Is Jingle Punks dead?

[chaosbegetschaos]

How about rather than hiring umpteen inhouse composers you pay us an upfront free for exclusivity.  Let’s face it the exlusive model is just another name for a Publisher – I would have never dreamt of giving my publishing away for FREE with no guarantees of a financial return or a reversion clause.  I guess nothing has really changed in the music industry – still run by hustlers with velvet tongues.

This business is all set up wrong – how about a shop/site where we list our music for a price and exclusive libraries have the option to buy our music exlusively.  Say I list a song and say ‘I want $150 dollars and my writers share for this song’, and the exclusive library has the option to buy it (so they have the rights to use it exlusively) or not buy it.  It could even operate like ebay e.g. auction price with reserve or Buy Now with best offer.  Seems like the fairest system to me.

Surely this is a business model that would work for the composers – so next time someone’s pitching for a bit of startup seed money – consider the above!

[Advice]

I’ve been hearing that major networks won’t sign non-exclusive, re-titled tracks for a while now. That’s why we’ve seen a number of non-exclusive libraries including Scorekeepers, Indigi, and now JP start an exclusive catalog. Libraries have been telling me the past 1-2 years that they won’t pitch my non-exclusive tracks to ABC, NBC, etc.

What’s not clear to me is whether this truly is the beginning of the end for the non-exclusive model, or there will be a fractured market whereby cable channels will continue to accept non-exclusive tracks. If what I’ve been hearing is true, the split market is actually nothing new. (Crucial seems to have managed an exception so far with their “re-title by adding a tag only” approach)…

I do want to ask JP if they plan to still pitch the non-exclusive tracks to networks other than the major ones. Based on the placements I’ve had with them, they work with Bravo, E!, TLC, History, Discovery, etc, etc. I’m not sure while they made it sound like the majors were the majority of their clients. Yes, of course, the majors are the highest paying opps.

As far as composers having the power to influence industry decisions, sadly that’s not really the case. There are way too many hungry composers out there with great home studios and talent who will do whatever it takes to get their music out there. If you won’t sign an exclusive with no up-front fee, someone else will. This trend is nothing new either. Supply and demand is not in the composer’s favor.

If the re-title model is going dead, anyone with tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries may have a problem. That was a risk going in. I knew that when I double-dipped (and triple and….) quite a few times.

We shall see.

PS If I had never put my tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries, I would never have had the placements I’ve had to date. So no regrets…

[Advice]

On JP’s website it says… “Jingle Punks is launching its exclusive music library offering in addition to their standard library in order to provide clients the option of being able to search for music they can exclusively license and immediately obtain the rights to.”

So hopefully there still will be opporunities for our non-exclusive tracks with them, even if not major network.

[sad about JP]

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to respond to this thread. People are more passionate about this topic that I thought! I personally have had great success with JP, which is one of the reasons I was so bummed out that it seems like they are doing a complete 180 with their business model…now I guess we just sit back and wait to see what happens…

Just wondering if anyone has actually received the new contract from JP yet? I know they said to just email them at their artist email address, but seeing as that they don’t answer their emails or the forum, will any of us ever even see this new contract? haha

[rsarja]

I have not seen the terms.  I’m really curious if the contract length is for perpetuity.

Also, even if you don’t have a particular song or cue in any other library but Jingle Punks, there  are still people like myself who sell downloads off of cdbaby.com and Google Add Sense tied to a YouTube video.  I need to find out if this is permissible or not.

I’ll have to admit that I don’t have a good feeling about this at all.  My gut instinct is telling me to be extremely cautious.  It has always been right in the past.

[Advice]

Usually, the exclusivity being discussed here only is with respect to film/TV pitches through 3rd parties such as libaries. Many of the exclusive contracts I’ve seen allow you to do non film/TV pitches with no conflict. Also, many do not prohibit you from pitching direct to music sups, just through other 3rd parties. Of course, check contracts carefully… YMMV. 🙂

[rsarja]

Thanks Advice.

 

[Steve]

We should keep in mind that some of these cable networks, some of the really loooooowwww paying ones, are owned by the major networks (Style is owned by NBC for example, and pays next to nothing in performance royalties). So while it would be nice to think that maybe there will be a divide between cable and major networks in regards to what types of libraries they use, I have a feeling that that will not be the case. If NBC says no to non-exclusives, then I would imagine that that policy would get passed down to their smaller cable networks as well. I’m just speculating here but I don’t think that that scenario is too far fetched.

I know that there are many composers who seem to think that Exclusive Libraries = Major Network placements which mean sync fees and big royalties. But that is not always the case. While exclusive libraries may be the only way to get major network placements in the future, that does NOT mean you will see large sync fees and royalties.

