[seoz]

Thanks Michael. I read many of your posts and see you have some great experience. Which do you believe give the best results in the long run for the music posted on RF sites:

1) Exclude PRO affiliation for potential increased sales due to the comfort factor with retail clients who do not understand PROs

or

2) Include PRO affiliation which may hinder some sales due to the above, but potentially make up in back end royalties for the odd cases here and there where music ends up being broadcasted

In other words, do you believe that back end royalties make up for potential sales loss? or vice versa? Looking at composers’ profiles, it seems people generally thing they earn more in extra sales than in back end, but I am not sure if this is a fact (considering some music end up being broadcasted) or just a short term view.

In your view, and I understand it to be personal and reflect your experience, which of this is the best strategy for total results from RF sites sales?

Do you think composers who do not mention PROs in Pond5 (example) register those same tracks with PROs regardless and are able to recoup back end royalties?

Any others willing to share their view, it would be great to hear you.

Thank you

[seoz]

It does seem that way. I have noticed the same thing. Lots of composers who are likely to be pro affiliated not posting their names or pros in pond5. I wonder why.

[seoz]

Thanks

[seoz]

I agree. However I see some people use aliases in the RF libraries but put their name in the composer field. So they are still searchable.

In the case you do not put your name or a pro registered alias in the composer field, can you still somehow claim back end royalties if there are any?

I like the branding/segmentation strategy you describe, but not sure if you are giving up on back end royalties when doing this. It would be nice to hear how you solve the back end problem when using aliases and not using your PRO registered composer name/pseudonyms in RF sites.

[Author]

Posts