- This topic has 22 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Somewhat hypothetical question:
I have about 115 tracks out ink libraries right now, a mix of non-exclusive, exclusive, and royalty free. I have some co-writes, around a dozen or so, written with fairly established folks in the biz.
What would be your numbers given the above, in dollar amounts, that you would say, “doing O.K.” , “Killing it” (AKA doing really well), or doing bad to lousy, AKA below expectations (as a whole). Yes I know this is subjective and different for everyone. Yes I know MMMV. SO if you could be as specific as you can, that would be a wonderful thing. Thanks and very interested in some feedback here.
Thank-y.
Hey Chuck,
Tough, tough to answer but here is my personal and highly subjective opinion 🙂 And from what I’ve read, heard and discussed these are the ranges I find myself in agreement with (when hundreds of tracks are out there earning $$$$).
Killing it: well into 6 figures
Doing well: mid to upper 5 figures
Doing okay: low to mid 5 figures
Doing fair: low 5 figures; high 4 figures
Doing lousy: royalties and sync pay for either weekly coffee and gas.That being said, anyone earning money from their music being placed on TV, commercials,etc I would consider successful because I hear a ton of people trying to do it and can’t.
Would you agree with my ranges? And if you feel like sharing: What would be your ranges for say 100-200 tracks? And when you discuss and learn what others are making with around the same number of tracks as you, do you feel you’re doing better, worse, the same?
Hey Chuck,
Good question. I wonder the same for myself. My situation is not too far off from you. Just over 100 finished tracks (excluding edits) spread out among a few NE, Exclusive & RF.
I have only been at it for about 2 years averaging about 50 tracks per year. I guess that is “doing O.K.”
I think it is difficult to quantify a dollar amount at least this early on. I just started seeing tv placement activity starting in Q3 of 2015 so my first tv royalties will start trickling in this year. RF sales are steadily increasing over time.
There could be composers with half the catalog we have earning more. On the flip side we could potentially be earning more than a composer with double or more the amount of tracks we have. I guess time will tell.
My goal is always to earn more than I did in the previous year and to continue growing the catalog. Hopefully 2016 I can break 4 figures in earnings!
Rookie Question: What does MMMV stand for?
Thanks,
Only question I can answer in this thread lol I usually see YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
I agree that it’s a difficult question because there are so many variables. But I think it is very important in this work to try to get a sense of what to expect financially so you don’t have unrealistic expectations.
So, if I had to throw a very broad range out for the 115 tracks you described, I’d say somewhere in the 4 figures annually, eventually.
But… I have a lot more tracks than that. I could pull out a subset of 115 tracks that do better than that, and I could pull out another subset of 115 that has made $0!
Also, those royalties grow slowly. So it can be difficult to tell if they’re growing slowly, or just not growing. Either could be true.
Also, those royalties grow slowly.
Yes and no. My experience, over a course of decades, is that it’s more of a rollercoaster ride. For a time, you feel like you’re on a constant upward trajectory then things shift — libraries get bought and sold (Think JP) or go out of business (think Revostock), shows get cancelled, PRO’s change how they do things (BMI 2105), new technology like streaming arrives, catalogs age out, etc. and you find yourself on the downward side of things.
It’s an industry that constantly changes. Until you reach a point of having so many tracks that it’s simply a statistical probability that you will earn a hoped for realistic minimum per month, or year, it’s somewhat of a crap shoot.
I would agree with Paolo, there’s just a huge range of possibilities. But to attain the higher levels of what he mentioned, with 115 tracks, there would have to be a much lesser dependence on low-tier cable and RF, and more success in high-end licensing.
‘Composer’ also made a good point – many tracks will generate virtually no money, while a few might be your superstar tracks and make up for all those duds.
Keeping in mind that it sounds like you’re splitting quite a few cues with other writers, I think a realistic, conservative ballpark guess would be around $4000 – $10000 per year.
