review of code of conduct for copyright collecting …ifpi submission to the australian...

IFPI Submission to the Australian Government’s Review of Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies September 2017 IFPI - representing the recording industry worldwide - thanks the Government of Australia for the opportunity to submit comments on the Review of Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies. IFPI has some 1,300 record company members in 61 countries, and affiliated industry associations (including collective management organisations) in 57 countries, including in Australia (Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited (PPCA)). IFPI has over eighty years of experience in working with international organisations and governments worldwide in ensuring that their copyright laws and accompanying enforcement laws and procedures are fit for purpose in supporting investment in artists and music production and the development of thriving creative economies. One of IFPI’s priority areas is to ensure that its members have access to effective, transparent, accountable and well-governed collective management services. IFPI works with the industry music licensing companies (MLCs) to improve standards and performance of the collective management of recording industry performance rights (public performance and broadcast) globally, establishing best practice for collective management. We work with some 75 MLCs around the world (including PPCA) to ensure maximum transparency, accountability and good governance in their operations. To this end, IFPI has developed together with the MLCs the IFPI Music Licensing Companies Code of Conduct and Distribution Rules Guidelines (last updated in 2016). IFPI, alongside other associations, has also been working closely with WIPO in the development of good practices in collective rights management – the WIPO “CMO Toolkit” (formerly known as the TAG Compendium). This submission is intended to supplement PPCA’s responses to the specific questions raised in the consultation. This submission seeks to contribute to the consultation by focusing on international best practice in respect of the following issues raised in the consultation: 1. TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE 2. DISTRIBUTION 3. THE VALUATION OF RIGHTS

IFPI Submission to the Australian Government’s Review of Code of Conduct for Copyright Collecting Societies – September 2017 –

1. TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE Transparency, accountability and good corporate governance are fundamental principles which are crucial to the effective collective management of rights, and which underpin the IFPI MLC Code of Conduct and Distribution Guidelines. Copies of these documents are at the Annex to this submission. The Code of Conduct and Distribution Guidelines are in relevant parts consistent and in certain respects exceed most national CMO regulations, including the requirements of the European Collective Rights Management Directive. As such, IFPI requires adherence to the Code of Conduct and Distribution Guidelines by the 75 IFPI affiliated music licensing companies. The following sets out a summary of the IFPI international best practice, focusing on the issues covered by the consultation.

Summary of IFPI Music Licensing Companies Code of Conduct Relations with Right Holders

▪ Right holders must be allowed to determine the scope (rights, uses, repertoire and territory) and character (exclusive or non-exclusive) of the rights mandates they give to the MLC, with a right to terminate the mandate.

▪ MLCs must keep and maintain up-to-date records of the members and/or right

holders it represents in electronic form. ▪ MLCs accept as members and/or provide services to all sound recording right

holders on a non-discriminatory basis and according to principles of equal treatment.

Relations with Users MLCs must:

▪ Interact with users in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and in a way that ensures that right holders receive a fair price for use of their rights.

▪ Establish tariffs that are transparent and based on objective criteria and that fairly

reflect both the value of right holders’ rights in trade and the benefits to users of the MLC’s service.

▪ Require users to report the use of all sound recordings promptly and accurately

using a standardised electronic format and where possible using industry standard recording identifiers, unless reporting would be commercially unreasonable and economically unviable considering in particular the value of the licence in question.


▪ Provide detailed information within a reasonable timeframe on the repertoire and rights they represent.

Transparency

▪ Each MLC is to make available on their websites: their annual reports and accounts, list of bi-lateral agreements they have concluded, template membership and/or customer agreements with right holders, general tariffs, articles of association/by-laws and distribution rules.

Governance

▪ Each MLC is to provide right holders the opportunity for a fair and balanced representation in the governing bodies of the MLC, taking into account the direct economic interest a member has in the functioning of the MLC.

▪ In the event that the right holders can become direct members of the MLC, all members should be given voting powers at the general meeting.

2. DISTRIBUTION IFPI’s Distribution Rules Guidelines aim to ensure that distribution of revenues reflects actual use of repertoire as closely as possible. The Guidelines may be summarised as follows: Allocation of Revenue Specific distribution rules need to be adopted for allocating revenue from distinct sectors, reflecting the fact that usage between different sectors may vary. Where full usage reporting is not provided or where amounts would be too small to be economically processed, there may be some exercise of discretion in the choosing of sources or proxies, based on the use of sound, objectively justifiable methods. For example, revenue from broadcasters would almost always be allocated on an actual usage basis, according to reports of repertoire usage provided by broadcasters. In the case of public performance (use of music in shops and gyms, for example), such precise reporting by the user may not be possible. In such cases, MLCs should develop their allocation rules taking into account the following one or a mix of potential sources for obtaining data on the actual use and the relevant proxies (in the order of preference), considering the value of the use of sound recordings in the different sectors:

▪ Reports from users (using statistical samples where relevant) ▪ Reports from audio monitoring companies ▪ Reports from background music providers (on what repertoire has been copied by

them and ideally playout data)


▪ Radio reports ▪ Market share

The annexed IFPI Guidelines provide much more detailed advice about how best to distribute revenues from different types of users. Fair and Equitable Application of Distribution Rules To ensure that distribution is fair, IFPI recommends that the MLCs’ distribution rules and their implementation shall be overseen by a distribution committee, convened taking into account a fair and balanced representation of right holders, and able to bring expertise and objectivity to the task. A non-discriminatory application of distribution rules is essential. Distribution Schedule and Practices Distributions should be regular with distribution schedules published in advance. MLCs should provide to the right holders they represent and to other MLCs with which they have bilateral agreements, royalty statements itemised per track (if claimed on track-basis) and by user, or per usage sector where breakdown per user would not be economically viable (such sectors may include commercial radio, commercial TV, cable retransmission, satellite broadcasting, public performance, etc.), if possible. Operating Costs and Fees The distribution fees applied by the MLCs should reflect only true and documented operating costs. Variable costs deductions from different revenue streams is permitted but must be fair and based on the costs actually attributable to the relevant revenue streams. MLCs should apply the same distribution fees for their members and members of other MLCs. It is acceptable to establish a fee as a single percentage, but this should nevertheless be based on a cost analysis and reflect the true and accurate operating costs. Data Storage/Repertoire Registration To minimise revenues being unmatched to right holders, most MLCs operate a recording-based repertoire registration system, including PPCA, and IFPI advocates this approach. Unmatched Usage The starting point for minimising unclaimed usage is to have good data, and MLCs work closely with right holders to ensure the MLCs have up-to-date repertoire data. It is also important to note that the obligation is not solely upon the MLC and right holders to ensure the CMO is able to distribute revenues accurately: the better the quality of usage reporting from a user,


the better the ability of the MLC to match the usage to their own repertoire data and allocate revenues accordingly. Where it proves impossible to match revenues to repertoire, it may be appropriate to distribute unmatched revenues to right holders in proportion to allocations made to those right holders in the relevant financial year. The consultation document raises the question whether this is fair to users. To that end it is important to note that the user has enjoyed the benefit of the repertoire it has played, and has also benefitted from the efficiencies of being licensed by a MLC. It would not be appropriate to repay unmatched revenues to users. In any event, because of the quality of repertoire data in recording industry MLCs, the issue of unmatched revenues is a marginal issue for the Australian record industry, to say the least. 3. THE VALUATION OF RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE In simple terms, free market negotiations should determine the appropriate value of the rights licensed, with recourse to state bodies such as a copyright tribunal only in the case of disputes. In practice, the fact that tribunals have oversight of rates often results in rights being undervalued, but the most fundamental obstacle to establishing market-based rates is state intervention in the initial rate setting process. Therefore, we consider as best practice territories those which are not encumbered or are only affected in a reasonable way by state intervention in the rate setting processes between users and right holders. Where rates are determined by a tribunal or equivalent body, the tribunal should determine the applicable rate by reference to the economic value of the rights in trade, seeking to achieve a rate that represents what would be agreed in a free market negotiation. In this section of the submission, we highlight some good practices internationally, as well as some practices which resulted in the undervaluation of rights, including the broadcast royalty cap in Australia. EU CRM Directive An example of international best practice is established within the legal framework of the EU Directive 2014/26/EU “On Collective Management Of Copyright And Related Rights And Multi-Territorial Licensing Of Rights In Musical Works For Online Use In The Internal Market” (“CRM Directive”) – the piece of EU copyright legislation which has to be implemented in all EU Member States1.

1 According to EU law, as a rule, in EU Member States which had not implemented the CRM Directive by 10 April 2016 (implementation deadline), the provisions of the Directive became directly applicable.


