Paranoid venture capitalists in the stock music business are at it again

Home Forums Commentary Paranoid venture capitalists in the stock music business are at it again

Tagged: 

Viewing 8 posts - 11 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32870
    cyberk91
    Participant

    “Music is business, business is war, war is hell, adapt or die!”…

    …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?

    Wise words….for this business….I’ve had to have multiple paths of income..unless I wanted to lose a lot of body fat…

    #32871
    Music1234
    Participant

    July through August is one of the slowest times of the year for libraries. Offering deals to motivate sales during slow times is a common marketing strategy

    Michael, you are missing my point. My point is that when our customers need a track, they go on a search to find the right track for their project and the price of the track is the last thing they are worried about.

    I still believe what I say is true because I have heard so many editors make the statement too. Video editors using our music will buy what they need period. Whether the price is $15 or $199…if they hear and temp in what they need and want, they will buy it. These “sales” are desperate and pointless. Price dumping is pointless and will only result in less monthly revenue for both composers and music licensing platform operators.

    If sales are down, it’s because big companies are spending less on media production at this time. Dropping the price of music tracks is not going to motivate companies to increase purchase orders for media production.

    Price Dumping and “50% off sales” serves no purpose whatsoever in our business.

    In regards to saturation and over supply, that always has been the case and always will be case. Cues that never sell essentially just fall into the garbage bin and are obliterated into ether dust. They essentially are not even inventory any more because they are burried into non-existence within search engines. Frankly, in 2019, why are stock music licensing platforms even holding these irrelevant and dated cues on their servers? Just blast them into non existence and eliminate the inventory that is, for all intents and purposes, “dead content”.

    You “win” with quality music and quality service, not with price. You “win” by understanding publishing and how PRO’s pay. You win by gathering the data from clients as to how they intend to use the track? Web only? TV Spot? radio Spot? TV show? Vlog? Podcast? Film? These ignorant venture capitalist “investors” do not understand any of this.

    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?

    You folks are implying that there is little money to be made? Then why are venture capitalist investors jumping in this game? They jump in because they see an opportunity to exploit. They succeed at that but they also do it in a manner that from my perspective is just so stupid and foolish and is…well…just a bad business plan. They leave ridiculous amounts of money on the table from overt ignorance and a total lack of knowledge of how music publishing really works.

    Selling music is not like selling apparel.

    #32872
    LAwriter
    Participant

    how do I give that ^^^^^ a big thumbs up??

    #32873
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    they go on a search to find the right track for their project and the price of the track is the last thing they are worried about.

    That, I can agree with.

    These “sales” are desperate and pointless.

    If they didn’t work, the world would be “sale” free.

    Cues that never sell essentially just fall into the garbage bin and are obliterated into ether dust. They essentially are not even inventory any more because they are buried into non-existence within search engines.

    That is not necessarily correct. Case in point: We had an alt mix of a track that had not sold in five years on one site (it has sold on other sites). That track finally sold and ended up in a Gorton’s Fish Stick commercial and will probably generate about $1k based on the occurrences picked up by Competitrack.

    Dropping prices on tracks that have not sold previously has resulted in sales for us. Are you saying composers should not have the opportunity for more sales because you do not like their pricing? Remember these are tracks that have not sold. If they start getting traction I will raise their prices.

    You “win” with quality music

    These kinds of comments always amuse me. Just who is defining “quality”? After all one person’s trash is another person’s treasure. I’ve heard a lot of quality music (IMHO) that does not sell and vice versa.

    You “win” by understanding publishing and how PRO’s pay. You win by gathering the data from clients as to how they intend to use the track? Web only? TV Spot? radio Spot? TV show? Vlog? Podcast? Film?

    This I can also agree with and I think most successful libraries try to do that.

    These ignorant venture capitalist “investors” do not understand any of this.

    Just who are these ignorant venture capitalist “investors” you are talking about? How many libraries do they control? Data? What is your solution?

    You folks are implying that there is little money to be made? Then why are venture capitalist investors jumping in this game? They jump in because they see an opportunity to exploit.

    Again, reality strikes. How do you propose to stop them exploiting opportunities? After all we are a capitalistic society. Once again, what is your solution? Is this just another b*tch fest?

    Selling music is not like selling apparel.

    Ah, actually it is. Not to us, of course, as creators. The end user, whether they pay $15 or $100, is just looking for something to get the job done. In the end, it’s just product.

    #32875
    Music1234
    Participant

    Dropping prices on tracks that have not sold previously has resulted in sales for us.

    I sold a few that never sold before too Art, but the strategy did not increase the volume of units sold, so from my perspective price dumping results in lower monthly earnings.

    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”.

    Just who are these ignorant venture capitalist “investors” you are talking about? How many libraries do they control? Data? What is your solution?

    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.” 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. I get the impression that these people tossing millions of dollars at these companies really do not understand music publishing. 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. 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. AM I crazy? Do lower prices work for anyone? Were customers even complaining about how expensive production music was when the floor was at $20?

    Art, 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. It’s also self inflicted. Too many rights are being granted to larger companies for too little money. When a policy is set that a customer can get a track for $5 and the projects’ end usage is national broadcast TV rights in perpetuity, something is wrong. Someone has their eye off the ball. When the data of how a customer intends on using a track is not gathered and shared with the stakeholders (writers and publishers), especially for national and worldwide broadcast tv rights, something is wrong with that policy.

    The end user, whether they pay $15 or $100, is just looking for something to get the job done. In the end, it’s just product.

    This is exactly my point and it is exactly why everyone should charge a respectable price. Ok so we all know a student film maker needs music as does the casual youtuber. Why not have drop down menus that start the buying process with the question: How do you intend on using this music? When big ad agencies and big brands can get a track for the same price as a student film maker doing a “no budget” film, that’s a problem that needs to be solved. These “investors” setting policy need to step up and solve this problem soon. Using tunesat to spy on and investigate the usage of our intellectual property is getting to be ridiculous. There has to be a better way.

    #32877
    MichaelL
    Participant

    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.

    #32878
    Music1234
    Participant

    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.

    #32880
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    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!”

    Thread closed…

Viewing 8 posts - 11 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • The topic ‘Paranoid venture capitalists in the stock music business are at it again’ is closed to new replies.