JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum RE: email with `Important announcement' from Pump Audio

I sure did and told them to remove all my work from their library...that I will not support a 35/65 split with crappy fees to boot...I hope you do too!

Thanks,
sheexists:)

i like your style-She-welcome to this thread

you got the fire for sure girl

leave it to LA members to get a full fledged riot going-organize and raise 100 kinds of hell- I agree

good for you!

Tom

welcome to the thread-She- I love the spirit you have

leave it to the LA members to organize a decent riot about this

attagirl!

good for you

lets raise 100 kinds of hell about this-I am in!

Tom

I don't know, the royalty checks I've received say otherwise... considering they're non-exclusive you lose nothing by being with them. Furthermore, I was placed in "Heroes", possibly the biggest if not one of the biggest network TV shows around, thanks to Pump.

Royalty checks are different from licensing checks. Pump Audio has no say in PRO royalty payments.

I believe the 35/65 split is about the latter. Which is kind of pathetic.

Yes, primetime PRO royalties pay well.

John

The big question is: do they feed you, or do you feed them?

If we take the mindset that we, the musicians, feed them, the music sellers, then we might change things. Do you set your price? Or do you offer music for, "Oh, you know, whatever you want to give me." (looking down and shuffling your feet.)

For example, Andrew, in your deal with Heroes, is there a non-competition, non-contact clause? Could you somehow contact the m.d. at the production company and thank them for using your song and include a copy of your album as a gift of thanks? Or does Pump Audio forbid such contact? It would seem to me that a music director would want to hear more work from someone who has already been proven to be a high quality composer and producer.

True, artists are by nature individualistic. But there are subsets within the group. High quality, commercially viable, trend savvy and trendsetting artists are a commodity unto themselves. They do not need to be treated in a way that is traditionally limited by those who are so "hungry" for validation and acceptance that they will sell themselves short just to hear their voices on the local jukebox. But old habits die hard.

Pump Audio is among a group that spearheaded an idea. There is no reason why a good, savvy, individualistic artist shouldn't build on that and shift the paradigm to one that moves more benefit to the artist themselves.

As a friend used to say, "They might have the guns, but we've got the bullets."

Has anyone here had a major placement and seen a significant increase in physical album/digital sales? Or do the royalties pay off decently for a major placement in something as large as Heroes? I'm kinda new to licensing, so I'm trying to get my bearings...

Many film music libraries have a clause in their contracts stating that the writer can't contact the placement companies during the contract period or for one year after a terminated contract.

John

Of course they do. That is a big tool in their control of the price. So let's use the one year window as an example. If you give yourself a one year window, then you plan to contact each m.d. after that year is up. This way you can begin to develop those contacts on your own.

EDIT:

It's a chess game. They don't make the rules, they just make certain moves with certain protections. Don't accept. Think around them. Can't go over the mountain? Go around it.

Are there web forums a film music director might frequent? Check them out. Search around. There are probably ancilliary issues that are common to music directors, like foley or new technology in sound ambience. Do they want surround? How about film sound technology that can be used to enhance music? Most of those issues will be topics of discussion in film and/or sound forums. Join in, add your perspectives as composers and producers.

As Teddy once said, "Where theres a $>@&!>& will, there's a $>@&!>& way!"

Oh, someone answered my question before I got it posted. :]

Brian, welcome.

That's JPF for you. We're psychic. Like, right now, you're thinking about feet!

Yes! You're right! That's amazing! O_o

Haha

I was referring to the "licensing checks". I'm just colloquially referring to them as royalty payments. I haven't actually earned any money from any PRO to date as most of my music ends up in non-broadcast usages. However, I'm sure this will change with Heroes.



There wasn't any specific deal with Heroes... that's not how pump works. They simply issue non-exclusive licenses. I only signed one deal with them, itself non-exclusive. The people licensing the music have my information should they need to contact me for more music.

It's extremely difficult to score lucrative licensing deals on your own without having someone represent you. Pump is well-worth it.