As to the legal standard for setting royalty rates, the CRM Directive’s framework presupposes a market-oriented approach as to the establishment of the value of the use of the right holders’ rights by requiring that “the rights to remuneration shall be reasonable in relation to […] the economic value of the rights in trade.” In this regard, account shall also be taken of the nature and scope of the use of the work and other subject matter (see Art. 16(2) CRM Directive). For example, for a pub or a bar the value of music is in the benefit to the business of playing music. Economic studies have shown this benefit to be an increase in patronage and sales. The same is true of broadcasts, for which music is the content most valued by their users. To that end, we refer to the following studies:

1. https://www.recordoftheday.com/news-and-press/new-research-suggests-playing-music-increases-retailers-net-promoter-scores

2. Uncovering a Musical Myth (copy attached at Annex 2 to this submission)

The fundamental point is that the remuneration for the performance of sound recordings is a payment for the use of a commercial product. For the remuneration to be equitable it should amount to the market price for the rights licensed. For ensuring the appropriate remuneration of right holders on the basis of that standard, the CRM Directive’s Recital 31 emphasises that “Collective management organisations and users should […] conduct licensing negotiations in good faith and apply tariffs which should be determined on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria.” (Emphasis added). In conclusion, the CRM Directive provides for a fair market value-based rate setting standard without unreasonable interference of state bodies with the initial rate setting process. In the United States, US law requires the US Copyright Royalty Board, according to Sec. 114(f) US Copyright Act, to establish “reasonable rates and terms”. In this regard, the law further specifies the standard in Sec. 114(f)(2)(B) US Copyright Act, in particular as to webcasting services, according to which the Board “shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in a marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller” (emphasis added). Hence, the law also sets standards for fair market value-based rates for collectively managed rights. Countries that broadly follow this practice include Hong Kong, New Zealand, the UK, and Australia (although the statutory intervention by way of broadcast rate cap in Australia has the effect of seriously undervaluing record industry rights, and we return to this issue below). In contrast, there are other jurisdictions which we would consider to be problematic due to the unreasonable interference of state institutions with the tariff setting process. Such an example is the Taiwanese system. Although, according to the Taiwanese law (Art. 24 Taiwanese Copyright Act), royalty rates and dates for their implementation shall be adopted by the relevant CMO, the Taiwanese Intellectual Property Office (“TIPO”) has broad powers to interfere with the rate setting process. The effect of this is not only that the system does not allow for setting free marked-based rates, but also right holders face the uncertainty of

https://www.recordoftheday.com/news-and-press/new-research-suggests-playing-music-increases-retailers-net-promoter-scores

https://www.recordoftheday.com/news-and-press/new-research-suggests-playing-music-increases-retailers-net-promoter-scores


having retrospectively to pay already received royalties back to users if TIPO decides to change a royalty rate. Another concerning example is Canada. As a regulatory authority, the Canadian Copyright Board is entitled to set tariffs for both right holders and users when the use of copyright protected works is concerned. Therefore, the tariff setting is up to the Copyright Board, and if the Board does not set a rate Canadian CMOs are not able to collect licensing revenues. In its current practice, the Canadian system has been widely criticised for its inefficiency and lack of timely decision making – which in effect deprives right holders of effectively exercising their rights. It follows that the Canadian system does not provide for a fair market value-based rate setting system and public authorities unreasonably interfere with the initial rate setting. From an economic point of view, this is also reflected in lower collection rates generated by CMOs in Canada in contrast to other developed markets. Australian Broadcast cap This section of the submission addresses the market-distorting statutory rate cap, which effectively acts as a subsidy for the radio broadcast industry at the expense of the record industry. The statutory licence afforded to commercial and national radio broadcasters in Australia pursuant to section 109 of the Act is subjected to the royalty caps set out in section 152(8) and section 152(11), which provide:

1. That the Copyright Tribunal may not fix an annual licence fee in excess of 1 percent of gross revenue of a radio broadcaster who holds a licence allocated under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 for that broadcaster‘s use of sound recordings. Both commercial and community radio broadcasters would fall within this category.

2. That the Copyright Tribunal may not fix an annual licence fee in excess of 0.5 cents

per person of Australia‘s population for radio broadcasts made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

These caps have been in place since the introduction of the Act almost 50 years ago on 1 May 1969, and were prescribed in the Act in order to take into account what were referred to as “special circumstances”, which were expressed by the Attorney-General at the time as follows:

“These limits have been set to allay fears expressed by both the commercial broadcasting stations and the Australian Broadcasting Commission that the payment of royalties for the broadcasting of records could impose a substantial financial burden on them. The limits have been fixed in the light of the special circumstances now existing in Australia in relation to the broadcasting of records and are not intended to imply that any particular royalty or rate of royalty is appropriate for the broadcasting of musical copyright works” (emphasis added).


Almost fifty years on the state-imposed caps remain and consequently record industry revenues from the Australian broadcast industry rank 18th in the world, behind countries including the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and Austria. This is despite music being undoubtedly one of (and for many stations) the most important content broadcast, which the stations rely upon to attract users and drive advertising revenues. According to the latest IFPI IPSOS survey 87 percent of all internet users had used radio to listen to music. 68 percent had listened to broadcast radio and 35 percent had listened to digital radio. This illustrates the continuing importance of radio as a substantial medium for music consumption. Indeed, music continues to be the most valuable programming content for radio services. According to Radio Centre (UK trade association representing 40 stakeholders who operate 268 licensed radio stations across the country and represent 90 percent of commercial radio in terms of listening and revenue): “Commercial stations play more than 40 minutes of music an hour during daytime and 95 percent of our stations devote more than half of their content to music”. Research conducted by Ipsos for UK communications regulator Ofcom in 20132 found that:

▪ Music is the content most valued by consumers of local commercial radio (83 percent of consumers value music most).

▪ “On a content basis (in a very general order of stated importance) music is the key driver, followed by entertaining, interesting or informative speech output delivered by engaging presenters; up-to-date news; and local travel, weather and news bulletins.”

Yet the radio industry payments for recorded music, its key input, do not match the value of the use of recorded music to radios. This problem is particularly acute in Australia as a result of the outdated statutory rate caps. The removal of the statutory rate caps to enable free market negotiations is therefore an essential step towards ensuring fair and balanced digital markets in Australia. There can be no justification for continuing to compel the record industry to subsidise the radio broadcast industry. CONCLUSION The record industry’s collective management practices represent international best practice in the field, as illustrated by the operations of PPCA. As such, we do not regard any further state intervention in this field, by way of extending the Code of Conduct, or otherwise, as necessary. Rather, the priority issue for ensuring that the collective management framework 2 http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/radio-research/ressearch-findings13/research-statement.pdf, page 5

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/radio-research/ressearch-findings13/research-statement.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/radio-research/ressearch-findings13/research-statement.pdf


in Australia is brought into line with the digital age is to remove the statutory rate caps to enable the true value of rights to be determined by the market. We stand ready to provide any further assistance to the Government in this consultation. Contacts: Lauri Rechardt Director of Licensing and Legal Policy Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7878 7916

Patrick Charnley Senior Legal Policy Adviser Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7878 7913

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Annex 1 ▪ MLC Code of Conduct ▪ Guidelines for Distribution Rules for music

Code of Conduct for Music Industry Music Licensing Companies (“MLCs”) June 2016 version INTRODUCTION It is acknowledged that MLCs provide a range of valuable services both to right holders and for users. MLCs make it easier for potential users to use sound recordings legally and they streamline the process of collecting remuneration and/or licence fees for the use thereof. By striving to adhere to the guidelines set out in this IFPI MLC Code of Conduct, each MLC aspires to achieve best practices in the conduct of its operations. MLCs expect that, in return, users behave in a responsible manner and respect the right holders’ right to receive fair payment for the use of their sound recordings and pay remuneration and report usage to MLCs accurately and in a timely manner. It also understood and accepted that actions taken by any MLC which are necessary in order to comply with national laws or other binding regulations shall, where such provisions conflict with any provision of these guidelines, not be considered as departing from these guidelines. GENERAL PRINCIPLES MLCs shall act in the best interests of all right holders they represent, whether directly or via agreements with other MLCs. MLCs shall offer their services and conduct their operations in a fair, effective and non-discriminatory manner and in compliance with the applicable legislation. MLCs shall strive to effectively collect remuneration or license fees on behalf of right holders and distribute the collective revenue to correct right holders expeditiously and accurately. I. RELATIONS WITH RIGHT HOLDERS 1. Each MLC is to allow right holders to determine the scope (rights, uses, repertoire and territory) and

character (exclusive or non-exclusive) of the rights mandates they give to the MLC without restrictions, unless such restrictions are imposed by applicable legislation, competent courts or other authorities, or they are objectively justified for reasons of effective management and licensing of rights and they are always proportionate to the objectives they seek to achieve.

2. Each MLC is to allow right holders to terminate the management of their rights wholly or in part (see

clause I.1 above) with reasonable notice period that shall not exceed six months. However, MLCs may provide that termination of membership takes effect at the end of the financial year during which the notice of termination was given. Regardless of termination of the rights mandates, the MLC shall continue to distribute to right holders revenue they have collected on their behalf prior to termination, on equal terms with the MLC’s members or customers, whichever may apply. In appropriate circumstances, the MLC may require that right holders’ rights continue to be included in licenses granted to users prior to the date of the receipt of the notice of termination for a reasonable period of time, however, such a period shall not exceed 12 months.

Code of Conduct for Music Industry Music Licensing Companies (“MLCs”) - June 2016 version – Page 2

3. Each MLC is to keep and maintain up-to-date records of the members and/or right holders it represents in electronic form, in compliance with applicable laws on data protection and privacy. 4. Each MLC is to accept as members and/or provide services to all sound recording right holders on a

non-discriminatory basis and according to principles of equal treatment, unless the MLC has objectively justified reasons to refuse its services or differentiation is absolutely necessary and based on justified and objective criteria (for example, where an applicant/member is proven to be engaging in piracy or other illegal practices or where an applicant/member manages rights in sound recordings that are of a type that does not fall within the MLC’s scope of activity (such as, for example, library music or jingles)).

