JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Question for experienced writers

I'm writing to ask for advice in connection with an offer I have from a publisher.

I am very new to the process of marketing my songs. I am a non-performing writer who has written for 20 years or so, purely for my own enjoyment. Because I don't have the playing ability to make the songs sound the way I'd like, I have begun to commission demos of my songs (one at a time, family budget permitting).

I have never pitched them to publishers before, though some have done well in contests and the like. I recently contacted a Nashville publisher who allowed me to submit three songs. I sent them links to three of my songs, and they were interested in all of them. However, what they are offering is the following choice: (a) I sign over 100% of the publishing for the two songs (the only consideration being their ability to pitch them for me); or (b) I pay $150/month per song for them to plug the songs, and lose 50% of publishing if I get a cut. I am reluctant to sign away rights to all three, but am close to giving them a try with respect to two of the songs.

My question is, is option (a) a fairly standard offer for an unproven writer? These guys seem legit and have urged me to take my time, think about it, and get comfortable with the idea before I sign anything. They say they'll still want the songs six months from now if I want to wait. They are located on Music Row and have lots of experience in the business, and they seem professional and supportive of writers.

I am not able to get my songs in front of publishers or artists. I have a full time job and kids, and can't afford the open-ended $150/month/song commitment for plugging services. So I'm thinking of taking them up on their offer (option (a)), but just want to get some feedback from more experienced people first.

David Spence
Austin TX

[Ande Rasumussen: I tried to send this to your email address and it bounced back to me.]


[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-05-2006).]

If they were a legit publisher, they would NOT ask for any money up front to plug your songs. Their JOB is to pitch your songs, and when they place them, then they get paid for their efforts by taking a share of the publishing.

This is simply a song-plugger masquerading as a publisher. Don't fall for it.

Hummin'bird

------------------
Vikki Flawith, Canadian Singer/Songwriter & Voice Teacher

This bird sings at:
www.vikkiflawith.com
Vikki on MySpace

The Shy Singer-Songwriter's Blog
Hummingbird's Wise Bird's Blog
The Shy Singer-Songwriter's Newsletter

I think maybe I wasn't clear. They offered a choice. Songplugging (where I retain publishing) would be for a fee. ALTERNATIVELY, they would take the publishing and in return would plug the song (I pay no $ for that). If it hits, I get writer royalties, they get the publishing royalties.

Is that clearer. Am I making a bad deal if I choose the latter option?

Ask yourself this obvious question:

If they get all the publishing from you as a song plugger, then what would the eventual publisher get out of it?

Either they are a legit publisher or not. It sounds like they are just someone trying to make a buck off of you however they can. If they are going to take your publishing (which by itself is a bad deal) at the VERY least you need a reversion clause that says if they are not placed with an artist and released with X number of copies (X being negotiable) then the publishing reverts back to you. If they aren't willing to give you a reasonable reversion clause, they are scamming you. If they believe so much in the songs they need to secure publishing, they should advance you money to seal that deal. Not the other way around.

Brian

David

I would not advise anyone to sign a 100% publishing contract for a song without a reversion clause, a clause that gives you back the publishing rights after a specified period.

I would not advise paying anyone to plug songs until you are no longer "very new" to the process and until your team all agrees that it's time to pay a plugger (you have a team, don't you? do a search here for info on teams ) and then, I'd want to shop around for pluggers...with my team's help.

First, you need to get your feet wet. Demo, don't pay a lot for them, get backtracks (music without vocals) because you WILL be changing your lyrics on at least some songs.

Link your demos or post lyrics to the free sites like ours and others to get free peer group critiques. Remember, these are critiques made by amateur critics...that can be better and it can be worse info LOL. When everyone is saying your songs are ready, then have a pro critique from someone like our Barbara Cloyd, or get a critique from NSAI or one of the PROs. Gradually, when you know that your songs are in the pocket, then they are ready to pitch. If you try to pitch too soon, you might find some doors get closed to you.

Also, do your homework. I don't know anything about this company you are talking about, but I do know that if they are sharks, they'll never get a good cut for anyone. You taint your name by going with a shark.

As I said, I've not familiar with this company but that means nothing, they could have some big songs or writers. But trying to tie up a beginning songwriter's publishing and offering a beginner a plugging service does not look good, unless your songs are absolutely amazing (and if they are, then you might keep shopping for a better deal.)

So get some books on the subject, check out our mentor site on the home page. Look for online songwriter magazines and sites. Don't pay for things unless you get something in return. Don't sign any contracts without an attorney, and DON'T SIGN ANY CONTRACTS WITHOUT AN EXPERIENCED MUSIC BUSINESS ATTORNEY. Other than these ideas, and also getting a good music lawyer to look at contracts, that takes care of any advice from my end. (that doesn't sound right does it!)

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music

Thanks for the advice.

With respect to feedback I have done some of what you suggest. I did join NSAI about a year ago, but am probably going to let that lapse. I just did not find it helpful, though if I lived in Nashville I might feel differently.

I think the advice about the reversion clause is good, and maybe I will step back from this process if they don't give me that. However, based upon what I have seen over the last year, I don't really have faith that the cream rises to the top in this industry. I don't think that writing a really good song (alone) is enough to get that song heard.

But thanks for the advice. I will think about it.

