- This topic has 69 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
@ BT Smith, – Can you explain what you mean by ‘Audio Networks has driven a wedge right in to the market’ – I’d like to find out more about how things the situation is changing in the UK. Thanks.
MCPS means mechanical copyright protection society. Needle drop, royalties on synch fees.
It’s the UK agency for collecting those license fees, but it was merged with PRS a while ago.Audio Network has driven a wedge in the UK market because they decided to go down the royalty free model (as much as they would like not to call it that) and avoid the MCPS altogether.
This means clients here in the UK can buy a track from ANW, and use it as many times as they want in as many episodes as they want of their productions without paying any mechanicals. With an MCPS library they have to pay a new synch fee each time they synch it to a new episode etc.
ANW has very high quality music and generates huge PRS income, but has damaged big time some MCPS libraries.
In summary, it’s just the RF model hitting the UK but at a very high quality level in terms of music and production.
In summary, it’s just the RF model hitting the UK but at a very high quality level in terms of music and production.
I think you’re going to see quality increasing in the RF model, as more professional composers consider it a viable revenue stream. Those composers, may not just send their “B” or “C” work to RF libraries, as well, on the theory that quality will be a competitive edge.
@SCP – Audio Network has been hugely successful here in the UK, and now in many other countries. As Tbone says, MCPS (the license fee) has been dispensed with, and effectively the music is free for large broadcasters like the BBC or ITV to use. Audio Network earns its money almost entirely in back end PRO payments. It is supposedly a ‘subscription’ model but in reality, the big broadcasters/production companies pay next to nothing as Audio Network have fiercely marketed the ‘all you can eat’ advantage.
Composers who worked with Audio Network early on have made a fortune. And in fact, some of the early material has been rinsed to such an extent that you can watch an evening’s TV here in the UK and hear the same tunes on many programmes any day of the week. Audio Network was very well funded from the start and so they have invested heavily in recording orchestras etc. at Abbey Road. So, although much of the earlier material was very poor, the top end now is excellent – as good as the top MCPS libraries (although perhaps not in depth).
Because this company has become so successful (it’s now doing well in the US and other countries I believe too), the traditional MCPS libraries have suffered. And actually the overall expenditure yearly on library music has shrunk – due to Audio Network having such a large market share. In fact, due to ‘all you can eat’ high music usage on TV programmes, per-minute values for all broadcast music have had to shrink to accomodate all this Audio Network broadcast time with no equivalent increase in the PRS ‘pot’. And of course the MCPS libraries don’t like this, so many of them now refuse to work with anyone who has written for Audio Network. Audio Network on the other hand actively recruits high quality composers, some of whom are unaware that they are burning their bridges with other libraries. I suppose you could just say that this is the free market in action, but in truth, those moving over to Audio Network now have probably missed out on the lucrative growth phase. I know some who make much less at Audio Network than they did at the MCPS libraries, but there is no way back for them, and in some cases not even any more work for them with Audio Network. The big money was inevitably made when the library was smaller and there was less competition ‘within’. There is also a problem with the Audio Network model for composers of trailer music etc. where the absence of a proper sync fee can make these usages almost worthless to the composer due to total reliance on back end.
None of this is to say that MCPS libraries are not doing well – some are still doing very well, and ’boutique’ MCPS libraries seem to be springing up and succeeding all over the place – some of them with very high quality offerings. And Audio Network is a strong supporter of using live musicians too, so it’s not all doom and gloom. So that’s what I mean by ‘driving a wedge’ !
I think you’re going to see quality increasing in the RF model, as more professional composers consider it a viable revenue stream. Those composers, may not just send their “B” or “C” work to RF libraries, as well, on the theory that quality will be a competitive edge.
Yea, totally agree. In fact, ANW is a case in point. Also, some of my best tracks are now going into RF libraries, despite me having others in MCPS libraries.
Just want to thank B T Smith for his post. There is a lot I didn’t know there but it makes sense to me now I hear it.
I was considering ANW but if it’s going to rule me out of further work with the MCPS libs I’ll pass – especially given that the fortune making time is over at ANW. Really interesting post, thank you.
Yea, totally agree. In fact, ANW is a case in point. Also, some of my best tracks are now going into RF libraries, despite me having others in MCPS libraries.
Drat you Tbone! Competition!!! 😀
Let’s have a virtual pint someday!
_Michael
That was a great post, and kind of goes in the direction of the question I was going to post today, but for people composing and using both RF libraries and NE libraries that are not RF, what roughly is your percentages form either? For example “30% of my income comes from RF snd the remainder from NE”. Understanding that in general better money track by track, in general, comes fro the NE side…..as has been posted.
Understanding that in general better money track by track, in general, comes fro the NE side…..as has been posted.
I’m going to try to prove that is not always the case, over the next few years. 😉
It’s been said a million times on these boards. There is no one size fits all solution in this biz. Some make the majority of income from a smaller number of high end placements with nice upfront license fees; Some make a big chunk from volume-oriented back end only PRO; Some make their biggest portion on RF.
I think for MOST people, diversifying would be the safest way if you want to protect your ability to make serious money (e.g. the kind you live on) in the long term. But even that advice isn’t one size for all.
Chuck, I think that you’re trying to wag the dog. In my opinion, where you put your music should be determined by the kind of music that you write..
Time and time again, you’ll hear someone say I do really well with NE libraries, but don’t sell well on RF sites. That is because those libraries cater to different clients who have different needs.
What you’re are asking is something like “which is trending flip-flops or cowboy boots?” They both sell well to their respective customers. The question is what do you write “flip-flops or cowboy boots?”
RF libraries are like department stores. They carry everything from classical to corporate to reality TV (even though I would wager that most of their customers are non-broadcast). Of course most track will occasionally sell. But, what do they sell the most of?
NE libraries serve broadcast TV (because they are backend based). AND, a huge chunk of that is made up of cable/reality type shows.
So…are you going to get on the merry go round of making whatever kind of footwear you think is selling best (at the moment) OR are you going to use the business model that is most appropriate for what YOU do?
For me the choice is clear. I have a catalog of music composed for corporate / commercial and educational clients. Those clients do shop RF sites. They do not get gratis licenses from NE sites because there is no backend. As such, that music would not do well with JP or SK. So, I won’t waste my time putting it there.
If I find out that RF alone doesn’t accomplish what I want, then I’ll try writing some cues specifically for broadcast.
This is probably one of the major differences between pros and non-pros. Pros just write more and move on. Non-pros often have limited output and they try to compensate by spreading it around.
The latter is an uphill climb, because you waste a lot of time putting your eggs in the wrong baskets. (IMO)
As far as trending goes..are JP gratis license clients going to start shopping RF libraries? No. Is JP going to start giving music away to the in-house communications department of XYZ Corp? No.
As always there’s some overlap, but really two different worlds.
_Michael
And sometimes it takes a fair amount of trial and error to see what works where. Maybe what you write is on the fence between the two markets, skews to one side, or overlaps. That’s one reason why I think it’s a good idea to get a large bunch of cues into both RF and NE at first and see where things go. That’s one advantage of things being NE.
Keep in mind that ANYONE who enters any library market today *might* have a larger uphill climb than folks who got in years earlier. Composers who got in before the catalogs got oversaturated have some name recognition (esp. on RF) and may continue to get repeat customer sales. Lots of time and patience needed regardless.
I don’t disagree with Michael that different types of music lend themselves better to different markets. Obviously, most of what we write for reality TV wouldn’t work for trailers. I do think however, that everything isn’t quite so black and white.
As always, I don’t know everything and my experience is limited.