Who do we believe?

[claire]

That brings up a question someone asked me tonight - do the industry folks call Taxi to place listings or does Taxi contact industry people to see if they want to place listings?And Louis, I was asking to hear your songs in all sincerity. Any of us who aren't making money from our songs are amateurs, just some of us have been doing it longer than others. Sometimes the untrained voice is refreshing and reminds us of what making music was like before we learned "the rules".Claire

[hummingbird]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. CaseyLike Casey says, this has been discussed before, and it would triple the cost of screening music - not to mention, triple the time it takes to get the results (or for the clients to get the forwarded music). Suggesting that your submission should be assessed by 3 people before being returned or forwarded flies in face of the reality of the music industry, which is riddled with 'gatekeepers' and 'screeners'. One person's opinion is going make the difference between you getting another listen or not, whichever way you do it. You might submit directly to a music publisher, but chances are an intern is going to listen to your submission & decide whether it should move on to the desk of a decision maker.But there is a VERY simple solution if you want a song to be screened 3 times. Submit it to similar listings 3 times, and try to see the commonalities in the response.I signed a song this year (through Taxi) that had been submitted to Taxi seven times over a few months. It was forwarded five times out of seven. So were the 2 screeners who returned it off their rockers? No, they were screening the song within the context of the listing & they felt it didn't fit. The fact that it was signed by a publisher doesn't mean they didn't do their jobs.I'm absolutely not against discussing ideas that might make Taxi better, but... if I were to think that Taxi needs to change so I can be more successful, then I would be, IMO, thinking ineffectively. My goal has been, and continues to be, to figure out how I can make the Taxi model work for me. Here is the secret of every Forward I've ever had: I give the screeners what they are looking for.Sounds simple, but it took me four years to figure out how to do that. When I see an "F", I know I've done my job. And because I did my job, the screener could do his/her job -- and send my music on to the listing party.

[wta]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likely be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wta

[hummingbird]

Perhaps it's that I've spent 4.5 years figuring out how to meet the high expectations that Taxi has of me.... but I'm not sure what the point is, of joining Taxi, and then spending a lot of energy asking why it's run this way and not that way and why don't they change this or that. It's pretty clear to anyone who does their research before joining, how things work. I'm sure Michael is open to hearing ideas from members, but at the same time, I would absolutely against any change that lowered expectations/the bar or increased my costs.I'm saying... I want the standard to be high. I want the standard to be beyond my reach. And I want to grow in skill and craft until I reach it. That's what I want from my Taxi membership. And that's what I'm getting from it, too.

[Casey H]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:50pm, wta wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:[quote author=wta board=complaints thread=10053 post=95980 time=1224726972]Hi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likey be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wtaWilliamFirst do not think you are an idiot at all. But you may have no idea how many people have come on here making similar suggestions who really didn't have a clue about the costs involved. Just to be clear, I do not think taxi is perfect and there is always room for improvement in anything. I'm no different than anyone else in that I don't always agree with their foward/return decisions. But I accept it as part of the business. People should feel free to make suggestions. No doubt about that...Personally, I don't see this one as practical but if you have ideas whereby three screeners can review each submission without affecting cost and therefore membership fees, please run with your ideas. Cheers Casey

[matto]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:50pm, wta wrote:Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for thatI would be willing to bet that in 90% of cases, the result with 3 screeners would be identical to the result with the one. So the question becomes, is it cost effective?How much extra would members be willing to pay considering the results would be so similar?

[wta]

Vikki I'm missing the point of what the problem is that someone thinks about these things? Why is it a problem to come to this forum and talk issues through with brothers and sisters of songwriting field? Cameron has an opinion just as valid as anyone's and I wonder why there is this great resistance when someone has ideas that they want to share about taxi’s strengths and weaknesses. I LOVE taxi, yes the way that it is and that’s why I joined but does that mean I can't have questions about how taxi can get even further out front of the pack of the competition? I respect that you don't want things to change and you want things to stay as they are and I respect Casey and what he said about increased costs and I respect Cameron and his opinions as well and these are all just thoughts for discussion. I only hope that the same mutual respect would be shared by all members regardless of how long they’ve been a member of the forum and member of taxi. We've got a great thing on our hands and I ask only that I/everyone be heard in a spirit of comradery and mutual respect on this issue and any other posted here as I very much do like this forum as well and I've made some great friends here and I’d like to be able to say to the people that I bring to join taxi that things are an even playing field for all. '-) wta

[wta]

Oct 22, 2008, 7:23pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 6:50pm, wta wrote:[quote author=hurowitz board=complaints thread=10053 post=95985 time=1224727805] Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likey be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wtaWilliamFirst do not think you are an idiot at all. But you may have no idea how many people have come on here making similar suggestions who really didn't have a clue about the costs involved. Just to be clear, I do not think taxi is perfect and there is always room for improvement in anything. I'm no different than anyone else in that I don't always agree with their foward/return decisions. But I accept it as part of the business. People should feel free to make suggestions. No doubt about that...Personally, I don't see this one as practical but if you have ideas whereby three screeners can review each submission without affecting cost and therefore membership fees, please run with your ideas. Cheers Casey Thank you Casey, well said mate...

[Casey H]

Hey WilliamA little more... Just has everyone should feel free to make suggestions, people who have opinions as to whether or not a suggestion would work will reply. Not speaking for Vikki, but part of what she may be saying has to do with our seeing a lot of people putting their energy into trying to change taxi when that energy would be better spent on the music. We see a lot of folks come on here thinking that their lack of success is because of a problem with taxi and not accepting the need to change their music.The feedback you are getting is that 90% of the time, the results would be the same even with N screeners and that it adds cost. I know you say you have an idea where it can be done without adding cost but every business instinct I have tells me that just isn't possible. Every additional ounce of energy a business spends on anything has a cost. (No disrespect to your ideas)Although no one is obligated to comply with this request, I know taxi prefers that suggestions like this are submitted to them by email and not on the forum. Best Casey

[wta]

Yep, I hear ya mate. My suggest was just in passing relating to Cameron's initial post. I peronally don't care if we have one, three or a thousand screeners good tunes will get deals, period but to have more than one would solve the ever concerning thoughts that "one screener opinion isn't enought" which I'm sure has gone through a few minds over the years. Cameron is a great talent and I was just feeling for him in his hour of questioning... I also think you mate should have a moderator title as you have a deep well of knowledge about the industry and taxi, funny I can't remember reading anything from a moderator... cheers and blessings to all... '-) wta