- This topic has 18 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Libraries will always try new ways to improve their income. Composers will always try new ways to improve their income. I don’t consider either to be greedy for wanting to do that. That said, it’s not the composers job to try new ways to improve a libraries income without there being a direct benefit to composers. If the libraries thought the subscription model was really good for composers, they wouldn’t have to try so hard to dress it up to make it look palatable. We would be able to see that. “No” vote from me.
10 Months Later here are my numbers for 10 tracks in a sub model for one month of earnings.
Track Amount
$ 4.58
$ 0.21
$ 1.33
$ 0.18
$ 0.92
$ 0.42
$ 3.70
$ 5.10
$ 0.38
$ 1.15
Total for September: $17.97
It’s headed toward a Spotify, fractions of pennies model eventually.
Lets do an exponential analysis- Here is the sub model:
10 tacks earns $20 a month for a writer
100 – $200 a month
1000 – $2000 a monthIn a sync license model where customers pay $20 to $500. We see numbers like this:
10 Tracks earn $200 a month
100 Tracks earn $2000 a month
1000 Tracks earn $20,000 a monthNot many guys can or will write 1000 tracks in an entire career. It certainly is not worth doing the work if you only will make $24,000 a year 10 years from now. People still are buying one off sync licenses all the time, just keep supporting a model that actually puts money in your pocket.
Pat, Libraries do not give a damn about composers on any level whatsoever. Composers are nothing but free content creators who supply them with the goods to sell for no cost to the library. Most libraries do not report the full truth of how much they sell and they fudge the numbers so they always “win” no matter what. Instead of libraries trying to earn more money by selling more music to more customers at fair market prices, their only solution is to pay composers less money and cut into their piece of the pie.
The only hope moving forward is maintaining the strength of the PRO performance royalty model. If that ever goes away, the entire business is toast. Some composers already are burning down their own house by giving away 50% of their writers share. This is unprecedented stuff, shocking, and incredibly foolish. I am still eternally astonished that anyone would ever give away 50% writers share to someone who did not write the music, especially in the context of background music cues for Reality TV content. I also have trusted, credible sources who once were doing well in the Sub model (Elements) , but are now reporting a gradual erosion of earnings. When customers can get music for 90% less than they used to pay, the revenue distribution “pot” shrinks accordingly.
I agree and haven’t submitted music there for awhile. I submit whebn sakes are coming in and I haven’t seen any froo Pond 5 in some time.
If this is only gonna get worse…what’s the point? I used to be hopeful, but the race to the bottom continues. We love making music! And the fact that we can’t make living off of what we love doing…sucks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.