My experiment with a subscription deal

Home Forums Commentary My experiment with a subscription deal

Viewing 9 posts - 11 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
  • #34371 Reply

    And this months data for 10 subscription tunes…….
    Track Amount
    $ 2.47
    $ 0.45
    $ 1.20
    $ 1.26
    $ 0.51
    $ 1.95
    $ 2.43
    $ 1.83
    $ 8.93

    Kind of speaks for itself where this model is headed…..Pretty Pathetic.

    #34373 Reply
    Strat 56

    In comparison, you actually did good, you’re on a roll there Music 1234 ! LOL ! All kidding aside, yeah, it’s quite pitiful isn’t it.

    #36060 Reply

    I don’t understand why companies have to change a system that already works, and that users will already pay for. It’s really cruel what the corporate world has done to hard working musicians.

    #36061 Reply

    I don’t understand why companies have to change a system that already works, and that users will already pay for. It’s really cruel what the corporate world has done to hard working musicians.

    In my opinion… Greed! It works well for the company that gets committed users but devalues music.

    I am a library owner and composer so can see the attraction of getting subscribed customers, however, to reduce the income that the composer receives to pennies seems like a really bad move to me. Surely we will end up with the quality of music suffering. If this happens there will be no point in spending days or weeks working on music. We will have to knock out 10+ tracks a week to get enough bulk in the subscription websites. Seems like a road to disaster to me.

    I can understand that a single composer may offer a subscription option/patron model for clients, meaning that they get a regular income and the client supports their work. However, when a large company uses music (that has cost them nothing to acquire) in order to facilitate a low cost all you can use option, this is great for them but crap for the composers.

    I can also understand (and offer) a limited subscription option where the client gets a discount for agreeing to monthly payments, but all you can use seems really bad to me.

    As a library owner, I am now losing business to these disruptive business models and being pressured to keep considering them or lose more clients. As a composer, I am horrified that music is becoming so devalued and at best, I can create 1-2 tracks a week currently. This means that it takes a long time to create a sizable library and it is only viable if payouts are sensible. Getting pennies for hundreds of hours of work is pointless.

    I think there will be the composers that do join these and composer that don’t. We will end up with a 2 tiered stock industry. If enough people stay out of them, we will end up with two sets of music. A smaller, let’s say more valued set and a larger set where composers are needing to churn them out in bulk and fast.

    As a library owner, I know more is not always best. Also, I know that media clients will hunt for the right track and are prepared to pay the going rate for a license. Often £££’s and not pennies.

    As a composer, it is time to draw a line in the sand and consider your value. As a library owner, it is time to decide what you value more… money or music.

    Some will say do both, but if my client can find your music for pennies, why should I try and get ££ for it. I am doing my client a disservice if your music is also available for peanuts.

    I know some will agree and some disagree, but this is just my take on it.

    #36079 Reply

    Yeah well, do not feed the monster. Too many composers do, but these deals are «practice» deals for 14yo kids. When buyers cant afford music, or wont pay for it, dont give it to them. You raise demand by creating scarcity. Trade 101. Eventually new buyers will come along, who will differentiate themselves on music, and beat the shi* out of the cheapskates. These things are ez, but obviously not for modern musicians. Worst business people ever.

    #36082 Reply

    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.

    #36084 Reply

    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 month

    In 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 month

    Not 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.

    #36087 Reply

    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.

    #37166 Reply

    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.

Viewing 9 posts - 11 through 19 (of 19 total)
Reply To: My experiment with a subscription deal
Your information: