Following up with Companies

[jazzstan]

The only way you can change selfish people's behavior is to make the penalty/punishment affect them directly.

My adage for this is: "Whoever owns the problem - owns the solution."

So yes, you have to make the offender the default 'owner' of the problem, and they will find the solution themselves.

[mojobone]

I don't feel that we need a situation where the entire "class" gets punished because of the actions of one selfish "classmate"
(remember that from elementary/primary school?).

The only way you can change selfish people's behavior is to make the penalty/punishment affect them directly.

Therefore, I support the suggestion, that I have seen more than once on this forum (since this has been a recurring problem), that the certificate you receive (when you get a forward) informs you that: if you contact the library/company directly...your submission is IMMEDIATELY disqualified.

It's really very simple...

Stuart

Looking at it from the other side of the glass, I need what I need; if the guy pissed me off but he had what I needed, I might twist the knife some, but still do the deal. (it'll be a much sh*ttier deal...) There are composers out there that are just a complete PITA to deal with, and I probably shouldn't. I'd never let them get away with it if they weren't completely unique world-class talents.

I like Stan's idea of making them own the problem; maybe demand a personal and public apology to the offended parties. Anything short of fining them.

[cardell]

Looking at it from the other side of the glass, I need what I need; if the guy pissed me off but he had what I needed, I might twist the knife some, but still do the deal. (it'll be a much sh*ttier deal...) There are composers out there that are just a complete PITA to deal with, and I probably shouldn't. I'd never let them get away with it if they weren't completely unique world-class talents.

Mojo, this statement is just encouraging this kind of bad behavior. The members that would contact a library/company directly (when the've been told not to) no doubt feel they are "completely unique world-class talents" & way above the rest of us.

[joking, again] You should know better... ...or, were you the one who did this!?!? ...

Stuart

[mojobone]

I'm just saying that yanking a composer's track from consideration won't work; other factors involved. Maybe the situation I described is one in a thousand, but once the tracks are forwarded, I think it's no longer Taxi's call.

[cardell]

...once the tracks are forwarded, I think it's no longer Taxi's call.

Hmm, that does make some sense!

Stuart

[crs7string]

In my five or so years of production music I have taken the approach that:

"the profit is in the relationship"


My goal has been to develop ongoing relationships with publishers, not just sign an isolated track or two.

I believe when one approaches building a catalog, the things that one does or doesn't do is driven by the idea of either enhancing a relationship OR detracting from the relationship.

A way to enhance a relationship with a publisher may be in the form of referring another composer.

A way to detract from the relationship building process may be calling the publisher to ask how to submit tracks when it is all clearly documented in their composers kit.

Starting off on the very wrong foot and calling someone at home is clearly not a way to start building a relationship.

Long term thinking generally is reflected in one's day to day behavior. As is short term thinking.

Just a few thoughts, and hopefully not too preachy.

Chuck

[ottlukk]

I suppose that the absolute lack of comprehension of someone doing an early morning call like that screams "amateur", skipping computer skills. Agree with the comment that no one who participates on this board would do something so stupid. No new rules are required. This indivual should be appraised of his precarious situation (and I only say that because I don't know if he has talent or not). Perhaps, this individual shouldbeinvited to post his/her music on peer to peer. And, perhaps, echoing another post, we could reply at 3:30 in the morning. Ott

[cardell]

No new rules are required. This indivual should be appraised of his precarious situation...

I hear you Ott, but this is NOT an isolated incident. It's not the first time we've heard about this behavior on the forum.

I got a call this past Sunday at 7:30 AM by a member of the Taxi community. One of his songs had been forwarded to me and 'wanted to follow up' on it. It's actually not the first time that has happened, but while previous times were during regular working hours, this last time certainly wasn't my ideal way of waking up on a Sunday. :\

Also, the email states it has happened other times too. And these are only the few we know about (get the picture?).

I assume there may have been other libraries/companies, that have experience this behavior from Taxi.com members, then subsequently ceased using Taxi without notice.

These members are (potentially) harming relationships for Taxi.com and its members by not following the rules here.

"Don't call us...we''ll call you."

Stuart

[mojobone]

I'm gonna guess that time zones came into play, here, and yeah, I'd also be surprised if it were a forum member, or not an active one, at least. It comes up pretty regular, but we've had, what, three instances in the last year?

[jazzstan]

Mojo,
Yeah, maybe 3...that we've heard about.
It's the ones that don't contact Taxi are the ones that I worry about. God forbid they should get fed up and not wanna do business with Taxi anymore. !!

I like the merit-badge type idea that someone suggested, along the lines of: once you've had 10 or twelve forwards ... THEN you will get more information about the listing company. i.e. you have to earn it.