Five years after starting its songwriting camps, Sony/ATV Music Publishing’s efforts have resulted in more than 300 sync licenses of original songs created for brands including Adidas, Bose, Comcast, Dunkin’ Donuts, Google, NFL, Miller and Nissan, as well as dozens of movies, TV shows, trailers and video games.
Now the program is expanding. In February, Sony/ATV will hold its first songwriting camp in Miami, followed by its Atlanta debut next summer. The camp will return to Los Angeles for its annual event, with plans to also revisit Toronto for the first time since 2017 and Nashville, which held its inaugural camp last month.
“The sync writing camps are a great example of how Sony/ATV proactively seeks out new opportunities for its songwriters by going far beyond what a music publisher typically does,” said Sony/ATV President, Global Chief Marketing Officer Brian Monaco in a statement “They give us a unique position in the marketplace and have created hundreds of new sync placements for our writers.”
The camps usually host 20 Sony/ATV songwriters who collaborate in small groups over several days to create new songs and master recordings, sometimes for a specific brand. Sony/ATV’s sync department then pitches the songs to potential licensees.
Songwriters from all levels participate, including at the upper echelon, often tapping into new creative reserves. Ross Copperman, BMI’s 2016 and 2017 country songwriter of the year took part in the Nashville camp and afterward enthused to Monaco in an email, “It was so inspiring and refreshing and I'm so grateful for the new people I've met and go to work with. I would love to do this more often wherever and whenever. I will make it happen. These few days have fed my soul in a big way.”
Among the notable songs are “Get Loud For Me,” written by Mike Sabath and Gizzle and recorded by Gizzle, which has been used in an NFL/Bose commercial and an Adidas campaign, as well as tallied nearly 4 million streams on Spotify. “Do It Like This,” written by Daphne Willis, Austin Massirman and Sabath, has appeared in commercials for Comcast and Xfinity, and will be featured in a forthcoming campaign for Royal Caribbean Cruises as well. Other camp tunes have powered commercials for Apple, Orbit Gum and Labatt Blue and trailers for Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie and video games Need For Speed Payback and Outcast: Second Contact.
The European commission has approved Sony Corp.'s plan to become the sole owner of EMI Music Publishing through its agreement to acquire the shares of Mubadala Investment Company and its consortium partners.
That deal was given the go-ahead despite a furious effort by European independent labels, publishers and trade groups representing them to stop the deal; or at the very least have the Commission force Sony into selling off some assets; as it did the last time when the original deal was announced.
But "the Commission concluded that the transaction would raise no competition concerns in any of the affected markets and cleared the case unconditionally."
With that ruling, IMPALA, the trade group representing indie record labels and indie music publishers issued a statement strongly disagreeing with the EU.
"This goes against the regulator's own precedents," IMPALA's executive chair Helen Smith said in a statement. "In 2012, it ruled that divestments were required for Sony to become a minority shareholder. Now that Sony is acquiring 100% control of EMI, it is being given unconditional approval. This is inconsistent and simply doesn't stack up. It is a poor advert for European merger control and sends an alarming message to independent businesses in all sectors, not just music."
According to the press release issued by the EU, the deal was approved under the EU merger regulation, with the investigation into the deal found that it "raises no competition concerns, in particular, as it will not increase Sony's market power vis-a-vis online platforms; because it doesn't lead to any increase in market share.
IMPALA predicts European regulators will offer "stiff competition" to a complete takeover by Sony.
Sony has completed its notification filing to the European Commission over its acquisition of EMI Music Publishing.
The regulator now has until 26 October (25 days from the date of submission) to make an initial assessment after which it can either grant approval or begin an in-depth phase two investigation into the proposed merger. If there are competition concerns, Sony can offer remedies thereby extending the phase one deadline by 10 working days.
Sony Corporation signed a deal in May to acquire a 60 percent share in EMI Music Publishing from a consortium led by the Mubadala Investment Company. The past year has also seen Sony complete the acquisition of the just under 10 percent share of EMI owned by the Michael Jackson Estate.
If approved by regulators, the deal would give Sony sole ownership of EMI, valued at $4.75 billion. That has led the Independent Music Companies Association (IMPALA) to lodge concerns with the European Commission (EC) over the transaction, which it claims would “disrupt competition and harm consumers in an already overly concentrated music market.”
When Sony acquired a minority 30 percent stake in EMI in 2012, the EC ruled that the merger would give Sony too much control and required it to make significant divestments, including selling the Rosetta catalog to BMG for around $90 million. It also required them to remain as two separate companies, although to the degree that mandate was fulfilled, EMI only employed a financial team to oversee the assets performance, for the Mubadala Capital and its partners in the 60 percent they owned. All other aspects of the operations between Sony/ATV and EMI were indeed merged.
2012 also saw the European Commission force Universal to sell a large number of assets, including Parlophone Records, when clearing its purchase of EMI. When Warner Music Group bought Parlophone Label Group the following year, Warner agreed to divest over $200 million in recorded music assets to the independent community as part of the conditions of the deal.
