- December 27, 2018 at 5:20 am #31420
Anyone got any success stories for say, the last 2 years, from non-exclusive libraries. Would be nice if you would, but not asking you for the names of your golden gooses (geece? :). I’m pursuing a lifelong goal of creating an album , for sale, but also also be a vocal album BTW, but with instrumental and bed versions. Of course i wouldn’t be mad at ya if you were to suggest a home for what sounds like a blues/blues funk/ southern rock influenced album.December 27, 2018 at 7:54 am #31422
It seems more and more NE libraries turn to exclusive.I’m not sure if there are any big NE libraries left anymore (JP also turned to exclusive last year…).But vocal tracks seem to gain attention even from libraries that were primarily focused on instrumental tracks.Plus a vocal album can,potentially,perform well in the streaming services.December 27, 2018 at 2:21 pm #31427
My last non exclusive library that landed me a lot of placements just turned into exclusive this year, luckily I am keeping the non-exclusive arrangement.
Just keep writing, man…December 28, 2018 at 1:07 pm #31433
is crucial still non-exclusive? if so its probably the only good non RF library left. all the rest as others have said have gone exclusive.December 29, 2018 at 1:11 pm #31434
Yes Dannyc. Crucial’s still non-exclusive.December 29, 2018 at 10:27 pm #31436
yes, I still very much believe in the non-ex model! I had a record number of syncs over 1k this year from 3 of my non-ex libraries and additional direct licenses as well. Those same tracks are also earning on background music services and rf sites. My exclusive libraries underperformed for me in 2018. I’m more of a songwriter than a track writer and I invest in creating alternate/instrumental covers of my best tunes. It’s a challenge to find an exclusive tv oriented library that is supportive of that old-fashioned publising model.December 30, 2018 at 8:01 am #31437
Happy New Year to all. The only reason music libraries seem to become “exclusive” is because weak handed composers allow them to. I have always refused to sign exclusive contracts. I still send music to the companies that have become “exclusive” and simply say I am sorry but I have a living to make and therefore I need to sell my music through multiple outlets. They often understand that and still take my tracks in for TV placements.
The direct licensing market is a very different market than TV cue libraries. From my perspective they do not compete at all. They serve 2 very different types of customers.
Example: I met a guy from Canada on a train during my current travels. He told me he’s in real Estate and that they make marketing videos for youtube all the time and use stock sites all the time to find tracks. The stock sites he’s shopping at have zero to do with TV cue libraries. It’s two totally different markets.
If every composer were to sign deals that state “exclusive to tv libraries only” the market would be healthier for all participants. TV cue Publishers reading this note need to realize that they can not create a livable wage for composer’s within the “exclusive” model. They could if they paid $1000 a track advance, but 95% of the libraries out there are not willing to make that investment.
Had I stayed loyal to my best tv cue library and had only them exclusively represent and place my music, I’d be earning 25% of what I actually earn. It is extremely important to have 10 to 20 revenue streams to make a livable wage in the music licensing business.
I have music with 5 TV cue feeding libraries and 2 have sub pubs overseas so I consider the music to be represented worldwide. I also have music with 5 direct licensing stock sites. My tracks are on streaming platforms and registered with Harry Fox, Sound Exchange, and about 250 are in ADREV. I have 14 sources of revenue and every single one of them matters. Each one leads to a situation where I can earn a livable wage.
Music publishers reading this take notes. You are being greedy and unrealistic by making demands for exclusivity. We have bills to pay, kids to put through schools, and build savings for retirement just as you do!
Composers take notes too: If you are going to give your assets up exclusively to one library, ask that they pay you $1000 a track in advance or ask that they allow you to sell on the direct license markets at the same time.December 30, 2018 at 8:19 am #31439
Hello to all.
Just a quick look from what I am noticing.
There are still quite a few Non-Exclusives. The ones that are switching to Exclusive are mainly because of 2 reasons
1) To get a Major Player “like” Universal, EMI, Warner to distribute them
2) Sell the library
From what I am seeing, “for most of the non-exclusives” it has very little to do with having content that can only be found in their libraries/catalogs; and “more to do with leverage and the owners/partners personal gain”..December 30, 2018 at 10:01 am #31442
@beatslinger: Nailed it in the head! BMG,Warner etc have signed deals with several small,boutique exclusive libraries this year and the NE ones want to be a part of this worldwide distribution party too. One canadian NE library i work with,created an exclusive sister-label in order to sign deals with the big boys overseas. I think this is a better option instead of turning the library from NE to completely exclusive.December 31, 2018 at 8:23 am #31441
I agree 100% Beatslinger. If it was true that clients (TV Networks and TV Production companies) are upset about tracks sitting in 3 or 4 libraries and also on Direct Licensing stock sites, I would have been blacklisted and deleted a long time ago. Frankly, I’d be shocked if they were to hear the duplicate track from 2 sources because everyone has different clients anyway. Library owners are trying to build up a nice asset of “exclusive” cues that they claim is owned by them so they can sell it to UMG or Chappel, or some other big company. At this point in the game, I am simply feeding 1 TV cue library my tunes because they get the job done better than all others.