This topic contains 60 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by Paolo 3 months, 2 weeks ago.
- September 18, 2016 at 1:03 pm #25802
It is NOT about changing their business models.
It is NOT about PROs.
It is NOT about RF libraries.
It is NOT about exclusives vs. non-exclusive.
Are you sure this is how you want to come across to all the potential members you are reaching out to? Seems a bit heavy handed.September 18, 2016 at 1:06 pm #25803
No nerve struck at all, raw or otherwise. I was simply defining what this topic is and isn’t about.
You wrote: Practical easy things? Um….how about a list of every associated library with detailed description, contact info, link to their website, what they are currently looking for, etc. You know, a good resource for WRITERS.
THAT’S the kind of input we are looking for.September 18, 2016 at 1:18 pm #25804
OK then, that’s cool. That wouldn’t entice me to join though.
Group health insurance or retirement benefits might though….
But seriously, you mentioned earlier what the PMA is “NOT” interested in. And I’m curious with that in mind, why they want writers to join. Especially since they have traditionally been publishers only. Thx.September 18, 2016 at 1:22 pm #25805
Hi Mark Lewis,
I am not a PMA member and I do not represent their interests nor am I recruiting on their behalf. That said, I was being direct, not heavy handed, and was *only* addressing the topic as this topic has gone from “What kind of membership benefits would you like to see?” to “They need to change and restructure their entire business model before I join and this is what they should do”.
I want to keep this particular topic on course… that’s all.September 18, 2016 at 9:35 pm #25818
Just deleted another off-topic link. Please show a little respect for TAE_Music and myself and what we are trying to accomplish here.
As TAE_Music said and I’ll echo:
“I am not a PMA member and I do not represent their interests nor am I recruiting on their behalf.”
All we are asking is: What kind of PMA composer membership benefits would you like to see?September 19, 2016 at 6:25 am #25825
Perhaps the greatest benefit that PMA libraries could offer to composer members is mentoring. When I was a “young” composer I had the benefit of one on one contact with library execs who offered guidance on composing and producing production music.(which is different than listening music)
As an organization they have a better chance of doing that than perhaps other business models that may not have the inclination or resources to do so.September 19, 2016 at 7:52 am #25826
When I was a “young” composer I had the benefit of one on one contact …
Michael – I can’t imagine how awesome that was back when folks at Exclusives would mentor young composers. It almost makes me wish I was a few years older 🙂
…guidance on composing and producing production music..
+1 — Mentoring and a Tip Sheet would be valuable membership benefits I would like to see.September 19, 2016 at 8:00 am #25827
I’d join if there was:
1. Group Plan (lower cost) Health Care options for members
2. Build a pension plan where we voluntarily report our annual PRO and Sync fee earnings and contribute “work dues” to build up a pension fund semi-annually so that when we hit 65 years of age or so…we can get a pension check for the rest of our lives. I am a third generation musician and have watched my grandfather, then grandmother, now father enjoy a beautiful pension check from the AFM for the rest of their lives. The AFM has been blind sided by the “new” music model and now the Union exists for only the major symphonic Orchestras in all the major cities. “Electronic Media” (as they call it) Music from spots and film productions etc….is quickly shrinking to $0
3. Yes, mentor the new writers, but simultaneously do not exploit them (Write for us for $0 up-front and we take ownership in perpetuity). Plus they don’t have a clue about what I am talking about in point 2 above. “Oh wow, union musicians from the 60’s 70’s 80’s and 90’s get pensions? Huh? what is a pension? what is a union?
4. Develop a standardized rate card for stock music for various usages: Major Motion Picture and World wide advertising, Background TV show drop, Theme Drop, Regional TV or radio spot, Local TV or Radio Spot, Internet/ Youtube only, Internal Corporate Presentation, Social Media Spot, Webisode, etc., in similar way that SAG/ AFTRA does for VO talent. While this will not always be followed, it does give both writers and buyers a point of reference. There should not be a rate for commissioned original music scores. That should always be a negotiation with a composer.
5. Quit dissing other models like RF and NE and engage them. Open your eyes to the fact that the market is not all about TV shows, Films, and Advertising….but now includes everyone and their mother. Everyone on this planet is a media maker and everyone needs a track. Even the guys in Costa Rica, Korea, and Belarus who recently bought some of my music.
6. A mandate to buy cues for 1K to 2K. If they want ownership of our intellectual property in perpetuity…don’t you think they need to buy the cues that take 3 to 5 days to write and mix at a high level?
