- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I thought I’d jump in here.
I’ve been in the production music field about 8 years and consider myself a relative newbie. One of the things I initially liked about the business was the non-exclusive, re-title (retitling as in sharing the PRO publishing income) aspect. As the business has evolved what I don’t like is the exclusive, give us your music for 5 years and hope we get you something, model that is emerging. I have made exceptions for the two companies that have placed a lot of our music on the old non-exclusive model. That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
I’m also burning out a bit on RF sites where I feel that uploading more and more tracks does not really generate much more income. In fact it stays fairly stagnant, with an exception or two. Now I realize some of this could be a reflection on my music and that I can live with.
The bottom line is that I am always trying to find new angles to market our music, thinking inside and outside the box. I may not agree with Richard’s approach but I certainly understand it and his frustration.
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.
No, it’s cool. Don’t worry about being mocked. We need these discussions.
Viva la revolucion!
If you don’t want to sign exclusive deals with no money up-front don’t… That applies to with or without reversion depending on how your feel about it. If you don’t think a type of deal is right for you, don’t take it.
I just have issues with the “we can change the world” revolutionary thing whereby composers will tell libraries how to run their business ‘or else’.
BTW, if you really think you have the right idea for a new music library business model that can be financially successful, quit your day job, take a second mortgage on your house, and start your own music library. See what you would do when the next morsel of food for your family depends on licensing tracks from your library.
The above may sound a bit dramatic but you really do have to put yourself in the shoes of the other guy running a business and trying to make a living. He/she hasn’t necessarily set up contract terms for the hell of it. They have to please THEIR clients or they will be out of business.
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.
@ Eduardo, I am not one of those “moaning” about that business model because I do not participate in it. So, it is better to ask them.
Any other reasons only relate to my individual circumstances and would not be relevant to you, or any one else. Suffice it to say, at the moment, I have no incentive to write for re-titling libraries.
Good luck,
MichaelViva la revolucion! me too!
I am the Paul Revere of this thing.
Bring on the new ideas!If you don’t want to sign exclusive deals with no money up-front don’t… That applies to with or without reversion depending on how your feel about it. If you don’t think a type of deal is right for you, don’t take it.
I agree with that. I don’t do deals with companies that have policies I disagree with. It makes life easier for me. I just deal with the companies that work for me.
I just have issues with the “we can change the world” revolutionary thing whereby composers will tell libraries how to run their business ‘or else’.
I can understand that some composers feel as if the libraries are in charge and composers should not make waves. Libraries have to think of their clients first and the composers second. With that being said, most composers are at a disadvantage. But this is only because most composers do not know how to haggle with music libraries.
I think that the “revolutionary” thing is great, as long as it is channeled correctly. Reckless abandon and anger will get composers blacklisted. But learning the business and working with libraries over time can definitely result in positive change. This comes from learning how to negotiate.
You don’t get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate.
Interesting to see this thread picking up some steam again. Yes…here we are moving into 2014 and a lot is changing. The demand for “exclusivity” is on the rise as the NE retitlers have faced resistance. Not sure why? I suppose some libraries have threatened to sue each other as both or even 3 or 4 are trying to claim a placement is theirs because they all publish the same track.
I agree that everyone is entitled to make any kind of business proposition they want. I can also say that composers can negotiate with libraries.
I do not agree that “libraries don’t need us”…They need us to create a stream of new tracks, we need them to distribute them to their clients.
It really is tough to get excited about no up-front WFH money for exclusive representation. 95% of my catalog is in the NE market and those exact same tracks earn $400 to $500 a month on the RF market. How do I come up with the extra $5000 to $6000 a year if I were to shift the catalog to exclusive? Shouldn’t libraries give consideration these scenarios for composers?
The NE and RF models really let you know what your portfolio is truly worth after a 3 to 5 year period. I do think it is healthy for composers to show respectful and logical resistance towards the push to exclusivity. I really feel like I, and a lot of guys in this thread, can show factual earnings evidence and now say “Sure I’ll give you every cue exclusively, but in return you have to guarantee me $5000 a year.” ….or whatever your number may be….Remember, you are giving up an enormous amount of control of your own assets in the exclusive model. Assets should be “for sale” not “free”.
No one would ever accept this proposition, but it certainly makes sense to me and is supported by facts.
@More Advice
Makes sense to me and the model you propose is used by some libraries I work with like SW. Makes complete sense.95% of my catalog is in the NE market a
Now, I can see why you’re so P#ssed about the situation.
Pretty much everything that More Advice just said is why I don’t participate in retitling.I do not agree that “libraries don’t need us”…They need us to create a stream of new tracks, we need them to distribute them to their clients.
Let me qualify that. They do not need us individually, because there are ten hungry and eager composers, who are just as qualified waiting in line behind us, who are more than willing to take our place. So, they don’t need us in the sense that we are each replaceable. Anyone who doesn’t understand that reality is in for a rude awakening.
So…if you want a revolution, start by getting composers to “just say no” and stop giving it away. Good luck on that one. Remember the whole model exists because composers couldn’t find other opportunities with traditional libraries. NE libraries were the revolution.
However, even if everyone did just say “no,” several of the prominent re-titlers are owned, run and staffed by composers who were already making a lot of money, before they opened up their libraries to the masses. Outside composers works are just the icing on the cake, not the cake. If all the outside composers suddenly vanished, they would be just fine.
This is not the case with traditional upfront money exclusive libraries, run by business persons, for whom having a “library” is not an adjunct or add-on to their own primary business of composing.
Whether the need for exclusivity is fact or fiction, the NE re-titling model is in transition. For anyone who has invested a lot, and spread their cues among several different re-titlers, it is as we say in the law, a quagmire.
Bets of luck. More Advice. I hope that you can regain control of your catalog.
_MichaelL
@More Advice
Makes sense to me and the model you propose is used by some libraries I work with like SW. Makes complete sense.In a way that is even more preferable than the traditional upfront exclusive library deal, in which there is no guarantee beyond the upfront money.
Moreover, some upfront deals are so low now, that it makes more sense to put the cues into RF libraries.
_Michael
Michael L, I have not lost control of my catalog. I am not sure what your point is. I have complete control of 95% of my assets and have reversion clauses on the Exclusive deals about 5% of my tracks.
Here is a way that all composers reading this thread can put a fair price tag on their current NE catalog. Ask yourselves, What do those same tracks earn on the RF market? I really think that this is a strong and fair basis for putting a price tag on exclusivity. You have to look at the opportunity loss, The value of a lost chance or a potential profit that was not realized because a course of action was taken (going exclusive) which does not permit the composer to obtain profits from RF sales.
And Michael, while there may be 10 guys standing in line, I have to say that those of us that have proven that the market likes our stuff and our stuff places and sells a lot can not be dismissed a s “easily replaceable”. I notice the same names over and over on my cue sheets. The cream does rise to the top, and I do not believe that there is an endless supply of guys out there who can crank out broadcast quality production music year after year.
You have to look at the opportunity loss, The value of a lost chance or a potential profit that was not realized because a course of action was taken
Really well put and great advice from More_Advice
More Advice, I’m sorry I didn’t mean that you’ve lost control of your catalog. I should have asked why you don’t take control, not opt-in to the exclusive deals and be done with it? Clearly, you disagree with the libraries’ new strategy.
And Michael, while there may be 10 guys standing in line, I have to say that those of us that have proven that the market likes our stuff and our stuff places and sells a lot can not be dismissed a s “easily replaceable”. I notice the same names over and over on my cue sheets. The cream does rise to the top, and I do not believe that there is an endless supply of guys out there who can crank out broadcast quality production music year after year.
More Advice, that may well be true. But I think that someone with a more jaded eye, who is looking at the cost benefit analysis of losing some composers, who don’t want to be exclusive vs.building their exclusive catalog, may disagree, or worse, may not even care.
By analogy, it’s kind of like car-makers deciding which will cost more, putting in a safety device, or paying out damages in law suits. Unfortunately, they often decide to gamble on law suits. My point is that given the option of losing someone like you, with a proven track record, vs. risking an unknown, if it accomplishes what they want, exclusivity, they may be more than willing to take that gamble, especially if “exclusivity” adds to their bottom-line. (AND they’re not paying anything for it!)
With respect to the names that you see on cue sheets, do you know whether some of the names that you see over and over again are
in-house composers?I do not believe that there is an endless supply of guys out there who can crank out broadcast quality production music year after year.
I completely agree. But, there is an endless supply of people trying, and that, I believe, weighs heavily on the situation and judgment of those involved.
I realize that, having not participated in the re-titling model, I’m not suffering from the potential lost opportunities and choices that you’re faced with.
The whole situation only reinforces my belief that the RF model is the most empowering for composers who are capable of producing a large body of quality work.
Best of luck to you.
Michael
And Michael, while there may be 10 guys standing in line, I have to say that those of us that have proven that the market likes our stuff and our stuff places and sells a lot can not be dismissed as “easily replaceable”. I notice the same names over and over on my cue sheets. The cream does rise to the top, and I do not believe that there is an endless supply of guys out there who can crank out broadcast quality production music year after year.
I am in full agreement with this statement.
Great composers with good attitudes and knowledge of the business are not easy for libraries to come by. They are an asset to any music library that sells to expand their business.
Of course music libraries can stop accepting new composers and distribute their current catalog. They wil make money from their existing catalog that already has placements. But I do not know of any successful company that stops doing business and just sits back and wait for checks. Music libraries always need content.
Any business model that generates revenue for the composer is a solid business model. I am not worried about competing for the spots at the stratosphere of the music licensing world. If I had access to those deals, I certainly would not be on MLR arguing (no offense to this site, btw!). There is plenty of money to be made out here.
So someone has to have new ideas so that we don’t end up selling our tunes for $30 on a website
I would fight for the right of the composers who actually are selling their music for between $25 and $100 on a website. People who make statements like the one above do not understand that you are selling a track 100 times over for $30 (do the math). Which could or could not be way more than you would ever make from an exclusive deal in 3 to 5 years.
They also don’t understand that you are selling to a market, a huge market, that has nothing to do with broadcast and is therefore unavailable or not accessed by most exclusive and retitle models.
This fact has been explained really well in this same thread many times by MichealL.Caveat- I have absolutely nothing against exclusive or retitle library type models. They are absolutely great for what they do. But I don’t think composers should disparage other successful library business models that actually send out substantial paychecks every month to their composers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.