II. RELATIONS WITH OTHER MLCs 1. Each MLC is to strive to conclude reciprocal representation agreements with respect to the rights they

administer with every other MLC, subject to such other MLCs complying with this Code and any requirements of international law, in order to establish a network of agreements between the MLCs that facilitates multi-repertoire and in appropriate cases multi-territory rights licensing.

2. Each MLC is to manage the rights it is mandated to administer by virtue of a reciprocal representation agreement in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. III. RELATIONS WITH USERS 1. Each MLC is to interact with users in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and in a way that ensures that right holders receive a fair price for use of their rights. 2. Each MLC is to establish tariffs that are transparent and based on objective criteria and that fairly reflect both the value of right holders’ rights in trade and the benefits to users of the MLC’s service. 3. Each MLC is to require users to report the use of all sound recordings promptly and accurately using a

standardised electronic format and where possible using industry standard recording identifiers, unless reporting would be commercially unreasonable and economically unviable considering in particular the value of the license in question.

4. Each MLC is to be able to provide detailed information within a reasonable timeframe on the repertoire

and rights they represent, following a justified and sufficiently detailed request from a licensee or entity engaged in license negotiations.

IV. TRANSPARENCY 1. In order to ensure transparency in particular of the MLCs’ services to right holders, regardless of their

nationality or country of establishment, each MLC is to make available, in English, on their websites: their annual reports and accounts, list of bi-lateral agreements they have concluded, template membership and/or customer agreements with right holders, general tariffs, articles of association/by-laws and distribution rules.

2. Each MLC is to make available upon request, to all right holders that have mandated the MLC either

directly or through a bi-lateral agreement with another MLC to manage their rights, a list of recordings where the owner of the relevant rights has not been identified. Before providing this information each MLC should first have concluded reasonable identification procedures.

3. Each MLC is to provide to the right holders they represent and to other MLCs with which they have

bilateral agreements, royalty statements itemised per track and in respect of revenues at least per usage sector (such sectors may include commercial radio, commercial TV, cable retransmission, satellite


broadcasting, public performance, etc.), subject, however, to paragraph V.2 below. 4. Each MLC is to establish and communicate a fair and effective policy for dealing with competing remuneration claims, and to publish a dispute resolution procedure(s). V. DISTRIBUTION AND MANAGEMENT OF REVENUE 1. Each MLC is to encourage each right holder to put in place processes to provide, in a standardised

electronic format, accurate, complete and timely information on their rights, catalogue, and new recordings, including use of industry standard recording identifiers.

2. Each MLC is to strive to accurately identify the use of individual sound recordings in performance

activities and to distribute monies to all right holders at track level based on actual use and usage

reports insofar as it is economically reasonable. Distribution of revenue at track level, based on actual usage in respect of the licensed service to which the revenue relates (or an objectively justified group of licensed services taking into account the revenue received and the nature of the usage), should be the rule as regards to distribution of revenue for broadcasting activities, whereas general public performance revenue may be distributed to individual right holders using statistical samples, monitoring or background music providers’ reports or using best available proxies, such as radio usage or objective market share information. However, as a principle, costs for using such alternative methods should be borne by licensees rather than right holders.

3. Each MLC is to distribute collected revenue no later than 6 months after the end of the financial year in which such revenue is collected, and either:

a. at least twice per year; or b. at least once a year, in which case MLCs should pay advances to right holders subject to

reasonable financial controls, ensuring that such advances do not exceed amounts right holders are actually due during the relevant period.

4. Each MLC is to deduct from the collected sums only the appropriate costs of operating the MLC. No

additional deductions for whatever reason should be made unless the right holders have agreed to such deductions or they are stipulated by law. MLCs are to provide details of such deductions to members and indicate whether these are statutory or voluntary.

5. After having used their best efforts to identify and locate the correct recipients, unless prohibited by

applicable legislation, each MLC is to distribute unidentified and unclaimed monies proportionately to the identified right holders, without discrimination between members and non-members, no later than 3 years after the end of the calendar year in which the monies were collected, according to usage information for that year. Each MLC is to make reasonable provisions against future claims by individual right holders that have not received remuneration for the use of their rights.

6. The distribution rules and practices applied by the MLC shall be based on the principle of individual

distribution according to actual use of the sound recordings and they may not directly or indirectly discriminate between right holders on the grounds of nationality, ownership, genre, or otherwise, without objectively justifiable reasons.

VI. GOVERNANCE 1. Unless prohibited by applicable legislation, each MLC is to provide right holders the opportunity for a

fair and balanced representation in the governing bodies taking into account the direct economic interest a member has in the functioning of the MLC.

2. In the event that the right holders can become direct members of the MLC, all members should be given


voting powers at the general meeting on the basis of criteria such as (i) number of tracks registered and/or (ii) amounts received or due to a member, provided that such criteria are determined and applied in a manner that is fair and proportionate to the value of their rights managed by the MLC.

3. Unless otherwise required by applicable law, each MLC shall have a general meeting of members,

delegates or shareholders, as the case may be, at least once a year. The general meeting shall at least have the power to appoint and dismiss the members of the board of directors, which supervises the management of the MLC, and the MLC’s auditors, as well as approve any changes to the MLC’s statutes and general distribution policies.

Guidelines for Distribution Rules for Music Industry Music Licensing Companies (“MLCs”) June 2016 version By striving to adhere to the principles set out in this IFPI MLC Guidelines for Distribution Policies, each MLC aspires to achieve efficiency, transparency and best practices in the conduct of its operations. These guidelines describe the most important standards that distribution policies should seek to meet, and MLCs may decide to implement more stringent requirements if desired. These guidelines will be updated from time to time as technology and practices develop over time. It is also understood and accepted that actions taken by any MLC which are necessary in order to comply with national laws or other binding regulations shall, where such provisions conflict with any provision of these guidelines, not be considered as departing from these guidelines. The adoption of principles based on the guidelines established in this document not only enables individual MLCs to operate in a more transparent and efficient manner, it is also one of the requirements for developing a more efficient and transparent overall system of collective management of sound recording rights. When applying and implementation these rules and policies due regard should be made also to the relevant provisions of the MLC Code of Conduct, as amended from time to time.

Guidelines for Distribution Rules for Music Industry Music Licensing Companies (“MLCs”) – June 2016 version – Page 2

1. ALLOCATION OF REVENUES MLCs should apply the following principles and recommendations when allocating revenues to right holders. Specific distribution rules need to be adopted for allocating revenue from distinct sectors, reflecting the fact that usage between different sectors may vary. Where full usage reporting is not provided or where amounts would be too small to be economically processed, there may be some exercise of discretion in the choosing of sources or proxies, based on the use of sound, objectively justifiable methods. i. Radio and TV Broadcasting

a. Background Almost all of the MLCs allocate their revenues based on actual usage reports. Usage reports are normally provided by broadcasters. A few MLCs receive usage reports provided by monitoring companies or take into account information on market shares or information on similar users. b. Recommended Practice Revenues should be distributed based on actual use and usage reports. Revenues should be allocated for each station or channel separately, taking into account the distributable amount for the station or channel; the cumulative reported duration of all recordings broadcasted on that station or channel, and; the cumulative reported duration of usage of each individual recording. Revenues should be allocated per recording. Where it is not economically feasible to allocate all revenue separately per channel, revenues from channels with similar profiles may be bundled and distributed based on reports from a statistically representative sample of channels (see section i.(c) below). If possible, allocation should be based on duration of recordings and partial use of recordings in seconds. System implementation may if possible permit for different weighting (e.g. by day/night) in case objectively justifiable weightings need to be applied. Dubbing for radio/TV broadcasting to be allocated based on dubbing rules (see dubbing rules below). c. Acceptable Alternatives

An amalgamation of revenue and usage sources for allocation purposes should only occur where the stations or channels amalgamated have verifiably similar license value and/or similar usage and should take account of relative usage and audience. Where monitoring is used for some stations, monitored stations should reflect a representative range of repertoire such as mainstream or appropriate niche repertoire of any genre.


For small and medium radio stations that do not supply playlists or for which the cost of processing the playlist is not reasonable compared to the revenue collected from that station, a small statistically representative sample of stations and for which playlists of good quality are available, may be used to determine the allocation for a wider population of similar stations. The appropriateness of the 'panel' stations for the other stations they represent, shall be regularly reviewed and re-assessed when necessary. Revenue shall be allocated according to the total duration of the recordings broadcasted by all the stations in the panel. For small and medium TV stations or channels that do not supply playlists or for which the cost of processing the playlist is not reasonable compared to the revenue collected from that station, a small statistically representative sample of stations and for which playlists of good quality are available, may be used to determine the allocation for a wider population of similar stations. The appropriateness of the 'panel' TV stations for the other TV stations they represent, shall be regularly reviewed and re-assessed when necessary. Revenue shall be allocated according to the total duration of the recordings broadcasted by all the TV stations in the panel. Revenues per individual TV station shall be allocated per recording in proportion of the cumulated duration of the broadcasting of the recording compared to the cumulative duration of the recordings broadcasted. It is recognized that not all situations permit economically feasible distribution based on complete recording usage data. Allocation based on usage reports is strongly recommended where economically feasible, but in cases where this requires higher administration costs than there is revenue to distribute, other alternative approaches can be taken. d. To Be Avoided: The use of radio usage data as a proxy for TV, or TV usage data for radio, should be avoided, since usage patterns can be very different between radio and TV. The use of market share as a proxy, or of other proxies such as mechanical license information should be used only as last resort, if allocation based on usage reports or monitoring is not economically feasible. e. Notes: Careful consideration should be given to whether reporting provided by TV stations includes repertoire used in acquired programmes as well as locally produced programmes and, if not, whether those acquired programmes were verifiably acquired on an 'all rights cleared' basis. If reporting provided by TV stations does not properly reflect actual usage, measures shall be taken to improve reporting. Until proper reporting is in place, other measures such as airplay monitoring may need to be taken to ensure that the distribution reflects actual usage as closely as possible.