Why Sony Bought Bulk of EMI Before It Had To -- And What Competitors Could Win By Objecting To the Deal
Sony Corp. had until the end of August to put together a deal to buy Mubadala's stake in EMI Music Publishing, but it jumped the gun and paid handsomely, this week announcing it would snap up 90 percent of EMI at a price that values the whole publishing unit at $4.75 billion, more than double its price in 2012.
Why would Sony press fast-forward? There are several reasons.
For one, sources say Sony's new CEO Kenichiro Yoshida likes recurring revenue and investing in intellectual property, something that music publishing promises. By acting early, he was able to mark the start of his tenure with a show of decisiveness, rather than waffling while waiting for the sell-mechanism process built into the Sony-led consortium's initial EMI purchase in 2012 to play out. (EMI's non-strategic investors, known as Partners A, were allowed to initiate a sale of their stakes six years after the June 29, 2012 closing date to Partners B, Sony and the Michael Jackson estate, which would have had a two-month exclusive window to buy or pass, potentially sending the shares to auction.)
"He definitely wanted this deal," so why wait, says one executive familiar with the deal.
Two: the valuation of EMI could have skyrocketed in the months ahead. While the $4.75 billion price, with about $320 million in net publisher's share, or gross profit, means that EMI traded at nearly a 15 times multiple, "a very full price," says one veteran music publishing asset investor, other executives noted that $4.75 billion might look like a steal if Vivendi opts to spin off Universal Music Group in a new stock offering, which would likely dwarf Spotify's $28 billion valuation given its vast catalog of music rights. If and when analysts value UMG, their assessment of its Universal Music Publishing Group may also put other music publishers' valuations into the stratosphere.
Given that the latest Sony/EMI merger would give Sony complete ownership of EMI Music Publishing, IMPALA’s executive chair Helen Smith predicts it is likely to be met by "stiff opposition" by European regulators.
"Sony’s power will be a particular concern in European countries where the EU already concluded in 2012 that Sony would control too much repertoire," said Smith in a statement opposing the deal.
Of particular concern to IMPALA is the prospect of Sony’s catalog growing from over 2.1 million compositions to around 4.2 million, dramatically increasing its power and influence when negotiating deals with artists, labels and digital services.
"The only solution is to block the deal now,” argued Smith, saying that drastic measures were needed "to avoid long term harm for consumers as well as other players in the music sector.”
Sony declined to comment on IMPALA's concerns when reached.
Songwriters, streaming services, independent publishers, collecting societies and record companies would all be negatively impacted if the deal goes ahead, she warned.
The Independent Music Companies Association said it has "lodged concerns" with the European Commission about the transaction, which it describes as "seismic."
As expected, the Independent Music Companies Association (IMPALA) is formally opposing Sony’s play to become the sole owner of EMI Music Publishing, asking the European Commission to block the deal.
IMPALA had already objected to the deal when it was first announced, but now has gone a step further by filing an objection ahead of Sony’s petition for approval. Sources say Sony is still gathering and readying documents for that filing. The deal values EMI at $4.75 billion.
IMPALA said it has "lodged concerns" with the European Commission about the transaction, which it describes as "seismic." It noted that the deal would double the number of songs Sony controls from 2.16 million to 4.21 million and that, combined with EMI, Sony “would be the biggest and most formidable music company in the world.”
Sony has agreed to pay $1.3 billion in cash and assume another $1.36 billion in debt to buy out the 60 percent owned by consortium partners led by Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Investment Co. and the nearly 10 percent owned by the Michael JacksonEstate.
Sony Completes Acquisition of Michael Jackson Estate's Share of EMI Music Publishing
In announcing its financial results, the Sony Corp. revealed that it had acquired Michael Jackson’s estate share of EMI Music Publishing, paying it a total of $287.5 million.
That was apparently the first step in completing its pending acquisition of EMI Music Publishing from a consortium of investors, which still has to be vetted by governmental regulatory agencies before the deal can proceed. Sony is still in the process of filing the paper work for the proposed acquisition, according to sources, so the process of scrutinizing the deals impact on potential anti-trust issues has yet to begin, they say.
As it is, Sony has agreed to pay $2.3 billion to acquire EMI, as well as assume EMI’s debt of $1.359 billion. With Sony and Jackson’s share valued at $1.091 billion that gives EMI Music Publishing a valuation of $4.75 billion.
The Jackson estate held a 9.84% interest in EMI; or a 25.1% stake of the piece owned by Sony and the Jackson estate, which means that without putting up any money in the deal, by virtue of its stake in Sony/ATV, the Jackson estate received $287.5 million, not a bad return on a zero dollar investment.
Prior to this deal and before EMI Music Publishing came up for sale, the Jackson estate had sold its 50 percent share of Sony/ATV in 2016 and received $750 million in cash, which means that the Jackson estate has made over $1 billion since it has unwound its interest in those publishing assets.
