The main conclusions of our original report [1] were that male chipping sparrows form defensive coalitions in response to simulated territorial intrusion, and that coalition formation is predicted by relative structural properties of birds' songs. Akçay & Beecher (hereafter 'A&B' [2]) critique our report on a number of fronts including study design, methods, analysis and interpretation. We here address these critiques by clarifying points from the original report and by presenting new information and analyses.A&B first question our focus on trill rate rather than vocal deviation as a predictor of coalitions. Vocal deviation is a composite index of performance based on trill rate and frequency bandwidth, and has indeed been adopted widely in tests of song function [3]. Yet the raw parameters themselves, trill rate and frequency bandwidth, are also proper indices of vocal performance because, in general, faster or wider bandwidth trills are harder to produce [3]. Our demonstration in chipping sparrow songs of a trade-off between maximal trill rate and frequency bandwidth [1] suggests that any of these parameters might signal vocal performance. Yet determining which are salient during vocal communication requires controlled perceptual tests that isolate the effect of each parameter, and variation therein, on birds' responses [1]. We now know that chipping sparrow males attend to trill rate, as birds' responses to playback in our original study ([1], non-coalition trials) covaried with trill rates of both stimuli and subjects. By contrast, it is unknown whether chipping sparrows perceive or attend to variations in frequency bandwidth or thus, by extension, vocal deviation.A&B's other method and design critiques are readily countered. First, A&B question our reliance on song structure to identify individual chipping sparrows. Each male chipping sparrow produces only a single song type, and these are individually distinct, thus allowing us to identify birds from their songs with confidence. This same 'claim' has also been made and applied by others [4]; in the electronic supplementary material, figure S1, we offer a supplemental illustration and analysis that further confirm the individually distinct nature of chipping sparrow songs. Second, A&B worry about numerous aspects of chipping sparrow behaviour-song sharing, dawn song at territory boundaries, territory instability, polyterritoriality and 'land-grabs'-that might have confounded our description of coalition behaviour. Neighbouring birds do often share song types, but even similar song types are readily distinguished by structural features including trill rate (electronic supplementary material, figure S1). While birds sing jointly at territory boundaries at dawn, our playback trials were conducted (and coalitions observed) post-dawn, when more typical territorial behaviour is observed. The instability of territories mentioned by A&B refers to the propensity of chipping sparrows to occasionally abandon territories over the course of the season. This has no beari...