- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
One way I’ve recently tried dealing with the no-up-front-pay exclusive problem is as follows:
When I finish a collection of tracks, I contact the libraries that want exclusive tracks and send them demos. I then let them know that whoever comes up with a placement first can have it exclusively (assuming it’s a decent placement).
So, in essence, such an approach allows the library to have the track exclusively but ONLY for immediate needs – it prevents them from sitting on the track for months or years. If no libraries bite after a month or so, then I start submitting them out for non-exclusive placements (not necessary, of course…)
I’ve tried it with a couple recent collections and haven’t had any luck yet (not surprised…) but it seems like the most fair method to balance exclusive library wants against composer needs. The trick, of course, is that it will only work when the most recent collection matches an immediate need.
Since most folks control all of their music, it’s just a quick phone call when the library gets a placement and notices can go out to all the other libraries that the track is no longer available. For that reason, I think we could all just submit everything to as many exclusive libraries as we wanted then treat them on a first come, first served basis.
It creates a hassle for the libraries because they have to remove tracks as they’re picked up elsewhere, but I think, truth be told, that’s not really an issue given that everything is web-based nowadays – notifications can be made (nearly) instantly. Plus, it’s a hassle for composers to have tracks sitting there doing nothing. So the question is who will bear the burden of the hassle.
I like the approach because it puts the composer in a position of power. If enough composers adopted that approach then we could force the libraries to accept it.
I am doubtful that will happen. But it’s a fun experiment in the meantime 🙂
rgames
This plan shows very little understanding of the realities as to how things work. Not meant to be offensive, but it’s down right silly.
No decent exclusive (or non-exclusive for that matter) library is going to bother pitching your tracks to anyone without a contract in place. If its an exclusive library, that contract saying they have exclusive control is an absolute prerequisite to pitching the tracks. How would they be sure that if they did pitch it and a client was interested, it would really be available and not signed to any other deals? This is an essential part of their business.
Saying to a library “the first one that gets a placement can have it” will be a major turn off (obnoxious and unprofessional) and pretty much guarantee no interest.
And the “composers can change the world” thing if we just all did this or that is old and tiresome. There is overabundance of eager composers and music out there that far exceeds demand. If you don’t like the way the business works, the next guy will.
I hope you haven’t sent that offer to too many libraries yet. It’s definitely not a plus for your professional reputation.
Umm… yeah. OK. I don’t come here very often – is this the anger management section?
Anyway….
Yes, it’s different. But it’s a fair way to balance the needs of composers and the libraries who represent them. It’s certainly not obnoxious and unprofessional. Posting anonymous derisive commentary – now that’s obnoxious and unprofessional.
rgames
I’ve tried it with a couple recent collections and haven’t had any luck yet (not surprised…) but it seems like the most fair method to balance exclusive library wants against composer needs. The trick, of course, is that it will only work when the most recent collection matches an immediate need.
This seems like an exercise in futility.
This plan shows very little understanding of the realities as to how things work. Not meant to be offensive, but it’s down right silly.
Listen to this!
It’s not an exercise in futility – I currently do not offer tracks for exclusive listing with no up-front payment. So I can only benefit.
I fly a lot. I like to choose which seat I fly in, so when I make a reservation, I try to get the one I want. But if someone beat me to it, well, I’m out of luck and I have to choose something else. Sometimes I even have to choose a completely different flight. And sometimes they even give me the seat then tell me shortly thereafter it’s not actually available. Music libraries can do the same thing. Easily. We’re offering a product just like the airlines – distributed through other parties who do their best to get their clients what they want.
I am very well aware of how the no-up-front exclusive world works – that’s obvious from the fact that I offered my approach as a new alternative. You’re assuming that the library world must continue to work as it currently does. It does not.
Think about it: the libraries will expand the pool of exclusive tracks available to their clients and the composers will maintain some flexibility with their catalogs. And it will cost neither party anything – so why wouldn’t we do it?
Again, as I said above, they wouldn’t do it because of the potential that a track might not be removed from the pool of available tracks before a client picks it (just like the airline example above). As long as that doesn’t happen very often, it’s not a big deal. 20 years ago before the proliferation of web-based tools to deal with that issue, it might have been a problem. But nowadays, it’s easy to work around.
