Get your music registrations done for you

Mogul gets you 100% paid from your music.

Home Who it's for Partner Royalty Finder Pricing Login Get started

September 21, 2026

How to Run a Royalty Audit on Your Own Catalog

Royalty statements have a way of becoming background noise, arriving on schedule, matching roughly what you expected, and getting filed without anyone testing the numbers underneath them. That habit is understandable, because the reports are usually short and the arithmetic looks clean, but it also sits at the root of most royalty leakage. As Plante Moran points out, requirements for royalty reporting are often much lower than those for other financial reports, so scrutiny tends to be lighter and licensees may be incentivized to underreport, particularly when the agreement is not being monitored for compliance at all.

A royalty audit is the structured process of checking what a licensee reported against what the agreement entitles you to receive, and much of that work can begin from your own desk before anyone travels anywhere. Preparing, requesting the right data, running the comparisons, and interpreting what you find will also show when the job outgrows an internal effort.

What You Need Before the Audit Begins

The audit starts with the agreement, not the spreadsheet, because every finding you eventually make will be measured against contract language rather than against your expectations. Read the license as though you were the licensee's accounting team reading it for the first time, and mark every term that carries money with it: the royalty rate and any tiers, the definition of net sales, permitted deductions, the treatment of returns and samples, the reporting calendar, currency conversion rules, and the audit clause itself. That last clause deserves particular attention, since it usually sets out how much notice you must give, which records you may inspect, how far back you may look, where the examination may take place, and who pays for it under what circumstances.

You also need a clear statement of purpose, because scope creep is what turns a focused review into an expensive one. Miller Kaplan describes several common motivations for licensors, including obtaining all the royalties to which they are entitled, inducing further compliance from a licensee who knows checks happen periodically, and determining whether there is material noncompliance with an existing agreement. Deciding which of those matters most to you will shape how many periods you examine and how deep you go on each one. It also helps to accept in advance that not every discrepancy signals bad faith, since Miller Kaplan notes that the complexity of the calculations and transactions within a license agreement often lead to errors in accounting.

Pulling the Source Data

Most royalty audits follow a two-stage shape, and the first stage costs you almost nothing beyond time. Stout describes an approach that begins with reviewing the license and analyzing the royalty reports in what amounts to a desk audit, then opening communication with the licensee to understand its reporting process, entering into a nondisclosure agreement where one is required, and requesting information to be delivered before any on-site visit. Working in that order matters, because the desk review tells you which questions are worth asking and which records are worth requesting.

For your own catalog, the internal file should be assembled before you contact anyone, and it typically includes the following:

The executed license and every amendment, side letter, or renewal
All royalty statements for the period under review
Payment records showing what actually arrived and when
Your own list of licensed titles, products, or rights
Any correspondence interpreting disputed terms

From the licensee you will generally want sales registers underlying the reported figures, product or catalog master files, credit and return detail, distributor or sublicensee statements, and a written description of how royalty reports are compiled from the accounting system. Ask for the reconciliation between the sales ledger and the royalty report as a single explicit request, since that document, if it exists, will shorten the entire audit considerably.

Running the Comparisons

The core of the work is recalculation, and the cleanest way to structure it is to rebuild the royalty from the licensee's own sales data rather than starting from the reported total. Begin by tying gross sales in the source register to the gross figure on the statement for the same period, then follow each deduction the licensee applied and confirm that the agreement actually permits it at the amount claimed. Deductions are where quiet erosion happens, because freight, discounts, allowances, reserves against returns, and marketing contributions are all plausible in commercial terms yet frequently unsupported by the contract language you already marked up.

The second comparison is coverage, which asks whether everything that should have been reported appears anywhere in the report at all. Plante Moran identifies several ordinary reasons products or sales fall out of royalty reports, including newly created or bundled products that were never specified in the licensing agreement, an internal change in product numbers that disrupts tracking, and timing differences between when the licensee closes its books and when it reports royalty sales. Each of those causes leaves a different fingerprint, so test for them separately: match the licensee's current product master against your licensed catalog to find items that exist commercially but never reach a statement, look for identifiers that stop appearing mid stream and are replaced by new codes, and check whether the period boundaries on the statement line up with the accounting close.

The third comparison is rate application, which is straightforward in principle and error prone in practice. Confirm that tiered rates reset or accumulate exactly as the contract requires, that minimum guarantees and advances are being recouped on the agreed basis, that currency has been converted using the specified rate and date, and that bundled or promotional pricing has been allocated in a way the agreement contemplates. Run each test across several periods rather than one, because a single quarter can look defensible while a four year pattern reveals a consistent methodology that quietly departs from the license.

Reading the Mismatches

A list of differences is not yet a finding, and the interpretive step is what separates a credible audit from an argument. Sort every discrepancy into categories before you value any of them: definitional disputes where both sides read a clause differently, systemic errors where a process reliably produces the wrong number, timing issues that shift revenue between periods without changing the total, and omissions where licensed activity never entered the royalty system at all. That sorting matters because the remedies differ, since a definitional dispute usually ends in negotiation and a clarifying amendment while a systemic mapping failure ends in a recalculation and a corrected process.