100% of the publishing means that you get 50% of the publishing profits.That is very standard for a publishing deal. You should ask for a reversion clause of no more than 3 years. You might want to find out who they intend to pitch the songs to also. Many publishers hire song pluggers or have their own. Offering both, is something I've not heard of before. I'd have them send you publishing contracts and then have an attorney (music ) look them over. I would not pay them to do anything. Times are hard in the music biz if publishers want to get paid to plug as well.
Chas

------------------
www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=111254

If I give you a 100% of my dinner what am I going to eat?

Jerry

------------------
Jerry Jakala

Mike. Ya outdone yaself Bloke.
Real good advice.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

Any song totals up to 100%.If you give up your publishing 100%,you still hold 50% of the song as writer,they hold 50% of the song as publisher.50% + 50%= 100%.Sometimes you can hold on to half the publishing,so it would be 25%+25%+50%=100% where you hold 75% of the song,they hold 25%.Now that is as clear as mud lol.

Everett

Great advice, Mike.

dspence, did you speak with the "publisher" on the phone? If not, they aren't serious, that you can bank on. You say you are new to the business, but not to songwriting itself so perhaps your songs are ready, but a legit publisher who is really interested would no doubt call you or ask you to call him/her and talk it over and they would surely ask to hear more songs if they liked the three they heard and wanted to offer you a contract.

Someone said signing away all your publishing is a bad idea and that you should get an advance if you do. All I can say is, if you are a songwriter with no cuts you have no leverage period, try negotiating for a copub with a legit publisher and see where it gets you. This just isn't the way things are done, Any legit publisher is going to almost always insist on 100% of the publishing, unless that is you have a track record of hit songs and are offered a staff writing deal in which case you do have leverage and can negotiate, but you will not, in 99% of situations, be offered an advance on single or multiple song contracts, at least not in Nashville. The only way you are going to hold on to all of the publishing is if you pitch your songs yourself or hire a reputable song plugger with credentials who actually believes in your songs and in all likelihood the best independent pluggers will want a small part of the publishing or a bonus should they secure a cut. There are legit plugger out there, make no mistake, but there are probably fifty times as many sharks so be careful.

Matt, they did call me (3 times before I got back to them), and I did speak to one of the principals at length. I'd like to speak to the other too before deciding.

Thanks again everyone for the advice.

How did you contact them?Do they have a website?Did you visit their website?They may be real but don't jump too quick.Sit on it for a while,the songs are not going anywhere.
Demand a reversion clause and not for a long period of time.If the songs are great they shound be able to place them in two years or less.

Get it in writing and have an attorney review it. I've seen deals where the author thought they were only giving up publishing rights, and in fact were giving up all rights to the song in return for a small percentage of the net. Just because something is labeled as a "publishing" contract, doesn't mean you're going to retain 50% of anything.

Matt,

The reason I mentioned an advance is that most legit publisher are happy to offer a reversion clause if they aren't going to work with the songs after 2 or 3 years. If they are so hell bent that they need to hold on to the publishing longer, they should offer compensation up in exchange for a longer time period or no reversion if they are serious. The reality is that nothing about this deal sounds remotely legit. Real publishers aren't also usually song plugger for others in their spare time. They focus on 1 thing. A real publisher would NEVER want to hand over a worthy song to a competitor publisher. That's fairly ridiculous. (The exception being if they didn't work in the genre that the writer was writing in.. for example if they came across some great childrens songs from a country writer but didn't work with those types of songs, they might refer them over to another publisher who specialized in that field.. but a country publisher who is pitching to their country competition? Not very smart business if the song is a hit.

Brian

A Postscript:

I just learned from the publisher I was talking to that they may have lost a client because of this thread. They are upset at the posts here that portrayed them as disreputable or unethical. Read my first post and you'll see that I did not see them that way. To the contrary, they seemed nothing but professional to me, and I regret that they lost a client due to this thread.

However, for reasons I can't understand, they believe that I (by starting this thread) have questioned their integrity as well, and today they withdrew their offer to publish or plug my songs. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since I was not yet comfortable going forward without a reversion clause. So perhaps it's all for the best. And the fact that they sort of blame me for whatever defamatory posts are on this thread also makes me question whether I would have been comfortable working with them. But I thought you'd all like to know what happened.

FWIW, I tend to suspect that these sorts of agreements may be fairly standard for new writers like me. Clearly, people sign over 100% of publishing all the time (and retain the writer's half of royalties). My only question was whether publishing contracts without reversion clauses are unusual, or a bad deal. I still don't know the answer to that, but regret that my question led to so much negative comment directed at this publisher.

Spence,

Any publisher worth his/her weight...would NOT....I repeat...NOT be offended...by
asking questions.....They would tell you...
"by all means, have everything reviewed by an attorney...".

That in itself, (being offended by this thread) raised the red flag for me.....
because I ran into something similar.

We, (Wyman Griffith and I)...had the same thing happen to us...by..someone offering a contract to us from California. We were
being paid very well.. .for a song to be used as backing for a non profit film but backed by $ from Boeing, and...Keiser's Children's Hospital...and a few others.

BUT....being wet behind the ears..(me anyways)...We wanted our Publisher involved.....to give guidance...and to
basically represent the song... The folks offering the contract wanted our full allegiance with out.....question.
Turns out, we would have been signing the song over outright...and not as a licensed
song....They should have been fine with us..having the contract reviewed...and questioning them...but they weren't.

