Subscription Models Must be Destroyed!

Home Forums Commentary Subscription Models Must be Destroyed!

This topic contains 58 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  JTFury 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32264 Reply

    guscave

    I made over $40k last year from these models.

    That’s a very impressive number. How many tracks did you need to upload to get to this point?

    #32265 Reply

    Music1234
    Participant

    I am listening too. A random statement without additional supporting evidence is kind of hard to take seriously unless all the facts are presented.
    How many tracks are in how many subscription services?

    What 3 people told me is this: With 100 to 350 tracks their earnings have been $1500 to $2100 a month. It started a little slow…around $700 to start. These are 3 writers who have been and still are top selling writers in the sync license market. They were making between 4K and 15K a month in the regular sync market typically selling 300 to 800 licenses a month.

    They all also have stated to me that they highly doubt their subscription earnings will ever grow to match sync licensing royalties.

    Unfortunately it does look like were heading towards another devaluation phase in our business, but only artists themselves are to blame. I don’t know what else to say, but I am not encouraged.

    They have no clue as to how many downloads have occurred, but it has to be easily around 5,000 to 10,000 downloads each month. Imagine that. Your music just morphs into a free for all commodity for thousands to download at will.

    #32266 Reply

    Tbone
    Participant

    I’m with Music1234 on this. I am not at all surprised by the figures from those other composers. If anything I’d expect subscription income to be even lower than those numbers, and much much lower than regular sync.

    One question though: why did these top writers decide to put their music into this subscription model? Can they get it back?

    #32268 Reply

    Music1234
    Participant

    Tbone, I saw statements first hand. Why they joined? Hmmm… great question…some of it is ignorance, some of it is greed and paranoia, some of it is fear of missing out and some stated “I joined because I was invited to join the new model so I did.” Others say “I guess I just have to adapt to the changes”.

    They can move their music on and off the model as they please. There is no contract that they must stay for a certain period of time. The music is simply Ubiquitous . There is no information as to who is “licensing” the music nor for what type of project, nothing, just “unlimited action” and never ending downloading activity. A free for all for all customers who subscribe to the service.

    There are no download counts on the statements these guys get. These site operators would not dare divulge that information because then maybe composers would wake up to how insane this business model is for writers.

    #32269 Reply

    Tbone
    Participant

    Interesting.. so did they just place their entire non-exclusive catalog with the subscription libraries? Or write new material?!

    #32270 Reply

    Vlad
    Participant

    This thread is horrifying and sad. When I started licensing music it was a world where I was consistently getting $150-$300 per standard license (or $500-$800 for a perpetuity buyout). That was less than ten years ago.

    I’m curious as to what QUALITY these top subscription writers are putting up. Are they the ‘3-6 tracks a day’ crew, or the ‘1 track a week’ folks?

    #32271 Reply

    Music1234
    Participant

    Interesting.. so did they just place their entire non-exclusive catalog with the subscription libraries? Or write new material?!

    From my perspective these writers are approaching it from all angles. Some have dumped everything they have in e and ne, some just dumped in the low sales tracks.

    Quality? some is good some not so good. Price is a form of communication in regards to quality. Not enough writers think about that though.

    #32272 Reply

    Tbone
    Participant

    But how could a writer have dumped everything they have in exclusive agreements into this? That would be against their exclusive agreement.

    #32399 Reply

    JTFury

    Hi all, first time poster here. Ive read through a few posts about subscription models on this site, and the deafening rejection to them by composers. With the main concern being that a) there is no real way to report accurately back to the composers and b) what about the backend royalties.

    Looking at the Rocketium model, they make their users pay $2 per track. So there is a direct report on which songs were licensed, using this fee per use model. If they licensed 1m songs in a year, and paid Sound Stripe 50%, that’s $1m to Sound Stripe. And an estimate of a 3000 song catalogue, thats $333 per song (more if its a popular track, less if not, of course). If a composer were to have 25 songs then on average, thats $8325 per year. (plus back end i am guessing). This seems ok? Help me out. What am i missing here?!

    I think micro-licensing deals are going to grow as there is more content created and content users need music – and everyone is a content creator these days. Surely if your music is registered properly, (eg audio-tracked) then you would be collecting back end royalties via streaming of the content on various online platforms. No?

    #32398 Reply

    Music1234
    Participant

    If Rocketium is an S Stripe paying subscriber and they charge their video creator clients $2 for a music drop, why would they pass a portion of that $2 music drop fee on? This is why subscription is such a dangerous and slippery slope. It allows companies and individuals to obtain and store a massive supply of music via unlimited downloads to use in perpetuity, and then re-use it, re-package it, and seemingly resell it in creative ways that do not put more money in a music producers pocket. We’re on a road to destructive burning hell if music producers continue to serve up their music in these terrible deals.

    Unlimited commercial free streaming (Spotify and Apple, etc) for the personal listening market makes sense, but unlimited DOWNLOADING of the actual non-watermarked wave files will create all kinds of chaos eventually.

    #32401 Reply

    Music1234
    Participant

    Regarding Rocketium and music usage. I asked them how much a music license costs if you use their service to make a video and below was their response:

    The music is free to be used. However, if you’d need to monetize your videos, you’d need to use your own tracks.

    So, where is the $2 fee coming from?

    #32402 Reply

    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    The music is free to be used. However, if you’d need to monetize your videos, you’d need to use your own tracks.

    That’s correct. I use Rocketium to create the MLR videos and their music is free. Of course I use our own music.

    #32400 Reply

    JTFury

    As a subscriber, you do not have permission to re-sell music. That forms part of the terms of use.
    Ok let me frame this differently…

    If Rocketium (as an example) charge the user $2k per song AND PAY Sound Stipe $1 per song AND Sound Stripe pay their composers as per their agreements (estimating 50%) then this seems to be a BETTER model?? Composers get paid a per-license use. And companies with scale can make this worthwhile for composers.

    Subscription aside (agree its a bad model). I just think there is something in this, which assists content creators and respects the fee per license model.

    #32419 Reply

    JTFury

    The $2 per license fee is listed on their website here https://rocketium.com/academy/soundstripe-integration-rocketium/

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)
Reply To: Subscription Models Must be Destroyed!
Your information: