giving your song to a big corporate for fweeee?

[andygabrys]

After trying several different songs, in the end
they used a new SoundGarden song and the band gave it away for free to promote their new album.

Obvioulsy SoundGarden can sell records without having their songs in TV shows, especially for free,
but it just goes to show how far even established bands will go to get their music out there.

this is just my perspective, but I think the issue here is that people who already know Soundgarden are in their 30s and 40s. Since Superunknown and albums of that era, there has been not much going on with the group. Yeah, there was the Audioslave deal, and Chris's solo stuff including the Bond song etc. but for the group?....

so although they don't need the $$$ from the placement, they are benefitting from having their name refreshed for a current generation of TV viewers, to add to the older legions of existing fans.

In the other case of Stephen's music and the ad - works both ways doesn't it?

Sure you could benefit from the "exposure"

But in the grand scheme of an ad budget, a sync / master use license fee of even $10k represents a pretty insignificant part of the total cost - its probably less than 10% i would imagine. Especially when the song is already done - there is no additional music production cost.

no one really wins in the race to the bottom.

The only way that this could possibly pay of in $$$ (ignoring exposure) is in Royalties from play on TV.

and considering exposure: Quoting Michael11 "I can’t count the number of times,particularly recently,that I have heard an artist on TV and googled their names or gone straight to YouTube and discovered a fantastic new talent."

that's part of the problem. Instead of going to iTunes and paying for the song, we go to Youtube, or maybe Spotify or Rhapsody - all of which have been linked to negligible artist royalties for those not on Major Labels.

I suppose you could argue that this brings visibility to the artist (even if there is no $$) and you might go to see them if they are playing in your town. that works if you live in a bigger center.

anyways........

[michael11]

After trying several different songs, in the end
they used a new SoundGarden song and the band gave it away for free to promote their new album.

Obvioulsy SoundGarden can sell records without having their songs in TV shows, especially for free,
but it just goes to show how far even established bands will go to get their music out there.

this is just my perspective, but I think the issue here is that people who already know Soundgarden are in their 30s and 40s. Since Superunknown and albums of that era, there has been not much going on with the group. Yeah, there was the Audioslave deal, and Chris's solo stuff including the Bond song etc. but for the group?....

so although they don't need the $$$ from the placement, they are benefitting from having their name refreshed for a current generation of TV viewers, to add to the older legions of existing fans.

In the other case of Stephen's music and the ad - works both ways doesn't it?

Sure you could benefit from the "exposure"

But in the grand scheme of an ad budget, a sync / master use license fee of even $10k represents a pretty insignificant part of the total cost - its probably less than 10% i would imagine. Especially when the song is already done - there is no additional music production cost.

no one really wins in the race to the bottom.

The only way that this could possibly pay of in $$$ (ignoring exposure) is in Royalties from play on TV.

and considering exposure: Quoting Michael11 "I can’t count the number of times,particularly recently,that I have heard an artist on TV and googled their names or gone straight to YouTube and discovered a fantastic new talent."

that's part of the problem. Instead of going to iTunes and paying for the song, we go to Youtube, or maybe Spotify or Rhapsody - all of which have been linked to negligible artist royalties for those not on Major Labels.

I suppose you could argue that this brings visibility to the artist (even if there is no $$) and you might go to see them if they are playing in your town. that works if you live in a bigger center.

anyways........

Hi Andy,

Great post,

I just want to clarify,google and youtube are for identification purposes, after that I will go to Amazon, usually, or iTunes or sometimes the artist’s own website and buy the track/tracks

[coachdebra]

Here's my question - was it for free as far as the sync fee? Because if you are with a PRO, you'll get paid every time the commercial is aired, won't you?

And only give it for free if you are SET UP to take advantage of the exposure:

1) your website is built and SEOed and has the opportunity to sign up for your mailing list to receive a free mp3 download
2) The song is up on YouTube and you add the name of the product in the keywords and a link to your website with the invite to sign up for your mailing list...
3) The song is up on spotify, itunes, and amazon for download and play
4) You have your Facebook page and twitter feed active and you're working it there.

Otherwise, your exposure will do nothing for you.

(oops fixed all the typos, I was having some trouble with my computer yesterday and just typing faster than was registering on the screen!)