JP got me a placement in a hit primetime show on NBC. 45 seconds of instrumental music paid $88, and there was NO sync fee. Apparently JP has what essentially amounts to a gratis deal with NBC where most placements do not get a sync fee. I’ve had other network placements from other libraries that paid sync fees as well as substantial royalties, but my point is that just because you get network placements it doesn’t mean you are going to be making big money. It all depends.

What I see happening in the future is that we will have huge exclusive libraries that essentially function and behave like non-exclusive re-title libraries. No up front money/advances, few or no sync fees, blanket or direct license deals that pay nothing to the composers, bloated catalogs that severely limit the number of possible placements, and mostly low to moderate paying cable placements for the composers. The ONLY difference will be that now composers will be locked into an exclusive agreement, probably in perpetuity.

The libraries will still make big profits. After all, they have 20,000 plus tracks that they didn’t pay a dime for. JP will continue to pull in revenue of over $5 million per year (I got that figure from a bloomberg article), but the individual composer I think will have a harder time making a living.

Basically, I feel like we are going to see companies that combine the worst qualities of the re-title libraries with the worst qualities of the exclusive libraries. Lose-lose for us, BIG win for the libraries.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I figure its wise to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Especially for those of us who make our full time living writing production music :-/

[Blind]

I agree with Steve.

I would like to know if they are going to continue gratis deals with an exclusive catalog, which they should actually be charging a premium for.

[Advice]

Although the result for the composer is the same as far as upfront sync fee, the term “gratis” deal is a misnomer. What there are more and more of are “blanket” deals between the library and the TV production company– one fee to the library for access to an entire catalog. These already are very common for JP, Scorekeepers, and others and these libraries do not share a portion of the blanket fees with composers. I may no judgement as to whether or not their business model would support sharing a piece of the blanket fees (e.g. they could do that and stay in business)…

It’s very possible that this trend will extend *further* into major networks (it has already). So, Blind, yes I expect you would see a library like JP placing exclusive tracks via blanket deals and there being no sync fee to the composer.

Actually, the whole blanket deal thing is one of the reasons for networks being concerned about exclusivity. They sign blanket deals with mulitiple libraries, only to find the same tracks in each catalog. They feel that they are therefore paying twice for the same thing. Budgets are too tight for that.

JP relies heavily on blanket deals. If the end users say they will only do blankets with exclusives, their business model has to change.

[Michael Nickolas]

>Crucial seems to have managed an exception so far with their “re-title by adding a tag only” approach<

Interesting. JP does the same thing, no? They just add the “JP” tag to the original title.

>On JP’s website it says… “Jingle Punks is launching its exclusive music library offering in addition to their standard library in order to provide clients the option of being able to search for music they can exclusively license and immediately obtain the rights to.”<

Does this not make sense to anyone else? “search for music they can exclusively license” doesn’t seem right. Their client isn’t exclusively licensing the track, multiple clients all have access the same tracks. What is happening is composers are giving JP the exclusive right to non-exclusively shop their tracks, right? Also “and immediately obtain the rights to” doesn’t make sense, does it? I mean were they not immediately obtaining the rights when using the non-exclusive library? I don’t see JP providing the clients any options they didn’t already have.

>Basically, I feel like we are going to see companies that combine the worst qualities of the re-title libraries with the worst qualities of the exclusive libraries. Lose-lose for us, BIG win for the libraries.<

That’s not a far-fetched observation. And brings up the question, why would any supplier (composer) want to be a part of it? I know, supply and demand. It does make me wonder about the quality of the music they will be receiving for exclusive representation!

[sad about JP]

I know Art is part of JP as I see him on their forums from time to time. Kinda surprised he hasn’t chimed in on this topic…With the placements you’ve had with JP, what are you thinking you will do Art?

I thought I was confident in my decision to exclusively sign with them, but after reading through all of these comments, I have no idea what I’m going to do, in addition to still not hearing back from them by email.

[Advice]

Mutilple clients licensing the same track from one source who has exclusive rights (e.g. true POA over copyright and master to issue licenses) is not the same as one client getting pitched the same track from multiple sources, raising doubt about true ownership and causing annoying redundancy.

As far as what to do now, I think everyone should take a deep breath and just wait and see… I wouldn’t (personally) do anything regarding existing tracks in any non-exclusive catalogs, even if in more than one. This hasn’t shaken out yet and we really don’t know where the dust will settle.

[euca]

Maybe Art is the new in house composer for them out in LA and he is sworn to secrecy. HaHa!! Just kidding.

[sad about JP]

haha! I knew it! 🙂

[Author]

Posts