Well, I guess it's semantics, but I'd call what you referred to as "one deal" was what covered your deal with "Heroes." The "Heroes" folks paid money for the license, you got some it it...deal.


Yes, it is extremely difficult. Pump Audio may be well worth it...for now...but I'd assume your long term goals do not include a recessive remunerative scale. That's why I used your deal as an example for others to consider. It's my belief that as long as we are held away from the deciders by the filters, we are at the mercy of the filters' pay scale. If we build networks and personal relationships with the deciders, then we get 100% of 100%.

How about promoting a campaign that offers your music licenses at 90% of the normal library fee. It's like 10% off for eliminating the middle man. Now, in your case, Andrew, I'm not suggesting quitting Pump Audio or any of the libraries you find to be beneficial, but as your profile as a first-rate composer/producer increases, then more of the deciders will find you on their own. I would suggest to anyone to make direct licensing offers and promote it with every tool available. As you become more well known, more will take advantage of the better price, and you, rather than keeping 65%, will keep 90% of the standard fee.

And how long do you think it would take to set up such a campaign, get media contacts, call up countless gatekeepers, write press releases, etc.? Untold hours, time I could spend making music that makes me hard cash with no extra effort. The next iteration of my website will indeed have a small catalog of music which is available for licensing. But I simply don't have the time or energy to try to make connections with top producers and directors myself. Not that I'd complain if they came to me.

but as your profile as a first-rate composer/producer increases, then more of the deciders will find you on their own-Mike

I wonder what John Williams would have to say about Pump Audio? I mean after he'd stop gagging from laughter.

Oh well, we should just be glad at least the film music Industry is leaving some crumbs for the little people to fight over.

John

Wow, I guess you've never tried to break into the film music industry. It's unbelievably hard to make money in it, not to mention the scores of awful directors that have no idea how to talk to musicians, producers that change their mind constantly, not getting picture locks until the last minute, etc. For the few people that have managed to make careers out of it, I applaud them. It's not something I could imagine doing full-time. With licensing, I can write the music that *I* want to write, hand it off to someone, let them sell it on my behalf, and then go back to writing more. What composer doesn't want that?

No, I've never tried, I did play on an HBO movie soundtrack, the film "Living Proof" the Hank Williams Jr. story. I also played a role in it, as a musician, not much acting there, I just played music, got drunk and slept on the bus. my friend Ferrell did try, though, and got on Rob Schneider's film "Big Stan" and is slated for his next project. They are using both his original compositions and his playing in others' compositions. They licensed his tunes, but didn't find them on a library. Yes, it was hard. But not impossible. But, as you, I don't use my time trying.

I didn't say not to license. I even suggested self-licensing in addition to working with libraries. I'm just suggesting strategies, not necessarily for you but using you as an example, that musicians can employ. Strategies and a mindset. If a musician is having success in some area, then they might look at that area and consider creative approaches to promoting and marketing in those areas. Yes, a musician can just hand things off to someone, but then, often, that someone controls the pricing and the fee the musician receives. That results...well...it results in threads like this.

I was referring to the "licensing checks". I'm just colloquially referring to them as royalty payments. I haven't actually earned any money from any PRO to date as most of my music ends up in non-broadcast usages. However, I'm sure this will change with Heroes- Andrew

Did Pump Audio register your track used in "Heroes" with your PRO yet Andrew? I'd check with your PRO to make sure. You won't receive a dime from the PRO if it's not registered.

That's a primetime show it was placed on. The PRO royalties will be more than the 50% licensing check you received I'm sure.

Primetime Dateline NBC used a track of mine for 2-3 years. ASCAP paid me $60 for every 12 seconds of airplay. That can add up.

If Pump hasn't registered it yet, I'd call them. ASCAP will go back six months to retrieve your earned royalties.

Best, John

So how does that work then? Pump Audio registers the song under a new name with the writer's PRO and lists the songwriter so it shows up in the writer's registered works? It's cool if Pump Audio takes care of all that, but I'd definitely be paranoid about the possibility of it not getting set up for some reason.