[Russell Landwehr]

I am not discounting the benefits an artist can get from exposure on TV in a show. What Stephen is talking about here is a song in an advertisement. I know in some TV spots the "featured" artist or band is named in a subtitle in the commercial. Sure, then you've got exposure and folks can google you and buy your album or download your songs from iTunes. But like Coachdebra says, you gotta be set up.
In Robin Frederick's presentation at the Rally she mentioned that the "big names" that license their stuff for TV can expect to get a big push to their retail and concert revenue and so "might" put it out there for the back end only. Robin was talking about TV Cues at that point, not advertisements. How many artists and/or bands have we "discovered" through hearing them on a TV commercial for something else?

Now all that being said. If you have a "product" ready to go that is easily accessible to the viewer of the commercial who happens to be your targeted consumer, and something in that commercial points them to you or your product, then by all means, put the song in the TV spot for free. At that point what you've done is bartered services with the advertiser. Otherwise (in my opinion) what you've done is allowed the corporate giants to benefit from your material without recompense.

As to the other thing Coachdebra brought up, is there back end royalties on advertisements? I thought there wasn't. Even if there is, advertisements don't really run that long.

Good topic.

rl

[cardell]

The person who asked me to do it just got downright angry and hung up the phone when I asked how much I was getting paid as if that is some sort of crime.

Wow, that person is immature.

Stuart

[andygabrys]

back end on ads?

In the US there sure is. Its probably different in every country, but yes, you definitely get back end on ads.

how long an ad runs is totally variable depending on the advertiser itself. Sometimes you might sign to have a piece of music used for 2 years, but depending on market response, they might pull the ad after a couple months. In that case its really nice to make some upfront right?

You could probably make a guess at about $500 +/- per month of run time, per side of ownership (i.e. you would get double if you retain the publishing and writers on the piece of music). there are other variables that make this nothing more than a very ballpark number - size of advertiser, major market vs. regional, whether there are any recuts, time of day that is run etc - all have a bearing on this.


TechNoiz had an interesting point: "Foster the People last year. Their music was part of the national 02 ad campaign for a few months, swiftly followed by press and magazine coverage, Radio One sessions and then big billing at the slurry of summer festivals. Band broken. I reckon their UK management would have paid for that ad spot if necessary as it softened the market for the inevitable big push."

Mark Foster actually makes ad music anyways - read this - http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... nd-jingles

so I don't think its accurate to think that anyone would have done "Payola" to get him in that spot.

I think its quite the opposite, he works with a firm that does the kind of ads that Robert Miltenberg spoke of in his session at the 2012 Rally - the ones that pay.

again, my 2 cents.

[michael11]

Ellie Goulding


Jake Bugg


Amy Macdonald

These are three artists that have been brought to my attention through TV adds in the past 12 months there are probably half a dozen more that I can’t call to mind at the moment.

I think TechNoiZ had it right in his post.

We are talking about two entirely separate entities, or countries to be more accurate.



Anyway,I'm out!!!!

[andygabrys]

hey Michael,

I guess it depends on whether or not they paid or were paid to get their music in the ads.

no doubt they have success, but was it a case of the Agency saying "hey, we love your music and we can't pay you, but here's some exposure?"

or was it a savvy producer or music super at an Ad Agency who had their ear to the ground, and new that they had something special? And did the "right thing" and offered up a reasonable sum for the use of the music?

again - not trying to be "right" on this - I agree that exposure can work. the Apple ad with Feist's "1,2,3,4" probably broke her career open to, but I imagine she got paid.

[matto]

It would be HIGHLY unlikely that Foster The People were not paid a license fee for the ad TechNoiZ mentions. *Especially* since Mark Foster worked as a staff composer at a major commercial music house before hitting it big with his band...so he would've been well aware of that section of the music industry.
The other artists mentioned by Mick would likely have been paid as well...

[TechNoiZ]

A very interesting thread ....

My point was really a general one - giving your music for free is not necessarily symptomatic of a race to the bottom. The UK music industry IS a different beast to that in the USA. It is a very small territory and the major players are tightly woven into the fabric of the radio, tv and printed media.

See this article for some insight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/no ... er-of-love