Description ou are a consultant hired by an artist whose royalties are not flowing correctly. Song ...
Description 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 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