It is always wise to question if you aren't sure..... Although I can remember having some of the same very mixed feelings you may be feeling right now,( because of walking away from something...you have your heart set on),it's still wise....to know what's on that contract and have it reviewed.

If you write good material, there will be other opportunities. This won't be the last.

best wishes,
Kaley

Adults:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=8404
Kids
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=6469
Animation:
http://www.flashfast.com/kids/
CD:
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/kwwg
TONS of GREAT JPF music here:
www.cdbaby.com/group/justplainfolks

Thanks.

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-10-2006).]

Why would any legit publisher stop working with you because some third party questioned their business practices or said something bad about them (deserved or not)? Do you think Warner Chappell would refuse to work with a songwriter because someone else said something bad about them or questioned their business practices? What a ridiculous bogus act by what now MUST be a total scam artist. On top of it, I can't find any reference anyone is making about a specific company on here in the first place. Instead, we're discussing the ACTIONS and business practices and whether they are appropriate or not.

Their latest actions and business practices scream scam even more than their intitial actions and business practices.

You likely just saved yourself wasting some money and your publishing. Congrats.

Brian

Uuggh! I am always in trouble on these forums! I guess I’m the third party we’re all referring to.

Back in March I sent this publisher a few of my songs. After speaking many times with them, I was offered two options. The first was “retaining” their services to plug my songs for a monthly fee. The second, which I opted for, was to allow them to work as my publisher giving them the publishing rights. I did ask about a reversion clause, which he honestly stated we do not offer that. His rational was that it sometimes takes years for a song to get cut. They were professional, courteous and always returned my calls. While the lack of a reversion clause went against everything I have heard and had been advised, I felt I could gamble with two of my songs as it was a way to get my foot in Nashville’s door. I have not yet, however signed any contracts.

After reading this thread yesterday, I contacted them to, again, question the lack of a reversion clause. Because I felt they are reputable, I directed them to this tread and suggested that they respond to clear up many of the concerns and comments made by other members.

Today they called me and were quite upset with the comments made here. I told them that was not my intent and apologized for any misunderstanding, but felt that they should respond to set the record straight. They said they didn’t know how to sign in on the forum and asked if I would. He, then, informed me he would be calling David to withdrawal his offer. I reminded him that David did nothing wrong by merely asking a question and after some more discussion We agreed to just let things cool down. Now here we are.

Bottom line for me is I like these guys and was (still is?) ready to work with them. I’m afraid this is just a big knee jerk misunderstanding, that I, once again, have found myself in the middle of.

Sorry David. Would have e-mailed you privately, but didn’t see an e-mail address in your profile.

Iggy




[This message has been edited by Iggy (edited 05-05-2006).]

Iggy, no problem. I edited my first post to remove their name. And if they feel maligned here, you may want to remove names from your post too. I don't think you screwed up anything for me, since I was hesitating on the reversion clause anyway.

No worries.

P.S. Where is Hockessin, DE? My wife is from Dover.

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-05-2006).]

Yeah that makes sense. Done.

Small world. Small state! Hockessin is north, where Dela..where?, MD and PA join at the "wedge". It's about 45 miles from Dover and 25 miles from Philly.

A song royalty is split two ways: 50% goes to the publisher and 50% goes to the writer(s). Usually.

I say "usually" because there is no law. It is a deal negotiated between publisher and writer. But...BUT!!!!...50/50 is the norm. Writers with a track record of success are usually able to negotiate to keep some of the publishing. The deal offered to you is a standard deal. You are not giving away one penny of your writer's royalty. You are assigning the publishing to a publisher. That's the way it works.

A writer may chose to keep the publishing for himself--to act as the publisher of his own work. In most cases that means the writer/publisher will get to keep 100% of NOTHING, because it is very difficult to get a song placed with a label artist without the kinds of contacts that professional publishers work on every day. If you cannot even visit Nashville, how do you expect to ever earn any royalties? If you as the songwriter, and you as the publisher have no way to go where the action takes place, how in the world are recording artists even going to HEAR your songs?

You question should not be if the deal is a "good" one...the offer is fair, and standard, and normal (with the exception of the lack of reversion...I don't like that much). Your question should be: who are these publishers? What is their track record? How many cuts? What other writers do they represent? Satisfy yourself on those questions, and proceed with eyes open.

I did not see their name before you removed it, so I don't know who you are talking about, but I do not think it was wise to include their name in the thread. If I was a legit publisher and some guy implied I was a scam artist, I think I would be a little upset, as well.

Remember this: YOU need a publisher and they most certainly do not NEED your songs.

Best of luck to you.

[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 05-05-2006).]

Truman (great post name, BTW),

I had satisfied myself that they could help me. Like you, I was pausing at the lack of reversion clause. But it's water under the bridge now since they have pulled the offer.

If these guys are legit, they shouldn't be affecting their writers careers/relationships based on what third parties have to say. If they do that, THEY are the ones with problems. Warner Chapell would not tell one of their potential writers that they were pulling the deal because someone on an internet message board raised a red flag. The idea is beyond absurd.
If they are not offering a reversion clause, it's a bad deal. Period. Why hand lifetime publishing rights on songs to someone who never has to do a single thing in return? That's just stupid. No reversion clause, no deal. The added problem is that based on the description given to start this post, they can't decide if they are a publisher or if they are song pluggers. I say you can't do a good job at both. Why would they pass on publishing something, but feel it was worthy of pitching to other competing publishers unless they were just trying to make a buck (or worse, secure your lifetime publishing with not guarantee they'll ever do a single thing for you). I welcome these folks (whoever they are as I still don't know) to come here and explain why that would ever be a good deal. It isn't.