7. Have a plan for China – a monster sized market
I once was very skeptical of RF and direct licensing and how it could possibly ruin things for us …again! I have now learned over the last 2 to 3 years that there is plenty of room for both markets. We have:
1. “We come to you” market – This I believe is the PMA libraries as well as some NE libraries. Meaning they talk with and visit clients to find out what their immediate and current needs are for the upcoming season. Whether it’s the NFL, The NCAA Tournament, 20 new episodes of The Voice, The political election season, Or 20 new episodes of any reality show, The PMA libraries take a “we come to you” (to find out what you need) approcah
Then we have:
2. “You come to us” This is the RF model that services every media maker in the world. This is the large stock houses where the customer has to search and dig around on there own. This is the rest of the world that the PMA seems to be ignoring and shunning as “we’re too good for that and we don’t want to deal with writers who lower themselves to those standards”…maybe I am wrong…just my opinion.
P.S. LA writer, I have a sore hand from clicking the LIKE button from all your posts that are 100% spot on. You are right. This really is what the thread is about.
Art, I hope this post is not classified as a rant or a hijack. I am not here to do either.September 19, 2016 at 8:40 am #25829
@Music123 and @lawriter, i really do agree 100% with both of you but IMO i think these expectations are not realistic. The PMA does not need us, at least not right now. They are very happy with the writers they already have and they have plenty. It seems like the PMA is trying to expand and bring in more members and dues etc. In my observation, the PMA does not dictate to its members what kind of deals they should make with the writers and these deals are all over the place. There are even many smaller PMA members whom we would not consider in most cases. I am actually surprised that the PMA is reaching out. It seems maybe things out there are changing slowly for the better but i doubt that they will invest in us. There is a lot of inertia trying to maintain the old status quo but eventually they will come around.September 19, 2016 at 9:05 am #25831
I certainly do not need them, but I am starting to wonder if they do need us? Example, I was shopping a couple hundred tracks with one of them in 2016. The sales rep was a big fan of what he heard and felt really excited about selling them. He felt like he had music his clients would want. He could not convince the decision maker to take them on and both of us were perplexed. I say that’s fine….you will continue to get inferior music because any pro writer who understands this game is not going to give up their intellectual property for $0 in perp. The deal fell apart with “in perpetuity”. I was willing to play ball for representation for a certain amount of time then we’d take a look at the numbers and decide if want to renew our marriage vows. I can not play in that exclusive in perp arena because 20 years into this party I know that it pays to own and control intellectual property. I know what my catalog is worth, and the royalty, sync fee, and RF income streams are developing a level of predictability.
So I will mentor all you young writers reading this thread right now: It pays to own and control your intellectual property. Be very careful before you jump into bed with the exclusive in perp for $0 publishers
I am checking out guys, I hope to read more thoughts as this has been the best thread in about 3 years. Back to uploading to markets where I control my own destiny!September 19, 2016 at 9:23 am #25834
MichaelL – I agree! Mentoring is critical. Unfortunately, the “intern” debacle has made most composers qualified to mentor not want to go there. I’m grateful for the opportunities I had.
MusicMatters – agreed as well. I’m not sure why the PMA is courting composers. It’s been a publisher only organization in the past. And I agree that our “expectations” are unlikely (as in a snowballs chance in hell) of being addressed. Still, as I asked earlier – the question remains – why?
Music123 – Great stuff!! Where’s the like button? 😀September 19, 2016 at 9:25 am #25835
I can not play in that exclusive in perp arena because 20 years into this party I know that it pays to own and control intellectual property.
I totally agree with you Music123. It would take a lot for me to do any more exclusive deals.
It’s easy for this thread to wander off topic as we are all passionate about this issue but let’s try to resist doing so!September 19, 2016 at 9:47 am #25839
Art, Music123 – in light of staying on topic, would you mind commenting on my recent post in the “other” PMA – music biz thread? thanksSeptember 21, 2016 at 8:28 am #25876
It pays to own and control your intellectual property.
+1September 22, 2016 at 7:20 am #25878
I’m a bit confused.At one point i read “PMA is reaching out” and then “PMA might not see this topic”.
Anyway,what Paolo said is interesting.Having a “music needed” section for the members and an analysis of each library’s terms would be a good start to make the PMA membership more enticing.
Would this be enough to buy the membership?
Personally,i don’t think so and i can’t answer the “What kind of PMA composer membership benefits would you like to see?” question without going off topic.
If PMA is reaching out,it looks like they miss the forest for the trees.