- August 16, 2019 at 1:01 pm #32877
We all want to make money with our music, but if our only goal is making money — and we have no love for what we do — what’s the point?
I’m not sure this question was answered. The heart of this question is about creative satisfaction, not money. I can only speak for myself, but when I decided to become a composer, at age 11 or 12, it was because I loved music. Money had nothing to do with it.
The other question here is what exactly makes investors “greedy?” They are in the business of spending money to make money and they want to do so in the fastest and least complicated way. So, they are greedy because they want to succeed in a highly competitive marketplace?
Should composers stop uploading tracks to libraries once they reach 300 or 500 tracks, so that composers with only 50 tracks have a better chance at selling tracks? If someone uploads 1,000 tracks does that make them an “ignorant and greedy” composer?
As Art said, it’s Econ 101, supply and demand. Unfortunately, the reality is that because the threshold for participation is so low, composers today are as plentiful as snowflakes in a blizzard, and that’s not going to change. The amount of competition and content are only increasing which will most likely further depress value.August 16, 2019 at 1:48 pm #32878
The other question here is what exactly makes investors “greedy?”
PM me and I can explain…..I do not know how to PM someone on this site.August 16, 2019 at 2:27 pm #32880
from my perspective price dumping results in lower monthly earnings.
Can’t say that for myself.
“Just who is defining “quality”
I’d have to say that the buying public define it, but also site curators who also are musicians (we hope at least) define it by curating the music and having taste and intuition based on experience of “what works”.
Argument still applies though. One person’s trash is another persons treasure.
I don’t know these people personally, but from the discussions I have had with some very experienced players in the business both writers, library owners, and employees of some stock music licensing platforms, they all talked about answering to “investors.”
So? That doesn’t change the reality of what is happening. We live in a capitalistic society and if investors see oppotunity they will act on it.
When you google search “stock music”, “Production Music” , “Royalty Free Music”…most of those companies showing up on page 1 are backed by hedge funds, venture capitalists, etc
How can you possibly know that? Where’s the hard data on “most of these companies”?
The policies and business models they have been enacting these past 2 years really seem to be putting all stakeholders involved on a slippery slope. As far as solution goes: well we actually were in a good place when a price floor was put in at $20, but now the policy has changed and we’re seeing a trend of much lower prices.
Prices, and the business, has been trending lower going back much further than 2 years.
Lower prices result in less revenue. I have verified that because I figured “hey let’s give it a shot”. Well it does not work.
That’s your experience. Just because you say it, does not make it true.
I am not initiating a “bitch fest” just trying to create some lively discussion about where we’re headed into the future because it looks pretty dicey to me.
Yes it does look dicey but “lively discussion” aside. What is your solution?
This is exactly my point and it is exactly why everyone should charge a respectable price.
In a fair and ideal world, sure. But if you had a library company you would still be driven by these same market forces and struggling to compete.
There has to be a better way.
Back to my original response. “Music is business, business is war, war is hell, adapt or die!”
The topic ‘Paranoid venture capitalists in the stock music business are at it again’ is closed to new replies.