Then of course there are questions of what their success and abilities are to publish and exploit the song so both parties make money. What is their track record? They can be honest even without hit songs under their belts if they are just getting started. How long have they been doing it? If it's 10-20 years, and there's never been a single charted single, even if they are honest, why give them your publishing? They aren't likely to ever make you dime on it. And why would you EVER pay them upfront to plug your music if they can't get something cut themselves in their publishing company? It makes no sense, unless what they really want is a bunch of entry level songwriters to pay them money to pitch songs everyone knows aren't going anywhere.

Perhaps it would be helpful to have some links to these songs to see what level of quality they are actually so interested in plugging or publishing. That might shed some serious light on the entire discussion. If the songs are truly great, then perhaps they really just want to work with your music. If the songs are average or less than average, then it's a scam to start with because the songs wouldn't be competitive in the first place and why would you bother to pitch them to anyone to start with? If they can't judge worthy songs, they'd have to suck as a publisher and song plugger both. So how good are these songs?

Far more questions raised here than there are common sense answers to them. If you guys want to give away your publishing forever to people who will simply sit on it on the rare outside chance that you might do something with the songs yourself later on to make them money, go for it. If you want to piss away hundreds of dollars pitching songs that may not even be ready or with pluggers who can't even get that same song recorded by their own internal publishing house, go for it. The old circus maxim is still true.. there's one born every minute.

And finally.. if these songs are really great and really ready for the big time, and a company had played games like the one described here has when confronted with a little skepticism and suspicion, they don't deserve to work with those "great" songs anyway and there will be others who will. Keep that in mind. If a song is truly amazing and worthy, there will be others out there interested in publishing it.. perhaps with a track record, perhaps with enough confidence in their abilities to offer a reversion clause and perhaps who are full time publishers and not just some guys looking to hustle some song plugging income out of entry level songwriters.

But that's just my opinion.. I could be right.

Brian

Brian, and one and all.. I have been watching this post since I was informed about all this misunderstanding ...
Jim is a personal friend of mine, in fact he played on my new three song CD that my manager requested FOR FREE because he is a good man...
I know this company.. THEY ARE REPUTABLE.. They do get cuts, They plug the catalogs of some very famous names....and they are also great writer's in their own rites.. Their own writing abilities got them cuts, their cuts made them connections, Which they most certainly have.. This is how they began to plug for others as well.. Folks wanted them to get them cuts too. So, they did, this is how a publishing company became also a plugger.... It is my understanding that the songs in question are like some that I have recorded myself... They are soooo close, the potential for a really outstanding and great song is there on the surface with a bit of dust on top....... When I have found a song that was right on the edge of greatness, I have taken it and done what I call a silent cowrite, this means I refine the edges, fix a bump and maybe even change a line or two,., And when I'm done they love it, However, it's your baby, like when I write mine...... You gave birth to it, I just gave it a new look... So, I make the song happen and you still get all of the writer's royalties I just want the best song that I can find,,, I have even had the artist record them later, the way I chnged them.... I say all of this because, these songs were close to great, but slightly missed the mark for what the row is Currently looking for.. They as really awesome writer's would have polished the songs and paid for the recordings and pitched them, and they told me that they KNEW they could get a cut... And I believe them... They do know what they are talking about.. I also know some writer's who's songs have taken YEARS to get a cut, a big cut... These boys were going to invest their time and their Money and the publishing was what they would get back in return... They were't asking for any of the writer's royalties, but like myself would have been silent cowriters/.. This all went rather bad for the writer because this was a real deal.....
Terri Lynn
Nashville Chapter Leader

------------------
Terri Lynn
http://www.mkoc.com/TerriLynn/

I did a search on the name you posted and no site came up,if that means anything.It may be true that it sometimes takes years to place a song,but if a song is great,it should not take that long, if it is being pitched.

I once signed a song with a well known publisher without a reversion clause,who later sold it to another publisher,I received nothing from the sale and my song is still tied up.I still hope they place the song,if not,my song is lost forever.So I don't advise signing any contract without a reversion clause.Once bitten,twice shy.If there is a reversion clause in place and they believe in the song,they will pitch it hard to get a cut,if they own the song outright,no rush,maybe they can sell it to another publisher and make money that way, mean while the writer has his song tied up. If the writer wants to record the song himself,he/she has to pay royalties to the publishing company for using their own song.

If a song is close but not quite there,the songwriter should be advised to do a rewrite on the weak areas and then give them a contract with a reversion clause.It's not the place of the publisher to do rewrites,little cosmetic changes does not qualify as a rewrite.

That's my views,for what they are worth.If we don't learn from our own mistakes,we are bound to repeat them.

Everett

Terri Lynn,

First of all, as we've stated above, I have no idea who this company is. And I think that makes it easier to discuss things like reversion clauses and whether or not you should ask for one.

