suppose it depends on what kind of deals you make.
Hey Loren


I don't *know* that they are fading either (that's why I said 'seem to'), but I think there's evidence to support it: I'm assuming that 'tv' will be a mostly internet phenom. in the very near future, and - as it stands now - internet royalties are nothing, because audience is counted differently. Maybe we'll get some new conventions one of these days. I hope so.
well that's not totally correct either in my view.

what we get for internet royalties right now represents one stream. So it seems like peanuts.

But consider that would likely get the most royalties you could ever dream of for having a commercial run behind the Super Bowl, and that would equate to what number of $? And that is for 100 million viewers on average. So divid that number by 100 million.

i wager to bet that will be in the same ballpark as what you are currently getting for one stream on an internet thing like HULU or NetFlix.

So they are actually based on a similar idea.

Now: how do you actually get your music streamed 100 million times? I don't know the answer to that :lol: :lol:

but I would sure like to.

jonnybutter
Committed Musician
Committed Musician
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:37 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by jonnybutter » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:13 pm

You lost me there, Andy! Are you saying the internet universe is larger?

I don't understand how they calculate streams vs conventional (so to speak) broadcast, but it seems different. Is it like this: One stream is one person but one conventional channel is thought to be viewed by a household (= more than one person)? So in that case, the rate would be higher for the household?

Anyway, don't internet streams pay less per 'unit', at least now? Seems to me there was someone here on the forums (sorry, can't remember who it was) who had placements on (I think) Duck Dynasty, and had a very large number of streams which amounted to, really, peanuts in royalties (and not much more in conventional). And of course Spotify, youtube, et. al. pay *very* little per stream. Web advertising pays/costs very little as well.

I'm not trying to be a bummer! But I'd rather know the facts. I am somewhat hopeful that some of this stuff will be rationalized one of these days.

As to Loren's original point, I don't think what deal you accept (what percentage you get of which shares) is the only criterion - it's how much different channels and shows pay out, how much of it is streaming, etc.

User avatar
andygabrys
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:09 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Summerland, BC by way of Santa Fe, Chilliwack, Boston, NYC
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by andygabrys » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:11 pm

You lost me there, Andy! Are you saying the internet universe is larger?
no I am saying conventional royalties AFAIK are calculated on a "viewer" basis. Shows like Duck.... have a lot of viewers, and so if they play in prime time on big networks will get the highest royalties per viewer.
I don't understand how they calculate streams vs conventional (so to speak) broadcast, but it seems different. Is it like this: One stream is one person but one conventional channel is thought to be viewed by a household (= more than one person)? So in that case, the rate would be higher for the household?
What I said above was trying to explain with a similar example:

imagine a tv show with 100 million conventional viewers (i.e. Super Bowl) - which results in X royalties
image in the same number of people streaming the Super Bowl (100 million, which would be 100 million streams) which times the seemingly minuscule royalty payment per stream that Hulu / Amazon / Netflix et al pay = about the same number of X royalties that you get from conventional viewings.
Anyway, don't internet streams pay less per 'unit', at least now?
yes but a unit is 1 "steam". One discrete end user (whether its a family or one person) in front of one computer screen / phone etc. streaming the show.

But if you have equivalent viewers in each case (100 million tv sets all tuned to the same real time broadcast vs. 100 million individual streams) then the money comes out approximately equal. And I reference Matt Hirt and his calculations here.
Seems to me there was someone here on the forums (sorry, can't remember who it was) who had placements on (I think) Duck Dynasty, and had a very large number of streams which amounted to, really, peanuts in royalties (and not much more in conventional).
If you can dig it up and they can calculate the number of suspected TV viewers per unit royalties they got vs. online royalties / # of streams: if they are substantially different, that you have something there.
And of course Spotify, youtube, et. al. pay *very* little per stream.
because its one stream. one individual person watching. Not 1 million, or 100 million people watching the same broadcast in real time.
I'm not trying to be a bummer! But I'd rather know the facts.


me too and this is what its looking like now.

does that make sense?

jonnybutter
Committed Musician
Committed Musician
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:37 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by jonnybutter » Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:59 pm

