This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business Interviews Labels & Publishers
Q&A: Antony Healey, APRA
By Chris Cooke | Published on Monday 30 June 2014
This interview appeared in the May 2014 edition of the CMU Trends Report. Buy our reports from the CMU Shop or get every edition by signing up for CMU Premium.
In most countries the music rights sector provides blanket licences to specific groups of organisations who want to play lots of music (usually including radio stations, gig promoters, bar and club operators), simplifying the licensing process quite a bit.
These licences are usually managed by collecting societies appointed by the local industry, though generally music publishers and record labels have seperate societies working for them, meaning any licensee using recordings of songs needs licences from too organisations.
Given that knowledge of the different kinds of copyrights that exist in music, and the split between the record industry and the music publishing sector, is not widely understood outside the business, some in the political community, including in the UK, have suggested the music sector should look to offer more ‘one-stop shop’ licences where such blanket deals are available.
In the UK, PPL and PRS For Music have developed a handful of such combined licences. Though most interesting in this domain is what is happening in New Zealand where last year APRA, representing songwriters and publishers, and PPNZ, working for recording artists and labels, announced the launch of a new venture called OneMusic, which would present a united front to licensees of music. APRA’s Anthony Healey discussed this very interesting project at this year’s Great Escape, and just before that answered some questions for CMU’s Chris Cooke.
CC: What motivated the creation of the One Music scheme?
AH: OneMusic was motivated by a number of factors. We recognised that there was great potential for growth in public performance licensing that would drive revenue for our members. At the same time though, we had to accept that the way we were doing things was not absolute best practice. APRA had poor market penetration and an ordinary relationship with our customers. The licence schemes and tariffs were complex and somewhat outdated so we took steps to have our customers involved in identifying the problems and have some input in solutions. There was an acceptance that music should be paid for but the process had to be simple and that meant just paying once. Selling “half a licence” wasn’t good enough anymore.
CC: In the UK government is pushing for simplified licensing – was there pressure from the political community in New Zealand too?
AH: We involved government early on and kept them in the picture of what we were developing. They were and are still very supportive. They see OneMusic as assisting business with compliance and enabling music to be used legally in a simpler and easy way.
CC: Had you and PPNZ done joint licences previously?
AH: APRA and PPNZ had very close relationships to begin with. We’re a small industry in New Zealand so we have to cooperate and work together. If an initiative like joint licensing was going to work we certainly thought New Zealand would be a good testing ground. We were experimenting with some joint licences in areas such as education and the process was working well. OneMusic has been a significant extension of that.
CC: Can all licensees now get a combined licence via the OneMusic venture?
AH: Yes all public performance licensees are now offered the OneMusic licence. It has replaced the two parallel licences that previously existed. Now OneMusic is the only option for them. We have worked hard to develop the simplest processes, schemes and tariffs. Customers wanted to deal with us online, they wanted to take out the licence and pay in an easy and simple transaction. At the same time they wanted to have periodic payment options and perhaps be rewarded for paying upfront immediately. These are pretty basic demands in most other service areas but we’re not being offered by either APRA or PPNZ which basically wasn’t good enough and had to be changed. Now we offer quarterly payment options and prompt payment discounts.
CC: How does it work behind the scenes – do the two societies remain totally separate?
AH: Yes, the two organisations remain separate with their own identities but we realised that if we were going to enjoy the benefits of a more refined joint licensing service we couldn’t complicate things by creating a new third infrastructure. OneMusic exists basically as a brand that is jointly owned by both APRA and PPNZ. And it’s a joint project but the actual administration of the service is done by APRA but trading as OneMusic. It is able to offer licences on PPNZ’s behalf through a sub licensing arrangement and simply distributes PPNZ’s share of the royalties collected monthly with the only deduction being an agreed expense percentage.
CC: So what happened to the two organisation’s staff?
AH: We combined both licensing teams and added further resources to the project to make sure it has every chance of success. PPNZ’s licensing staff became APRA employees and relocated to new premises adjacent to the APRA Auckland office.
CC: How has it been received by rights owners and licensees?
AH: We are only six months in to the project so results are very preliminary. And we have a major re-licensing focus to get every licensee re-licensed under OneMusic. This has necessitated terminating thousands of licences and going through the exercise of re-licensing as OneMusic. But the response from our customers and from the industry organisations that represent them has been pretty good.
Obviously – especially where a customer only had one licence before from either PPNZ or APRA – some licence fees have gone up, but that is balanced with some that have indeed reduced. It’s was always our intention that we make this a cost neutral exercise for our customers, especially those who were totally compliant with both licences, where revenue growth would come from greater market penetration. Both our board and the record industry showed great faith in this approach and initial results seem to be very positive.
This interview appeared in the May 2014 edition of the CMU Trends Report. Buy our reports from the CMU Shop or get every edition by signing up for CMU Premium.