Furthermore, the library still has the option to completely avoid such a situation: pay for the value associated with the removal of that uncertainty in the form of up-front payment. If the library really feels there’s value in that ability then the creator of that value (YOU!) should be compensated for it.
Yes, that’s not how it’s currently done, and there is resistance for that reason. But it *can* work and both the composer and library benefit.
Kudos to the first library to initiate this approach!
rgames
Fresh thinking is always good, but I have to agree with the other guys here. It sets the libraries up for embarrassment. I can’t imagine they’d be thrilled to go through something like this:
Library: “Hey, remember that track we recently gave you a few months ago and you liked a lot, thought it might be good on that project you’re working on soon? Well, ummm, it’s no longer available. Please remove the track from your hard drives.”
Client: “What?! Why? We loved that track! What happened?”
Library: “Well, the composer also gave it to another library that got it used before us, now they own it.”
Client: “What the ___?! Hmmm, ok, so which library was it? I still want to use that track!”
Hey Richard. I really think you should listen to the more experienced guys here, and stop sending out tracks this way. I very much doubt you`ll ever see some success with it.
If you are worried about your tracks not being used, then I would suggest getting a reversion clause with an income threshold is a much better way to do it. Some libraries will accept it, and some won’t, but it`s certainly not seen upon as unprofessional to ask for it.
@Mark Petrie ++1
What Mark said.Any business model, no matter how much it empowers the composer, that sends customers off to other libraries once they fall in love with a song is simply a bad idea. I think you might find resistance from libraries getting this one off the ground Richard.
When I read the OP I was too dumbfounded to even reply. I think everyone above has said it pretty well.
I’m convinced that there are two reasons composers have a difficult time in this business.
1) Their music isn’t well produced or commerically viable, and /or
2) they do outrageous things to undermine their own career.This approach to marketing would fall into category #2. It would be better for you to wait for a library to accept or reject your collections before picking up your marbles and going home in a huff.
Given the number of fairly professional people making good music these days, composers really can’t afford these pitfalls.
_Michael
Again, the biggest problems with this idea are:
How can a library be the first one to get you a placement if they don’t pitch your tracks at all? And they won’t pitch without a contract. Period, end of story. Some will be willing to negotiate points on the contract such as adding reversion with terms. But no contract, no pitch.
You are WAY overestimating the importance of YOUR music from the POV of the library. The current climate of supply and demand is not in your favor. There is enough excellent music out there that libraries don’t need to acquiesce to some new business model of yours.
Also, don’t forget that there are REASONS why it can take years for a library to get a placement with your track and they don’t NECESSARILY mean the library is just letting your track sit on the shelf collecting dust. It’s unbelievably competitive out there and a sup feeling that your track and particular scene are the right match doesn’t happen easily.
My concern about your using this approach is in COULD be worse than non-successful. A library that you may want to deal with in the future may remember your initial contact and have written you off as someone “difficult” and not worth dealing with.
Best of luck.
When I read the OP I was too dumbfounded to even reply.
Yea, that was my first reaction. Definitely a Michael L. Category 2 storm here. I apologize, Richard, if my replies came off nasty. My intention is to be emphatic and not mean but it’s hard not to have a very strong reaction to your OP.
Richard, I hope you’ll read the replies here from other experienced music library composers and re-think your approach as opposed to “dig in” as to why your idea is a good one. But it’s YOUR career.
You are WAY overestimating the importance of YOUR music from the POV of the library.
THE most common Achilles heel among composers. We’re all too used to having friends and family tell us how great we are. And we believe it.
Definitely a Michael L. Category 2 storm here.
LOL…seriously. @Advice, you just made my day (OK…that and Matt Bowdler’s new sound set for Zebra). Thanks. 😀
Michael
“We’re all too used to having friends and family tell us how great we are. And we believe it. ”
But MichaelL, you are great! Just…amazing. I hope when I grow up I am half as good a composer as you are. 😀
I dunno… My family tells me I suck. So maybe I’m lucky! 🙂 🙂
@Rob, no worries Mate…you are half as good a composer as I am. 😀
(sorry that was too easy)But wait..now that I’ve figured out everything means the opposite down there….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.