Pricing???

[Musicmatters]

I am charging 70 for all edits except stingers and loops. We only have ourselves to blame for this. I don’t see a downward spiral but i strongly believe we need to make an upwards spiral, all of us…

[MichaelL]

I am charging 70 for all edits except stingers and loops.

So, I assume that you’re not in any libraries that set the price for you. AS, for example, generally sets prices higher than $70 (for full tracks) and PB sets prices at $40.

Are you competing well in libraries, where composers set their own prices at $50 and below?

There are a lot of variables, of course, like the number of tracks you have in the library and the genres that you write in. I’m sure that some genres won’t sell very often no matter how low the tracks are priced.

[Musicmatters]

I have a very limited number of tracks in libraries that set their own prices. Only keep tracks there with a good sales record.I am no longer in AS and not in PB (whatever that is). Hard to say what competing well means as you have no idea what others are selling. I can only compare with myself and reducing prices for over three months had no positive impact in sales. I have many tracks in many genres… hope that helps

[mojorising]

Art, I was curious, have you ever tried a performance free model? Where you forgo any back end even if it goes broadcast, but might be able to charge higher prices? I turned down an offer for something like that recently, but they say you would generate way more sales since clients don’t have to deal with cue sheets. But it seems like something like that just hurts the industry in general to me, so I didn’t feel comfortable. I’m curious if other composers with more experience in RF have tried that? or if that is becoming common? I hope not!

[Art Munson]

Art, I was curious, have you ever tried a performance free model?

No, I have not tried that. Don’t think I want to go that route. An even slipperier slope!

[Peter]

I still find it difficult pricing tracks so I’ve decided $45 for a full track on all libraries that I can set the price. To me it’s still too low but it’s a hard line to cross when you are trying to break into the market. But if there’s a track cheaper they may just listen to that one first and then decide if yours is worth the extra money.

But then I think I can buy a track on iTunes for 99c so $22.50 ain’t too bad after all 🙂

Now if only I can sell a million tracks a year it’s all good!

[Mark]

I’m curious if other composers with more experience in RF have tried that?

An even slipperier slope!

ML is performance free. Always has been.

[soundroad]

Just take a look at Pond 5’s MoM (Media of the Moment).
Believe me, almost everything from those tracks (no matter what quality it may be), being sold a lot. One of my tracks periodically gets there. And with $40 it’s still double priced in respect to many competitors! It hurts a bit :(.

I experimented on Productiontrax changing prices from 30 to 80 and back, I can’t tell I’ve noticed a difference in overall income. Same on P5, reducing prices from 40 to 30, gave me absolutely no sales increase.
I noticed one thing, if the sales go down they just go down and basta.
It doesn’t metter what kind of manipulation I do with the prices.
Sure it’s just my personal experience.

[Art Munson]

ML is performance free. Always has been.

Yes but don’t you provide the PRO info if requested? I am thinking more along the lines of Getty’s (Pump Audio) recent change.

[Mark Lewis]

Yes but don’t you provide the PRO info if requested?

Yes. When our customers request composer info for their cue sheet we provide it to them.

fyi- All of our distribution partners are performance free as well.
It is definitely not a new trend / business model as some believe. It has been around for 20 years or more.

[vlad]

@ Mark Lewis,

Here is an irony for you: this year and last year I had tracks that I am somewhat certain were purchased at ML…they made a killing for me on the back end, I am happy to say!!

[Mark Lewis]

That’s great @vlad
I’ve also been noticing more backend action for our composers from ML placements.
Over the last three years it has been steadily increasing.

[Art Munson]

I’ve also been noticing more backend action for our composers from ML placements.

For the the last few years I have a certain amount of back end that comes from RF sites. A couple of them paid very nicely.

[woodsdenis]

Just to echo that , I have a track that was sold on ML that brings 1-2k a year in PRO. Never sold on any other site. Unpredictable business.

As to pricing surely thats library dependant, I would look at the average price and go with that, I am not so sure that buyers do a lot of searching different sites for the best deal.

[mojorising]

In the performance free model I thought there was never back end??? Maybe I’m confused about that. I recently turned down an offer from ST that said I would make way more sales if I signed my songs truly RF, with no back end even if it goes broadcast. Clients are not forced to fill out cue sheets. So I thought that meant performance free? I chose to use their other model which has back end as well if its broadcast but I’m probably not going to see nearly as many sales. Not sure yet whether this was a good move or not.

It just seems like a downward spiral though if big networks, commercials, films started shopping at sites like this and just paying a few hundred for a song with no future royalties. IMO tiered pricing based on usage, and our PRO’s are the main things saving us from racing completely to the bottom. There are too many composers making good music and selling their tracks for 15 bucks.

[Author]

Posts