Volume alone should not surprise you, since Stout observes that As many as 85% to 90% of licensees fail to accurately report royalties, which suggests that finding errors is the normal outcome of looking rather than evidence of an unusually troubled relationship. What deserves your attention is direction and persistence, because errors that consistently favor the licensee across multiple periods, survive after being pointed out, or cluster in the least visible parts of the report tell a different story than isolated arithmetic slips. Quantify each category separately, keep the supporting documents attached to each line, and note which findings you could prove to a third party and which rest on your reading of an ambiguous clause.

When the Licensee Delays or Withholds Records

Slow production of records is the most common obstacle in a royalty audit, and it is usually better handled procedurally than emotionally. Return to the audit clause, restate your request in writing with a specific list and a specific date, and keep a dated log of every request, partial response, and extension you grant. If the answer is that the data does not exist in the requested form, ask instead for the underlying system reports and the description of how the figure was compiled, because a licensee who cannot document its own royalty calculation has already told you something useful about its controls.

Persistent resistance is also the signal that a desk review has reached its limit. Stout's process moves from document requests into on-site fieldwork that includes interviews, testing, further information requests and review, and compliance work, followed by an exit meeting and then draft and final reports. Being physically present with access to systems and the people who operate them resolves questions that email cannot. Plan for the calendar this implies, since Stout indicates that a field audit typically runs two to four months from the notification letter to the final report, and set expectations internally so that a normal timeline does not read as a stalled one.

Deciding Whether to Bring in an Outside Auditor

An internal review is often enough to answer the first question, which is whether the reporting deserves closer attention at all. It becomes less suitable as the calculations grow more layered, because the complexity that Miller Kaplan identifies as a common source of accounting error also raises the technical bar for anyone testing the numbers. Sublicensing chains, multiple currencies, bundled products, tiered rates, and long recoupment histories all push a review toward specialist territory, as does any situation where the licensee's records must be interpreted rather than simply read.

Independence is the other consideration, and it cuts in two directions: an external auditor changes the tone of the exercise, signaling that you intend to test compliance rather than negotiate impressions, and their findings carry more weight if the matter eventually moves toward formal dispute. The same shift can strain a relationship you would rather preserve, so many licensors sequence the decision, using an internal desk review to establish whether the pattern is material and appointing outside help only when it is. Weigh the likely fee against your estimate of unreported royalty exposure, remembering that the audit clause may allocate costs to the licensee once errors exceed a stated threshold.

Closing the Audit and Using What You Found

An audit should end with a document, not a conversation, and the sequence Stout describes is worth copying even for an internal effort. Hold an exit meeting in which you walk the licensee through each finding and give them the chance to correct your understanding of their own data, then issue a draft report, allow a defined response period, and finish with a final report that records both your position and theirs. Working this way removes the most common defensive response, which is that the licensor never asked, and it produces a record that stands up later if the matter escalates.

The findings then have a second life beyond the money, as Stout notes that proactive royalty audits let a licensor convey a consistent message about protecting its intellectual property rights, deter underpayment, improve bottom line profitability, resolve issues arising from misinterpretation by either party, provide timely advice before agreements renew, and improve the drafting of definitions, compensation, and reporting clauses in future licenses. Feed every ambiguity you encountered into your template, so that the clause which cost you a quarter of argument becomes unambiguous in the next agreement you sign. If bundled products or renumbered items caused omissions, add reporting requirements that force those changes to surface, such as a duty to notify you of new product codes or to report at the individual item level rather than in aggregate.

What Happens After You Find Underpayment

Quantified underpayment usually resolves through negotiated settlement rather than litigation, and your leverage comes from documentation instead of volume. Present the recalculation, the source records behind it, and the contract language supporting each adjustment, then state the amount claimed along with any interest or audit cost recovery the license allows. Expect the licensee to contest the definitional findings hardest and the arithmetic ones least, and be prepared to distinguish between the two so the conversation stays on the items you can prove.

The more durable outcome is the change in behavior afterward, because Miller Kaplan makes the point that a licensee is less likely to underreport when it knows the licensor checks periodically, which means the audit's value continues after the settlement clears. Close the loop by agreeing in writing how the corrected methodology will be applied going forward, by asking for the revised reporting format in the next statement, and by scheduling the next review rather than waiting for a reason. Given that a full field audit can run two to four months, a lighter recurring desk review of each statement is usually the more sustainable habit for a catalog owner.

Know an artist who should read this?

Take Hold of your

Royalties & Registrations

Make sure you are getting paid 100%

Related Posts

September 22, 2026

How to Run a Royalty Audit on Your Own Catalog

September 21, 2026

Does DistroKid Collect Publishing Royalties?

September 18, 2026

How Much Does Apple Music Pay Per Stream Compared with Every Major Platform

September 17, 2026

The Four Music Industry Data Tools Giving Independent Artists Access to What Major Labels Always Had

September 17, 2026

Royalty Payment Timelines for Every Major Music Income Source

September 16, 2026

Songtrust vs TuneCore for Songwriters Comparing Publishing Admin

Home Who's it for?Pricing Partners Log In

Terms of Service Privacy Policy info@usemogul.com Blog Help Center

© 2025 Mogul. All Rights Reserved.