- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“But wait..now that I’ve figured out everything means the opposite down there….”
Boom! Chikka
But wait..now that I’ve figured out everything means the opposite down there….”
Boom! Chikka
That makes you twice a good!
There’s plenty of precedent for such arrangements in lots of markets. The airlines are one example.
Here’s a better example: real estate. When you put a house on the market, and someone wants to buy it, it goes in to a sort-of “provisional” contract state where both parties wait until some other events happen before the contract is actually executed. And it’s obviously an exclusive deal!
So if such an arrangement can work for something as complicated as the contract for a house, why not for something as simple as the contract for a piece of music? The latter will be a *far* easier contract to execute.
Note that all of the responses are “that’s not how it’s done” and not “it can’t be done that way.” So, you see, you’re all tacitly admitting that it’s possible!
The notion that it’s career suicide confuses me – I’m not interested in the no-up-front-exclusive deals as they currently exist, so I’m not in that market. I offer a product under my terms and if nobody wants to agree to those terms, that’s fine. I wasn’t in that market before, and I’m not in that market after. So I haven’t lost anything.
It’s just business. Some of the responses imply this is some type of personal attack – where is that coming from? It’s a bit Twilight Zone… Again, it’s just business.
You can all thank me later when the norm changes. I reserve the right to say you heard it here first 🙂
Cheers,
rgames
I knew a guy who tried this approach with respect to dating. He dated five women at once, telling each of them that the first one to sleep with him (assuming it was good sex) could have him.
He never heard the shot.
😉
Another point I should mention – I’ve already discussed this approach with four or five libraries. Despite procalamations here that it’s obnoxious or career suicide (which, again is very Twilight Zone to me), the discussions were all very cordial and business-like. So, in fact, the hypotheticals have not been borne out in my experience.
I made an offer. They refused. We went our separate ways and there is no ill will on either side.
It’s just business…
Byt the way, just as nobody should value his music so highly that he’s blinded to facts so too should nobody value his own hypothetical proposition in the presence of evidence to the contrary!
Cheers,
rgames
Here’s a better example: real estate. When you put a house on the market, and someone wants to buy it, it goes in to a sort-of “provisional” contract state where both parties wait until some other events happen before the contract is actually executed. And it’s obviously an exclusive deal!
Not a great analogy Richard. In the case of a selling a house, you don’t (can’t) accept multiple bids and then say who ever gets a mortgage first is the winner.
If you are talking about traditional upfront exclusive library deals, just submit your collections for sale to several libraries. If you get an offer to buy a collection, accept it and notify the other libraries, that the collection in question now belongs to library X. That is a common, recognized and accepted practice.
What no one here understands is you’re “who ever gets me a placement first is the lucky winner” attitude. The reality is that we’re all just snowflakes in a blizzard. It sounds like you think that the libraries need you, which, no matter how good you, are is a mistake, unless you have a bankable name, like Hans Zimmer.
Try what I’m suggesting. Offer your collections (one at a time) for sale to some upfront exclusive libraries.
Make sure the cues are grouped around a theme, like “Dramatic Music,” “Sports Music” etc. Provide a complete package including, Full version, :60, :30, :15 and an underscore.
Start a conversation by offering your music in this manner.
Do not put a barrier between yourself and the library with attitude. You need them far more than they need you.If you don’t hear back in a few weeks send a polite follow-up, or make a phone call. If several months go by try another polite follow-up. If you hear nothing after a few more weeks, just move on. Send a polite letter, thank them for their time, and advise them that your music is no longer available.
I’m sure you’ll get defensive about my advice. That’s your choice. But, I’ve been doing this for 35 years. I only write for exclusives, or for my own catalog that I market through RF libraries. A friend of mine was a founding PMA member. I know a little bit about what’s on the other side of the curtain.
Good luck,
MichaelNote that all of the responses are “that’s not how it’s done” and not “it can’t be done that way.” So, you see, you’re all tacitly admitting that it’s possible!
The notion that it’s career suicide confuses me – I’m not interested in the no-up-front-exclusive deals as they currently exist, so I’m not in that market. I offer a product under my terms and if nobody wants to agree to those terms, that’s fine. I wasn’t in that market before, and I’m not in that market after. So I haven’t lost anything.
It’s just business. Some of the responses imply this is some type of personal attack – where is that coming from? It’s a bit Twilight Zone… Again, it’s just business.
You can all thank me later when the norm changes. I reserve the right to say you heard it here first
I say go for it!
I do not think it is the best approach based on the current business model, but change has to happen somewhere. I have tried to fight the good fight and got tired of playing games. I started to gain more success once I tailored my expectations and increased my quality and quantity of music.