Yes Brian, Pump is supposed to take care of that, but they're very unorganized.

I had several tracks placed with Pump, but had to keep after them for over a year to register my tracks. They kept telling me my tracks were in the process of being registered and it shouldn't be long. They finally registered two of them.

I'm waiting and constantly contacting them to register the other 18. They send all their tracks to a company named "Kobalt". Kobalt is then responsible for registering them with the writer's PRO.

Throw in the mix "Getty Images" and you have mass corporate confusion.

Getty Images seems to be the most reliable (and concerned) link. I'm in contact with a man from Getty that will contact Pump Audio about my concerns, and then Pump Audio contacts me and tells me they sent the titles to Kobalt for registering with ASCAP - and tells me it shouldn't be long.

Pump Audio registers the titles using numbers. Here's one they registered from my "Creepy Xmas CD": "PUMP AUDIO 95862".

Best, John

BTW, I offered to register all the tracks myself, if only they'd give me the titles. The answer was; "they would do it".

John

So they never tell you the titles they rename stuff as? How are you able to audit/track what happens? How would you know if it was licensed 10 times and you were told 9? etc? There must be more transparency that they isn't there?

Brian

Brian,

When Getty Images sends the licensing statement your original titles are on it.

Here's some info from one of my statements:
Sales Date:14-Oct-08
Customer Name: We Network - Secret Lives of Women
Asset Description: Strange Restlessness

"Strange Restlessness" is the original title, but it would show up on ASCAP as Pump Audio then a number. Maybe they supply a sub-title (the original title) in ASCAP's main database.

It's very confusing for sure.

John

How would you know if it was licensed 10 times and you were told 9?

I imagine the client would have to report all plays to ASCAP.

John

Can someone tell me what the normal split it, so I can be prepared when and if the time comes? It seems to me that any ratio less than 50/50 is barbaric. I admire the people who took a stand to say that they would not deal with them on these terms. It's about time for some activism to come back into vogue.

It depends on the library. For one thing, Pump only takes half the publisher's share of the income, so you get 75% of PRO royalties. That is potentially huge depending on how your tracks get used. 50/50 for sync fees is not uncommon; I've certainly never seen anything better, but plenty of libraries do 35/65 as well. Other libraries just buy your tracks outright.

Wow...this hits too close to home. I am one of those guys!

I have managed to get some music into a few libraries and am just sitting back, hoping that something gets placed. I am a multi-instrumentalist and I now live in a small town...I have no choice but to do it all myself (including producing, mixing, etc.) I keep creating new music, so I'm not altogether passive. Is my music good enough? You're damn right it is!!

I realize the advantages of Non-Exclusive deals...and that 35% is better than nothing. If I just sign their form and mail it back, MY life will go on as if nothing has happened. After all...until I actually see a check, the point is moot. Or is it?

What happens when I start beating myself up for accepting their new terms, just because I'm starving to death (not much of a stretch) and want desparetly to survive, doing what I truly love to do? Will that affect my writing??

For me, the mistake that I have made, was putting too much value into Pump Audio. I recall when they FINALLY informed me that some of my tracks had been accepted (about 6 months after I submitted material)...I thought I had hit the big time. The Cinderella story of how Pump started and later sold to Getty Images for ~43 million dollars was fantastic! I was now a contributing artist ( I still like the sound of that), to one of the biggest players in the game!

Good thing I have a couple of months to make my decision!

To be honest, I am tired of these companies. All of them. The ones that take more than is fair just because they can. That's what the labels have always done. Now people are charging for internet airplay and people are not only paying it they are saying how great it is to pay someone $200 dollars to get $20 dollars in return and some supposed fans which they can't even contact outside of the site.

It's time for some changes.

