Forum Replies Created
I pulled the calculator out. I singled out my best royalty line item royalty payment from the internet audiovisual section of my BMI statement to analyze it. BMI seems to be listing stream counts on statements which is pretty interesting.
The reality of streaming royalties is pretty bleak:
I had a :27 second cue on 1 episode of The Voice stream 1,691,000 times. The pay was $10 for those streams. This is 0.000000591 cents per stream on HULU.
The exact same cue paid $70 for the broadcast performance on NBC.
Amazon VOD – an NFL cue that paid $370 for 1 live tv performance on Fox for :25 secs of air time paid $8.35 for 2,113,904 streams
0.00000395 cents per stream
But check this out. I have been reading and also calculating streams on Spotify and what spotify pays…often .0004 cents per stream (on average). If HULU or AMAZON were paying similar rates 1,691,000 streams x .0004 cents would actually = $676!
Future of streaming is not bright. Time for AMAZON, the most profitable company in the world, to pay the F up!June 17, 2019 at 5:35 am in reply to: Interesting discussion on Library Music saturation and the reasons behind it. #32414
The biggest problem in my opinion is aggressive price dumping by writers. It’s writers undercutting writers with ridiculously low prices. When you see highly skilled music producers who are the top selling artists on certain sights dumping their prices down to $5…well….that’s just pretty pathetic, and problematic. Again revisit “artists themselves destroy our business” thread. Composers are their own worst enemies.
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?
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.
Post a link to the mp3 clips you found in tunesat and someone here can help you determine if it was an advertising spot or a Promo for a show. I have a track running in very heavy rotation in Spain now as a promo.I contacted my USA publisher and copied the tunesat detections data and sent in an mp3 clip. The publisher reached out to the sub publisher in Spain and I should get some royalties eventually I was told. You should hope that this is an actual tv spot. 1800 detections of a TV spot should result in meaningful royalties so it should be worth you spending a few hours building your case and claiming what’s yours.
Same here. I wonder why I bother registering with them!
I think we just never know. I was asking myself why am I spending a lot of frustrating time prepping spreadsheets for HFA, but boy am I glad I did! Soundexchange pays rights holders and featured artists for all radio including music choice, pandora, sirius
HFA pays Spotify streaming mechanicals, facebook, youtube, and all other digital streaming platforms.
We just never know where our music will end up so it’s always better to be over registered as opposed to not registered at all.May 31, 2019 at 9:02 am in reply to: Metadata is the biggest little problem plaguing the music industry. #32340
Yes very informative and it seems like what I take away most is this: It’s better when one person is EVERYTHING: writer, publisher, mixer, label, artist, featured artist, master owner, copyright owner, and so on. Google/ youtube are just getting away with murder IMHO. YOUTUBE (Google) should be paying all the PRO’s $1 Billion each so we can truly be paid fairly from the PROs when our music streams on line. I’m tired of seeing pennies earned from streaming and internet especially in an era where people consume visual media content on youtube as much if not more than cable tv.
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.
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.
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.
There is a possibility, whether we like it or not, that with the growing demand for music for small budget video (youtube, etc), this model *could* take over the RF world
YOUTUBERS who need tracks for their mom and pop channels have dozens of cheap to even free options out there for cookie cutter stock music tracks. In the end, it all comes down to how much value you put on yourself and your works. I really believe that in the context of business to business music licensing ( example a music producer targeting professional post houses, advertising agencies, pro directors and video editors) These people are not concerned with $20 or perhaps even $500. If they hear what they need and it makes their video project pop, they will pay for it.
5. Sources have told me that the Nashville company was seeking round 1 investor funding. If they are in need of raising money, things can’t be going that well. It’s not like they need to raise money to buy a manufacturing plant or to finance production costs from purchase orders.
6. Since subscription came on to the scene, my revenue still has gone up only from traditional sync fee revenue so sure some customers want cost savings others would rather just seek what they need on a project by project basis and pay a bit more to get what they need.
There is a possibility, whether we like it or not, that with the growing demand for music for small budget video (youtube, etc), this model *could* take over the RF world.
There a few reasons why I do not believe this will ever be the case:
1. We all know that this model grossly devalues music assets so it is not in our interests to participate. The model can only “take over” if composers actually show a willingness to get on board. Why would we get on board with making less money?
2. Customers do not warm up to this model as much as people think. Not every customer wants their credit card on file and on auto withdraw indefinitely. (Note to self: my daughter keeps reminding me to cancel a photoshop subscription! LOL!)
3.There is no such thing as RF. When customers buy a license we are paid a royalty right then and there. “Royalty Free” is nothing but a bogus marketing term.
4. Even with the rise of subscription, I still feel like they are all scrambling for survival.
One last thing I want to say is that all of the participants measure their success or failure in subscription in terms of : is the combined revenue , sync licenses sold plus subscription revenue = ing more total revenue. That does seem to be the case for some but please also know that the top seller of all time in RF started with like 250 tracks in a sub model but then after the second pay report came out, he quickly dropped his offering way down to maybe just 45 tracks. I was told that he was quite ticked off because 1. the earnings from the sub model were very poor relative to his expectations and 2. clearly the cheaper option hurt his normal sync license (one at a time sale) business. So that speaks volumes too.
Advice, I have been following this pretty closely and I do have a couple of people who have shared their earnings data from a sub model. What I can conclude is this: If the pool of writers is thin, then there may be a decent amount of money to create, not a livable wage, but certainly an extra revenue stream….say $500 to $2000 a month. That revenue stream is highly dependent on how many tracks you put in the model and also how in demand your music is. Are customers downloading your tracks a lot? If yes, I suppose you are earning more. Granted, I am only following the story at one company. i heard that the Nashville operation has done well for their writers, but again, they limit how many writers are sharing the subscription revenue. If thousands of writers were to pile into this model, everyone’s earnings would collapse hard and fast.
I recently read a post from a stock video seller and he wrote:
“Judging from other similar services, one of which I managed the inventory for for 3 years, artists are probably earning between $0.02 – $0.20 per download. “
So there is a lot of credibility there. He managed the inventory on the stock site, and clearly saw the download data from customers and I assume had access to monthly revenue collected.
Compare that to earning $15 to $40 per download for the current sync license model.
I admit I was pretty fearful of subscription taking off last year, but all in all, my revenue from the normal sync license model is remaining steady and improving gradually.
The message I have to all is simple: resist that model. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. It’s an incredibly non transparent model. Who wants to see prices nose dive to 2 cents a download? I do not write production music for visual media to watch it be traded for spotify like royalties. that is total insanity, but then again, historically speaking, aren’t musicians and composers insane when it comes to fair business practices?
I encourage everyone to keep the bullhorn alive and scream as loud as you can “Subscription SUCKS!!!!!” to every young and new writer you meet.