There seems to be a growing tide of frustration with the current business model. Composers are speaking up and are coming with some revolutionary ways to change things. Something is happening and people are starting to speak up and resist the current state of things. If that helps to improve the business, it is worth the struggle and backlash.
If you can succeed in changing the music library business model, you will be a star. If you fail, life will go on as usual. Whatever your choices, own your decision and all of the consequences.
Change is never pretty for those that are comfortable excepting whatever they get.
I agree Desiree, go for it. Although the majority on this forum, don’t like revolutionary talk. I wonder what would George Washington DO
Do not put a barrier between yourself and the library with attitude. You need them far more than they need you. – Michael L
This is the worst statement anybody can make. They need us, if you are actively putting the work in. I see it first hand.
Michael, I don’t easily get offended, especially on web forums. I am, however, confused. There’s some dynamic here that I’m missing. I get the problem with “My music is so good” arrogance but my very first post made it pretty clear that wasn’t what I was expressing. Rather, I simply offered an approach that I thought might work in the best interest of both composers and libraries and suddenly there’s a bunch of offended people. As I said, I don’t hang around here much, but it’s a pretty weird vibe to someone from the outside – it’s almost like folks were offended that the idea didn’t come from the inside, like I should have passed it to someone else first for approval then had him or her post it.
And I don’t discount anyone’s experience. But I have some of my own which shouldn’t be discounted, either. I get ASCAP statements every quarter and they have hundreds of plays on them. I sell tracks at the RF sites. I also get paid up-front to do exclusive deals. And my experience has shown that the libraries behaved exactly as I expected them to when I presented my proposal: as a business proposition. Again, how anyone could view it as anything else completely baffles me.
They didn’t like my proposition but they certainly weren’t offended by it (as the comments here hypothesized). Likewise, I don’t like their proposition so we’re not doing business together. Maybe I will at some point. Who knows.
Again, this is not about arrogance or “My music is so good” but even if it were it doesn’t matter. It’s just business. I thought I would join in a conversation about business but got sidetracked into a quasi-vitrolic debate about things I had no intention of discussing.
rgames
I don’t see this as a workable strategy, but the guys with all the answers around here just seem to follow the status quo. I assume they’ve been very successful by keeping their mouths shut and just taking what they’re given. Yes, yes, there’s always someone out there that WILL take the deal. We’re all replaceable. But the deals are just going to keep getting worse. So someone has to have new ideas so that we don’t end up selling our tunes for $30 on a website… Wait… Anyway, you can mock the “weird composer revolution” talk all you want, but you say that about any industry. That’s why worker’s unions were created. I’m sure that I’ll be told I need a reality check or be mocked because I don’t know how it works. Whatever. Good luck to us all.
@Richard, I know where you’re coming from, and I know that you have the chops to do well.
@BIGG ROME and @The Dude, I’ve been fortunate to have a good career and great relationships in this business. I’m yet to participate in the non-exlcusive re-title model, which I think is at the heart of most people’s gripes here. Yes, it is a model that treats composers as if they are a dime a dozen. So, if you want to have a revolution go right ahead.
We’re talking about different worlds. So, I really can’t comment.
_Michael
I’m yet to participate in the non-exlcusive re-title model, which I think is at the heart of most people’s gripes here.
Hi Michael, I am new to the biz, building a catalog from my previous tracks and started to submit to a few libraries (and been accepted – for now 100% of my submissions :-), crossing my fingers this lasts)
After reading a lot on how things work, the Biz model I selected is exactly the one that people moan about… Could you tell me why you think the re-title system is detrimental to the composer. I only see advantages, probably because I am inexperienced. It seems to me that it allows the non-exclusive deal + publishing service of a library to coexist. The library only gets money when they pitch. That appears fair to me. Am I missing something?
btw, I admire Richard for his courage and thank him for putting his proposition on the table. I also thank those who reacted: it was a very instructive read!
Greetings
When I do production music, I focus on exclusive libraries now (though I was thrilled to get my music in ANY library when I first started. Lesson learned.). With regard to non-exclusive, I tend to work with the companies that focus more on “artist” type of stuff with vocals, etc… I’ve only ever seen 50/50 deals in that situation. I tend to stay away from the instrumental non-exclusive, purely because of the gratis license thing.
One way I’ve recently tried dealing with the no-up-front-pay exclusive problem is as follows:
This is specifically what Richard is talking about, so while the usual revolutionary chatter has its merits, it unfortunately derails what is an interesting proposition. I think its better to listen to the composers on this forum who actually do submit to exclusives, they probably have more of a clue about it, and a better insight.
Personally I don’t submit to exclusives yet, so I cant comment on the merits or not of Richard’s idea.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.