ii. Public Performance a. Background: Public performance income is an increasingly important part of MLCs’ revenue mix. In some territories it already represents up 70 % of the MLCs total collections. More than 50% of MLCs allocate their collected revenues per recording used. Reports on actual usage are not available from all users. Therefore the majority of the MLCs take other sources into consideration. Some MLCs obtain reports from background music providers or monitoring companies; others take into account statistical usage information from a representative number of certain users (e.g. discotheques) or allocate pursuant to market shares. Others use audio broadcast data as a proxy for (part of the) public performance usage. There is currently no universally applied method for allocation established by all MLCs. b. Recommended Practice Remuneration for public performance should be allocated as close as possible to the actual use, though it is widely recognised that not all users are able to provide usage reports or usage reports are not available at all. This is an area where no ideal approach is presently available. MLCs should develop their allocation rules taking into account the following one or a mix of potential sources for obtaining data on the actual use and the relevant proxies (in the order of preference), considering the value of the use of sound recordings in the different sectors:

- Reports from users (using statistical samples where relevant) - Reports from audio monitoring companies - Reports from background music providers (on what has been copied and ideally

playout data) - Radio reports - Market share


The above principles could be applied in practice e.g. in the following manner:

Discotheques. A small panel of discos statistically representative of the overall population of discotheques may be created and reviewed frequently. Details of the panel must be confidential to prevent 'manipulation' of the reference venues. The actual use of phonograms by discos of the panel shall be recorded (for example, from the soundboard of the disco), enabling the preparation of annual statistics of the cumulated duration of use of each recording. The revenue shall be allocated according to the total duration of the recordings used by the discos in the panel. Shows, Expos, Music on Hold. Revenues shall be allocated per recording when invoiced (this is possible because of the small number of the recordings used). All other spaces. Market studies should be made regularly in order to obtain reliable statistics on the source of the public performance in these public places: recordings purchased, radio (identifying the individual radio stations used), background music suppliers, others. In assessing the suitability of references sources, their appropriateness and the quality of their reporting shall be taken into account. Once 'representative sources' have been identified that will be used as a basis to allocate 'other spaces' revenues, these revenues should be allocated in the same proportion as the allocation of revenues collected from these reference sources.

Dubbing revenue for public performance shall be allocated according to dubbing rules (see dubbing rules below). c. Notes Analysis shows that in general, much public performance use is generally similar to broadcast repertoire (partly also because radio may be used as the source of background music), but with the proviso that there can be specialist niche repertoire usage in specific cases. Therefore in the absence of actual usage reports from background music providers and/or monitoring companies, the reported usage for radio broadcasting is often the best proxy for public performance. Since broadcast usage reports are generally available to MLCs, while public performance reports and surveys are inherently limited, a combined approach may offer greater potential accuracy. MLCs should seek to analyze and complement the information used for the distribution of public performance revenue, with radio usage data. In assessing the suitability of reference sources, their appropriateness and quality of reporting shall be taken into account. If economically feasible, this would include user surveys on the sources of background music (radio, background music service, etc.) and using data from identified sources where possible, but where clear data isn't available then other information must be requested, such as genre and/or vintage of music played.


iii. Private Copying a. Background 16 of the 32 MLCs that responded to the query manage private copying rights. The most common allocation method for private copying revenues is according to (physical) sales market shares, as private copying seems to be linked to sales figures. Some MLCs allocate based on duration of recordings and sales of these recordings. Experience based on studies conducted shows that heavier weighting to sales data and lighter weighting to radio broadcast data may yield a good approximation to actual private copying sources. b. Recommended Practice Remuneration for private copying should be allocated as close as possible to the actual use. If reports on actual use are not available, MLCs should allocate to the best available proxies. Market studies should be made regularly in order to obtain statistics on the legal sources used for private copying (recordings purchased, radio stations, web radios). The revenues should be allocated proportionally taking into consideration the various data for each source of private copying, in the same proportion as for the allocation of revenues collected from these sources. For the source “recordings purchased”, a combination of physical and digital market share may be used as a proxy. If no reliable usage data is available, private copying levies may be distributed using market share and / or radio and TV broadcasting usage as a proxy. c. Notes Also private copying levy distribution should reflect actual usage and, to the extent relevant, consider the different media types being copied. Most of the MLCs have already established a sales-related allocation of private copying levy revenues. If an allocation of revenue according to market shares is applied by an MLC, it has to be ensured that the sales figures in the country of the MLC, corresponds to the actual private copying usage. Otherwise, other proxies such as radio and TV broadcasting use should be considered, based on a panel of monitored stations also taking into account niche repertoire.

iv. Dubbing (for broadcasting and / or public performance)

a. Background Dubbing rights are managed by 21 of 32 MLCs that responded to the query. The MLCs mostly allocate their revenues according to usage reports provided by users. Usage reports are normally provided by background music providers (or in some cases by monitoring companies).


A hindrance to access to dubbing usage can occur in case of cross border service providers where the dubbing entity reports only locally, but not in the other territories where it operates. b. Recommended Practice Remuneration for dubbing should be allocated as close as possible to the actual use. It is recommended to allocate revenues according to usage reports from the service provider and taking into account what has been copied and whether the copies have been retained, and the play out reports (where that can be provided). It is recommended to obtain details of recordings retained as well as recordings dubbed, so as to assist in detecting and preventing manipulation of the reported usage. c. Acceptable Alternative If reports on actual usage are not available, MLCs should allocate according to best available proxies. Generally background music is close to the repertoire broadcasted, although use niche repertoire occurs and should be taken in to account. Therefore a proxy for background music could be broadcasters’ usage reports, if a wide range of stations is monitored. d. Notes MLCs should be aware that when dubbers use hard-disk systems (jukeboxes or background music systems) there is a higher possibility that popular recordings, once dubbed to the unit, do not need to be dubbed again, and will not be reported unless data on retained recordings is also obtained. v. Webcasting

a. Background Webcasting rights are administered by 20 of 32 MLCs. Those MLCs managing webcasting rights mostly allocate the revenues based on usage, according to actual usage reports, subject to availability. Where usage reports cannot be provided by users (e.g. lack of technical infrastructure of non-commercial webcasters), usage reports by similar users or radio broadcasting reports are taken into account. b. Recommended Practice Webcasting revenues should be allocated similarly to the process for radio broadcast, i.e. according to the actual usage using playlists supplied by the webcaster or podcaster. Due to data volumes and the smaller reach or value of some streams there may be a need to manage the allocation of small revenues that can’t be economically processed using full usage data for all webcast channels. If possible, data should be carried between reporting periods so that amounts may accumulate to a level where they can be economically processed.


c. Acceptable Alternative If usage reports are not available, or allocation based on usage reports may not be economically feasible, then usage reports of broadcasters or reports by (a sample of) similar webcasters may be used as a proxy. If this is done, it should be on the basis of establishing, at the time of licensing, a suitable similar radio proxy, and the suitability of the proxy should be re-assessed frequently. A robust method of establishing proxy sources shall be established and maintained. Where the obligation to report usage is not enforced for small webcasters, the obligation for them to report should nevertheless be reflected in licenses.

vi. Other Revenues

a. Background

There are certain other rights managed only by some MLCs, such as rental and lending of sound recordings, music videos or certain exclusive making available rights. Cable retransmission is administered by 21 of 32 of the recording industry MLCs. b. Recommended Practice As per recommendations for distribution of broadcast revenue, revenues should be allocated based on usage reports and as economically feasible to the actual use. c. Acceptable Alternative If reports on actual usage are not available, MLCs should allocate according to best available proxies, taking into account their appropriateness as a reference and their quality of reporting. Cable retransmission usage is similar to TV but care is needed to distinguish that part of the transmission which is the programming of the cable company versus re-transmission of other programming. Interest income on collected amounts held on account by the MLCs should be either distributed to the right holders on pro-rata basis or used to off-set operating costs. If the latter option is applied, MLCs should still disclose and report their true operating costs before the costs and off-set.

vii. Acceptable practices when no other alternative is available

For all kind of revenues, if despite good faith efforts part of user reports cannot be processed (for example poor quality playlists that nevertheless have a significant proportion of the recordings properly identified) the following practices can be used in the following order of preference:


a. Allocation using the best recommended practice or the accepted alternate practice for the portion of the users’ reports that can be processed.

b. Allocation using reports supplied by other users of the same sector, when the

recordings used are supposed to be similar to those of the other users.

c. Allocation using reports supplied by users of a different sector, but linked to the sector concerned.

d. When the revenues to be allocated are known to be significantly different from all

other sectors for which good quality reports are available, allocation made according to the number of recordings sold and their duration

viii. Transitional or generally non-recommended practices

The following practices, which may have been applied during the start-up phase of an MLC, in order to distribute revenues to right holders without unacceptable delays or costs, should be phased out, unless their further application is justified by objective reasons and particular circumstances and is agreed to by the MLC’s members. a. Allocation based on market share An allocation according to market share does not reflect actual usage and does not allow right holders and licensors to be correctly remunerated. b. Cross-Sector Proxies Allocation based on data from another sector with no direct link with the sector concerned does not ensure fair allocation of income. 2. FAIR & EQUITABLE APPLICATION OF DISTRIBUTION RULES a. Background All MLCs apply the same distribution rules for their members and members of other MLCs. The share between performers and producers, where both groups enjoy protection, is generally 50%/50%. b. Recommended Practice The distribution rules and their implementation shall be overseen by a distribution committee, convened taking into account a fair and balanced representation of right holders, and able to bring expertise and objectivity to the task. A non-discriminatory application of distribution rules is essential.


