- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There’s been a lot of talk on here recently about raising prices on RF sites.
I was checking out one particular RF site for a new catalog that I’m launching and found that many people with similar products are selling below the site’s minimum price level for that product.
Not only did they not get the “raise your price memo,” but they are undercutting everyone else in the same library. The question is what to do?
_Michael
Michael L, I can only assume you have good, professional music as your writings on MLR indicate that you have experience and proven success, and you have been doing this for 30 years. I am going to say this again. I have been beating this drum for 4 months now. In May, I raised my prices from $40 and $50 in to now $100 for INSTR cues. Those with vocals, I priced even higher. The results are in: I am making more money each month. Not a lot more, but more.
Forget about the undercutters. Clients that need a track will not buy a $50 Track when they like a $100 track better. Does any business lose sleep over $50?
I also do not distinguish between 15’s and 30’s and full length nonsense. I just made everything across the board $100 for instr’s
Regarding the undercutters, write to the library and inform them of the lack of consistency and poor ethics on their part.
EVERYONE RAISE YOUR PRICES TO $100….LOL!!! My test results are in and I am making more money!!!!!! Get on board with me. I am not lying or distorting the facts, I have made more since I raised prices.
Next Point: I’m happy about some more monthly income, but dissatisfied with the income and sales staying constant even though I have up-loaded more content over the last 6 months.
Higher prices have resulted in higher monthly income, BUT….more tracks have not resulted in more sales. Anyone have a theory as to why that is the case? I know Art you mentioned that your were experiencing the same scenario.
Sadly you can`t do anything against it 🙂
There`ll be always people who sell their music for $20 and cheaper.
Unfortunately companies like AJ and others benefit from this low price structure.
There are a few good selling RF composers. But they dont sell so good because the quality of their tracks is so much better. They simply get supported pretty good from those companies while most people sell their tracks a few times and thats it !
The RF business is nice for little to medium money but not for more because it`s too oversaturated these days.
I have around 100 tracks placed in the RF market. In the same time e.g. I make with 100 exclusive tracks 10x more than with RF tracks
but it`s just my personal experience.I wouldn’t do anything.
I am not competing at the bottom. So there is no reason for me to be concerned or upset. I know where I stand as far as my talent. I know what price point I am willing to sell my music for.
I would rather NOT make money and stick to my plan than try to play the “down-and-dirty” game. That game is a lose-lose for the majority of participants.
Wildman, I think we all make more cash with the traditional PRO based libraries where we collect royalties, But that is just chatter. If all the very talented composers hanging around here raise their prices we’ll all be better off based on the “Cream rises to the top” philosophy, plus…I have tested the waters…and I am making more money. Let’s just stay on topic here and talk about ways for all of us to make more in RF.
Let’s not even worry about what goes on in the exlusive PRO based libraries. We’re here to discuss RF. If you can afford the risk (of perhaps sales dipping for 2 months), and my personal experience has proven that there really is no risk at all because I am making more….Raise your prices wildman…From what you wrote, it does not sound like your are dependent on your RF income to feed your family.
Also, I don’t think 100 is enough to gain traction in RF…you need more out there…
Hi more advice 🙂
I raised my prices some month ago. So my cheapest licence is now $45 and goes up to $99.
Unfortunately I still have some RF tracks with 3 companies where I can`t define the price myself and that upsets me.
I will let the cues in those libraries for another year, to see whats going to happen, and if I dont sell enough I will delete those tracks, re-title them and start new !
Yes, I am not depentend on RF sales and when I started with the RF bizz it was just fun for me to see if my b-tracks would also sell and they did. Then I composed tracks especially for this market whenever I had some free time.
Maybe I made the mistake to go with some low end libraries from the beginning simply because I didnt know which library was good or bad. But now after some experience in this bizz I know whats going on.Best,
WildmanI agree with More Advice on both of his points:
1) I have raised my prices and am making more money for around the same number of licenses per month
2) Number of sales is basically flat even with more music out there
MichaelL, to answer your 2 questions, no, I’m not at all.
It’s true that there may be “only so much sameness that a market can absorb,” but there is also only so much diversity that the market will accept. In other words, most of the video/film clients out there actually continue to demand and use “U2 / Coldplay knockoffs and happy ukulele music.”
Hi Five to Blind!…Thank God people are taking a shot at raising prices. Don’t be fearful…Just do it. That makes 2 of us now reporting higher income due to HIGHER PRICES. Not lower prices.
No Michael, I have sold everything from a “Barry White” knock off to Power Piano Ballads with heroic strings, Indie Rock, Whimsical, to Mariachi. There are 4 tracks that do consistently well because of algorithms. So sales beget sales because of algorithms.
The company confirmed my theory that if a track sells and then a search is done by a client in a “similar” style with those key words or tags, the same track that sold is more likely to show up in the search more often.
I wish the algorithms just had “popular artists” or Hot selling artists” .
If we all go to $100 a track…we’ll all be making more money. I really believe that. Like the airlines we just have to say “hey music buyers, we simply need to make a higher profit in order to keep doing this…sorry, but we do put in time to make these soundtracks.”
I’m sorry, but just want to clarify, you are charging $100 and likely more for the guys who are doing these orchestral pieces which may take a week or so to complete? I’m relatively new to pitching to libraries, although, again, I’ve been a musician for years. Still recommending $100 a track? To date I have about 20 tracks or so I’m pitching, and working on writing more (about 1-2 a week). Short version of my question: You would recommend that for us relative newbies as well as more experienced composers?
I’m sorry, but just want to clarify, you are charging $100 and likely more for the guys who are doing these orchestral pieces which may take a week or so to complete? I’m relatively new to pitching to libraries, although, again, I’ve been a musician for years. Still recommending $100 a track? To date I have about 20 tracks or so I’m pitching, and working on writing more (about 1-2 a week). Short version of my question: You would recommend that for us relative newbies as well as more experienced composers?
I say “Yes”.
I do not think a musician should base his pricing strategy off of what other musicians are doing. Each musician is an independent contractor and should do what is best for his situation.
I only base my pricing decisions based off of the amount of money that I think is fair for my music. Not to be selfish, but other musicians are not my primary concern when it comes to business unless I am collaborating with them.