- This topic has 54 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
More Advice:
Yes, they should pay promos properly and without needing you to get involved. But they don’t. Life is cruel and unfair. I’ve felt exactly like you so I know how demoralising it is.
You have to accept that this is how it is, and if you want your money you are going to have to chase some of them down. If it’s worth it because there are a lot of plays, go for it. Otherwise give up and move on.
Raising the initial price may help to at least get more money upfront.
The irony is that the music was “in my face”. I was not even looking for it. I was hearing it in my car, as my kids watched TV, I even heard it taking the kids to rent a movie inside a blockbuster store. You got the impression the track was part of a big “promo ad campaign.” It was!
yet not a dime? No cue sheet? No up-front license fee? No royalties?
I even had acknowledgement from an ASCAP Board member and library owner that the promo is probably playing on 1000’s of radio stations across the country…but then some how some way…one can collect $300 for a background music cue on MTV that is tucked away in the show supporting a scene? None of it makes any sense and priorities are backward. The tracks that have high visibility in promo ad campaigns should pay a lot more in my opinion.@Mark…I’d still like to learn how broadcasters use your “Non Pro, royalty free” site to source music for their TV shows? It seems like a confusing conflict and I am still confused. So here is a simple question: Do your clients pay the fee (Typically $40 to $150 a track) to license tracks for their shows, then file cue sheets? Or…another way to ask this: do clients sourcing music from ML or PIR file cue sheets ever?
Sorry if I sound ignorant, but yes….I was under the impression that most users of your site would be folks needing a track for:
1. Low budget Ad
2. Corporate Video/ Web Video
3. Training videos
4. Short Films or low budget films
etc.Above you stated “Most of our clients are broadcasters”. So are you saying that Networks such as Discovery, MTV, NBC, ABC, BBC, SKY etc etc. are your clients too?
More Advice:
Now I hear how you describe it, if I was you I probably would have lost my mind over that. To hear it so much would be beyond my coping abilities..
I also asked Mark the same sort of question and am waiting to hear, since in the UK at least none of the major broadcasters would be interested in non PRO music above PRO music as they pay the same amount to the PRO whatever they air. It’s all pre agreed regardless of cue sheets.
To put it simply, if the BBC played 99% music with no PRO representation and therefore filed no cue sheets for that 99%, they’d still be paying the same overall amount to the PRS anyway.
I don’t have the background to promise this is the “right” answer but I do have a TV theme with a co-writer (50-50 split, one of us is BMI and the other is ASCAP) and the BMI member is being paid approx. 8x more than the ASCAP writer when the statements are compared side-by-side. And no, it wasn’t just a single statement anomaly – this theme has been playing for 2-3 years and cumulatively it is a huge discrepancy in money. We are investigating with ASCAP but they are slow to look into it.
I would caution this is only one experience and who knows if in other situations ASCAP might pay 8x more than BMI…but this experience does correlate with Art’s post above.
Art, I think you guys may have a point. I just did a side by side analysis for 7 placements where I am 50% (ASCAP) writer and my wife is 50% (BMI WRITER) for these last (Q2 2013 statements reflecting Q4 2012 performances) and BMI is paying more. In 2 of the 7 instances, ASCAP didn’t pay anything.
As the owner of an exclusive library I find it really important that composers spend time on considering their strategy about which libraries you want to submit music to. As a composer you are building a brand, not just related to your name but also to your sound.
Trying to submit the same type (and quality) of music to “high price” libraries and RF to test the two is a dangerous strategy for a number of reasons:
1. If clients discovers that this composers music can be bought at a very low price at a RF site, would they ever consider paying a premium price for the same composer’s music from an exclusive library?.
2. RF and exclusive libraries works in very different ways. In RF you can earn instant money while exclusive libraries take a lot of before the efforts pay off. However the music will earn money for a longer time.
3. As a composer you should also consider that you are part of influencing the industry – by placing your music in RF or an exclusive library you automatically take a stand on what price level you consider is fair. Should music for a worldwide commercial cost $50 or $20.000?
I am not to judge which strategy is better, I am just saying that it is important to consider your strategy and following it instead of submitting to random libraries.
I think this site gives composers a great opportunity to discus their experiences and help you decide what strategy is right for you.
Daniel
apollolive.comThere seems to be too much thought put into the whole ordeal. I say stick with whatever solution brings in the money for you. This may include NOT working with music libraries or royalty free sites.
You can actually build your own music library and create a clean & professional site inexpensively.
As a composer you should also consider that you are part of influencing the industry – by placing your music in RF or an exclusive library you automatically take a stand on what price level you consider is fair. Should music for a worldwide commercial cost $50 or $20.000?
I disagree.
People tend to politicize issues that are not political. The music business is only about business. There is no stand to take or war to win.
If someone wants to make $50 for a worldwide commercial, that is a good thing. Not everyone is trying to make a career in music. Some just want money on the side as a supplement.
Besides, most composers are not going to make $20,000 for a commercial on a consistent basis. The business can be tough. There is no need to make people feel inferior for making different choices.
Daniel
I’m confused. You said you own an EXCLUSIVE library. Well if someone signs a track with an exclusive library, they shouldn’t be able to place that track anywhere else on their own (RF or other) or they would be violating their contract.I would think the discussion would be more about composers placing tracks in both traditional NON-EXCLUSIVE libraries and RF libraries. (?)
Hi
My point was not that the composer would put exactly the same track on a non-exclusive library, but that he would put other tracks in similar style and quality on a non-exclusive library.If someone wants to make $50 for a worldwide commercial, that is a good thing. Not everyone is trying to make a career in music. Some just want money on the side as a supplement.
@Desire Inspires…how about if your employer hires someone to do your job at 1/10 your salary, just because they are only doing it for “money on the side as a supplement?”
You OK with that? It’s just business.
In reply to desire…
I don’t mean to put down people who sell their music for $50, it is their choice and I respect that.
However it does seem to have an effect on the industry. As I understand the UK library music industry has lost revenues of 60-70% in the last 5 years. Again this meant that investments for productions with real musicians were pulled leaving musicians with much less work.
In the end it is all supply and demand, but I do think it matters how the really skilled composers act. If everybody no matter how talented they are offer music almost free, production music will become a hobby and not a job.
Daniel Käfer
apollolive.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.