- This topic has 69 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Those poor networks. I feel so sorry for them. They have to pay those terribly expensive license deals (often $0) to get access to the same tracks from our two favorite libraries mentioned above. What a shame! (YES THIS IS SARCASM)
I actually don’t feel one bit sorry for Discovery, TLC, History, Bravo, A& E, MTV, VH1, etc… I say “Gee Network execs. I really feel so bad for you guys. It’s a shame that you are graced with all this music content and pay such small fees, but at the same time your editors have to listen to the same track from 2 different libraries. That’s really a shame and we’re so sorry for this inconvenience!”
Guys, a good friend of mine just had a very successful run writing custom “exclusive” music for 19 Kids and Counting and John and Kate plus 8, but now Discovery decided to go with library music only for a great majority of their shows, yet they are disappointed that they may have to hear the same tracks from 2 different catalogs?
Well we’re just so sorry guys, really sorry this is such an inconvenience to your producers and editors.
To all you cost saving execs at the networks, regarding all the free music content you are being served up in multiple catalogs I say to you:
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, if you want custom, exclusive, and properly scored cues. Hire some pros to do it and pay them a work for hire to custom score every show you create.
I asked JP point blank 2 weeks ago in a conference call what the big noise is all about regarding E and NE and the response was “editors are just sick of hearing the same tracks in multiple catalogs” Well, gee we’re so sorry. I encourage everyone to request a call to hear it from the horses mouth what the real story is behind the E noise. Personally, I will never go exclusive unless folks want to buy some of my music.
I have a lot more to add to this topic. I’m busy mixing some tunes today. I just wanted to slip this thought in.
P.S…I am still selling tracks for $100 on P5…I even put one up the for $600 yesterday.
I have a lot more to add to this topic. I’m busy mixing some tunes today. I just wanted to slip this thought in.
P.S…I am still selling tracks for $100 on P5…I even put one up the for $600 yesterday.
I just finished cranking up all my prices (WAY UP) @ my RF sites today…maybe i’m missing something but the networks having to hear “some” of the same tunes from different libraries can’t be the ONLY reason companies are moving towards the exclusive model..if someone can elaborate on that i’d really appreciate it..i’m sure it has something to do w/$ – I actually think by raising your prices you’re setting yourself apart and even standout in a crowded market…more of us should raise prices..think about it..so maybe you don’t get all those emails saying you’
you’ve made a sale (only to find you made next to nothing) but then you get one or two sales that equal 10 or more of those mini micro sales..we own the content…why are we selling ourselves short @ these sites ?I say crank’em up 🙂
More advice, 100% with you on that.
I can understand that they done like it but yes, they just have to deal with that if they want “free” music. Now, as long as there will be exclusive companies getting started or non-ex libraries changing their biz model to exclusive, the editors will stay “spoiled”. They will get free and exclusive music, what a deal, good for them.
But I tell you what, if your music is really good and really good for the scene, they will handle hearing it from two different sources.Recently I pulled music from two royalty free sites that had sold my music for micro money. I placed a group of cues at another site and set most of my prices at $250. I put a few at $100 as a loss leader to get people interested. I have not had great success with the royalty free model yet. A few sales here and there for a few bucks. Hopefully I will start to see some sales from the new venture and begin to make some money.
It also seems that the lower end blanket license market, such as for cable TV, is very affected here by this whole issue. I don’t think J…. and S…. are pushing exclusive just for the heck of it. Cable TV production companies see themselves paying blanket fees to multiple companies, only to find they are seeing a lot of the same tracks. So they feel they are wasting money.
Cable TV productions aren’t paying blanket license fees, they get it all gratis, rarely do they ever have to pay a blanket fee, if they do it is very minimal. Like I said before, I have worked directly with music supervisors & they have told me they are getting tracks thrown at them for free by non exclusive libraries…. we didn’t tell the libraries to do that, they are part of the reason license fees have eroded
I asked JP point blank 2 weeks ago in a conference call what the big noise is all about regarding E and NE and the response was “editors are just sick of hearing the same tracks in multiple catalogs” Well, gee we’re so sorry. I encourage everyone to request a call to hear it from the horses mouth what the real story is behind the E noise. Personally, I will never go exclusive unless folks want to buy some of my music.
If the titles are the same, the editors don’t have to listen to the same track twice, they would recognise the title & move on. The problem was that they didn’t know they are listening to the same track again until they heard it as it was retitled.
Also apparently publishers were fighting over who placed the track (slightly unprofessional)…..if they didn’t give away the tracks for free in the first place, they wouldn’t have to fight over who got paid. Also composers were apparently calling production companies asking who placed the track (also unprofessional).
Frankly, it’s so immature and petty. All of it. Composers should not be calling production companies, but at the same time competent assistant editors, gophers, production assistants, interns, or whomever simply need to fill out cue sheets accurately and publishers need to contractually verify the cues by demanding that they receive a cue sheet.
In fact some automated software needs to be invented where the title of the piece is transferred directly to a cue sheet and that same title (It’s important that we all know we’re paid based on track Titles) transfers the information of who the writer is and who the publisher is.
We will never be able to go to watermarking or fingerprinting because everyone pays based on a REGISTERED TITLE (usually registration is performed by a publisher).
As far as editors hearing the same music under two different titles goes and publishers bickering about whose cue it is (It’s my placement…no…it’s mine”)I do not feel sorry for anyone involved, but I also advise not contributing to that part of the problem by making deals with 10 different companies.
Send your music to only those who turn your tracks into compensation. Pull out of those libraries who do not make you any money. Maybe some companies need to just die off. Never give away your music for no fee exclusively. Always demand that you can sell your works privately while publishers simultaneously market your music. You never know when you can make a private deal. Especially if you have good material with a proven track record.
Never give away your music for no fee exclusively. Always demand that you can sell your works privately while publishers simultaneously market your music. You never know when you can make a private deal. Especially if you have good material with a proven track record.
Totally agree with this one. C’mon people, don’t sign your life away in the hope of getting some placements. I actually don’t have a problem with signing my tracks exclusively as long as I can still shop my tracks around myself. This is a pretty hard industry to make decent money out of & the libraries/production companies are taking a revenue stream away from us by doing this. The thing that sucks with this exclusive craze is that if we get a track licensed ourselves through our own contacts/reputation/networking, the library that has signed the track takes 1/2 of the income for doing NOTHING.
In some instances, you would only get 1/4 of the license fee if the library has a sub publishing deal with a larger library (larger library gets 1/2 license fee, other 1/2 gets split between other library & composer).
I am starting to work some older pieces in the royalty free world. These tracks have already been placed on shows through various non-exclusive companies. Hopefully this route will work for me.
But in all honesty, I would rather sign tracks exclusively to companies that make me money than to sign tracks non-exclusively to libraries that do nothing. I have pulled music from non-exclusive companies that had sat on my music for 2 or more years with little to no placements.
I am a bit fatigued by trying to chase down music supervisors and new libraries. This game is hard and I am not patient enough to wait it out any longer. Working on an exclusive basis with companies that have already made me money is the best solution for me. That is where most of my new music is going.
Well I’m happy to have read all these incredible responses and insights but I have to say I’m just as confused as before. Everyone seems to make valid points about the pros and cons of going NE or just E. I’m just going to have to mull all this over.
Thanks
kimmer56Keep in mind, desire inspires, that it is your way of thinking that enables publishers to prey on weak handed composers. I do not want to offend you, but if the majority of composers throw in the towel and say..”here they are…the cues are now yours exclusively, I can not make any contacts on my own, I am giving these to you for free.” you set a terrible precedent and give publishers dominant leverage over composers. They then in turn take what was given to them for free and offer it for free to the networks just to get those placements. The publisher wins because their name pollutes the cue sheets. They make up for “free” with high volume of placements, this is something you will not achieve.
This way of thinking is very destructive and only supports the race to the bottom. If you can’t make contacts that is fine. Don’t even reveal that. Stay non-exclusive simply so you can continue to sell your music on the royalty free market simultaneously if you so chose. Or stay non-exclusive, but treat the deal as if it is exclusive.
A company sent me a contract yesterday where they are paying 25% of license fees to composers and 75% stays in their pockets. This is ridiculous. I ran away fast. We talked about it on the phone and he said “well we do all the work chasing these people down and making the sale.” Some truth but what about my 10 to 20 hours of work creating the product to sell in the first place? Hence, the need for 50/50.
