- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
++++1
For my personal situation, and my catalog which is derived from years of working with dozens of non-broadcast clients, the RF model is the best fit. It would be a total waste of my time to submit that part of my catalog to NE re-titlers.
Moreover, I do write for television and I know that 10 seconds of music here and 15 seconds of music there pays less in backend than a good RF sale.
So, my message is don’t dismiss the RF model. My caveat is that I believe the music that works well in the broadcast oriented NR re-title world is not necessarily what works in the RF world and vice versa. There is some overlap. However, the RF palette is a lot broader, because it isn’t limited by pop-culture. Personally…I love that.
Again, best of luck to all.
Michael
Michael L,
A lot of the cues are from in-house composers, but I also study the names of non-in-house guys. It’s very frequently the same names coming up. These must be the pros with large, hi quality catalogs.
Maybe the model that is fair for everyone (including the so called “confused editors” at Post houses and Networks who complain about hearing tracks from multiple sources with different titles) is exclusive representation but with the right to sell on the Royalty Free market. That is a deal I can handle at this point in my career. But, if the library says “we want all your stuff exclusively and only represented by us.” Should I not say OK but what about that 5 or 6 grand I am currently pulling down in the royalty free market?
Michael L, I must say that I am always confused about what model(s) you support in this business. What do you think is the most fair model for both composers and publishers? I’ve seen you write things like “the most important asset to protect is your own catalog.” But then I’ve seen you say “I write for exclusive libraries”…and also…I’m going to float some old cues out on the RF market…Are you getting work for hire contracts to write for the exclusive catalogs that you do biz with?
Okay, let’s do some math, Mark. If an RF library sells a track for $30 (I’ll just stick with that figure since I brought it up), the composer gets $15, assuming a 50/50 split. In order to make $500, that track has to sell ~34 times. And assuming it’s for a web video or internal company video, there’s no PRO money.
Now, if I license a tune for a network show through an exclusive or non-exlusive library, the license fee would be $1000 (on average, let’s say), my cut is $500. It airs, I get my PRO statement, I make another $500 that same track, and I’ll probably make a little in subsequent quarters. So I could make $1000 for ONE use, or I could make $500 for 34 uses.
The argument is that the $30 track is going to sell 100’s of times. How often does that happen, when there 10’s of thousands of tracks on a website?
I’m not trying to convince anyone not to use RF sites, really. If the money’s green, you can spend it. If it works for you, go for it.
@The Dude
That’s great that exclusive works for you Dude. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the RF model, some composers do very well. Our top 5 make between $20,000 and $40,000 a year. I’m sure you are making much more than that but for many composers RF earnings are pretty good.@The Dude…forget about $30…Sell for $100 a pop…You are just tossing out random licensing fees and “I could make $1000 and blah blah blah…Keep the discussion to hard facts if you can. I am in both worlds. You can easily make $1000 in 1 year from 1 cue in RF. I am making $400 a month in RF AND I am making significantly more from back end PRO royalties, work for hires, and up-front license fees from the pro library. Dude, if you have a couple hundred cues all tied up forever with exclusives, you are definitely missing out on a few extra grand each year from the RF market….keep that in mind…I am also assuming that you have a proven catalog with a track record.
Hey guys, all I can say is this:
In broadcast you want your cues to get the most airtime they can get=big money
In RF you want all your cues to sell many times=big moneyThats all, what ever if its exclusive or non exclusive it dosent metter.
I can say that I have a non-exclusive deal with a big company that dont like non-exclusive stuff, how so you ask? its all about music and personal relationships. Do what ever is working for you, we here to make money.Maybe the model that is fair for everyone (including the so called “confused editors” at Post houses and Networks who complain about hearing tracks from multiple sources with different titles) is exclusive representation but with the right to sell on the Royalty Free market. That is a deal I can handle at this point in my career.
I absolutely agree. That would be the best of both worlds for composers. There’s no rational argument against it, because those same editors aren’t likely to be shopping on RF sites. I’d love to see that happen.
I’ve seen you write things like “the most important asset to protect is your own catalog.” But then I’ve seen you say “I write for exclusive libraries”…and also…I’m going to float some old cues out on the RF market…Are you getting work for hire contracts to write for the exclusive catalogs that you do biz with?
First, I consider doing cues on a work-for-hire basis as protecting my catalog because as we lawyers say, “it’s “clean.” In other words it’s free from any entanglement in the negative implications of re-titling.
I DO NOT consider the traditional WFH exclusive model vs. the new give us your music for free exclusive model to be the same. The only thing they have in common is the word “exclusive.”I have written for exclusive libraries on a WFH basis since 1978, starting with the NFL Music Library (Don’t look for that “record”. It’s out of print). Since then I’ve written for six other exclusives, on a WFH basis.
In the early 80’s I was approached to help start a RF library. Over the course of 10 years, I put 200+ cues into that library (which no longer exists). I own those cues. My experience with the business model was very positive.
From 1977 to 2000 I composed music for hundreds of documentaries, industrial films, corporate videos, corporate events. I retained the rights to that music. I never threw anything away, score paper, midi files, audio recordings etc. Basically, I’ve got a few thousand “raw” cues that I am reproducing, with current technology.
I don’t have a lot of interest in chasing trends. I like to produce cues that an Ad agency friend of mine calls “evergreen.” If I didn’t have a long term game plan, I would have written disco music in the 70’s and I’d be out of work now.
So…the short answer to your question is that I do work WFH for exclusive libraries, for which I am given general instructions or a brief. My “personal” catalog accumulated over 25 years is going to RF libraries.
None of the above includes my TV work to date. But, we are discussing marketing that catalog through RF libraries.
What do you think is the most fair model for both composers and publishers?
If you’re not getting paid up front, I think that the model you describe above would be ideal. ++++1
As you would say,”at this time in my career,” because I have several thousand existing cues to work with, and because of the nature of those cues, I believe that RF libraries are the best fit…for me.
I hope that answers your questions.
Cheers,
MichaelWe all come here with the intent to share info and in some cases, persuade. I am writing to persuade composers not to get fooled into the E model. Protect your right to sell as much music as possible in all ways. We need to have multiple revenue streams and I really do not think RF is disruptive to regular E and NE libraries unless IF everyone starts selling for $10. Keep the RF prices up and respectable (to protect our craft) and keep shooting for maximum airtime through the regular libraries that pay back end. Music Pro..I agree with your statement…are you in RF too?
OK Mark, fair enough. No point in arguing.
@More advice. What are you talking about? Hard facts? I presented numbers based on my own experience (just as you presented the $400/month figure from your own experience). I laid out what I made from one license last quarter. It may be an unscientific example, but it’s an attempt to compare the two. Is math really that scary? Your “blah blah blah” comment is akin putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “I’m not listening!”. My “hard facts” are just as soft as your $400 a month from RF “hard facts”. They are anonymous posts on an internet forum. With my exclusive tracks, I made a good buyout fee which is earning interest, and they’re making me good money on the back end. So are they really tied up?
Whatever, what works for me, works for me. What works for you, or MichaelL or anybody else works for them. Maybe I opened up a stale discussion here, but at least I tried to prove my point. I doubt any of us will be swayed by these discussions, so good luck to all.
Mr. Dude, I don’t want to get confrontational….you did use the word “if”…”If I license a tune for $1000…” Also, If you licensed a song with vocals on a network show that really is a different deal. Most of my discussion relates to instrumental production music cues, not full songs with lyrics. You do not want to be in RF land with songs with lyrics IMHO.
Michael L…cool stuff regarding NFL films! and you basically reinforce my point of view. Exclusive is great when the library hires you and pays you to write the tracks.
If any exclusive composer can jump in on this thread and say how going exclusive for no work for hire fees has benefited their cause…I’d love to hear about your experience. I’ve seen many catalogs promise “better and more placement opportunities” for your music by going exclusive…Is this true?…is anyone seeing increased activity in exchange for going exclusive? I guess it’s too early in the game to tell. We’ll probably have to wait for The next 2 quarters of statements to see the results.
Whatever, what works for me, works for me. What works for you, or MichaelL or anybody else works for them.
Dude…It’s funny that you should say that. I was mulling this thread over, while ingesting yet another cardiac assault for lunch, and I had
what should be an obvious epiphany.Whatever advice or wisdom any of us has to offer is more or less irrelevant, because we all come from such different places in our lives with different wants and needs.
Where you choose to live, whether you have children, how much you do, or do not, value material things, will have a huge impact what you must accomplish in this business, to support your lifestyle.There is no point in arguing. We each live our own truth.
My circumstances, path and experiences have been extremely unique. Even if I wrote down every step that I’ve taken over the last 35 years, it would mean nothing to anyone who wants to be in this business now. You can’t recreate every step that I’ve taken, or the “luck” involved. Some things simply happen by being in the right place, at the right time, when you are ready to seize the opportunity.
The only fact that I know to be universal is that none of us can afford to waste time.
And on that note, I say good luck, whatever paths you choose.
_Michael
Michael L…cool stuff regarding NFL films! and you basically reinforce my point of view. Exclusive is great when the library hires you and pays you to write the tracks.
A perfect example of luck and opportunity that you cannot recreate…I was at NFL Films Studio doing the audio layback and final mix for a film that I had scored. The mixer that day was also the person who ran their library. He liked what he heard, and the rest, as they say is history.
Regarding going exclusive without up front money. They will need to perform 5 times better then before to supplement the money you will lose from other opertonitis like RF, personal connections and deals, other NE libraries and so on and I dont think with all of the good will of those exclusive libraries, they cannot deliver 5 times better just because you are exclusive, you take all the risk. When you get up front money, they take all the risk because now they will need to perform better in order to get they investment back and this is a good situation. But when they get free exclusive tracks they will not work that hard to get the investment back because, they didn’t invest!
But when they get free exclusive tracks they will not work that hard to get the investment back because, they didn’t invest!
It depends.
I’m new to this, but I have signed off a few exclusive tracks because I happen to like the library. And I can get those tracks back in a couple years, and send them off to non -exclusives if it doesn’t work. Not seeing the problem, if you are prolific enough, with testing the waters with some of your tracks if the potential to make decent money is there. I’ve never been a big fan of completely black and white solutions, too often , in general, they are not good ones. And sorry, if a library puts out a request to write a specific sort of track, and I am writing for that particular pitch, especially in that case, I would feel a bit ethically skeevy pitching it elsewhere. Doesn’t mean if I don’t like the terms if they offer both exclusive and nonexclusive that I have to go exclusive, just treat it as such. And I’ve personally run into some exclusive libraries I would love to be in because of their placement records, etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.