There shall be fair and equitable treatment regarding distribution for a right holder either directly or through a bilateral agreement with another MLC. c. Notes MLCs and their rights holders should have no disadvantage of the representation of their rights through a bilateral agreement regarding distribution. Non-discriminatory treatment is essential.

3. DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE AND PRACTICES a. Background Most of the MLC distribute revenues to other MLCs at the same time as distribution to their own members takes part. Some of the MLCs have bilaterally and contractually agreed on specific distribution processes with other MLCs or prefer different distribution times to avoid too much workload. b. Recommended Practice MLCs must develop, approve, and publish their distribution schedule well in advance of the distribution taking place. It is recommended that an MLC publish the following year’s distribution schedule before the end of the current financial year, for example simultaneously with the publication of the end-of-year budget. All parties recognise that practicalities may mean that small changes to the actual date of distribution versus the published date may occur in practice. The distribution schedule includes distribution to local members and under unilateral or bilateral agreements, although MLCs may schedule local and non-local elements of the distribution for different dates if needs be. MLCs should provide to the right holders they represent and to other MLCs with which they have bilateral agreements, royalty statements itemised per track (if claimed on track-basis) and by user, or per usage sector where breakdown per user would not be economically viable (such sectors may include commercial radio, commercial TV, cable retransmission, satellite broadcasting, public performance, etc.), if possible. 4. OPERATING COSTS AND FEES a. Background Operating costs can comprise separate elements covering collection, management and distribution costs. Most MLCs have established Cost Analysis based distribution fees. Only a


few MLCs have established fixed rates. Almost all MLCs apply the same distribution fee structure for all rights holders. b. Recommended Practice Fees should be based on a cost analysis that takes into account the different operating costs, and which may reflect the fact that different costs may relate to managing different rights and usages. The distribution fees applied by the MLCs should reflect only true and documented operating costs. Variable costs deductions from different revenue streams is permitted but must be fair and based on the costs actually attributable to the relevant revenue streams. MLCs should apply the same distribution fees for their members and members of other MLCs. c. Acceptable Alternative It is acceptable to establish a fee as a single percentage, but this should nevertheless be based on a cost analysis and reflect the true and accurate operating costs. d. Notes There should be an equal treatment for all MLCs and their members regarding distribution fees. Distribution fees should reflect the actual costs for distribution and should be in relation to the distributed amounts. 5. DATA STORAGE/REPERTOIRE REGISTRATION a. Background Most of the MLCs operate a recording-based repertoire registration system. More than half of the revenues are allocated on a recording basis. Among the producers’ MLCs, there is still some use label based systems for exchange of information. b. Recommended Practice If technically and with economically reasonable effort possible, MLCs should operate a recording and usage based system enable to allocate revenues on a recording level. Common technical standards should be implemented as a priority wherever possible, in areas of data transfer, the standardization of fields and their meanings, the establishment of agreed mappings between different terms where necessary and in the use of identifiers. Repertoire data should be provided from authoritative sources and in cases where the data provided is poor or inadequate, processes shall be put in place that cause right holders to provide improved data quality.


c. Acceptable Alternative Some MLCs operate track-based databases, utilising core data about ‘tracks’ which is a product-oriented approach. This is not as rigorous an approach as a recordings-centred model (augmented with product data if needed for matching purposes), but it is acceptable. Some societies are legally obliged to distribute all reported usage, and may thus be obliged to create repertoire data from usage reports for repertoire that has not been previously registered. This approach should only be taken to the minimum extent and processes to improve such data should be in place. A label-based system is acceptable provided that the possibility to register repertoire on a track basis is offered as an alternative to right holders on fair and reasonable basis. d. To Be Avoided Gaps in data that lead to significant levels of unmatched or unclaimed usage are to be avoided. This generally means that processes of repertoire registration and of sharing information on unmatched or unclaimed usage should be in place. e. Notes Allocation of revenues on a recording and usage level ensures the most accurate way of distributing collected monies to rights holders. A document containing minimum and mandatory fields for repertoire registration should be part of the guide lines. As an example the following can be considered: ISRC Title (including alt title or subtitle) Main Artist Duration Label P Line Exploitation Period Territory 6. UNMATCHED USAGE a. Background Some MLCs license recordings only on behalf of right holders who have actively appointed the MLC and therefore revenue is not allocated to recordings that were reported as used but which were not matched to recordings registered with the MLCs by right holders. In some countries, MLCs must manage all used repertoire, and accordingly must be prepared to match claims from unrepresented right holders.


b. Recommended Practice Where an MLC licenses only on behalf of members who have actively appointed the MLC, the MLC may exclude unmatched usage from allocations and need not share the unmatched usage. In such a case the MLC should take all reasonable steps to encourage and enable members to register repertoire. If the MLCs collects for all repertoire, it must take all reasonable steps to identify recordings and right holders, and retain adequate reserves to meet claims from unrepresented right holders within the prescription periods. 7. RESERVES FOR UNCLAIMED REPERTOIRE a. Background The starting point for minimising unclaimed usage is to have good data and to have processes for exchanging data about unclaimed usage between societies and with right holders such that usage can be claimed. In this regard the societies’ work on VRDB2 should be noted. Most of the MLCs make reserves on the revenues distributed for unclaimed repertoire where the rights holders are not identified yet. Most of the MLCs operate a 3 years prescription period. There are some MLCs who apply shorter periods (1 or 2 years), others do apply longer periods (up to 10 years). During the prescription period rights holders can claim for their repertoire and receive remuneration. b. Recommended Practice Every MLC must oblige users to report with sufficient data quality that usage can be identified. Best efforts to identify the rights owner should be made, wherever economic to do so. MLCs should implement effective transparent processes to enable unclaimed usage to be claimed. This involves establishing secure, effective, equitable processes to exchange unclaimed lists between MLCs and with right holders, so that claims can be made. Bilateral agreements should explicitly establish a basis for this process. MLCs should make reserves for unclaimed repertoire pursuant to the prescription period applied. Rights holders identified within the prescription period should be able to receive remuneration. MLCs should apply prescription periods in compliance with their respective national legislation and regulations set out by their supervisory authorities. A prescription period of 3 years is recommended, if possible. At the expiry of the prescription period revenue held in reserve for unclaimed repertoire or for right holders who cannot be located should be distributed to right holders in proportion to allocations made to those right holders in the relevant financial year. c. Acceptable Alternative Exclude poor quality data from the distribution. Societies that operate on the basis of collecting against a mandate may have some flexibility to discard report data that is too poor


to be used in identifying repertoire. Inclusion of poor data in the distribution leads to higher unmatched usage and increased amounts held. MLCs that must manage all repertoire may need to exclude poor quality data from a distribution. d. To Be Avoided Any blurring of general reserves to deal with 3rd party claims, with other types of deductions, is to be avoided. e. Notes By reserving monies it is ensured that revenues can still be allocated to rights holders claiming for their repertoire during the respective prescription period. MLCs should have the possibility to identify rights holders and receive remuneration before the collected revenues are released and not available anymore. On the other hand the prescription period should allow MLCs to release reserves after a certain and not excessive period of time. Clearly defined procedures for international unclaimed repertoire distribution improves exchange of remuneration between MLCs. Improving the quality of user reports as an instrument for minimizing unclaimed usage, is a key topic. 8. GENERAL RESERVES a. Background It is also common to make reserves for legal risks. b. Recommended Practice General reserves should only be maintained at a level reasonably required to deal with third party claims and account for legal risks. At the expiry of the prescription period revenue held in reserve should be distributed to right holders in proportion to allocations made to those right holders in the relevant financial year. c. To Be Avoided Deductions or reserves for purposes other than 3rd party claims and legal risks shall not occur unless national law allows for it and right holders have given their consent. As required for instance in Europe by the CRM Directive, and elsewhere generally, no amounts should be deducted for social and/or cultural purposes from amounts due to another MLC pursuant to a representation agreement unless the other MLC has given express consent.


9. DATA FORMAT a. Background There are several different data formats used by MLCs. The majority of the MLCs use XLS (19 MLCs), other formats used are SDEG, CSV, XML, CLS and PDF. Eight MLCs use DDEX standards. b. Recommended Practice The exchange of data has to be defined and standardised. Therefore it is recommended that the DDEX Standard is implemented by each MLC. c. To Be Avoided Localised development of incompatible solutions is to be avoided. d. Notes A standardised data format makes the exchange of information more efficient and reduces the MLCs effort and costs due to handling different data formats. MLCs are actively working to complete and implement the DDEX standard with further work occurring as part of the VRDB2 project. 10. BILATERAL AGREEMENTS a. Background The international distribution processes applied by the MLCs and agreed under bilateral agreements, take a variety of forms. b. Recommended Practice Bilateral agreements, as and when agreed or amended, should be aligned to the principles set out within these guidelines and with the IFPI Code of Conduct. The principles set out within this distribution guidelines document should be crosschecked with the applied Bilateral Agreements.

11. APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION a. Background MLCs strive to implement a formal and transparent process under which distribution rules are established.


b. Recommended Practice Each MLC should adopt and publish a set of written Distribution Rules approved by the General Meeting of the Board, as the case may be, of that MLC.

12. APPLICATION a. Background MLCs strive to establish a formal system of oversight of the compliance with distribution rules. b. Recommended Practice Application of the distribution policy should be overseen by a committee consisting of person’s representative of the right holders whose rights are managed by the MLC.

13. QUALIFICATION a. Background MLCs distribute against qualifying recordings. b. Recommended Practice Revenue should be distributed only in respect of recordings that were protected by copyright or related rights at the time of their exploitation, unless this would be contrary to local legal requirements. c. To Be Avoided Revenue shall not be distributed to out-of-copyright recordings.

14. DISTRIBUTION TO RELEVANT OWNER a. Recommended Practice Distribution of revenue allocated to a recording should be made to the person that owned the rights at the time in which the recording was exploited or as that person instructs. Allocations of revenue may be offset against previous overpayments made to the party due the allocation or to associated parties.

Annex 2 ▪ Uncovering a Musical Myth

Uncovering a mUsical mytha sUrvey on mUsic’s impact in pUblic spaces

JUst as interior design is part of the in-store experience, mUsic has become an important competitive tool for bUsiness owners

foreword

There are many myths about the impact music has on us as humans. Most of us have probably heard stories about how music played in restaurants and shops can affect people, causing them to stay longer, shop more, or leave. A myth often originates from a historically recognised truth to some extent. This proves to be true here as well. Here we have a survey that gives clear answers on how music affects our comprehension of a shop or restaurant visit, for example. The results speak for themselves. Music played in-store and in other businesses in public places has become more than just Muzak played in the background. It has moved to the forefront. Just as interior design is part of the in-store experience, music has become an important competitive tool for business owners. However, there are many pitfalls and the survey shows that owners of both small and large businesses have a lot of homework to do. A large number of us reject the way businesses work with music today. So how can a business owner use music to make consumers satisfied and come back? You’ll find out the answer if you turn the page. One thing’s for sure. The myth about music is true.

Jakob LusenskyCEO Heartbeats [email protected]

3

five trUths aboUt the impact of mUsic

why a sUrvey aboUt mUsic?

the importance of mUsic for people

the importance of mUsic for bUsinesses

mUsic’s role at worKplaces

conclUsions

ten things to thinK of as a bUsiness owner

sUrvey resUlts

heartbeats international

index

6

8

10

13

24

27

28

30

32

5

five trUths aboUt the impact of mUsic

6

five trUths

We have summarised the results from the survey in five truths, or insights, worth remembering for any business owner running a business in a public place*.

people ranK mUsic as more difficUlt to live withoUt than sports, movies and newspapers

playing the right mUsic in yoUr bUsiness maKes consUmers stay longer

mUsic played in yoUr bUsiness affects consUmers’ opinion of yoUr brand

mUsic enhances wellbeing amongst employees in worKplaces

people thinK it is important that artists, mUsicians and songwriters get paid for mUsic being played in pUblic places

1

2

3

4

5

*Public places has been used as a generic term for businesses such as shops, shopping malls, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, transportation services, sports stadiums, gyms and workplaces.

7

why a sUrvey aboUt mUsic?

There are plenty of myths about music and how it affects us as humans. Often they are about how music affects our feelings on a subconscious level; that music which is played in a shop, or at a restaurant, affects the way we buy. Who hasn’t heard that music can make us buy more, or choose one product over another?

A couple of international surveys have been conducted on the subject and they answer some of these questions. The most quoted being a survey about music and wine, conducted in England in 1999, by Dr. Adrian C. North and Dr. David J. Hargreaves1. The results from their survey show that almost 8 out of 10 consumers buy French wine when French music is played in-store, and more than 7 out of 10 choose German wine when German music is played. When the consumers were asked about their product choices, the majority said that the music didn’t affect their purchase. This clearly illustrates the fact that consumers are affected by music, but often on a subconscious level.

Some of the myths about the impact of music have already been confirmed as truth. What we wanted to do here was to survey the impact of music on a more detailed level; what impact does it have on people, on businesses in public as well as on workplaces? And what should business owners think of when they play music in their businesses? How do they get consumers to stay longer and buy more?

1Dr Adrian C. North, Dr David J. Hargreaves and Jennifer McKendrick (1999), The influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 271-276

almost 8 oUt of 10 consUmers bUy french wine when french mUsic is played in-store

8

a deeper Understanding of how consUmers are affected by mUsic is important for anyone who rUns a bUsiness where the experience offered is becoming a main differentiating factor

methodologyTogether with Stim and SAMI, the Swedish counterparts to PRS and PPL in England, communication and branding agency Heartbeats International wanted to learn more about how people rank music in their everyday lives and the importance of music for businesses in public places.

A deeper understanding of how consumers are affected by music is important for anyone who runs a business where the experience the consumer is offered is becoming a main differentiating factor. In this report we give you the answers and we also let you know what you should think of, as a business owner, when choosing music for your business.

9

the importance of mUsic for people

10

…is hUge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

internet (70%)

mobile phone (54%)

mUsic (40%)

tv (40%)

literatUre (24%)

newspapers (23%)

sports (21%)

radio (21%)

movies (13%)

art (6%)

what is most difficUlt for people to live withoUt in their daily lives?

wanted to know how people rank music in relation to other pop cultural phenomena. We plainly asked people what they would consider as most difficult to live without in their daily lives.

people ranK mUsic as more difficUlt to live withoUt than sports, movies and newspapersThe respondents had to choose between ten things. The result shows us that people only rank the Internet and their mobile phone as harder to live without than music, and that music is more difficult to live without than sports, movies and newspapers. Music is also ranked higher than TV, literature, radio and art.

We knew it. People have a very unique relationship to music in their lives. We did understand that they love music, but didn’t know that music was that much more important for people in their lives than sports, art and movies. Music even beats literature and newspapers.

Wherever we turn today, we’re offered pop culture in some form, and all of it competes to get our time and attention. Therefore, we

11

mUsic is important or very important in the maJority of people’s livesWe let the respondents rank how important they consider music to be in their lives. The result shows that 61% consider music to be important or very important. The figure rises to 74% when we look at the results from the younger generation, the 16-24 year olds.

how important is mUsic in yoUr life?

74% of 16-24 year olds say mUsic is important or very important in their lives

61%Important or very important

10%Unimportant or very unimportant

1%Don’t know

THE IMPORTANCE OF MuSIC FOR PEOPLE

28%Neither important nor unimportant

12

the importance of mUsic for bUsinesses

13

mUsic maKes consUmers stay longer

Music is the language of emotions and a tool that can be used to connect emotionally to consumers. It builds brand equity, making consumers more loyal. An international study shows that businesses with music that fits their brand identity are 96% more likely to be recalled than those with non-fitting music or no music at all1. We wanted to know if the myth that music can change consumer behaviour is true, and asked the respondents to what extent they would stay longer, buy more, re-visit as well as recommend others to visit a business that plays music which they appreciate.

The survey reveals that appreciated music makes almost 4 out of 10 stay longer in a business in a public place. Further, 31% of all people return, 21% recommend the business to others and 14% also say they buy more. In other words, music is very important to businesses!

when mUsic that i appreciate is played in a pUblic place, it can maKe me...

THE IMPORTANCE OF MuSIC FOR buSINESSES

14%

buy more

21%

Recommend the place to others

31%

Re-visit

35%

Stay longer

1Dr Adrian C. North, Dr David J. Hargreaves, independent survey at Leicester University

14

50% of 16-24 year olds stay longer when mUsic they appreciate is played in-store

39%Would or most definitely would

25%Neither would nor wouldn’t

28%Wouldn’t or wouldn’t at all

7%Don’t know

The results from the survey further show that the younger the person is, the more important the music is. Half of 16-24 year olds stay longer and close to 4 out of 10 choose to come back to a business that plays music which they appreciate.

woUld yoU re-visit a bUsiness that plays mUsic which yoU appreciate?

15

mUsic played in a bUsiness affects consUmers’ opinion of the brand

The results from our survey show that consumers think music, and most importantly ‘the right music’, is important for brands and businesses.

To learn what appreciated music, or ‘the right music’ is, we asked the respondents about music in two specific environments; shops and restaurants. First and foremost, the music has to have the right volume. Secondly, it has to match the business’ profile, or brand. It is less important that the music corresponds to consumers’ personal taste or that it hits the radio charts and is well recognised.

it is important or very important that the mUsic being played...

Shop

Restaurant

82%87%

Has the right volume

36%

45%

Matches the profile or brand of the shop or

restaurant

28%20%

Corresponds to the music taste of the

consumer or visitor

17%10%

Is popular and recognised from

the radio


16

more than half of 16-24 year olds say that mUsic in-store shoUld fit the shop’s profile51% of all 16-24 year olds say that it’s important or very important that the music being played in-store should match the brand or business profile of that store. Further, 74% think it is important or very important that the volume is right. In comparison, 34% of 16-24 year olds think that the music should correspond to what they listen to themselves, and only 18% say it is important or very important that the music is popular and that they recognise it from the radio.

