ou are a consultant hired by an artist whose royalties are not flowing correctly.
- Songs have ISRCs but some are missing ISWCs.
- PRO splits in ASCAP show 50/50, but the deal was 60/40.
- MLC dashboard shows multiple unmatched works.
- Distributor metadata does not align with publisher registrations.
- SoundExchange has not paid digital performance royalties.
- Some royalties risk being moved into the black box if not claimed
Instructions
Submit a two-page, double-spaced Summary Report to the client, written in APA format. Use in-text citations and include a reference list if sources are cited. Your report should be clear, professional, and client-facing, written for an independent artist who does not have a publishing administrator.
Format:
- Header: To: Client | From: [Your Name], Publishing Consultant | Date | Re: Urgent Action — Unmatched Royalties
- Sections:
- Issue Summary – what’s wrong in plain English.
- Findings – identifiers, splits, registrations, metadata errors.
- Impact – financial and operational risks (lost royalties, black box, SOL deadlines).
- Immediate Fixes (Day 0–10) – register with MLC, fix splits, confirm IPI/CAE IDs.
- 30-Day Plan (Day 11–30) – retro-claims, variance log, SOL calendar, ongoing controls.
- Conclusion – stress urgency; highlight that recovery is time-sensitive.
Additional Requirements:
- Length: 2 full pages, double-spaced (excluding references)
- Style: APA 7th edition
- Citations: Include in-text citations and a reference list for any sources used (e.g., MLC documentation, copyright law, articles, etc.)
- Tone: Clear, professional, and supportive — write for a smart but non-expert client
Grading:
- Case Summary & Context (20 pts)
- Financial Impact (20 pts)
- Operational Impact (20 pts)
- Recommendations & Action Plan (20 pts)
- Professional Writing & Citations (20 pts)
Reference the rubric for detailed grading criteria.
Rubric
Client Memo: Unmatched Royalties Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|---|---|---|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCase Summary & Context (20 pts) | 20 to >16.0 ptsExceeds Standard (20–17 pts)Clear, concise, accurate summary of the case; correctly identifies key facts, ownership/rights issues, and the core problem.16 to >12.0 ptsAt Standard (16–13 pts)Summarizes most key facts; identifies the problem but with minor gaps. 12 to >8.0 ptsApproaching Standard (12–9 pts)Summary is missing key details or misstates facts.8 to >0 ptsBelow Standard (8–0 pts)Summary is incomplete, unclear, or incorrect. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFinancial Impact (20 pts) | 20 to >16.0 ptsExceeds Standard (20–17 pts)Thoroughly evaluates who gains/loses financially; quantifies or clearly describes impacts (sales, royalties, NIL value, tour revenue); explains business significance.16 to >12.0 ptsAt Standard (16–13 pts)Identifies key financial effects but with limited depth or misses secondary impacts. 12 to >8.0 ptsApproaching Standard (12–9 pts)Provides a general or vague discussion of financial impacts.8 to >0 ptsBelow Standard (8–0 pts)Little to no financial analysis or incorrect conclusions. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOperational Impact (20 pts) | 20 to >16.0 ptsExceeds Standard (20–17 pts)Clearly explains operational or process failures (e.g., security lapses, contract gaps, management issues) and their effect on outcomes.16 to >12.0 ptsAt Standard (16–13 pts)Identifies main operational issues but with limited detail or analysis. 12 to >8.0 ptsApproaching Standard (12–9 pts)Provides a surface-level discussion with missing links between cause and effect.8 to >0 ptsBelow Standard (8–0 pts)Fails to identify operational issues or provides incorrect analysis. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendations & Action Plan (20 pts) | 20 to >16.0 ptsExceeds Standard (20–17 pts)Provides 2–3 specific, actionable, and realistic recommendations that directly address financial and operational issues; includes a timeline or order of priority.16 to >12.0 ptsAt Standard (16–13 pts)Recommendations address most key issues but lack detail or full feasibility. 12 to >8.0 ptsApproaching Standard (12–9 pts)Offers general or vague recommendations with limited actionability.8 to >0 ptsBelow Standard (8–0 pts)Provides few, unrealistic, or no recommendations. | 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing & Citations (20 pts) | 20 to >16.0 ptsExceeds Standard (20–17 pts)Memo/report is well-organized (intro → financial → operational → recommendations → conclusion); professional tone; error-free; proper APA/Chicago citations from readings and outside sources.16 to >12.0 ptsAt Standard (16–13 pts)Organized with few writing/citation errors, mostly professional tone. 12 to >8.0 ptsApproaching Standard (12–9 pts)Some disorganization or noticeable writing/citation errors.8 to >0 ptsBelow Standard (8–0 pts)Poorly structured; unprofessional; many errors; no proper citations. | 20 pts |
Total Points: 100