Even with your endorsement (which means a lot to me personally) I STILL would not sign a song to a publisher like this without a reversion clause. Though I understand the logic you are suggesting where the publisher involved does a co-write on the song to bring it up to pay and thus wants to wrap up publishing rather than co-writing to protect their input, I don't think that practice is appropriate. Either you are a co-writer or you are not. People on these message boards help other writers tighten up and polish their lyrics every day without expecting or asking for writing credits or publishing. If they want to get writing credits for making specific changes that allow for publishing, that's fine with me as long as they are upfront. BUT.. to ask for permanent publishing rights because they changed a word here or there to what THEY think will make it acceptable to artists to record is the wrong way to do it. What happens if their changes aren't right? Then the original writer has given away their publishing, meaning no other publisher will EVER be interested because there's no benefit to publishing that song or doing anything else with it in the future. If instead, you give then co-writing credits, then the publishing is still up for grabs to whoever can exploit the song. An agreement could be signed that along with co-writing credit, co-publishing could also be shared. That way if your guys DO place the song, they get a writers share and half the publishing which is the same 50% of the song, BUT.. (and this is huge) if they aren't able to make anything happen with the song, the original writer can still pitch to OTHER publishers and have a shot at still getting them to work with the song. Once that publishing is gone, the only option for the original writer is to work with those guys and that's the end of the song. If those guys DON'T get the song cut, it's over.

As I said above, just because someone is honest, it doesn't mean they can get the job done. Since I still don't know who these folks are, I have no track record of success to consider here. If these guys have a history of getting cuts that became hits, or at least garnered significant airplay and royalties, then that's important to know in context. But even in that case, I STILL doubt giving away all the publishing without a reversion clause is a good idea. If they are working a song for 2 or 3 years and haven't gotten it cut, the writer should have the ability to go elsewhere. They could always re-sign with the same guys for another 2 or 3 years, but at least this gives them an option. Even if these guys are your friends or even if they are my friends, I don't believe in giving away permanent rights to publishing without any strings attached. It's bad advice and it sets someone up to lose the ability to ever get any other publisher to work with them should your friends company fail to get a cut. Why take that risk?

We also haven't explained why your friends would pull a legit deal away from a writer because someone else, unrelated to that writer, posted something on our message board? That's ridiculous and shows a lack of professionalism on their part. Since they apparently are reading this, I'd like to know where they would justify that action if they are in fact legit as you suggest?

Brian

nm

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-10-2006).]

My limited understanding of the business tells me that what happened here is that the publishers became skittish because they learned (or the point got driven home) that they were dealing with an amateur who did not understand the business ..... meaning a difficult relationship and outlook.

I'm not saying "don't question, don't ask etc...

What I'm saying is there are more songwriters out there looking to place material.

Why should a publisher, who needs to make money, waste their time with an amateur when there are plenty of pros out there?

Fair? Probably not. But it's a business, not a charity or a school.

If I'm sinking my time and effort into my business, I only want to work with the best...those who know what to do, when to do it, and whom to do it with...

BTW a three year reversion clause would not be acceptable methinks...10 year...??

Wow. This has been quite an eye-opener.

Being new to songwriting myself, all I can offer is opinion, but here it is anyway.

I agree with the insistance that there be a revision clause. I can understand they don't want to be limited by time, and also that 2 years might be too short a time to find an artist, produce a cd and all that. I personally would not mind a 5 year revision period. And I'd also offer a renewable option, that if after 5 years they can renew for a nomial fee of maybe $50/year as long as they want. That way they aren't up against a deadline, but they don't get to sit on it forever for free either.

I'm glad to hear TerriLynn's point of view, and I think she has made some valid points about the complex world of publishing. It also makes this post seem a bit more balanced, since she has had positive experiences with this company.

However, I am very bothered by the company's actions. Penalizing a potential client just because they are asking valid questions...just seems wrong and really makes me suspicious...

As Kaley also said, ANY sensible writer - even the most experienced - should always ask about the companies and contracts that they are working with. I know artists that do extensive research on the songpluggers and publishers that they are interested in working with!

I think it would be a good idea for the company in question to have a chance to
answer the questions people are raising.

Emily
emilysanders.net


.

[This message has been edited by Emily Sanders (edited 05-06-2006).]

Ten years reversion clauses?
Comne on John.
Giving somebody the right to sit on your song, and you losing the right to pedal it for ten years, would be a real dumb thing to sign.
One year is all I would give anybody.
I may not get many offers that way, but that is fine.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

This is not really true. You have the right to peddle it as much as you want. But, if you should get a cut on it, and it earns royalties, the publisher would get the publishing share of the royalty. You would get the writer's royalty but none of the publishing share.

This has been an interesting thread, and I think it indicates that some folks have a basic misunderstanding about the role and value of a publisher.

The relationship of a publisher to a writer is not too different from the relationship between C. F. Martin and music store owners. Martin makes really nice guitars that sell for $2000 (let's keep the numbers really simple here just for the sake of the example). But Martin does not get the $2000. If they sold it to the end user, they would get to keep all the money and make a much bigger profit. But the guys at Martin understand that they are not in a very good position to get their guitars in the hands of the public. Music stores, on the other hand, are perfectly positioned to do this. So, Martin is willing to "give up" a big chunk of value in order to be able to get their guitars to more people.