Brian

Unfortunately, there's probably going to be a lot of companies taking advantage of old perceptions of the music industry for years to come. In the past, a lot of people made money off of simple popularity, not talent. How many no-talent artists were shoved down our throats by mega-corporations in the past? A lot of people will continue to do things like pay online radio stations for airplay like it's some kind of popularity contest, but the tides have changed, and we're finding ourselves more and more in a DIY era. ... my point being, I think ultimately talent is what is going to make people, simply because people have more access to everything. They don't have to take the music on an internet radio station if they don't want. They can buy mp3s they actually like with a couple clicks of the mouse. We just gotta wait it out... I hope, haha.

There will always be people that say they love something(sports,music,etc)so much that they would do it for nothing. That will be taken advantage of by some unscrupulous people and firms and will be used to force other people who want to be paid, to comply. It is usually the less talented ones that will work for peanuts, sometimes the real talents get paid more. You will see that in sports, where the star player get paid five and six times what the less talented players get. But the team still needs the other players to operate.

Unfortunately in music, if the stars never get to be heard, mediocrity becomes the norm, and becomes accepted as such. We see that happening in music on the radio today. Songwriters that are not in the inner circle will never get recorded, while those with connections will get lesser songs recorded.

I am not actually a talent basher when it comes to major label artists. I think for the most part they are all very talented (and let's not even give credibility to the Paris Hilton types who gained their fame outside of music before trying to cash in there.. that's really a separate discussion). But the artists that come up via the label system are typically very talented. Where the problem comes in is that these talented artists are not allowed to put music out that they feel good about and which they put their passion in. Instead they are pushed into a very tight little box of making music that can appeal (or better put, not turn off) the masses. It's all about what will keep people from EVER changing their car radio station. They may never LOVE it.. but they won't HATE it either. It will cause them to be neutral and numb instead while they wait for the next great commercial which often take more risks and provide more entertainment (usually humor) than the music they are listening to. That is a creation of commercial radio working with commercial labels to provide filler between commercials. So they take otherwise talented artists and they compress that talent into one tiny little thing with no variation allowed. Only the most powerful artists, those who are so big now that the labels need them more than they need the labels, are free to just make music the way they want. And that's why the "oldies" acts still entertain more folks at concerts and still release material that can stretch a boundary. Meanwhile, major genres that get no airplay at all, are still free to innovate. Like Rap. Whether you love it or hate it, they have a freedom that Pop/Rock artists do not have. But ironically, after Rap artists make something cool and acceptable, then the labels start stealing those ideas and homogenizing them into their content. Thus we have Pop/R&B combined with Rap to make it safe but to give a little flavor of the original to keep it just interesting enough to keep you from changing the channel. It's a science. But it's a very different business than making great music and it always has been.

The new models will have to find a way to make money in the very lucrative but much smaller niche markets. That is where people WANT hardcore versions of a specific genres/style that they want. Those versions/songs/albums/styles would never fly on mainstream radio and if they tried to play that stuff, people would change the channels in record numbers. Most people don't like major change. If they can get more of the same, they prefer that. (I am that way with my food.. when I find something I like.. I rarely change it if given a choice). It may require either the death of radio completely (which would be sad) or a new model where they don't need giant numbers to survive. If they could program 1000 small stations to catch the same numbers of audience members while serving all the little niche listerners (1000 is extreme.. but you get the point), using the same infrastructer and costs, they could thrive. But it's a massive change and there's limited bandwidth in the terrestrial airwaves. I'd like to see internet radio made available in every car which would have a browser instead of tuner that could capture any type of music on demand that someone wanted. XM held that promise, but I don't think they delivered very well (otherwise they'd be doing a bit better).

Unfortunately, people are seeing this shift and bringing their terrible models from the current system and trying to make them work on Internet Radio. And they are also influencing the other mediums (like Pump Audio) to stop rewarding the talent, and grab all their money because they have the power to do so. Same old bad ideas which will lead to the same old oppressive environment.

Right now there's so much promise out there. But only if the good guys win this time.

Brian

Brian,

I agree. I would insert that since the beginning of time, music has served two purposes: as an art to behold, and as background. Like the visual arts, where one may create a masterpiece or the design for a set of draperies. Often there is an area in between. Add to that, the variance of either appreciation or simply hearing ability in the listeners, and you get a wide range of needs.