Hey Chuck,
I like MichaelL’s rollercoaster for earnings in this business. I think monthly income is to inconsistent to rely on, but I think you can make $5-10K a year with 115 tracks if they are steady sellers at productive libraries. After 6 years at this I’m finally starting to figure out how it all works, and I am also a 50 track a year type writer.
I am up to 210 tracks and made about $12K last year, up from $9,800 the previous year. I also have over 100 tracks that have not made any money yet!
Check out this string I started about a year ago if you haven’t already. I think you will find some answers to your questions.
Good luck!interesting discussion, if i may ask an elaborate question on the topic on hand, from my understanding there’s a bell curve per the shelf life of a track…it takes time to slowly start to circulate, hits a peak,then tapers off. and some tracks start generating early (months for RF) and some takes a while as in years or decade(s) (PRO).
I hear folks saying a large percent of their PRESENT revenue comes from tracks submitted 3-5 yrs ago, most likely from backend. yet those same tracks could have been their best sellers in RF libs the first 1-3 years then become nonexistent around year 4 or 5…which leads me to this Q
how do you analyze your catalogs performance in relation to time? do you grab a year lets say “2013 tracks submitted” and average them out regardless on what’s moving and what’s stagnant…..or analyze it per track basis on when it starts to pick up steam and falls into the bell curve, which could be a few years, or even decades after the track was released?
from my understanding there’s a bell curve per the shelf life of a track…
how do you analyze your catalogs performance in relation to time?
In my experience, and i guess for a lot of us, there are so many inconsistent scenarios. I’ve had tracks strike gold out of the gate(used in promos, several reality shows) and other tracks untouched for a few years and then get picked up by a show and used often. And of course there are tracks that seems like everybody hates them 🙂 until someone doesn’t.
I haven’t found analysis beyond a quick assessment to be very useful. IMHO, just a quick scan of PRO statements, cues sheets, briefs, etc are all that’s needed to get a sense of what is working right now and what might be useful to try next.
In my experience, and i guess for a lot of us, there are so many inconsistent scenarios.
I tend to agree with Paolo. The “new” business models of the last ten to fifteen years have disrupted older patterns. The bell curve is probably not as appropriate, although I do believe that trend-based music eventually fades unlike “evergreen” tracks.
In the “old days” there was a lengthy time frame for a library to conceive of a “collection,” bring it to fruition, and then get it into the market. There was a more finite amount of content on the market. Music editors physically serached through and auditioned tracks on vinyl!
In the “new” DIY world there are countless variables and so much comes down, not only to the music, but to a composer’s ability to market their own tracks with keywords and appropriate titles.
I’ve had new tracks get instant sales on RF sites and I’ve had re-mastered old tracks enjoy a second life on RF sites. For me it is a bit of a rollercoaster more than a single bell curve.
However, given that variety of business models, it is possible that some content follows a bell curve. I would suspect that the TV focused libraries may be more “out with the old, in with the new” than other models, as editors may hit the “refresh” button more often.
Sorry. Debbie-Downer here….
I know this is an older thread, but if you consistently find yourself asking the questions posed earlier, you are in the WRONG business. Do it because you love it and forget how much you’re making or how many tracks you need. Make money elsewhere. Sitting around and “calculating” how many libraries you need to be in, or how many tracks you need, or how many pages your BMI statement has to be before you’ve “made it” is a fools errand.
Either do it and take what you get, or don’t and make money elsewhere – keeping music as your soul inspiration.
It’s the new-world business paradigm – music for love, job for money.
It’s the new-world business paradigm – music for love, job for money.
There are easier ways to make money and better ways to make music!
Indeed!! Zero doubt about that.
The advantage of actually working a job for your income is that it keeps music pure and spiritual – the way it should be.
As opposed to making it a job and spending your free time figuring out how many tracks you have to crank out a day/week to earn a living — all-the-while living in fear that you’re not going to “make it” in time…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.