In a nutshell, that is what a publisher does for a songwriter. He is in a position to get songs in the hands of producers, A&R guys, and artists. Most songwriters are simply not in that position and never will be. So they "pay" to have someone with the necessary expertise to do that for them. What's kind of nice about the arrangement is that the writers don't have to "pay" the publisher in the traditional sense by writing monthly checks to him. The publisher works "on spec" by working the song in exchange for the possibility that it will earn royalties later on...if he does his job well enough. In a lot of cases, the pub will even pay the writer a living wage out of his pocket. Of course the salary is an advance against earnings and not a real salary. BUT--and this is big--if the writer never has a hit and never earns back the advance, it is a total loss for the publisher. Remember, a publisher--just like a writer--earns NOTHING until a song gets cut and earns royalties.

I know what I have added here is old hat and very well understood by many, but it seemed to me that there are some who seem to think of publishers as guys to take moeny from writers without giving value in return. I think that notion is incorrect.

Another thought:

Don't writers and publishers each risk giving up something of value for a CHANCE at royalties? Truman has accurately described the publisher's point of view: they invest their time and effort in the hope that the song will generate royalties. The writer puts his time and effort into producing the song, and signs over half the right to those royalties in the hope that the publisher can place it. Both are gambling; both are giving up something of value in the hope of generating returns.

I have yet to see a persuasive answer for why publishing should NEVER revert to the writer. I suspect that the real answer is just relative bargaining power, or rather others' views of that relative power. But in the real world, each of us has to make our own bargains with our eyes open. If you don't feel comfortable signing away publishing in perpetuity for no guaranteed compensation, then don't. If you think it's your only chance at royalties and want to do it, then do. Don't let any self-proclaimed message board experts tell you how you should value a deal.

Personally, after reflecting on the events of the last week, I think I dodged a bullet.

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-07-2006).]

[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-07-2006).]

Hope you are not referring to me

My comment was not meant as a personal evaluation at all because I have absolutely no idea what went on between parties.

The ONLY point I was making is that going forward, the publisher may have anticipated difficulties due to your relative inexperience...meaning time and effort wasted "managing the relationship" ....meaning why bother? There's lots of material out there from seasoned pros who know the business, stay out of the way, and let the publisher concentrate on publishing.

If you thought this was personal, I do apologize...

Unless you are going to act as a publisher yourself, licensing your tracks, songs and pitching songs, I don’t know many publishers that would take your songs and not expect the 50% publishing rights. Maybe after you have established a track record of securing cuts and success you could leverage your percentage, but until then you NEED the publisher. They don’t need you.

This thread contains so much good information and so much misinformation it boggles my mind, but “we are all in it together” so we all learn.

John Voorpostel writes: “that they were dealing with an amateur who did not understand the business ..... meaning a difficult relationship and outlook. Why should a publisher, who needs to make money, waste their time with an amateur when there are plenty of pros out there”. John, even so, this is not the issue here. The lack of a reversion clause is, and more importantly how they dealt with one or more of their prospective clients. Amateurs become pros when that first publisher believes in them. Pro’s already have publishers. You gotta start somewhere.

Brian Austin Whitney writes: “Perhaps it would be helpful to have some links to these songs to see what level of quality they are actually so interested in plugging or publishing. That might shed some serious light on the entire discussion. If the songs are truly great, then perhaps they really just want to work with your music. If the songs are average or less than average, then it's a scam to start with because the songs wouldn't be competitive in the first place and why would you bother to pitch them to anyone to start with? If they can't judge worthy songs, they'd have to suck as a publisher and song plugger both. So how good are these songs?” Brian come on man! You are asking 40,000 members to listen to and judge songs that David and I submitted as being publisher worthy? Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one. No two will be the same. I fear that this would only create a feeding frenzy and take away from the real concerns noted in this post. I always welcome anyone to visit my website and e-mail me their thoughts.

Iggy
www.badbetsy.com

yep. That is how I said it, and I said it wrong Trueman.
To sign over publishing rights and have it go nowhere until you do the footwork and then have to fork out the publishing to the one who was supposed to find a home for it and didn't, would pee me off.
Two years is more than long enough to be in that condition.
Too long by half in my view actually.
Thanks Trueman.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm

I see you edited the comment D so I guess you were referring to me. No problem, sometimes people misunderstand eachother. Hope we're cool.


You say you think you dodged a bullet. I'm not sure.


I may not know the music business well, but I do know business...and I know a bit about writing songs.


So I think, given Terri Lynn's comments about these folks, that in actuality you missed a great opportunity.


So what if they have one or two of your songs in perpetuity? The fact of the matter is, you can always write more, and with a publishing contract or two you have some street creds...


In financing or marketing, you always look for a "keystone" participant, one you can point to and say..."they are involved, bought my product, have money in my deal" ....because it gives you credibility and good reasons to be involved with you.


So this time around, no reversion may simply have been the price of admission...next time, you'd have more leverage.

John,

Yes, we're cool.



[This message has been edited by dspence (edited 05-10-2006).]