Don’t be “weak handed” and justify why it’s OK to give your cues to a publisher for them to control in perpetuity for free. Out of respect to fellow composers who can sell their music privately to music supervisors, producers, editors, ad agencies, film makers, directors etc, you should not adapt that mentality.
Just know that your behavior has a ripple effect across the entire business.
“Don’t be “weak handed” and justify why it’s OK to give your cues to a publisher for them to control in perpetuity for free….”
Certainly not to rock the boat here, but my understanding is that there are exclusive deals with reversion clauses of 2-5 years that are some of the options here. I also know that there are some composers on MLR that do have a a mixture of exclusives and non-exclusives with the same library. To those composers- have you noticed a difference in the amount of placements of either E or NE?
I’m simply fielding the question to see if libraries that offer both E and NE music are actually having better placement success with exclusive tracks, or, at least in regard to those on MLR.
I think your advice is good for you. But it does not make sense to me at all. I do not work with other composers, so my dealings have no bearing on their dealings and vice versa.
Some of you are very passionate about the non-exclusive side of the business. I have had success from that side of the business, but only through a handful of companies. The issue of exclusivity is not even important to me. Making money is important to me.
I want to make money regardless of how the company operates. I have no control over kickbacks, side deals, etc. I just want to write music, have it licensed, and make money. I already have a few hundred cues that I can plug into royalty-free sites. I can continue to make money from those cues.
The real trouble is that most libraries, regardless of exclusivity, will not benefit most composers. I have played the non-exclusive game and I have not found it to be lucrative at all. I am only signing music exclusively to companies that have made money for me when they had a non-exclusive model. I am not chasing all exclusive libraries and blindly throwing music their way. I am just focusing on the companies that have placed my music over the last 5 years.
If someone wants to offer me a few contacts, I would be glad to accept. But I feel better just focusing on the music with profitable companies and letting them handle all of the other work. Despite the opinion of some composers, the good libraries do work hard to get placements and land new deals. They have contacts and they put in the work to deliver music. Remember, that they get royalties as well. They have skin in the game. Not all companies collect tracks, send out hard drives of music, and wait for royalty checks. They are hustling just as hard as the composers.
The state of the industry is in flux. Nobody has any true answers. I know that I don’t. I have no leverage either. That is why I am not worried about it anymore. I do not want to chase anyone down or go crazy trying to make connections. I have tried that in the past and have gotten little success. My royalties are growing. I cannot and do not want to control anything else.
@Desire_Inspires: I tend to agree with you. I don’t have the personality to go out and hustle my work. I’m more interested in making music and money but I’m not particularly married to what it takes to achieve this, exclusive, non-exclusive, royalty free, etc.
There are many composers here who have deep roots in the production music world and seem to have a better handle on being more pro-active with marketing their music. I’ve never had that skill set but have always managed to make my own way. We all have to do what feels right for us as each of us has their own comfort zone.
Just think about the consequences of not being able to make a private sale or license of your track. I know most of us do not want to pitch people direct as it is a full time job. Selling is a full time job. I have sold in the past and I still make calls. But…Art and DI, what if a colleague approaches you and says “Hey, I am onto this opportunity…send me a track that has “blank” sound and I’ll split the fee with you if they buy it.”
Wouldn’t it be too bad if your response was “Sorry…My track is tied up in LIBRARY X exclusively and we now have to involve them in the deal.” Well, the result is no deal at all because now 3 parties are involved. Never say never…anything can happen…Our two favorite libraries are bluffing everyone into going exclusive. I believe this because I asked about E on the phone and heard their responses right from the libraries staff and I was not one bit convinced that this is an alarming issue. I am NE, will stay NE, and my cue sheets keep adding up. If your music is in the search engine…your music is in the search engine. If the client likes it, the client will use it. This really is the bottom line.
But…Art and DI, what if a colleague approaches you and says “Hey, I am onto this opportunity…send me a track that has “blank” sound and I’ll split the fee with you if they buy it.”
That is possible, but highly unlikely. If that situation ever came up, I would simply create something new. I have done a few projects on spec. I was either able to complete them or I passed. No worries, regrets, or consequences.
I would rather submit to companies that I have a relationship and get placements from than wait for the next big trend or opportunity to emerge. If and when those opportunities appear, I will submit new material or let the project go to someone else. It’s just like surfing: there is always another wave coming.
- The topic ‘Non exclusive to exclusive’ is closed to new replies.