My friend Ferrell, mentioned above, caught the ears of Hollywood with one of the four musical elements: tone. Ferrell has always concentrated on the tone of his music. As a virtuoso on the resophonic guitar (known often by the brand name of one maker, "Dobro.") and also as a metalworker, Ferrell has modified all his instruments for optimal tone. As a matter of fact, one of his instruments has gotten the nickname, "Judge Judy," because it has a tone against which many dobros in the bluegrass scene are judged. Ferrell is equally particular about the recorded tone of his instrument. So, his music caught the ear of the comedic actor Rob Schneider and Rob's musical director. They used some of Ferrell's recordings, and brought him to Hollywood to record on the soundtrack. They cited tone as the major factor in their decision.

Tone, in an instrument, in a voice, in a mix, is often, to the musical director, the most important of the four musical elements. Whether in a library, in a demo, or any submission, get the best tone you can get and your chances improve.

Yes, there are now, and always will be, people who will take advantage of anyone. Add to that, the willingess of artists to give away their creations for free, and we will always have a rough time as musicians.

As for libraries, they are a tool. But they should be looked at as only one tool in our box. I'd be very careful. If they can change their money deal so easily and so unilaterally, what else can or will the change. Also, as I said before, I'd try to use any contacts or momentum engendered by them as fully as possible while still respecting the terms of their contract.

It would be interesting to read what Stu might say about the Pump Audio agreement.

All the Best,
Mike

My latest submission to Pump (before their email was sent out) was just rejected this morning. They rejected every track, due to composition quality. I know we never like to be rejected, but...are they really that bad? You can hear most of them, here:
http://www.airplaydirect.com/stevepetitt

Why should I even care anymore?!

Since I haven't received the "35% licensing fee" email, I decided to check with Pump personally. Here's their email reply (came with an amendment sheet for me to sign):

Hi John,

I just sent you another email, but yes the 35% license fee will apply to all fees collected after July 1, 2009. To accept these new terms we are asking all artists to sign the attached addendum. If for some reason you would not like to consent to the new terms your contracts would be terminated with us at the end of the year, and you would still continue to receive fees at the 50/50 split. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Best

So if we don't sign the addendum, we will continue to get 50% till the end of the year - when our contract will be terminated.

Can anyone take a guess on how many placements at 50% we'll receive starting in July if we don't sign?

John

Ha... that's a good point... I'm curious what everyone's final verdict is on this. I'm moving forward with it and sending in my stuff tomorrow (I recently passed the audition phase). I just think that when it comes down to time saved versus money lost, this is a good deal for me.

Hi Brian,

Good luck with your submission. Be prepared to wait a long time for it to actually be entered into their catalog (several months). They are overloaded, apparently, and it seems to take them that long to get it `classified' into their system.

You should also be aware that even though you passed the audition phase, your tracks (even the same one that you submitted to get the green light) could be rejected. Hopefully, they will love everything that you send them!

Good luck

Brian,

Also plan on waiting a long, long time before they register your tracks with your PRO. Maybe you'll get lucky and everything will go off without a hitch. Good luck!

Best, John

Yeah, I had heard something similar somewhere else. I appreciate the heads up on everything. I wonder why they do stuff like that... green light stuff and then reject it. Maybe if they didn't make the extra work for themselves, we could keep that 15%.

Brian Dorn

Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. On the registration, there's no place asking if I'm signed up with a PRO as a songwriter. I emailed someone there asking rather or not I should list myself as a publisher in the publisher section (since I'll be collecting songwriter and publisher royalties), but she said not to if I wasn't with a company. When do they gather my PRO info?

Oh, and as for the "without a hitch"... ain't gonna happen, lol. I've already had problems with both them and BMI on getting everything together. I will have to say, though, Pump Audio has been good about getting back to me with answers.

Brian Dorn

Brian,

Up until you get a publisher, YOU IS HE!

