- This topic has 130 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
In the UK BBC radio pay £39.46 ($66.02) per 3 min song – Those are some hefty payments!
$66 per play? Wow!
Michael you make some very interesting points. To add to your comments i wonder how the PRO libs would react to such a dramatic change in broadcasting. My guess is that the exculsive ones would shift to Audio network RF model which in turn would flood the RF market with millions of tracks. That would make the current and future RF composers job signifigantly harder.
Also over here in Australia Free to air (non subscription) television and radio broadcasting licences are regulated by the government. They are currently worth a lot of coin and there are only limited licences and spectrums to broadcast on. The companies that own the TV licences have a vested interest to keep the broadcasting rights. They are owned by powerful corporations and won’t just lie down (neither will the government) and allow unregulated internet streaming services take over. There is too much money at stake.
My opinion is as long as the tv broadcaster licences are regulated the PRO royalities will be fairly safe. If the market becomes a free for all of content then i think there will be issues.@Barry, interesting point, In the UK and Ireland we have corporate owned models like you and public funded, government regulated,free to air TV (BBC/RTE)which is why the royalty rates I posted for the BBC are pro rata high. I don’t think the BBC will disappear, but pressure on its funding and different viewing behaviour must have an effect on its finances. The US does not have a BBC type broadcast model, different territories will have different ways of dealing with the new era.
One thing is for sure , technology and the internet have, and will change the way we listen and view content, and the way our music is monetized will have to change. Staying ahead of the curve by its nature is speculation, informed speculation is what we do here (hopefully LOL)In relation to this in context of the thread , my opinion always has been diversify and intelligently spread your catalogue. RF is not the devil or the best thing ever, there are many other issues at play in a global context. We are in a global market place, the days of library music being accessed on CDs in post houses is gone forever. Anyone who holds on to the glory days pre internet will get left behind.IMO
Hi Barry. The PMA exclusive libraries (not the re-titlers who take tracks exclusively) and the PROs themselves are fighting to keep royalty collections and payments reasonable if broadcast shifts to streaming. In the US, Soundexchange is authorized to collect royalties digital transmissions. So, the PROs could see a drop in revenue too. The have a stake in keeping things stats quo.
I’m not sure that I see the PMA exclusives going the AN route. But, if they did, not only would it flood the RF market with tracks, it would flood the RF market a lot of high quality tracks. So, not only would there be more tracks, there would be better tracks, and a lot of RF composers would have to up their game significantly. Conversely, those “exclusives” might open their doors to top tier RF composers. You never know.
there are many other issues at play in a global context.
This is absolutely true Denis. When we upload tracks to RF libraries we are competing with composers from everywhere. Case in point, there’s a newbie from Serbia asking questions on another forum about how to work for libraries. And…he’s getting answers from all over the globe, including from a KPM composer who is one of the best in the business (IMHO)
But, even before the Internet, the exclusive libraries themselves were networking globally. I composed many tracks for RSM in the UK and Beatbox in Australia (both under pseudonyms), almost 20 years ago.
That is something to understand here. For lack of a better term, this is “big business.” Even some RF libraries are not one person operations (although many are). Which brings me back to Barry’s suggestion about exclusive libraries going RF. If they do that, why just flood the market with your tracks? Why not also acquire existing RF libraries? Think Disney/ABC/ESPN….etc etc.
If the object in a new economy is to diversify why not diversify into the non-broadcast market? It’s a already happening. At least to exclusives that I’ve written for are selling some of my older cues through RF libraries.
The need for production music will continue to grow infinitely. To use a cliche, the strong will survive and thrive.
Skilled writers, who are comfortable with technology, reasonably self-sufficient, and realistic about the value of music in a highly competitive market, will do well. You cannot engage in wishful thinking about one in a million successes, or hope to live off old tracks alone. You must, as Mark Petrie said, “write every day, even when you don’t feel like it.”
We each have a mountain to climb that is going to take persistent hard work and investment in new technologies to conquer.
Best,
Michael
perhaps we can then work towards something like a library composer handbook which adapts to fit all levels. And this site would be a great place to do that together.
I actually have started a general book for composers. Probably 80% done but finding the time to finish it is the problem.Several exist. Emmett Cooke’s comes to mind. There are also, a few online courses. Sarah Gavigan’s comes to mind.
This is a good resource too.
http://pianonanny.com/TAD-Film-Scoring/ftvmusicsurvey.pdf
Regarding RF…right now that market is not that promising from my perspective. Sales are trending down, Supply is rising very fast. However, I put no effort whatsoever into promoting my tracks on RF markets. I simply up-load them, price them, and they will do what they do.
PRO income is trending up very nicely.
Is anyone in this forum doing better in RF as compared to PRO Royalty Checks?
Empty post to turn off email notifications. 🙂
Is anyone in this forum doing better in RF as compared to PRO Royalty Checks?
Never mind.
So we have one guy doing better in RF than PRO royalties. That’s not much to get excited about. My hunch is Michael and Art also do better with PRO Royalties?
So to answer the question in this thread “RF..Should You?” It seems like everyone’s answer is: Yes, you should, just to be diversified and create another revenue stream, and hedge a bit, don’t put all the eggs in one basket etc. but I also don’t see many folks actively participating in this thread saying that RF income is better than BMI/ ASCAP/ PRS etc. royalties.
Saying RF, should you? is a bit like saying production music, should you? to a musician. RF is HUGE in diversity. You could have 100 tracks in an exclusive RF and be making 100k/year from that one library. Or you could have 10 times as many tracks in 3 different non-ex RF libraries and make next to nothing. It varies so, so much. The answer is obviously yes, if you can make it work for you.
ASCAP is looking for some shout outs to the Songwriter Equity Act
http://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/sea-one-pager.pdf
So to answer the question in this thread “RF..Should You?” It seems like everyone’s answer is: Yes, you should, just to be diversified and create another revenue stream, and hedge a bit, don’t put all the eggs in one basket etc.
That is correct. I don’t think that anyone ever suggested the RF income is better than PRO income. We have always said that it is just another revenue stream. That is why we have responded negatively to the question. It’s not a contest.
Specifically, it’s not relevant in my case because I do not put the same music in different places (different business models). My cues are either in traditional exclusive WFH libraries or in RF libraries. Most of my PRO money comes from something else entirely. The publishing is always controlled by one library, or myself.
My RF catalog is a separate and distinct body of work that is appropriate for that market.
Two different worlds.
Two different catalogs.
Not a contest.In my experience, I can only generate a decent revenue from combining all three – RF/PRO and WFH. Each brings it’s own income, and tracks written for one often do not sell well in others. I’ve written RF tracks for RF libraries after researching what sells well in those libraries. I’ve written exclusive tracks for libraries that ask for specific cues, genres etc. I’ve been hired to write themes/stings that would only work for a specific project. All other combinations and permutations haven’t worked for me.
To each it’s own.