Why the new “Exclusivity” craze is meaningless.

[DesireInspires]

As many of you have witnessed, music libraries are changing their business models. Companies that were non-exclusive are now going exclusive. The reason behind this change was that clients such as major TV networks were getting the same music from non-exclusive music libraries. Exclusivity would be the cure for this ailment.

The real question is this: Are networks actually going to use the music?

The rush to collect tracks on an exclusive basis seems smart. It helps to deal with the complaint of networks receiving the same music over and over again. But there has been no response or even a conversation from the networks themselves. There is has really been no interaction between TV networks and musicians. Composers do not know if the networks plan on using the new music or if they even care. The creators of the music have been left out of the loop. No one is willing to talk to them.

Networks are huge companies. The thinking is they probably do not have the time or resources to talk to a group of hungry musicians about the use of music on TV shows. It is better for the networks to deal with the libraries and have the libraries deal with the composers & songwriters. But that is a huge disconnect and a lost opportunity on the behalf of TV networks.

The social media scene demands that the traditional barriers between TV networks and composers & songwriters should be broken. There is a real opportunity for networks to become interested and to have a conversation as to what their expectations are. The networks need to appeal to composers and songwriters themselves instead of hiding behind layers of bureaucracy and other companies.

The conversation needs to start. Will the TV networks speak now or forever hold their peace?

[michael11]

Hows this for a conspiracy theory?

What if it is a way of vacuuming up zillions of tracks and leaving the way for just a few favored composers?

[Casey H]

I don't know why but the presidents of NBC, ABC, and CBS still aren't returning my calls. And I repeatedly left messages telling them I was a starving musician. What's up with that?

Casey

[DesireInspires]

I don't know why but the presidents of NBC, ABC, and CBS still aren't returning my calls. And I repeatedly left messages telling them I was a starving musician. What's up with that?

Casey

I know. What's up with that?

But honestly, I don't expect much. I know that old media companies are pretty much set int their ways. These companies pretend to be savvy by having Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and Youtube pages. But those things are so bland and politically correct that they are useless. Interaction with the public is not a two-way street.

Back to the old drawing board.

[Len911]

Perhaps one day if there ever becomes a music shortage and their needs aren't being met, but until then, why would you want to argue with a bunch of people about their music, I mean converse?

I can understand an exclusive for a music publisher that solicits and promotes your music than for a library that sits and waits until someone visits the library, maybe that was why they were non-exclusive before, before the problems crept up. But I guess that is like comparing Walmart to Nieman-Marcus.

The taxi listings are what the industry wants and needs and is experiencing a shortage of at the present. Do you think a company is going to call you and tell you what jobs they are in desperate need of and need filling and it be different than what they are running in the 'help wanted' ads?

[DesireInspires]

The taxi listings are what the industry wants and needs and is experiencing a shortage of at the present. Do you think a company is going to call you and tell you what jobs they are in desperate need of and need filling and it be different than what they are running in the 'help wanted' ads?

Nice rebuttal. I understand what you mean.

[mazz]

If I were a music executive at a large media company, the LAST person I would want to be in direct conversation with is a composer or musician, let alone tens of thousands of them. That music executive doesn't even directly converse with the composers of the shows they produce, it all goes through the producers and the composers' agents and lawyers, etc.

If one were to view this from the vantage point of a media company, I would say that their lawyers started getting wind of their producers getting the same piece of music from two (or more) different sources (each with a different title) and without being able to tell who to attribute the music to, they smelled the legal swamp water starting to bubble up. This is why they have started to make it a policy to only work with exclusive libraries.

The non-exclusive re-titling model started so that songwriters with limited catalogs could generate some licensing revenue and still leave their assets unencumbered so they could sell them on iTunes, at gigs, etc. But hungry, clueless musicians being what they are (basically hungry and clueless), they, without much forethought, flooded the market with their music, thinking that the more places they had it, the more chances they had to license their catalog.

The problem with this, of course, is that their music is competing against itself in the marketplace, and buyers being who they are, are always looking for a good price. So if the license fee was 1500.00 and the client was willing to pay that to the first publisher but then the second publisher comes along with the same piece of music (with a different title) and offers to license it for 1000.00, well our genius musician just cut themselves out of 500 bucks.

So, as seemingly smart as you are, DI, I suggest you look at this from the standpoint of the clients instead of only the myopic view of the amateur musician that you currently are taking.

Social media is all fun and friendly and a good way to generate a buzz, but at some point, a sale has to be made and contracts need to be signed. This is where we will come up against the reality of the business model that still exists, and often for good reason. These big media companies can't afford to mess around with little inexperienced fish, that is why they choose to go to the publishers and libraries. Those folks act as the buffer between the teeming masses and the networks. The networks need those filters, they simply don't have the time or the legal bandwidth to deal with tens of thousands of people who think they are musicians, but really aren't yet. The pros are already connected through years of hard work of networking and honing their craft.

Think about it for a minute.

Mazz

[mazz]

But honestly, I don't expect much. I know that old media companies are pretty much set int their ways. These companies pretend to be savvy by having Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, and Youtube pages. But those things are so bland and politically correct that they are useless. Interaction with the public is not a two-way street.

Back to the old drawing board.

The media companies exist to sell advertising, they are not in the "art" business. If you don't already know this, then you have been living under a tree.

And don't be fooled, FaceBook, Google, etc., live to sell ads. How would they make any money otherwise? The underlying business model of any business is to make money so it can grow, money is the fuel of business. All the "free" portals from the past that you can think of have basically disappeared. These businesses are "old media" in "new media" disguises.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but you have to engage the business as it exists before you can change it. You and I don't have much clout yet, and we aren't going to get it by making laptop ditties in our off hours from our biotech jobs!! We have to aim higher and make inroads so we can maybe start calling a few of the shots. The halls of Hollywood are littered with the corpses "artists" who refused to compromise their vision for their clients or who thought they had the "next big thing". That needs to happen organically and from the bottom up.

Focus on what you have control over.

Just a suggestion.

[DesireInspires]

So, as seemingly smart as you are, DI, I suggest you look at this from the standpoint of the clients instead of only the myopic view of the amateur musician that you currently are taking.

Think about it for a minute.

Mazz

Oh definitely.

Composers should have been a bit more vigilant and decisive with their music instead of sending it out to multiple companies. I guess that is what separates the amateurs from the pros. Guys that are still successful probably saw the problems with non-exclusive retitling a mile away and avoided it.

Composers will have to work hard instead of taking the easy way out.

[mazz]

Some composers researched the markets each publisher served and avoided duplication, others avoided the re-titling market, still others do a combination of both.

No matter what, it pays to understand the business one is involved in!!

I know I'm still learning!!