Forum Replies Created
Thanks for the reply. Actually helpful. I am am going to let the deal go through, because there is absolutely zero harm to me–I give up no publishing or any other rights. It’s kind of like getting 5% back on my credit card. It doesn’t amount to much, but I’ll take it.
Art, your reply is an excellent reminder that “they” do not determine what is the top and what is the bottom. They just made that stuff up. Wherever you are you can be at the top–of your game.
Thank you. I can’t disagree with you. I will say what I am being offered involves no publishing or other rights to be signed. It’s just as you say, “bottom feeder” rates.
Would love for you to elaborate.
“Bad Deals follow You/I around like “Ass Ugly Luggage”; and it literally will put You at LEAST 5 to 7 Years behind a person that structured their deals “Adequately”.
I know! I mean, for a small cable tv show, how much could the royalty possibly be? I don’t see how this could even buy lunch. Now the claim is not that the person will keep the sync fee, the claim is that there is none.October 1, 2019 at 10:01 am in reply to: How exactly do writers get paid in subscription models? #33310
Instead of answering the question, you were told by many that the sky is falling. How you get paid: You receive a prorated share of part of the blanket licensing fee. Many lament the demise of the one license = one artist licensing fee paid. What remains to be seen is if the subscription model attracts more customers and thereby increases the number of placements you may get (thus increasing your prorated share).
So is it over for songwriters? No. Markets don’t work like that. Companies that cannot pay songwriters adequately will not attract songs, which will cost them customers. Some wannabe songwriters may give a bad site some songs, but this still kills the site’s reputation.
Here is the mistake most songwriters are making in looking at income from a subscription site. If you have 10 songs, you used to get paid for any of those ten songs that were licensed. Those same 10 songs would earn less in a subscription model. But if you have hundreds of songs, most of which are not getting licensed on traditional sites, you will have more potential customers on the subscription site. So you don’t compare the income on those ten songs, you compare the income on those ten songs to the potential income on your whole catalog.
So it’s volume vs. price. Will placing more songs make up for the money you get by licensing one song at a time (and getting 40% or so of that licensing fee)? The jury is out on that one. But the market will sort it out.
The sky is not falling, and songwriting is not over. Ride the waves and watch for opportunities.
Here is what I don’t understand. I am naming my prices on every site I work with, In addition, I am working with publishers, songpluggers and A&R directly on getting songs into projects. For professional money. There are NOT fewer music supervisors. There are more than ever. In short, the demand for music among professionals is higher than it ever was. Libraries are for bread and butter money. I use them. But I am not competing to be at the bottom. So let them lower their payouts. Pros will stop using them as quality plummets down to wannabe submissions. That leaves more demand at the top.
NOT attacking anyone’s stance. I just had to wonder out loud why my experience is so opposite of what I am reading here.
Well said and well reasoned.
I heard of an old man who didn’t want a bathroom. “Why would I put an outhouse inside my home?” he asked. I have to say, from his limited point of view, he had a point.
I wonder if that’s how we see change in our industry. Always bad. Always sinister. Doomsday for composers.
Not challenging anyone’s views just throwing this in as food for thought.
What is the optimistic outlook?