Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Usually, the exclusivity being discussed here only is with respect to film/TV pitches through 3rd parties such as libaries. Many of the exclusive contracts I’ve seen allow you to do non film/TV pitches with no conflict. Also, many do not prohibit you from pitching direct to music sups, just through other 3rd parties. Of course, check contracts carefully… YMMV. 🙂
On JP’s website it says… “Jingle Punks is launching its exclusive music library offering in addition to their standard library in order to provide clients the option of being able to search for music they can exclusively license and immediately obtain the rights to.”
So hopefully there still will be opporunities for our non-exclusive tracks with them, even if not major network.
I’ve been hearing that major networks won’t sign non-exclusive, re-titled tracks for a while now. That’s why we’ve seen a number of non-exclusive libraries including Scorekeepers, Indigi, and now JP start an exclusive catalog. Libraries have been telling me the past 1-2 years that they won’t pitch my non-exclusive tracks to ABC, NBC, etc.
What’s not clear to me is whether this truly is the beginning of the end for the non-exclusive model, or there will be a fractured market whereby cable channels will continue to accept non-exclusive tracks. If what I’ve been hearing is true, the split market is actually nothing new. (Crucial seems to have managed an exception so far with their “re-title by adding a tag only” approach)…
I do want to ask JP if they plan to still pitch the non-exclusive tracks to networks other than the major ones. Based on the placements I’ve had with them, they work with Bravo, E!, TLC, History, Discovery, etc, etc. I’m not sure while they made it sound like the majors were the majority of their clients. Yes, of course, the majors are the highest paying opps.
As far as composers having the power to influence industry decisions, sadly that’s not really the case. There are way too many hungry composers out there with great home studios and talent who will do whatever it takes to get their music out there. If you won’t sign an exclusive with no up-front fee, someone else will. This trend is nothing new either. Supply and demand is not in the composer’s favor.
If the re-title model is going dead, anyone with tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries may have a problem. That was a risk going in. I knew that when I double-dipped (and triple and….) quite a few times.
We shall see.
PS If I had never put my tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries, I would never have had the placements I’ve had to date. So no regrets…
Bigg Rome
I’ve signed library deals through Taxi as well as FMN and on my own. These are libraries that have made placements for me. Tons of people have had placements due to Taxi. There are big lists of placement successes on their forum. I know the people involved in those placements personally… It’s all very real and true.
Again, I’m not saying that Taxi is the only way or works for everyone. Go with what works best for you.
🙂
Ruiz
I have heard of many situations where members were contacted by listing parties as far out as 2 years after forwards. That doesn’t mean you WILL get contacted, of course. The more competitive and “high bar” the listing, the lower the chance of getting contacted. For example, a forward for a $25,000 license fee ad agency listing has a much lower chance of contact than one to a music library.
Bigg Rome
One thing I’ll always say is people should go with what is working for them best. If you are getting placements outside of Taxi but didn’t have success using Taxi, then that tells you what direction is best for you.
This is similar to asking people which libraries they think are good vs. not. There is no right answer because everyone’s results will be different.
😉
I’ve had good experiences with Taxi and I am a fan and supporter. Some forwards, some deals that I may or may not have gotten without them. I find networking with their community- the road rally and their forum to be a huge plus.
That being said, some have done better as far as library deals outside of Taxi, some better through Taxi, and some a mixed bag. If you were able to get *13* songs signed with Crucial, you are obviously writing top notch film/TV songs! Congrats! That says that the quality of your material is certainly high enough that you could approach many high end libraries directly with good success.
One thing I’d say is $199/yr renewal price is not that much IMHO and anytime you make contact with a new library who likes your work, it can be a very productive thing. Sometimes one forward/one callback can mean 20 tracks signed with a new library. So consider that for the renewal price, you have an additional outlet to possibly make more library contacts. And the price included the road rally.
I hope this thread doesn’t turn into one of those ugly Taxi/anti-Taxi things. What works for some may not work for others and vice-versa.
BTW, they are running a number of direct to supervisor listings the past year and there is definite value in those.
🙂
I think my last post must be awaiting moderation. ?
I’m not going to get into that whole Taxi good or bad thing. As far as the Road Rally, judge for yourself. Here is last year’s schedule. Major music sups and library execs are very much present, not to mention the many successful composers who are very much worth networking with.
The Taxi conference (The “Road Rally”) is amazingly great. Definitely attend if you can. Taxi members get 2 tickets (One for them and one guest pass) as part of their membership. If you are not a member and know one, they might be able to give you a guest pass and you could attend at no cost.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve read, instead of the BI rate going up, the BV rate came down. 🙁
As far as accepting without or with barely listening, it depends a lot on the type of library. A royalty free, website-based library may take just about anything and everything. That’s to be expected. If a library advertises themselves to be more discriminating and pitch major TV networks, I’d probably scratch my head a lot more.
In the end, it is the quality of your track, compared to others, that will determine its placement success (along with some luck, I agree).
Nothing wrong with being discriminating as far as where you put your music. It’s already a mess out there with hundreds and hundreds of non-exclusives pitching the same TV shows.
🙂
TAE
Yup, no news is bad news is just part of being in this field. With service like FMN, of course, you can’t follow up because they are blind listings. If everything is working as is supposed to, FMN subscribers get an email when their submissions are listened to.
Sometimes, I assume our tracks are not listened to because at some point in time, the listing party has found all they need. That frustrates people but I suggest taking it in stride, all as part of the biz. Again, anyone who is concerned can readily contact Mark at FMN and ask. He’s a good, accessible guy.
In the big pic, FMN costs me $11.95 per month + $1.99 per submission… Not a whole lot IMHO so if I get at least 1-2 library deals a year out of it, it’s worth it to me. Everyone has different views. What works for one may not work for another…
🙂
Overall, I’ve done well with FMN… Quite a few library deals. Yes, there have been many submissions that didn’t result in anything– some with listens, some without. But in the big picture, I’ve been pleased with FMN as a lead source. In fact, I signed some tracks with a library fairly recently due to an FMN listing. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture over the years.
Like Art said, if you have concerns, drop a note directly to Mark Northam.
It also could have been a cue sheet error that was corrected… Hard to say. I don’t think ASCAP’s new payment distribution formulas would cause the category on the cue sheet to change- just the associated payment. That’s my strong guess… Not Gospel… 🙂
>>>Winning in a competitive sport is achieved by upping your game, not by preventing the competition from playing.
+1 !!