While the Jackson estate, advised by Shot Tower Capitol, is overseen by two co-executors -- music industry executive John McClain and lawyer John Branca -- it is the latter, a partner in the law firm of Ziffren Brittenham LLP, who likely gets credit for making the shrewd publishing deals on behalf of the estate.
When Sony completes its acquisition -- if it gets the regulatory approval that is; the buyout of the Jackson estate didn't require it but the buyout of the other 60 percent does -- EMI Music Publishing will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corp, and will likely be legally merged into Sony/ATV, as it functionally already is.
At this point I'm sure you've heard by now that “songwriters just got a raise!”
Woohoo! But what does this really mean? And how do you get your money?
Ok, lemme break this down for you in plain English.
Currently streaming services (otherwise known as DSPs - Digital Service Providers) pay a minimum of 10.5% of their revenue to publishers (and songwriters) in the US. That's why there's no 'per-stream' rate. It's not as simple as a download. Downloads are easy. 1 song is downloaded and 9.1 cents (in America) is owed to the publisher (songwriter). This price is set by the US Copyright Royalty Board. It's called a mechanical royalty. 9.1 cents per download and 10.5% of streaming services revenue.
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that and there are some other formulas streaming services use to calculate (like total number of subscribers) yada yada yada. But, for our purposes in understanding what's up, streaming services are now required (by law) to pay publishers (songwriters) more.
Ok, why am I putting "(songwriters)" after every time I write "publishers?"
As a refresher, publishers represent songwriters. Labels represent artists.
Songwriters write compositions. Artists make recordings. Every recording has 2 copyrights. 1 for the sound recording. Some call this the master. And 1 for the composition. Some call this the song.
If you record a Bob Dylan song, you own the sound recording. Dylan owns the composition. If you release this recording and it plays on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Echo etc, you get paid the sales/streaming revenue for the sound recording from your distributor (DistroKid, CD Baby, AWAL, Symphonic, whoever you used). Dylan's publisher gets paid the mechanical and performance royalties for the composition. And his publisher pays Dylan those royalties.
Buuuuuut, unfortunately, this is NOT split 50/50 - sound recording / composition (artist/songwriter).
Like I mentioned before, currently streaming services are paying a minimum of 10.5% of their revenue to publishers. This has worked out to be for every $4.76 that streaming services pay labels/distributors, they pay publishers $1.
Nearly 5 to 1! Is this fair? Well, labels would argue that they're paying for all marketing and recording costs so they should get paid more. But publishers would argue that they wouldn't have a recording without the song!
Anyway.
The Copyright Royalty Board (of the US) just changed the rate! So now instead of 10.5% of the streaming services revenue it's going to increase to 15.1% over the next 5 years. The rate will work out to be $3.82 to $1, labels/distributors to publishers.
This is about a 43.8% increase.
Ok, so that's good news for songwriters. How do you get this money?
Well, this songwriter money is split between mechanical royalties and performance royalties. Again, these are for songwriters (not artists). Remember the distinction? If not, read up a few paragraphs.
Most people are familiar with performance royalties. These are collected and paid out by Performing Rights Organizations (PROs): in the US these are ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and Global Music Rights. In Canada its SOCAN. In the UK it's PRS. Most countries have their own. Anyway, PROs do NOT collect mechanical royalties.
But yes, you do need to be with a PRO to get your performance royalties. If you aren't signed up with one, pick one and signup! You can only be with one - you can't be with both ASCAP and BMI. You have to pick. If your country only has one, well, the decision is easy. Signup!
Let me repeat, if you are with ASCAP or BMI, you are NOT getting all of your songwriter royalties. Whaaaaa?! I know, I know. Your world just exploded.
So how do you get these other songwriter royalties called mechanical royalties?
The ones generated when your song is streamed on Spotify, Apple Music, etc?
You need a publisher, admin publishing company or royalty collections company to collect these for you. Yes, technically, the DSP (Digital Service Provider - the streaming service) is required to pay you even if you don't have a publisher, but the thing is, most don't know how to FIND you. Hence all the lawsuits against Spotify and Apple.
So make it easy for em. Work with a company who they know. If you distribute with CD Baby, you can opt in to use CD Baby Pro Publishing (however, they will NOT collect your songwriter royalties for songs you write but are distributed by anyone other than CD Baby distribution - like if another artist records your song and releases it themselves). If you use other distributors like DistroKid, AWAL, Symphonic or anyone else, Other companies you can use to collect your mechanical royalties include SongTrust, Kobalt, Tunecore Publishing, Audiam and Sentric Music Publishing. These companies help you collect your mechanical royalties but don't own your copyrights and have fairly short terms.
Another big win for songwriters not related to royalties, is Spotify is now listing songwriter and producer credits!
On the desktop version, you can command click on a song and click “Show Credits. If your songwriter credits aren't there (or are incorrect) you want to contact your distributor.