hi everybody,
so here's a little something i've been meaning to put out there for a while now. it's in regards to pumpAudio's new licensing fee split. as some of you might know, the split used to be 50-50, divided evenly between artist and pump. seems kinda fair, right? well, according to the e-mails many of us have been getting over the last few months, it seems that getty images, who have recently acquired pumpAudio, have now decided that fair isn't really what they're trying to be.
here's what pump offers as an explanation for this behavior...
"As we plan for the future growth of our offering to the global music licensing client base, we have determined that to fully support the 400+ person Getty Images sales staff and invest in marketing and technology needs that we must make adjustments to the current revenue split system. By making these changes, we intend to accelerate the pace of our growth and achieve our goal of becoming the largest music licensor in the world."
and
"As we reach out to our global music licensing clients and prospects we see that the worldwide opportunity is enormous. For example we recently had multiple, national placements in Romania, Greece and Japan in addition to our traditional strengths in North America and Europe. This rapid expansion requires significant investment in both marketing and direct sales. We believe this change of royalty splits will result in more music placements in more countries more often."
hmm?? well, i don't know about you, but i am very much in disagreement with this. see, first of all, what do they mean by saying "to fully support the 400+ person Getty Images sales staff" - why do I have to support the getty images sales staff??? i thought they were here to support me in placing my music (for which pump received 50% of the licensing fee, and 50% of the publishing).
"and invest in marketing and technology needs" - but isn't that part of THEIR business? who pays for all the marketing and technology needs that i, as a composer, have? (buying gear, instruments, hiring musicians, studio time, etc.) oh, uhm... yeah, I pay for that. so i'm paying for my needs AND those of getty images. yep... sounds fair.
"we intend to accelerate the pace of our growth and achieve our goal of becoming the largest music licensor in the world" - sounds right dandy, go for it i'd say. but don't do it by skimming off of my income.
"we see that the worldwide opportunity is enormous" - doesn't that mean that pump will increase their profit, simply by capitalizing on these enormous opportunities, even if they stick with the 50-50 cut?
"This rapid expansion requires significant investment in both marketing and direct sales" - again i have to say, this is part of THEIR business!! don't charge me for it.
"We believe this change of royalty splits will result in more music placements in more countries more often" - again this would translate into MORE INCOME for pump. what does the royalty split have to do with the number of placements? the client still pays the same amount for the music, regardless of the split. i think pump should rephrase this to "we believe this change of royalty splits will result in us making more money, while the artists get screwed."
i for one have chosen not to sign the new agreement, and therefore have my tracks removed from pump's library. not that i couldn't use more placements (believe me, i'd LOVE to get more placements), but i really don't agree with what's going on here, and i would hope that others are of a similar opinion. what do you think would happen if most artists would simply refuse to sign the new agreement? as per usual... negotiating power lies in the numbers. if i remove my tracks, pump couldn't care less, but if everyone takes a stand, and let's them know that they can't do this to the artist community, believe me, they WILL listen. they have to, because without our creative output pump (including getty) is OUT OF BUSINESS. think about it people!!! we are the ones that let these greedy manager types dictate the price they want to pay for our creativity... WAZZUP WITH THAT?!?!
and have you thought of this... what if pump gets away with lowering the artist's cut (which has been an industry standard for quite a while)? don't you think the rest of the industry will say "hey, if they can WE can." and then what????? maybe next year it's gonna be 30-70, and then 25-75... you see where this is going.
so here goes... i would like to encourage everyone who reads this to NOT sign the new agreement with pump, and let all your friends, colleagues, and business partners know about this outrageous attempt of once more screwing the content providers in this crazy industry.
thanx for reading this, and hopefully we'll be numerous enough to let our voices be heard loud and clear.
peace,
t
Comments