- This topic has 142 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Maybe Art is the new in house composer for them out in LA and he is sworn to secrecy.”
Ha, I wish! Then again, who knows what that means. One JP e-mail asked for “young and hungry composers” in L.A. I certainly don’t fit that (neither young nor particularly hungry).
“what are you thinking you will do Art?”
Still trying to decide. I answered their e-mail but haven’t seen a thing.
Michael Nickolas made some very valid observations on the previous page. Their press release regarding their new exclusive library is very ambiguous and confusing with regard to the overall state of JP as it stands now. They are clearly not communicating well with their existing composers. There is no point double guessing what they are going to do. I for one am not going to make any decisions until the dust settles and some kind of response is forthcomming.
” Looking for young and hungry composers in L.A. ” …. hmmmmm …… well , IMHO that says a lot about their intentions ……. that sounds like …. lets go after the inexperienced greenhorns because we expect many experienced and wise composers probably won’t go for this new deal !!! But then again I could be totally wrong, who knows for sure, hey ??
If I see Crucial Music going saying they are going “exclusive” I will then be concerned. So far this has not happened. Seeing that they are one of the first and most connected non-exclusive libraries, if they don’t go exclusive then no one should be afraid. Libraries are not publishers, please do not sign your tracks exclusive with a library without an up front fee and a term. Even the smallest publishers give advances and short term contracts.
I’ve been told from a reliable source that Crucial has no intention of going exclusive, at least not for the forseeable future. They are very committed to the non-exclusive model.
What I’ve been hearing has been the problem has more to do with libraries like JP that rely heavily on blanket deals (Crucial does not do blankets). TV shows are signing multiple blanket deals only to find they are getting the same tracks from those different libraries (e.g. JP, SK, etc)… Budget-wise, this is very non-cost-effective. They feel like they are paying 2-3 times for the same thing. If the TV networks tell libraries like JP that they won’t do blanket deals anymore unless the tracks are exclusive, JP and others will simply have no choice. A large chunk of their business model depends on this.
As far as JP making this up as a scare tactic, that’s ridiculous. We may not like it and be disappointed, but accusing them of outright lying is very inappropriate. These possible changes in the industry are very real. I’ve heard it from at least 3-4 libaries and publishers the past 2 years. Many non-exc libraries we deal with have started exclusive catalogs for the same reason.
Deep breath, take it slow… See where the dust all settles. 😀
We all have the option of not signing non-exclusives with no up-front money, especially if there are long commitments. I know I wouldn’t unless I felt the library truly offered me something better than I could get doing what am currently doing with non-exclusive.
That being said, it’s easy to get huffy and think we, as composers, have all the power. Reality is supply and demand is not in our favor. There are many thousands of people churning out great tracks from home studios, willing to do anything just to get their music out there. If exclusive without upfront became the only way, I don’t think libraries would have a shortage of music. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Random lawyer thoughts:
The biggest issue for writers, if Advice is correct (and I believe the he/she is) is, what happens to tracks that are already in multiple non-exclusive libraries that do blanket deals? (Edit: btw don’t forget to add Pump to that list.)
If the networks don’t want to pay for the same tracks twice (they don’t), at some point the slate is going to have to be wiped clean. Whether or not writers will be able to remove their re-titled tracks from libraries and convert them to exclusive tracks with one or more libraries is the crux the matter.
The worst possible scenario is that these tracks will be considered “damaged goods.” Remember that the re-titled tracks are not assets, they have no actual value to the library. The easiest course of action for a library would be to simply let the re-titled tracks “die on the vine.” The most difficult approach will be to convert non-exclusive tracks to exclusive, because it would involve verifying that each track is no longer available in any other library. Time is money, and if the library already has an exclusive catalog, there is little incentive to choose the latter option.
There is a parallel trend that I’ve noticed, among the libraries moving toward exclusive content. They are establishing a core group of de facto “in house” writers. There’s still no up-front money, but one writer that I know justifies it because the placements and odds of placement are better.
In short, we may be witnessing the end of the free-for-all flood. Ultimately, it’s the consumer that’s in the driver’s seat, and they’ve had enough.
Advice said:
“What I’ve been hearing has been the problem has more to do with libraries like JP that rely heavily on blanket deals (Crucial does not do blankets). TV shows are signing multiple blanket deals only to find they are getting the same tracks from those different libraries (e.g. JP, SK, etc)… Budget-wise, this is very non-cost-effective. They feel like they are paying 2-3 times for the same thing. If the TV networks tell libraries like JP that they won’t do blanket deals anymore unless the tracks are exclusive, JP and others will simply have no choice. A large chunk of their business model depends on this.”
I think this is exactly what this is all about, not some big exclusive versus non-exclusive situation that extends throughout the industry. These libraries (JP, SK, etc) are saturated and they’re trying to capture as much of the market as they can and blanket licenses are a great way to do that when they don’t have to pay anything upfront for content but the end customers for these blanket licenses are certainly not going to be happy when they see a lot of redundancy between libraries. Hence, exclusivity. There’s such a great supply of music that I’m sure they have no doubt that they will continue being able to meet the demand and they are attractive to composers regardless because they produce results. It really seems to me to be about how these particular libraries are doing business rather than a mass exodus from the use of non-exclusive tracks.
In my own experience I’ve been fortunate enough to contribute directly to some cable shows through a music house on a work-for-hire basis. Right alongside these exclusive tracks I’ve directly licensed other cues of mine to the same shows that are in non-exclusive libraries. I remember the first time that I did this I felt confident that I had the track they were looking for but it was in a couple of non-exclusives so I was nervous about presenting it and so I “warned” the music supervisor. I was taken aback by his reaction which was to basically laugh and say “Why would they care, if they like the track they’ll license it?” And they did. And it was no big deal. Since then I’ve had quite a few interactions and gotten to see some things and what I’ve seen leads me to believe that it’s much more about getting the show done on time and on budget with the best production possible than adhering to any particular licensing approach. Different people at different production companies seem to have different ideas as how to best do this and I’m sure that budgets and deadlines vary greatly. In the end they probably just want to get the job done with minimal hassle and problems.
What I’m trying to say here is that I think the business is much more complex and nuanced than it ends up being portrayed on this forum sometimes and that within that complexity there’s room for all the different modes of doing business. I don’t think that JP and SK shifting their focus means that there’s necessarily a global shift in the industry. It just means that those particular entities have realized that they can capitalize on an opportunity and that they are leveraged to do so.
Remember that there are hundreds of production companies feeding shows to all the networks and that all of these companies have their own focuses and proclivities. Some are much more inclined toward branding their shows with exclusive music than others. Some spend thousands per episode on music and some spend hundreds. Some use libraries, some use music houses and supplement with library tracks. The only constant seems to be the ever shifting nature of it all as everyone clamors to stay afloat.
Eh…..never mind.
I re-read the post on the JP blog. Here’s the bottom-line:
“We are creating two libraries to best serve the marketplace. Both will be accessible to our clients through our popular Jingle Punks Player technology.”
“The new Exclusive Library will stand alongside Jingle Punks’ existing standard library.”
As alluded to above, by Kiwi, there are those who care about re-titling and those who don’t. JP is doing the smart thing and covering both ends of the market.
Things may actually be pretty much status quo for writers in JP’s “existing standard library,” except that some customers will undoubtedly shift to the exclusive library. That may mean fewer placements for writers in the “standard” library, who were getting placements with JP customers who make the move. If all of your placements were coming from the customers who aren’t concerned about re-titling, you may not notice any difference.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.