Hi Andy,

Thanks for taking the time. This stuff is a little mind numbing!
because its one stream. one individual person watching. Not 1 million, or 100 million people watching the same broadcast in real time.
I don't see simultaneity as relevant. The problem I see has to do with audience size. As 'tv' moves to the internet, why would we assume that one stream = one person; and if each stream is watched by more than one person, doesn't that matter? I think ad rates used to be based on average households - they didn't assume that each tv was watched by only one person. Click through on websites is by definition one person, but streaming isn't; (maybe they need to differentiate based on device?) My wife and I watch shows together on a laptop all the time, and we're two people. I was just visiting my sister and her family in LA and they still gather in the same room around one television as they always have, but they are mostly watching streaming tv, not cable or b'cast (even though the streams come through their cable internet connection!). So in their case, you had 6 people watching a show on b'cast counted as 6 people (or as an average householdl), but now the same 6 people watching streaming tv are counted as one person?

The only thing we *know* is changing is the simultaneity. And ppl watching on their phones are probably watching alone. But why should a different delivery method for what we know of as 'television viewing' (streaming vs cable/bcast) pay less if the audience is the same size?

That is to say: a stream is a stream, whether it's coming down a cable as a direct signal, coming over the airwaves, or streaming via a video codec on the internet.


EDIT: here's the Duck Dynasty thread (composer is Steve Barden!): http://forums.taxi.com/topic131694.html ... %20dynasty

User avatar
andygabrys
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:09 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Summerland, BC by way of Santa Fe, Chilliwack, Boston, NYC
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by andygabrys » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:30 pm

hey - I think I see what you are trying to say, but I will say that straight numbers equal something different that the sum you can up with.

ML said in that other post that DD was averaging 12 million viewers, or take this as your number http://www.christianpost.com/news/duck- ... -6-121957/ with the stated "decrease" to 3.9 M viewers. I am assuming this is per episode as the article states for Episode 2 of Season 6.

So lets take Steve's numbers just for the shear giggles of this one:
n case you are considering the lucrative career of TV composer, here's a sample of what to expect. My most recent ASCAP royalty statement includes payments for video-on-demand services such as Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix. The largest payout of all these was for a placement on Duck Dynasty. You may have heard of it. It's a rather popular show. For this quarter, this 19-second cue played on Amazon a total of 232,701 times! Yes, over 200,000 times.

Total payment: $4.07.
So let's take $4.07 / 232,701 views (which is the same as streams and doesn't matter much whether you and your wife crowded around the laptop, or 12 family were around the apple TV in your living room or whatever) = $0.00001749 per stream.
Paulie, for comparison, this 19-second cue on this episode played 4 times in prime time which paid $17, and played 3 times in the morning for $7.80.
lets take conservative numbers. Lets assume that only 1 million people watched this episode - or rather 1 million households (some were single people, others had the entire house crowded around).

so my math gives me this: total payout of $24.80. Total number of plays = 7 * viewership of 1 million people = 7 million "views"

payout per "view" = $0.00000354

Online: $0.00001749
TV: $0.00000354

So this somewhat conservative estimate shows that online pays out a factor of 10 x more than TV.

You can poke many holes in the numbers, but that says something to me. Factor of 10 is statistically significantly different.

If we had chosen 12 million average TV viewership per episode the TV royalty would be another factor of 10 x smaller, and the online payment would be a factor of 100 X the Tv.

That is what I am trying to point out. Check my math, that many zeros makes me cross-eyed.

YMMV.
Last edited by andygabrys on Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
andygabrys
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:09 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Summerland, BC by way of Santa Fe, Chilliwack, Boston, NYC
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by andygabrys » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:35 pm

Just in case I wasn't clear on my viewpoint:
The only thing we *know* is changing is the simultaneity. And ppl watching on their phones are probably watching alone. But why should a different delivery method for what we know of as 'television viewing' (streaming vs cable/bcast) pay less if the audience is the same size?

That is to say: a stream is a stream, whether it's coming down a cable as a direct signal, coming over the airwaves, or streaming via a video codec on the internet.
In this case, no, a stream (one signal going to one internet connected device) is not the same as a TV viewer (one household watching a show which is simultaneously broadcast to perhaps millions of viewers).

And that is the difference.

If it were the same, online would be paying bags of money compared to TV. We would seriously be rich.

jonnybutter
Committed Musician
Committed Musician
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:37 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Another thread about Foreign Placements

Post by jonnybutter » Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:55 pm

OK, I have to get my head around this.... :geek:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests