Home › Forums › General Questions › Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy?
- This topic has 287 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by Dan W.
I’m changing my login name to Good MichaelL. 😉
I’m still working on it. Maybe you’ll get it right! 😆More AdviceParticipant
You are right… You do give good advice and I should not create any weird vibes with my member name being condesending to yours….so I have changed mine to “More advice” …Advice, you do have good advice..I will now rename myself as “more advice” !
.so I have changed mine to “More advice” …Advice, you do have good advice..I will now rename myself as “more advice” !
To quote one of my favorite moments from “Moonstruck,”….”I’m confused.” 😆KennyParticipant
Without doubt this thread is full of advice 😉andthebeatgoesonGuest
Seems like a bit of movement is going on with some companies with regards the Non-Exclusive vs Exclusive debate. Some are now restricting non-exclusive content and pushing towards an exclusive model, others changing the terms. Are our non-exclusive tracks losing their value?Art MunsonKeymaster
“Are our non-exclusive tracks losing their value?”
I believe the value is always there. It might take some thinking outside the box but a product is a product. Don’t let anyone define it’s value.GlenParticipant
Don’t you all realize that? The publishers and networks collaboratively are squeezing every ounce of blood out of composers! That is you my friends!!! They are all smirking..” How much lower will they go, how much more will they bow down to us…um… let’s just make them our slaves!”
The non-exclusive composers with great, broadcast quality, creative, and professional tracks that continually place will not get squeezed because the market wants their tracks no matter what. Everyone needs to get it out of their mind that exclusive music cues are getting “extra” attention and “special” treatment. A good cue is a good cue and if a client wants to use it, and the client finds it in the search engine, the client will use it. All this talk about “NE is out…the networks just want it that way and blah blah blah”…is just another scheme to suppress composers.
This is what the real story is folks….so before you run and sign those exclusive contracts and bow down and officially become a servant to greedy publishers and networks…take a step back and think!!! Do you want to be complicit to the race to $0 and treated as a slave?…or are you willing to push back and say “if you want my cues exclusively where only you can deal them, I think it’s a good idea if you buy them from me at first or perhaps guarantee a minimum annual payment for my catalog.”
The way I see it is this: my cues can earn me 10K to 20K between the royalty free market and my own business dealings with my own clients and contacts. If JP or any other library wants EXCLUSIVE Licensing and Publishing of MY Music where I have to take these cues off the RF market and not deal them myself…shouldn’t they guarantee me an additional 10K to 20K a year for “exclusive” distribution of my cues?
How are they going to make up for that extra 10 to 20K I’m pulling down as they continue to make publishing royalties and license fees into spots or corporate videos from my own personal dealings?
Did you ever think of it that way guys?
Are you complicit in the race to zero?
Are you a slave to the publisher? and ultimately their client?
Isn’t time to say “thanks, but no thanks! to both the networks and publishers?… or are you going to be weak handed…cave in…and bow down, like a slave, and raise your hand and run to the front of the line and say “I’m in!!!I’m In!! please let me be your slave and sign that exclusive contract so you can control my cues forever in perpetuity and I can never sell my creations anywhere else…you win…can I please, please join your party…??
Beautiful! Thanks Glen, If your tracks are anything like your rhetoric, you’ll never be at a loss for clients! Well said.TV Composer GuyGuest
I’m with Glen on this one. We composers are getting duped by the publishers. I deal directly with music supervisors & none of them have had a problem with non exclusive libraries, they actually like them because these days there isn’t a lot of money allocated for music in productions & (usually) they don’t have to pay any upfront money to use non exclusive.
The publishers are taking us for a ride here, I know of exclusive music libraries that re title (or have in the past) & are members of the PMA. Some of these libraries also re title so the production company can get in on a slice of the action & get a share (or all) of the publishing royalties. When the publishing company takes all of the publishing, the writers share gets shared between the publisher & the writer, so the production company actually makes more money from YOUR music being placed than you do…AdviceParticipant
I have to wonder. Did WE (myself very much included) contribute to this problem by putting the same tracks in multiple re-title libraries that service the same markets? I’m not talking about RF… Talking about libraries that send tracks to TV production companies.
When calling the publishers greedy, were we as composers greedy?Desire_InspiresParticipant
@Advice, composers are no more greedy than music publishers or production companies. I would even say that composers are less greedy simply because many newer composers do not all of the deals possible to make money.
I know that some people think composers are naive or even foolish for signing certain types of deals. But most composers are trying to make money the best way that they can. It is easy to belittle the composer for being taken advantage of. Blaming the victim is an easy way to not deal with a problem.TV Composer GuyGuest
No, I don’t think we as composers were being greedy…. is any business being greedy for selling their product in more than one shop? What the problem was that the libraries got lazy/greedy & retitled cues, when they should never had done that. They should only have ever got a share of the licensing fee, never taken the publishers share as they technically aren’t publishers, they are only selling a product…OUR product.
You have to ask the question, who decided to retitle cues? Was it us composers or was it the music libraries, seeing an opportunity for a quick & easy buck?
Changed my mind. Life goes on.BlindParticipant
First of all I doubt that there is really the clamoring for exclusivity from production companies that certain libraries are making it out to be. I know from personal experience dealing with a few prod. companies directly that they don’t care if the music is non-exclusive as long as they like it.
Secondly, any large production company that does care about that sort of thing may want a piece of the back-end action like TV Composer Guy says above, but they will pay for it and probably not go through a library anyway b/c they want absolute exclusivity – meaning that they have their own in-house library.
Thirdly, if you are a library and you informally poll prod companies whether they prefer Exclusive or Non-exclusive, what do you think they are going to say? Exclusive, of course, but just because it sounds better and/or would make them feel more special.
Lastly, you have to realize that a library sees an exclusive catalog as something that they can sell at higher blanket license fees now, and possibly to a larger publisher down the line. Your tracks may be in a relatively small library now, but could be sold to Warner/Chappell later. You are likely not to get anything in that transaction, but that depends on the deal.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the libraries are using the excuse that the prod companies are demanding exclusively, but it’s most likely the libraries who want it. It’s less hassle for them and it’s a completely free asset.
Libraries have just sensed a small tide turning and are riding a little wave. There are really no reasons not to if you have the clout to attract artists.