A perspective on reversion clauses:

We have a member who is one of the finest songwriters I have ever come across in any genre at any level. This writer had a publishing deal with a guy who had a few small successes and who showed great interest in her work. At the start, he did pitch her material quite a bit and got some interest from some major artists, but none of the songs ever got cut. This went on for several years and no cuts. Then this particular publisher got involved with an internet start up music company (one that has since become famous, though not at all successful to date). When he did that, he was riding high, making huge amounts of money and guess what he stopped doing? He stopped pitching the catelog, including the songs written by this writer. A year went by.. then two.. then three.. then four.. nothing. Not even a minimal effort of any kind to pitch any songs. But, he owned the publishing so no one else was interested in these great songs because none of the publishing was available, and because of this persons position with this internet music company, there were a whole new level of issues/conflicts that made it even less desirable to deal with songs he published. While this was playing out, the writer in question kept writing amazing songs.. but all of them kept going to this publisher who would do a single thing with them. So the writer tried to pitch songs but no one was biting because of the publishing not being available as a bargaining tool. We actually found someone who loved one of the songs, and offered to buy 1/2 of the publishing of just 1 of the songs for thousands of dollars. Now remember, this was a song that this guy had never pitched, even when he WAS pitching.. and now he wasn't pitching anything period. This interested party was aggressively interest in pursuing this song and later proved their passion was valid because the other song they chose ended up charting via a completely unknown artist that this party represented. These guys, through brute force of will, got the song on the charts (the real Billboard charts, not the bogus ones used by many Nashville scam artists). All the while they continued to show interest in this other writers songs, but they were stuck with a publisher who simply refused to pitch or even work with another publisher or entity to cut the songs. So the songs have all died a slow and neglected death.

Fortunately, this writer was finally able to get out of the publishing deal and has since written more great songs and as I write this has a new publishing deal where the publisher is doing their job and getting the songs placed. 1 song is already placed with a well known artist for release and several more are in the process of breaking through with even larger artists. But those old songs? They are still attempting to get the publishing back but whenever a publisher shows interest, either this publisher (who's internet company crashed and burned famously.. but recently has started to try and make a comeback.. he was cleaning pools last time I checked to make a living) still hasn't played ball and released the tracks, even with with offers of compensation to buy him out.

A reversion clause, of even 5 years, would have solved all of this. But now, those songs are stuck with an unmotivated guy who only now MIGHT release them simply because he's desperate for cash. Of course he could release them to a scam artist for cash as well and the problem would only get worse.

Why let this type of thing happen? You never know what someone is going to be doing in 2-3 years. If a legit publisher is making a legit effort to get the songs cut, there will be plenty of evidence of this happening. If that is the case, it might make sense to renew a contract for 2 or 3 more years so they can keep at it. Or, if they sign the songs and then never do a damn thing to get anything recorded, you haven't given away years of your productive life to some idiot who may simply change their area of interest or find out they aren't any good as a publisher in the first place or worse, may have been a scam artist from day one.

Reversion clauses are the only sane way to do business. It's fair to everyone involved. 2 or 3 years is enough time for a busy publisher to do something with the songs. If they are active, during those 2 or 3 years they will have many more NEW songs to also pitch. If nothing is happening, they need to release the songs and let the writer find someone else with a new angle, new connections and a new approach. That said, if the writer is happy with their efforts, nothing says they can't stay with the publisher beyond the date. I know of cases where that has also happened. Why would a publisher be scared to let their track record and service to the writer be used to judge if the writer wants to renew? Why would you want to force a writer to stay with you against their will unless you know they're going to be unhappy ahead of time.. mostly likely because you're a fraud or incapable of doing what you promised upfront in the first place.

Even legit superstar publishers fail to get most of their catalog cut. But those legit ones ALSO have a track record of tangible efforts made on behalf of their writers to get something going. A reversion clause simply keeps them honest. Honest companies wouldn't be afraid of that.

You dodged a huge bullet. Not just because of the reversion clause, but because the company threw a tantrum like a little kid and punished you because they were angry at someone else. Who would want to do business with a company like that no matter what the other factors were?

Brian

Iggy,

There are clearly different levels of songs out there. I'd trust the majority of people to easily be able to deterimine whether a song was in the ballpark of being any good or if it instead sucked terribly. It really isn't brain surgery for a non biased listener to know if a song is at least average. Of course it's very common for writers and artists to be completely clueless about their own work (just watch the delusions on American Idol auditions.. I come across that same level of delusion every day among songwriters), but interestingly enough those same people are usually pretty accurate summing up someone elses work if there's no bias or agenda involved.

So if the songs were borderline, then of course it's up for debate. If they are clearly great, then that plays in their favor. If they are embarassingly bad, then we'll all know they are scam artists or incompetent. I have no interest in embarassing anyone here either. If you have any feeling at all that you'd be embarrassed by people's assessments of your songs, it might make you think a little harder on whether they are actually strong enough to compete for a cut against all the superstar songwriters in the world you're competing with. If these guys are asking for money to pitch songs that you suspect aren't really good enough to compete with the best, then you have to ask yourself what their true goal is? Is it to pitch a weak song and ruin their credibility, or is it really that credibility is irrelevent and they just want the money you pay them to pitch?

All I know about this company is that they are friends of Terri Lynns, who I trust a great deal, and that they're involved in this scenario which raises all sorts of red flags. Nothing explains their actions against a writer because they were unhappy with your actions. That's stupid, whether they are friends of Terri's or not. It's also unreasonable for them to expect someone to give them life long publishing with no strings attached. I would go as far as to say it's immoral to even ask for that. If they want to wrap up lifetime publishing, all they have to do is their job. They need to get the songs cut and released by someone. Why should a writer suffer if they turn out to be unable to do the job they promised? Everyone else in nearly every job has to produce what they agree to or they're fired. Publishers should be in the same boat.

