,PRS For Music has announced it was extending the consultation period on its latest review of the royalties paid by concert and festival promoters in the live music sector
As previously reported, the publishing sector’s collecting society announced the review back in April of this year. Promoters are obliged to pay royalties to songwriters and publishers for the right to stage public performances of the songs that said parties control, and this is done via the collective licensing system. PRS’s Popular Music Concerts Tariff was originally agreed in 1988 and was actually reviewed as recently as 2010/11 when the collecting society decided to keep the system as it was.
But earlier this year the rights body said that more recent research indicated another review was justified.
Announcing the latest consultation, the society told reporters the following. “We have undertaken further investigations into the live music industry, including commissioning independent third-party research into consumer preferences when attending popular music concerts and festivals and the value song compositions make to these events”.
The deadline for interested parties to respond to the new review has now been extended to 30 Sep. Mainly in response to a request by one of the UK live sector’s trade bodies, the Concert Promoters’ Association.
It says it wants to conduct its own research in response to the PRS’s most recent findings. The extension is also backed by other trade bodies representing the live industry. PRS said that it “welcomes the industry-wide commitment to engaging in this process”.
Events operating under the Tariff LP licence pay 3% of gross box office receipts (after VAT) to PRS. Some in the publishing sector point out that the live industry has changed radically since 1988. It is now much more lucrative, though the promoters counter that stating that because PRS is on a share of box office and not on a fixed fee. As the live music sector grew, songwriters and publishers would have also shared in the increase.
Though points of contention include the fact that the 3% applies to the face value of the ticket, and any booking fees and extra commissions earned when promoters put their own tickets on secondary ticketing sites sit outside the revenue split arrangement.
This is arguably one of the reasons why the live music industry continues to charge sizable booking fees.
Over and above the face value of the ticket. Even though pretty much all market research shows this annoys consumers.
PRS may well propose that songwriters and publishers get a share of the live sector’s wider revenues, not just core ticketing income. Needless to say, the live industry isn’t going to be keen to share more of its revenues with PRS.
While we all know the live sector has boomed in the last 20 years. The record industry has been through a considerable decline. The profit margins on individual tours and festivals remain tight, especially at the grassroots end of the market.
Meanwhile, established artists take the lion’s share of live revenues. As opposed to recorded music sales. Where the label takes the majority, and publishing, where it’s often more of a 50/50 arrangement.
Increased PRS fees would either require fans to pay more or artists to get less. And many of those artists will be PRS members. Some publishers might argue that established featured artists have multiple revenue streams. While non-performing songwriters rely solely on copyright income, and so should earn a bigger cut of revenue linked to their creative output.
It’s thought that an extension of the revenue share arrangement at the top of the live sector could be complemented by more favourable terms from PRS for grassroots promoters. This would do a little to help those working with newer talent and smaller venues.
So it looks like there is plenty to debate, hence the extension of the consultation. So far, all interested parties seem to be approaching this latest review in a positive manner. Although PRS isn’t expected to opt for the status quo this time around. This means there could as yet be conflict ahead.