Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive

[guscave]

I can see the problems re-titling can cause, however IMHO I really don't see it going away anytime soon. There are literally 100's of non-exclusive libraries with thousands of songs which are being represented by multiple libraries. And it seems like every month there's a new one popping up.

I would dare to guess that more than 50% of the music on most "non-exclusive" libraries' catalog are in at least 3 or more libraries. The task to clean up something like that is daunting.

With that said however, it would be nice to hear what someone at BMI or ASCAP has to say about this. Maybe Michael can setup an interview on Taxi TV.

[matto]

I can see the problems re-titling can cause, however IMHO I really don't see it going away anytime soon. There are literally 100's of non-exclusive libraries with thousands of songs which are being represented by multiple libraries. And it seems like every month there's a new one popping up.

I would dare to guess that more than 50% of the music on most "non-exclusive" libraries' catalog are in at least 3 or more libraries. The task to clean up something like that is daunting.

Gus, remember one thing: As composers, it is not the music libraries that are our clients. It is the end users of music, the music supervisors, production companiers, studios, networks etc who are both our and the libraries' ultimate customers.

And in business, the customer is king. If they decide the non-exclusive re-title business model does not suit them, as they now seem to be deciding in increasing numbers, they will simply go elsewhere for their music needs.

If this happens, the non-exclusive re-title companies (and the composers represented by them) will either need to change the way they do business (which some are already doing), be pushed into the least lucrative margins of the market, or go out of business altogether.

If it is your goal to make a reliable long term living off your catalog, this is a risk you may not be willing to take. I know I'm not.

[guscave]

Hi Matto,
I agree on the effect it will have on writers if end users decide to stop working with non-exclusives. It's one of the reasons I've been removing duplicated songs from libraries for the last few months, however my point is that it won't be something that will change (or be eliminated completely)anytime soon. Like in most business, there's the dollar factor. Those with the most to loose & the deepest pockets will scream the loudest.

There's also the issue of how these non-exclusive libraries have lowered the price to the point where many end-users have gotten too use to it. How do we get someone like MTV to start paying reasonable rates again?

In any event, I've personally been focusing on using non-exclusive deals more like exclusive because I beleive that the day this winds up in some court, or hell's gonna break loose.

[Casey H]

This is a great topic to discuss here. I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of songwriters & composers who deal with re-title libraries, do not know that putting the same track in multiple ones (pitching the same market) may be problematic. If it weren't for matto and other very experienced folks here I would never thought about it. So, thanks matto and friends...

I do still have some tracks in multiple libraries from earlier deals but I'm much more cautious about what I sign now. One difficulty I find is most re-title libraries pitch the same markets-- the shows on TV that use a lot of unsigned music like MTV, cable reality shows, etc. When I look at the credits on library's websites, they tend to all look the same.

Determining if libraries overlap markets is sometimes not easy. For example, if an instrumental is with a library that blanket licenses to many TV networks, does that overlap with one that pitches those networks non-blanket?

A while back I heard the problem as mainly: the same song could land on a supervisor's desk from multiple sources and then either blow the deal (the sup. doesn't want any hassles) or cause bidding wars. OK, so my attitude was well... "I'll take the risk, it's small...". What's hitting me now is the problem isn't just about ourselves and what risk WE are willing take. It's about what effect this practice might have on ALL songwriters and composers, flooding the market with lower quality (good but not great) tracks and bringing down license fees for everyone.

That puts us in the "but everyone else does it" situation. One analogy is, "If all the players in the NFL are using illegal drugs to bulk up and you don't, can you compete in the league if you don't?"...

But the above analogy doesn't really hold water in that songwriters & composers have another path they can take: Get the music to be so good that higher end exclusive libraries will want to sign them. Then you are not hurting the industry and you are prepared if the re-title thing falls apart.

The above is not easy, I know. I find it especially hard for me because I'm not very prolific and use outside production services (somewhat my choice... I know, my friend )... Those things make me want to work the sh*t out of a few tracks as opposed to sign 'em, write more, sign 'em, write more... So, I admit I struggle with this.

The main point I want to make here is the decision whether to put tracks in multiple re-title libraries is not just about ourselves. It has impact on everyone. I’m seeing that more and more now.

Casey

[mazz]

I think, Casey, that there will always be a market for mediocre inexpensive music, and that there will be a constant supply of composers that will be totally satisfied to fulfill that market (not calling anyone out specifically by saying that, just to be clear!!). Ultimately that doesn't interest me, but I don't diss anyone who wants to service that market, I just can't personally feel good about aiming for that bar. There's always going to be a need for a dollar store in some neighborhoods, but I'm not going to shop there or provide goods for it myself.

