Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Those eastern Europeans are excellent composers, no doubt about it, but their cost of living is going up too. This is actually “old news”. Those Russian folks have been cheating and self buying their tracks to gain competitive “promotional space” advantages for years now. The top seller was caught, barred from the site for a couple of months then came back with a storm. He or she does have quality tracks, but that inflated self buying boost does work. Once you get in favorably from an algorithmic scenario, your music is presented more often. If it’s presented on page one of search more often, you sell more. Clearly, you have to have the quality to back it up though. The Russians do! The Russians are hanging around here, reading this too. I can guarantee you that. They are very smart people, very talented, very disciplined, ferocious work ethic too.
Libraries don’t see it that way. Many (not all) of the subscription plans are limited to such low-end use, while preserving higher-end license fees. Keep in mind the Google/youtube is giving away music to youtubers.
My advice to all, let the low end scavangers stay low and in the garbage can. Every time in my professional life I thought about ways to make money from those who don’t have money, you end up regretting it and well….not making any money!. Recording bands for $30 an hour, targeting companies that don’t have big marketing budgets. Forget about all the garbage and stick it in the low end of the trash can. Just go after corporations that actually have money to spend. That’s what LA writer (I think) means by don’t participate.
Laptops in Indonesia? Let them rock it out…Heck I have garage band on my i-phone, forget about lap tops man I got a phone with beats already made! I can just render and sell.
Aim low, stay low. If any writer can chime and and say I am making 3 to 5K a month in the subscription model, I will listen. I do believe that perhaps the site owners can make that kind of money (or even more), but again the million dollar question is how are they distributing the fees to contributing artists?
When I think about it, I do earn the most money where my music is priced the highest and has the most amount of “human feel” in the performances. Now isn’t that a convenient coincidence!
Regarding robotic voice overs. That is around, has been around and gets hung up on a lot. That too will end up in the trash can. No one will ever want to listen to an audio book if a robot voice is delivering it. It’s fine for on hold messages, but if the intent is to “engage” “teach” “train” or “entertain” an audience, you better spend some money on a human voice!
How many of us press 0 (to get a human) the moment we are forced to talk to the robot? For example, when you call a bank, or credit card company, or insurance company.
But I do agree that writing hits is the only answer. Hit tracks will always equal money in the bank.
I actually felt as though the bottom was in at $19 to $20 a license, but for some reason someone always has to try to be extra nice. Wow, crashing to 12 cents per unit cost (in your example above), from $19 seemingly overnight is pretty insane.
Which brings us to the next question: Why do people want to be nice (and cheap) to corporate customers? Who needs music for films, YT videos, spots, and TV shows? Corporations do! of all sizes.
News Flash to music writers and music publishers: Corporations have truck loads of money, start charging them some money for your service. We’re not in business to serve the amateur hobbyist music listener or youtuber, we’re in business to service corporations and businesses. This is not a spotify subscription model for God’s sake. Wake up and smell the coffee!
@music matters – I have requested removal from 3 or 4 in 2018 for sure. Seriously, why bother letting our very important intellectual property sit with an entity who is unable to pay us? or simply is not paying? or just does not have the ability to attract customers. Times always change, and ownership of our assets allows us to change with the times!
Jerzy, if you are looking for short cuts…provide some links to your music here with an e-mail where you can be contacted, and maybe a nice pro, veteran can guide you somewhere.
I kind of agree, part of the problem with subscriptions may very well be young writers not knowing what else to do! So they sign in and hope for a positive outcome. This enables and perpetuates the problem.
@LA Writer. Just hang in there, Your voice and wisdom are needed. Keep contributing here, there are a lot of people listening. It may not seem that way but there are. Throughout my period of dancing in the digital licensing game, it has been challenging, filled with hard work, but I have seen growth. So there is some positive take away here. 2018 will be interesting. I am definitely concerned about revenue growth slowing or potentially being threatened by these ridiculous give away pricing models.
For the writers who are reading and want to make a difference, there really are things you can do to make an impact. It’s so easy to say “well this is kind of out my control so I will just sit back and hope for the best.” Sorry, but “hope” and “laziness” and “inactivity” will not make a difference.
What can you do?
For starters, take the time to remove your music assets from companies that do not send you money. I personally come to some conclusions about companies that do not pay me: They either lost the battle to the competition and do not have the money to market the site, they are just too small to make an impact, the owners of the site are not putting in the effort it takes to compete, or…they may not be 100% truthful about what is being sold or somehow have decided that all assets in their ecosystem are for them to deal as they see fit.
By not removing the assets (from sites that are NOT PAYING you) you empower them to divise other business models – like subscription models. These companies are sitting on thousands and thousands of tracks and the temptation to just “dump” and grab as much money as they can is clearly there (with the subscription model)
The bottom line is that during this very long and involved discussion not one writer came on here and stated anything positive about the model. No one chimed in and said “I am involved in this model, and I am getting paid well every month.”
No one can explain how accounting can be implemented fairly?
It does not take a rocket scientist to discern what does in fact work – just look at the ratings section on this site and it’s clear which models work for production music writers.
If you do not remove your assets from sites that are not paying, you may simply be undercutting yourself without even knowing it. Indeed we all uploaded away 10 years ago to figure out which music sites would make us money. The results should be in for many of us.
I know which places make me money, those are the places I will work with, the others, sorry…I am out. I will not be a lazy enabler and just say “ah screw it…I took the time to send these guys my tracks…they still send me $10, $20 a year, I’ll just keep the music there anyway.”Sorry folks but THAT IS the problem right there. That kind of thinking IS the problem.
If you have good music and are a professional in this business, remove your catalog from companies who are not paying you. If 3 years have gone by and you are still getting $0 to say $100 or $200 a year from a company Is it really worth it to house your assets there while they cook up a new subscription dumping model to devalue you? THINK hard about what I am saying. Please.
What else can you do? Don’t participate in these models. Spread the warnings to others, talk about it, write about it, link colleagues to this knowledge base, put pressure on publishers to not engage in these models.
I only see things from within my own Prism: if anyone has another side of the story to tell about these models and how it can be healthy for writers long term, I will listen.
You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.You do not have permission to view this content.