Why the new “Exclusivity” craze is meaningless.

[matto]

I also think real estate agent and composer are not exactly comparable jobs...the real estate agent is arguably more akin to a publisher, and the composer to a home builder.
You as a real estate agent would not likely take it upon yourself to try to sell a lot of properties that are very difficult to sell because nobody is interested in buying them. And it's really the same thing for publishers/libraries.

As a composer, or a home builder, you would want to create a product that is commercially viable, well crafted/constructed, and represents "value". This type of product would appeal to the publisher, or real estate agent, because they know it will be in demand with the "buying public".

So it all starts with a solid product...it is the basis for everything. If the product is not where it needs to be quality wise, then the proper response is "back to the drawing board"...

[mikeymike2000]

Thanks, Matto.

This is an incredible new way (for me) to be looking at this equation. You just shifted my thinking with that one comment.

For that I will buy you a beverage in the lounge.

[mazz]

I think it's worth at least one beverage!

Looking forward to meeting you Mike!

[matto]

Thanks, Matto.

This is an incredible new way (for me) to be looking at this equation. You just shifted my thinking with that one comment.

For that I will buy you a beverage in the lounge.

Glad to help Mike! I will take you up on that offer!

[mikeymike2000]

You too, Mazz. I owe you a drink too for all the helpful tips you have put up.

[T&V Marino]

Hi Guys,

You all make great points, but we just wanted to get back to the original statement of "Why the new 'Exclusivity' craze is meaningless." That's not exactly true. It's not meaningless. And it's not a craze. It's important to know why it's meaningful and why it's here to stay.

There are many reasons network TV must use exclusive production music libraries or trusted, vetted, proven sources. Some non-exclusive libraries are able to exist -- and even be successful getting placements on network TV -- but that's because of their long-established relationships with the powers that be. If you want to know more, we'll be in the lobby lounge...

See you all in a few days!

~ Tracey & Vance Marino

[DesireInspires]

Hi Guys,

You all make great points, but we just wanted to get back to the original statement of "Why the new 'Exclusivity' craze is meaningless." That's not exactly true. It's not meaningless. And it's not a craze. It's important to know why it's meaningful and why it's here to stay.

Tell us more!

[Casey H]

Hi Guys,

You all make great points, but we just wanted to get back to the original statement of "Why the new 'Exclusivity' craze is meaningless." That's not exactly true. It's not meaningless. And it's not a craze. It's important to know why it's meaningful and why it's here to stay.

There are many reasons network TV must use exclusive production music libraries or trusted, vetted, proven sources. Some non-exclusive libraries are able to exist -- and even be successful getting placements on network TV -- but that's because of their long-established relationships with the powers that be. If you want to know more, we'll be in the lobby lounge...

See you all in a few days!

~ Tracey & Vance Marino

T&V... Congrats on your Community Service Award! This is one of the many, many reasons you deserve it so much!!

It is definitely wrong to call the trend back to exclusivity a "craze" and "meaningless". Read a lot of what's posted by very experienced & successful composers here... The info is all available.

We all make choices such as whether or not to put our tracks in multiple re-title libraries. We can choose, but it's important to know the pros, cons, benefits, and risks from a realistic perspective. One thing that definitely points out the trend is the fact that some of the same libraries that touted non-exclusivity (one such owner even wrote an article praising it), started exclusive catalogs because many of their clients demanded it.

What matters the most is to make educated choices.

Best,
Casey

[DesireInspires]

One thing that definitely points out the trend is the fact that some of the same libraries that touted non-exclusivity (one such owner even wrote an article praising it), started exclusive catalogs because many of their clients demanded it.

I read that article. That library sure did surprise me when they started an exclusive collection.

After I read that article, I would have never guessed in a million years that the same company would add exclusive tracks and then faze out non-exclusive music. That kind of gave me a bad impression of that library.

If a company basically writes a dissertation about why a business practice is good, I expect that company to stand by its word. Changing course just to keep up with others doesn't seem right. That just lets me know that companies are really only looking out for themselves. The composers that had music non-exclusively were put in an extremely tough spot. I believe that their trust in that company was hijacked.

I know other companies have switched from a non-exclusive model to an exclusive one. But when a company takes a hardcore stance for a business practice and then abandons that practice, I feel that the company doesn't have a clear direction. Change has to happen, but there has to be a limit on how much change should be performed. Companies like the one alluded to have just morphed their complete business model and have shut out a lot of great music. They have done this just to secure blanket licenses that only benefit the company and not the composers. That is saddening to me.

[crs7string]

One thing that definitely points out the trend is the fact that some of the same libraries that touted non-exclusivity (one such owner even wrote an article praising it), started exclusive catalogs because many of their clients demanded it.

I read that article. That library sure did surprise me when they started an exclusive collection.

After I read that article, I would have never guessed in a million years that the same company would add exclusive tracks and then faze out non-exclusive music. That kind of gave me a bad impression of that library.

If a company basically writes a dissertation about why a business practice is good, I expect that company to stand by its word. Changing course just to keep up with others doesn't seem right. That just lets me know that companies are really only looking out for themselves. The composers that had music non-exclusively were put in an extremely tough spot. I believe that their trust in that company was hijacked.

I know other companies have switched from a non-exclusive model to an exclusive one. But when a company takes a hardcore stance for a business practice and then abandons that practice, I feel that the company doesn't have a clear direction. Change has to happen, but there has to be a limit on how much change should be performed. Companies like the one alluded to have just morphed their complete business model and have shut out a lot of great music. They have done this just to secure blanket licenses that only benefit the company and not the composers. That is saddening to me.

I do business with this library. I continue to get placements from tracks signed on the non-exclusive side of the house. I am also signing tracks as a custom composer as exclusive deals.

A business (any business) needs to stay in tune with the marketplace and its customers. Your blanket indictments of them and their business model seems a little out of touch with the realities of running a business.

If, or when, everyone is required to drive an electric car would you accuse GM, Ford etc. of only looking out for themselves if they quit building and selling gas guzzling cars. Of course not.

I don't think there are any absolutes when it comes to the issue of exclusive vs. non-exclusive.
Throwing out an "opinion" as an absolute (especially cloaked in anonymity) does not resonate.

Chuck