Brian

Brian Austin Whitney writes “If you have any feeling at all that you'd be embarrassed by people's assessments of your songs, it might make you think a little harder on whether they are actually strong enough to compete for a cut against all the superstar songwriters in the world you're competing with.”

Brian thanks for all the input on this thread, it’s obviously a sensitive subject to say the least.

Embarrassed by peoples assessments? NO! That is why I directed them to my web site and always welcome the feedback. You can’t have thin skin in this business. I simply did not want to change the direction of this thread into evaluating and debating the songs. Let the MP3 forum do that.

Great thread, great comments, unfortunately when the dust settles, I don’t think there will be any winners.

Iggy
www.badbetsy.com

Great thread.

I agree with the view that the tantrum throwing was off, but it is understandable.
Whatever way you slice it, once the name was mentioned 9 I never saw it?) then the publisher would take it personally.
One of my first songs, contracted to a publisher, never included a reverse clause.
He still has it.
Never contacts me, never replies to letters, and it's ten years plus now!
Then, ten years ago, the reverse clause wasn't so talked about, or even mentioned to me.
Now, oh NOW, I would never sign a contract without a reversion.
I have my own publishing co, and received several Indie cuts (mostly in Europe) by pitching the songs myself.

But I'm looking for a major cut, and I don't expect to get that without contracting my songs outside.
Last year, I signed 5 songs to Nashville publishers, all with reversion clauses.
I think 3 years is fair; it can easily take that long for publishers to get your songs in the running (especially material from an unknown writer.)

I've had three 'holds' and one was actually cut, but never made the final CD selection (a common occurrence, I believe :-(
So now the holds, all dropped, sod 'em :-( are back out being pitched.

Still, onward and upward...

Dolores

http://ossongs.com


------------------

I realize that my last post sounded a lot like a defense of publihsers. It was an attempt at balance.

Having said all that, let me add that I think writers whould get a reversion clause--every time. Three years...five years...something around there. I have a few single song contracts with Nashville publishers, and each has a reversion clause, although I had to insist on one of them--the publisher was about to make an expensive demo of the song and did not want to see his investment disappear in 3 years. We settled on five, and I thought that was fair.

I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would agree to a contract without a reversion clause. As a publisher I cannot imagine investing my time and money in a song that I did not have for at least 3 years.

My learning experience about reversion clauses happened about 20 years ago.

I was writing with some guys, Carbaugh Mann and Tennessee Bob in this case, at Pride Music, Charley Pride's publishing company, which was run by Blake Mevis who produced and wrote some of George Strait's biggest hits. Anyway Carbaugh, T-Bob and I came up with this song, "Hit and Run Lovers" and we demoed it there in Pride's basement and played it for Blake. He wanted to sign it right away (we were working on a "per song" basis).

Well, I had heard of reversion clauses over at NSAI and told the other guys I wanted to put one into the contract Pride offered us. They were horrified, so I pursued it with my contract only and Pride, of course, didn't mind changing it to a 3 year reversion clause.

Fast forward 3 years, after a pitch to a movie and a couple of artists, Blake left Pride no one else had a connection to the song (if you didn't discover it, you're not the genius) and I got my part of the publishing back. I went down to Pride and prevailed on their sense of pride and of course, ladies and gentlemen they were there, they gave Carbaugh and Tennessee Bob their publishing back.

Contracts unsigned are called proposals (gosh I'm not a lawyer, so I'd better not write that ha ha)

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music

Just to be sure I hadn't lost touch with reality somewhere along the way, I decided to go to another trusted 3rd party just to run this all past them and find out if the advice we're giving is off target. I called Danny Arena of Song U. He concurred that you ALWAYS want to get a reversion clause and that they tell all their students to walk away from any deal that doesn't include one. He also said you should give them more than 2 years max and that most actual publishers that are doing anything are working a song for about a month before moving on for good. He said that a tiny publisher might need longer, so a year to two years max may be reasonable if you have good reason to work with the company in question.

I also checked the site of this company where they post a bunch of famous record covers in a VERY misleading attempt to make you think THEY placed songs on all those albums. Sure, if you read it closely they don't "claim" that.. but the average person surfing in would easily think they did. What it does say is that they represent (or represented at one time) some songs by songwriters who have had songs recorded by the artists shown below. Big deal. That's a far cry from actually PLACING songs on those albums. To me, that's a very shady and misleading thing. I have no problem with them showing pictures of artists they are friends with or artists they've met.. but when it's posititioned to look like they've directly done business with each of those artists it's flat out misleading bordering on dishonest.

Add that to everything else and I hate to say it but you're wrong on this one Terri Lynn.

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 05-08-2006).]

The Songwriter's Guild Publishing Contract, considered the most complete in the industry contains a one year reversion clause and I think it gives the option for a 6 month extention for something like a $250.00 advance.

I passed on a Publishing Contract that didn't contain one and the Publisher refused to include it. If someone doesn't include a reversion clause, ask for it to be included. One to three years is plenty. They can always offer a new contract at the end of the first one if they still want to work with the song. If a publisher has something about to happen very late in the contract they can ask for an extention.

Hi Friends,

I think it's better to get the real facts about this post, before we judge, I take back my previous comments, because I was not fully aware of the real facts, I have been in contact, with the company in question. and I have now got the true picture.

Ben, for P.J.Xanadu Music Publishing




[This message has been edited by BEN (edited 05-09-2006).]

[This message has been edited by BEN (edited 05-09-2006).]