MAB

But when do they collect the info? As of now, they don't know which PRO to register my stuff with... it's all so confusing, haha.

With me, they waited until they had a potential placement, and then asked me to update/verify all of my information.

I'm very unhappy with their slow response time...and all of the errors on my account. For example, they show 10 (of my 25 accepted tracks) songs `In the Pump Catalog' on my profile page, yet 3 of those songs were...REJECTED! They keep telling me that they're working on it, but it's been several months now.

Brian,

They green light and then cancel things because everything in the music business is done by committee. And there are multiple entities all competing for the same slots. Everyone has a dog in the hunt. And everyone has to play it for someone else in order to get it to another level. Everyone goes through dozens upon dozens upon dozens of "gatekeepers", so even though one or even several people may give a "yes", it can be rejected down the line at any time.
In Nashville we have a thing called the "Hold' system. And there are about three of them. A soft hold, means someone has heard your stuff, wants to play it for others. Medium hold means several people like it but want to play it for even more to get approval. A "Hard hold" is when everyone is on board and it is up to the artist, producer, etc. for final approval.
But you can't even be assured you are going to be on a project even if they cut it. most artists will cut between 15-25 songs for any particular project, then several will be dropped at the end to get it down to 12-14 songs. You might find yourself as i was once, going a store to buy your CD and have your picture taken only to find you didn't make the final cut.
Ever see the Greatest hits packages with "Three special bonus tracks?" That's where they come from. They are called "cut outs."
And it happens all the time. You might have a cut only to have it bumped at the last minute for a song that they heard last and liked better.
The biggest names in country songwriting, Jeffery Steele and Craig Wiseman (about 65% of all major hits come from them these days)will wait to the very end of production schedules to play some new songs for certain artists. The reason is that artists will listen and live with songs for up to a year when getting ready for a new project.Play them live on shows, rehearse them,etc. They often get tired of them and something new might replace what they already have.
Welcome to the roller coaster of the music business.

MAB

Yeah, that kind of thing is so frustrating. I've had a lot of trouble tracking down people with BMI. I almost always get voicemail, and they don't call me back. They won't respond to my email, either. I've been waiting for a submitted listing to go through for probably about a month and a half. They finally told me today to just resubmit it, even though it says on the site to NOT resubmit stuff, haha. I also found out they have two accounts opened for me... how or why I don't know. They're going to merge them now. So after a month, that side of the licensing is finally ready. That's why I'm so grateful that Pump Audio has at least been emailing me back. But a situation like yours... how's a person suppose to know what is going on?? Thanks for the info.

Brian Dorn

Marc,

That's all good for me to hear. I've been doing things the grassroots way for so long that I guess I forget how many people are in the mix with larger entities like Pump Audio. Also, that's interesting about the different "holds." I'd never heard that term. I have a handful of songs that I'm interested in trying to license to country artists, but it sounds like it would be a hard and very competitive market to break into, haha. Thanks for the info.

Brian Dorn

I haven't sent anything to Pump Audio since the several mix ups I've had with them. I'll never send them anything giving them 65% of the money earned. They already take 100% of publishing royalties for performances, they can't touch the writers share of performances, so I guess the 65% is taken for music that they contract out to TV, etc. I've never received that email you are talking about, so what will they do with the contracts that are still bringing in royalties. If they terminate me as a supplier of music, will they return my publishing share of future royalties. Maybe this 65% will only apply to music added after July. I'll never knuckle under to that deal, it's the thin edge of the wedge to get your music for free.

Everett, I checked with Pump yesterday. The new rate pertains to all its writers. If you don't sign the addendum for the 35%, your contract will be terminated at the end of the year.

You will continue with the 50% licensing fee until the end of the year if you don't sign. I doubt they'll get you any placements after July though, unless you sign.

John

I am afraid that in a very few years, anonymous background music will probably be created by some 16 year old kids in China or India to whom 1% of the selling price will seem like a year's salary. It would be happening now but for the restricted internet access in China.

I dunno what they require but your music sounds great to me. Very talented.