The catalogue
The catalogue was not unusual. 2,100 titles, a 25-year release span, multiple writers, partial publisher history, international exploitation across Europe and North America.
On paper it was performing. Consistent annual income, no obvious disputes, active registrations across the major societies. There was no indication of loss. That was the starting point.
The premise
The question was not whether something was wrong. It was: what should this catalogue have earned?
Reported income reflects what was successfully allocated, not what was actually generated. The difference between the two is where recovery exists. The engagement opened on Day 0. First findings landed at Day 28. First claims filed at Day 45. First recoveries received at Day 91. Total recovered: £340,000 across fourteen territories, from existing usage that had not been correctly allocated.
SCOUT: finding the gap
The first stage established a baseline expectation. What should a catalogue of this size, age, and usage profile produce? The answer was not precise. It did not need to be. It provided a reference point.
Income was then mapped across PRS, ASCAP, BMI, GEMA, SACEM, JASRAC. The catalogue showed stable income in core territories, inconsistent income in secondary markets, and gaps in expected international flow. No single anomaly stood out. Collectively, the pattern indicated incomplete allocation.
A representative subset of works was analysed in detail. Findings included missing registrations in secondary territories, duplicate entries with conflicting ownership, and works linked to recordings in one system but not another. These were not edge cases. They were recurring.
FILE: building the claim
Societies do not act on assumption. They require proof of ownership, proof of entitlement, and proof of usage. Each must align.
The catalogue had undergone multiple publisher changes, sub-publishing arrangements, and partial acquisitions. This produced overlapping claims, outdated registrations, and incomplete transfer records. Reconstruction was the most time-consuming phase. Tracing agreements, aligning ownership percentages, resolving conflicts.
Works were re-registered where necessary, corrected where inaccurate, and linked across territories. Usage was correlated against society records, distribution statements, and external activity to demonstrate that income had been generated but not fully allocated. Each claim required structured submission and supporting documentation. Incomplete submissions are rejected. Delayed submissions are deprioritised.
RECOVER: executing the claims
Claims went out across Europe, North America, and Japan. Each society operates different processes, different timelines, different standards. Initial acknowledgment runs two to four weeks. Review takes thirty to ninety days. Payment cycles vary.
At Day 60, several claims showed no movement. Causes included internal backlog, additional information requests, and cross-society verification delays. This is common. Without intervention, claims can sit indefinitely. Progress required direct follow-up, clarification of documentation, and escalation within society processes. This stage is operational, not technical.
£340,000 was not created. It already existed. It had been generated and collected, but not correctly allocated.
Why the income existed in the first place
The recovery was not the result of a single error in a single system. It was the result of multiple small inconsistencies, compounded over time, across territories. Each gap was minor. Together they were material.
The recovered total broke down across performance royalties, mechanical royalties, and smaller residual streams. No single source dominated. The value was in accumulation.
The structural lesson
The catalogue was not broken. It was typical. That is the point. If a standard catalogue produces six-figure recovery within a three-month window, the condition is not exceptional. It is systemic.
Engagements at this scale typically run on outcome-based fees. No recovery, no fee. Higher recovery, shared upside. This aligns incentives in a way that suits both parties, and reflects the underlying truth of the work, which is that the money is either there to be recovered or it is not.
Close
The recovery process did not change the system. It worked within it. By identifying gaps, correcting data, and enforcing entitlement.
In a system where allocation depends on data, data is imperfect, and history is complex, this outcome is not unusual. It is repeatable.