Also, music that is played at a restaurant should match the restaurant’s profile. Close to 6 out of10 16-24 year olds think this is important or very important. When 25-64 year olds are included, the figure is 45%.

The results from our survey generally show that music is of specific importance to young people. This is even clearer when we look at music in-store. The survey result reveals that more than four times as many 16-24 year olds think that music in-store is important, compared to 45-64 year olds.

17

the wrong mUsic played too loUdly maKes consUmers leave

We wanted to know if music can have a negative impact on businesses in public places and asked the respondents about it. The results from our survey reveal that ‘the wrong music’ makes 44% (almost every second person!) leave a business, and 38% won’t come back.

Almost 4 out of 10 further say that ‘the wrong music’ makes them buy less. The important question to us was why. The answer being that people leave a place if the music there is played at a volume which is too loud and is blocking the conversation, or if the music being played is noisy and irritating.

can mUsic played in a bUsiness in a pUblic place maKe yoU leave?

19%To neither a small nor large extent

32%To a small or very small extent

44%To a large or very large extent

6%Don’t know


the ones who leave a bUsiness do so becaUse the mUsic is…

1

2

played too loUd / blocKing the conversation 52%

noisy / irritating 44%

18

the wrong mUsic decreases salesWe also asked the respondents if music played in a business would make them buy less, not come back, or recommend others not to visit the business. Close to 4 out of 10 say that they would, to a high or very high extent, consume less. More would choose not to come back and close to 3 out of 10 say that they would recommend others not to visit the business. Thus it is of great importance to not only play music, but to look over the music selection and check how it is being played with regards to audio equipment and volume, etc.

the wrong mUsic can maKe me...

the absence of mUsic is negativeWhat about silence? 32-41% of the respondents say they would react negatively or very negatively to silence. More precisely, the absence of music in a business such as a shop, restaurant, hairdresser or at the shopping mall. And more than 6 out of 10 16-24 year olds would react negatively or very negatively if a gym didn’t play music.

25%

Recommend others not to visit the

business

36%

buy less

38%

Not come back

44%

Leave

19

Good

29%

Too loud

30%

bUsiness owners have plenty to worK on with regards to mUsic Results from our survey reveal that more people today think businesses don’t choose music well, compared to those who think they do. Most don’t have any specific opinion; 38% answered neither well nor not well, and 18% don’t know. It is obvious that businesses have plenty to work on in regards to the music they play today.

how well do bUsinesses choose mUsic to create a positive atmosphere/experience?

38%Neither well nor not well

20%Well or very well

24%Not well or not well at all

18%Don’t know


the importance of the right volUmeWe wanted to know more about the volume of the music that is played in businesses today, and asked the respondents about it. Their answers show that business owners have some homework to do; close to 6 out of 10 say that the volume is either too high or erratic.

the volUme on the mUsic that is played in bUsinesses in pUblic places is considered to be...

Erratic

29%

Don’t know

11%

20

more than half of 16-24 year olds have discovered new mUsic in a shop or another bUsiness in a pUblic place...Our survey reveals that public places work as a source of inspiration for many! More than half of 16-24 year olds have discovered new music as well as new artists when they have visited a business in a public place. When 25-64 year olds are included, the figure is 30%.

...and many also notice what artist or tracK it is that is being playedClose to 4 out of 10 16-24 year olds notice the artist or track categorically, and 13% even rate their experience of a business by the music that is played.

how well do yoU notice the mUsic that is played in pUblic?

3%

13%11%

44%

29%26%

36%

9%13%

5%9%

2%

16-64 year olds

16-24 year olds

I hardly notice the music

I notice there is sound

I hear that music is played

I notice the artist or track that is played

I rate my experience by the music that

is played

I don’t know

21

half of all the respondents thinK it is important or very important that mUsicians get paid for mUsic that is played in a bUsiness in a pUblic place

22

people have a negative opinion of bUsinesses not doing the right thing

Despite the fact that many download music illegally today, our survey reveals that the majority feel for the artists and songwriters, and think that it is important for business owners to pay for the music they play in their businesses.

It may be the artists and songwriters who have had to experience both the negative and the positive sides of the digital revolution the most. Since people buy music in physical formats less, artists and songwriters have witnessed their revenues being diversified. Downloads, placement of music in TV commercials, and live performances are just some of the areas where they get their revenues today. but the use of their music in businesses in public places also affects their income.

As many as 40% of the respondents in our survey would react negatively or very negatively if they found out that a business didn’t pay for the right to play music.

how woUld yoUr opinion of a bUsiness change if yoU foUnd oUt that they didn’t pay for the right to play mUsic in pUblic?

34%Neither positively nor negatively

6%Positively or very positively

40%Negatively or very negatively

19%Don’t know

23

mUsic’s role at worKplaces

24

mUsic enhances wellbeing at worK

We have not only revealed that the myth about the impact of music on consumers is true. We have revealed that the myth about music affecting employees in a positive way is true as well.

We asked the respondents how often they listen to music at work. More than 6 out of 10 people listen to music every day or at least once a week when they’re at work. The figure rises to almost 8 out of 10 amongst 16-24 year olds.

66% of those who listen to music everyday, or at least once a week, think that music affects them in a positive or very positive way at work. The figure for 16-24 year olds is 7 out of 10.

how does mUsic played at yoUr worKplace affect yoUr wellbeing at worK?

4%Negatively or very negatively

24%Neither positively nor negatively

66%Positively or very positively

7%Don’t know

25

MuSIC’S ROLE AT WORkPLACES

mUsic maKes employees more prodUctiveOf all people, close to 3 out of 10 say they love to listen to music while they’re working. If we look specifically at young people, almost half of 16-24 years olds say they love to listen to music at work. but people do not just appreciate music while at work. Music affects them deeper than that. Close to 5 out of 10 of 16-24 year olds answered that they become more productive if they listen to music at work. Looking at the answers from all people, the figure is almost a third.

The results from our survey further show that 43% of all people say that music makes the work environment more relaxed. As regards 16-24 year olds, that figure rises to 56%, and close to 4 out of 10 say that music at work enhances the social environment amongst employees.

The survey results clearly show that music is a good investment. It creates a better atmosphere, makes employees feel better, and helps them work more productively.

mUsic played at worK maKes...

26%

49%

43%

56%

24%

38%16-24 year olds

16-64 year olds

Me more productive The work environment more relaxed

The social environment amongst the employees better

26

conclUsions

This survey has had some clear answers about music and the impactit has on people; we rank music as more important than both sports and newspapers. Music further affects the way we shop, and is of specific importance to the younger generation, the ones with the purchasing power of tomorrow.

The results do not only show that music is important to people, but also to business owners running a business in a public place. Music that is appreciated by the visitor makes them stay longer, but most important of all, come back. ‘The right music’ also makes consumers buy more and recommend a business to others.

businesses in public places work as a source of inspiration where many discover new music and new artists. It’s no longer solely the products or the service that determine whether a consumer appreciates a business or not. Many clothing shops have started to serve coffee next to fitting rooms, and supermarkets have started to offer consumers a glass of wine while they’re doing their dinner shopping. Just like these sorts of added values, music has become an important competitive tool for businesses. Music is perhaps the most important element for businesses in targeting the younger generation. Therefore, it is of great importance for businesses to understand that the music they play constitutes an important piece of the experience they offer consumers. but it is crucial that the music has the right volume and matches the profile of the business or the brand. It is not enough to just play music that hits the top of the charts on the radio and is recognised, the music needs to fit the business where it is played.

However, it is not only of importance for consumer-targeted businesses to play music. Workplaces in general can benefit from music. Music makes employees feel better and become more productive. Many employees also experience an enhanced wellbeing as well as better fellowship at work while music is being played. So music at work is a good investment!

Finally, music is so much more than something played in the background. Music has moved to the forefront and today it is an important piece in the creation of an experience which touches all of our senses.

mUsic has become an important competitive tool for bUsiness owners who want to offer consUmers added valUes

27

ten things to thinK of as a bUsiness owner

28

checKlist for mUsic in yoUr bUsiness

mUsic is part of the whole in-store experience It is no longer only the products or the services you offer that determine if consumers appreciate your business or not. Music is an important competitive tool in distinguishing your brand experience.

define what yoUr brand soUnds liKe Music and sound are effective communication tools. The music you play should have a clear profile matching the experience you want to create; what associations do you want consumers to get from the music, what emotions do you want to awaken, how do you want to reflect your business in the music?

don’t forget the volUmeDon’t play the music too loudly, but not too low either - then the music just becomes annoying. Dare to go from background music to letting the music be in the forefront!

thinK of the rational fUnctions of the mUsicIs the purpose of the music to camouflage noisy sound, make ‘dead zones’ come alive, or to guide the visitor in-store?

maKe an inventory of yoUr aUdio eqUipment If you don’t have the right equipment, get it!

try the mUsic and volUme on yoUr employees and consUmers regUlarlyAsk your employees and consumers what they think of the music you play. It will give you some guidance.

who is the mUsic played for? Is it for the brand manager who wants to have a clear music profile; is it for employees who are after a good variation of music; or is it for the sake of consumers and satisfying their taste in music? There is no right or wrong, but it is important to think of who the music is played for and why.

are commercial spots and inspirational messages something yoUr bUsiness woUld gain on?If you play music from a streamed web-radio you have the possibility to program spots into your music program. This can increase your revenues effectively.