In a customer driven business, like the production library business, it's important to stay in tune with what the customers are demanding and at the same time try to offer some value to them to entice them to pay more for what is on offer. The creative challenge in all of this for the composer is: "how do I create greater perceived value in a product that is already so pervasive and undervalued?". At that point, if a composer is already composing at a high level, the value that is generated really becomes extra-musical to such things as: custom composing, speed of delivery, consistent quality, easy to work with, and so forth. There is a glut of perfectly serviceable music in the world, but I guarantee you that the libraries are always on the lookout for something new and distinctive that they can offer their clients and they know what that is, because they are in constant contact with them, and at the highest levels of the business, quality still matters, A LOT!

I'm enjoying this thread, let's keep it rolling! The more minds on this, the better!!

Mazz

[Casey H]

I certainly can't pontificate since I had and in some cases still have songs in multiple re-title libraries. But I'm gradually fixing that and/or getting it down to a minimum.

But it's interesting how we (myself included) can be part of the problem...

The barrier to entry as far as starting a new music library has never been smaller. Putting up a website, creating a searchable database of songs, sending out hard drives with music, etc is relatively cheap and easy. For a new library to get started, it of course needs a catalog. To get a catalog, the library puts the word out that artists can enter a non-exclusive deal with them. Artists, figure "what the heck?, I may as well put my tracks in there too."

And boom, the new library is off and running, sending music to the same end users as all the others. So, the sheer number of tracks the music supervisors get is enormous, even before considering duplicates. It increases the commodization factor. "Music tracks are like streetcars, there will be another one along any minute", so to speak.

It can be our own desparation to get a track placed on TV that is the enemy. With a stroke of the pen, we can put our tracks in another "no-risk" library, hoping to hedge our bets. Been there, done that... And you know what? You MIGHT get a placement because you did this. But in the process, you could have put another nail in the coffin of the future- both for you and others.

Human nature can short-term, selfish. I'm human and can't claim to be above this all. So as I started with, I can't pontificate but explain my thoughts on what's going on and how what we do impacts the industry. And start to consider the broader view...

Casey

[guitaroboe]

Hey guys,
personally I'd rather write high bar music and hopefully get in the exclusives than throw it
wherever the wind blows. I'm rather new to the game but still. I can wait...
Adonis

[guscave]

I certainly can't pontificate since I had and in some cases still have songs in multiple re-title libraries. But I'm gradually fixing that and/or getting it down to a minimum.

But it's interesting how we (myself included) can be part of the problem...

The barrier to entry as far as starting a new music library has never been smaller. Putting up a website, creating a searchable database of songs, sending out hard drives with music, etc is relatively cheap and easy. For a new library to get started, it of course needs a catalog. To get a catalog, the library puts the word out that artists can enter a non-exclusive deal with them. Artists, figure "what the heck?, I may as well put my tracks in there too."

And boom, the new library is off and running, sending music to the same end users as all the others. So, the sheer number of tracks the music supervisors get is enormous, even before considering duplicates. It increases the commodization factor. "Music tracks are like streetcars, there will be another one along any minute", so to speak.

It can be our own desparation to get a track placed on TV that is the enemy. With a stroke of the pen, we can put our tracks in another "no-risk" library, hoping to hedge our bets. Been there, done that... And you know what? You MIGHT get a placement because you did this. But in the process, you could have put another nail in the coffin of the future- both for you and others.

Human nature can short-term, selfish. I'm human and can't claim to be above this all. So as I started with, I can't pontificate but explain my thoughts on what's going on and how what we do impacts the industry. And start to consider the broader view...

Casey

Hey Casey,
You & I are kind of in the same boat. I too had songs duplicated into several different libraries prior to knowing what we know now. Luckily some of them allow me to remove my songs easily.

As you said, desperation is a big factor in getting writers to submit the same song to as many libraries as possible. Another incentive is seeing writers who are actually making a living by using this practice. I know of several writers making high 5 figure incomes and have 400 or 500 tracks duplicated all over the place.

I agree that today a lot of the new libraries are using the non-exclusive deals to build up their catalog and composers have taken advantage of it, but that's not what it was intended for. From what I remember, non-exclusive deals with libraries were originally set up so Artists could continue to sell their music on their own website and concert, etc. not to deluge the market.

So yes, we share most of the blame and it's up to each one of us to decide weather to keep heading in the same direction or change it.

[matto]

Another incentive is seeing writers who are actually making a living by using this practice. I know of several writers making high 5 figure incomes and have 400 or 500 tracks duplicated all over the place.

Are you talking 500 discrete tracks duplicated into, say 2500 titles, or 500 titles (duplicated from, say 100 discrete tracks)?

[guscave]

Another incentive is seeing writers who are actually making a living by using this practice. I know of several writers making high 5 figure incomes and have 400 or 500 tracks duplicated all over the place.

Are you talking 500 discrete tracks duplicated into, say 2500 titles, or 500 titles (duplicated from, say 100 discrete tracks)?

My understanding is that they have about 500 titles (100+ songs edited into 2 or 3 shorter cues). A