get a mUsic licenseIf you play music in your business you do need a music license.

professionalism is essentialIf you are uncertain about something, contact a music partner who can help you hit all the right notes with your consumers.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

You can find more hands-on tips and ideas on how to build a total experience with the help of music in the book Sounds like Branding, internationally released in July 2011. More info www.soundslikebranding.com/book

29

http://www.soundslikebranding.com

sUrvey resUlts1. What of the following things, or pop cultural phenomenon, would be most difficult to live without in your daily life?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.Literature 24% 15% Music 40% 55% Internet 70% 82% Mobile phone 54% 72% Newspapers 23% 10% Movies 13% 26% TV 40% 27% Art 6% 7% Sports 21% 29%Radio 21% 10% Don’t know 3% 2%

2. How important is music in your life?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o. 1 Very unimportant 1% 1% 2 unimportant 9% 7% 3 28% 17% 4 Important 33% 31% 5 Very important 28% 43% Don’t know 1% 2%

3. To what extent do the following statements apply to you when a business in a public place plays music you appreciate?

The music makes me:

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.Stay longer 1 Doesn’t apply at all 27% 12% 2 Doesn’t apply 13% 9%3 19% 23% 4 Applies 21% 31% 5 Applies fully 14% 19% Don’t know 6% 7%

Buy more1 Doesn’t apply at all 39% 27% 2 Doesn’t apply 19% 21% 3 19% 23% 4 Applies 10% 17% 5 Applies fully 4% 5% Don’t know 8% 8%

Re-visit1 Doesn’t apply at all 29% 16% 2 Doesn’t apply 14% 12% 3 20% 25% 4 Applies 20% 23% 5 Applies fully 11% 16% Don’t know 7% 7%

Recommend the place to others1 Doesn’t apply at all 35% 23% 2 Doesn’t apply 15% 10% 3 21% 26% 4 Applies 14% 20% 5 Applies fully 7% 12% Don’t know 8% 9%

4. How important are the following statements to you as regards the music that is played in a shop?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o. The music corresponds with the music I listen to privately1 Not important at all 18% 9% 2 Not important 17% 19% 3 31% 32% 4 Important 19% 20% 5 Very important 9% 14% Don’t know 5% 7%

The music matches the business profile or brand1 Not important at all 20% 8% 2 Not important 13% 12% 3 25% 22% 4 Important 26% 32% 5 Very important 10% 19% Don’t know 6% 7%

The music is popular and I recognise it from the charts on the radio1 Not important at all 35% 31% 2 Not important 19% 18% 3 23% 25% 4 Important 13% 12% 5 Very important 4% 6% Don’t know 5% 8%

The music is played at the right volume1 Not important at all 3% 1% 2 Not important 2% 4% 3 9% 16% 4 Important 22% 24% 5 Very important 60% 50% Don’t know 3% 6%

5. How important are the following statements to you as regards the music that is played at a restaurant?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.The music corresponds with the music I listen to privately1 Not important at all 23% 18% 2 Not important 24% 26% 3 27% 28% 4 Important 12% 9% 5 Very important 8% 9% Don’t know 6% 10%

The music matches the business profile or brand1 Not important at all 13% 3% 2 Not important 11% 4% 3 26% 25% 4 Important 30% 30% 5 Very important 15% 27% Don’t know 6% 10%

The music is popular and I recognise it from the charts on the radio1 Not important at all 42% 36% 2 Not important 23% 24% 3 20% 20%4 Important 7% 5% 5 Very important 3% 5% Don’t know 5% 10%

The music is played at the right volume1 Not important at all 2% 0%2 Not important 1% 2% 3 5% 10%4 Important 13% 13% 5 Very important 74% 65%Don’t know 4% 10%

6. To what extent can music in a business in a public place make you:

16-64 y.o. Leave1 To a very small extent 16% 2 To a small extent 16% 3 19% 4 To a large extent 21% 5 To a very large extent 23% Don’t know 6%

Buy less1 To a very small extent 17% 2 To a small extent 17% 3 20% 4 To a large extent 19% 5 To a very large extent 17% Don’t know 10%

Not come back1 To a very small extent 18% 2 To a small extent 17% 3 20% 4 To a large extent 19% 5 To a very large extent 19% Don’t know 7%

Recommend others not to visit1 To a very small extent 27% 2 To a small extent 18% 3 21% 4 To a large extent 12% 5 To a very large extent 13% Don’t know 9%

7. If you have answered 2-5 under ‘Leave’ in question 6.

What is it about the music that can make you leave?

Free text answer:

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.Too loud / blocking the conversation 52% 41%Noisy / Irritating / Dislike the choice of music or genre 44% 51%boisterous / Cacophony / Intrusive / bad quality 4% 2%Stressful / Exhausting 6% 4%Offensive / Inappropriate 1% 1%Nothing / No answer 1% 3% Other 4% 6% Don’t know 3% 2%

30

8. How important is it that music is played in the following businesses?

16-24 y.o. 45-64 y.o. Shop1 Not important at all 10% 43% 2 Not important 8% 20%3 23% 26% 4 Important 30% 7% 5 Very important 15% 2% Don’t know 14% 2%

Gym1 Not important at all 1% 2 Not important 2% 3 15% 4 Important 26% 5 Very important 41% Don’t know 15%

9. How important is the music for your experience of a visit at a gym? 16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.1 Not important at all 5% 1%2 Not important 6% 7% 3 14% 17% 4 Important 23% 23% 5 Very important 25% 36% Don’t know 27% 17%

10. How would you react if there was no music in the following businesses in public places? 16-24 y.o.Shop1 Very negatively 10% 2 Negatively 31% 3 31% 4 Positively 6%5 Very positively 5% Don’t know 17%

Shopping mall1 Very negatively 7% 2 Negatively 25% 3 38% 4 Positively 5% 5 Very positively 6% Don’t know 19%

Gym1 Very negatively 34% 2 Negatively 29% 3 15% 4 Positively 3% 5 Very positively 1% Don’t know 17% Hairdresser1 Very negatively 4% 2 Negatively 30% 3 37% 4 Positively 5% 5 Very positively 3% Don’t know 21%

11. Has music played in public inspired you to discover new music and artists? 16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.Yes 30% 51% No 51% 35% Don’t know 19% 14%

12. How well do you think businesses in public places use music to create a positive experience? 16-64 y.o. 1 Not well at all 9% 2 Not well 15% 3 38% 4 Well 16% 5 Very well 4% Don’t know 18%

13. How much do you notice the music that is played in businesses in public places?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.I hardly notice the music 3% 2% I notice there is sound 13% 11% I hear that music is played 44% 29% I notice the artist or track that is played 26% 36% I rate my experience by the music that is played 9% 13% Don’t know 5% 9%

14. What is your opinion on the volume of music played in businesses in public places?

16-64 y.o. Erratic 29% Good 29% Too loud 30% Don’t know 11%

15. How important is it to you that artists, musicians and songwriters get paid for the music that is played in a public place?

16-64 y.o. 1 Not important at all 11%2 Not important 8% 3 24% 4 Important 23% 5 Very important 27%Don’t know 8%

16. How important do you think it is that businesses in public places pay for the right to play music in their businesses?

16-64 y.o. 1 Not important at all 11% 2 Not important 10% 3 24% 4 Important 21%5 Very important 24% Don’t know 9%

17. How would your opinion of a business change if you found out that they didn’t pay for the right to play music in public? 16-64 y.o. 1 Very negatively 15% 2 Negatively 25% 3 34% 4 Positively 3% 5 Very positively 3% Don’t know 19%

18. How often do you listen to music at your work? 16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.Every day 40% 47% At least once a week 23% 28% Sometimes once a month or seldom 11% 8% Never 23% 10% Don’t know 4% 7%

19. If you have answered ‘Every day’ or ‘At least once a week’ in question 18:

How does music played at your workplace affect your wellbeing at work? 16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.1 Very negatively 1% 1% 2 Negatively 3% 1% 3 24% 18% 4 Positively 32% 31% 5 Very positively 34% 39% Don’t know 7% 10%

20. Which of the following statements apply to you?

16-64 y.o. 16-24 y.o.I love music at work 26% 48% I become more productivewith music at work 26% 49% The work environment becomesmore relaxed with music 43% 56% Music at work enhances thefellowship between employees 24% 38% None of the above 28% 10% Don’t know 12% 12%

Note: Some of the results add up to 99% or 101% due to rounding, and some questions have been put as multiple-choice questions.

31

heartbeats international

Heartbeats International is a brand and communication agency, specialised in music and pop culture. Global brands like Coca-Cola, IkEA and unilever are just some of the clients of Heartbeats. Filippa k, Conrad Hotels and breitling are further clients whose music Heartbeats is responsible for. The agency has its head office in Stockholm. Through the Heartbeats Movement, an international network with experts within music, branding and design, the agency is always up to date with the latest trends around the world.

For more information, visit:www.heartbeatsinternational.com www.soundslikebranding.com

32

Heartbeats International Ab

Phone +46 (0)8 501 189 90e-mail [email protected]

www.heartbeatsinternational.com www.soundslikebranding.com

www.plazapublishing.seA part of the Plaza Publishing Group

mailto:info%40heartbeats.fm?subject=

http://www.heartbeatsinternational.com

http://www.soundslikebranding.com

http://www.plazapublishing.se

review of code of conduct for copyright collecting …ifpi submission to the australian...

Documents