Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive

[CHuckmott]

CAn I ask why an exclusive library woud want to retitle? Or did I miss that here?

[markjsmith]

It might have been covered already but there are a few reasons. They are mostly internal to the library, similar title already exists in the library, some libraries will add a short prefix to the title to designate the library (I know exclusives and non-exclusives that do this-still technically a re-title).
I know of an exclusive library that does a different prefix for each show they market to.
I think libraries are actually smart do add some sort of prefix, as many titles are pretty generic. How many cues out there are called "Tense Situation"?
Also many register their cues with a PRO with their own publishing company having the intention of marketing it themselves, but change plans and go with a library instead.
I don't think re-titling is a real problem in this industry as much as the people who sign the same track to 20 different libraries. I think that will change to some degree with a lot of libraries changing to the exclusive business model.

[CHuckmott]

So given this, when you are looking to sign music into libraries, you generally want to avoid signing on with nonexclusive libraries that retitle. Exclusive libraries may have their own reasons for retitling that have nothing to do with wanting to retitle your track 50 times and send it out to the highest (and/or lowest) bidder?

[Casey H]

So given this, when you are looking to sign music into libraries, you generally want to avoid signing on with nonexclusive libraries that retitle. Exclusive libraries may have their own reasons for retitling that have nothing to do with wanting to retitle your track 50 times and send it out to the highest (and/or lowest) bidder?

No, not so... I didn't read all of this thread so I'm not sure where that conclusion came from.

MANY (probably MOST) non-exclusive re-title libraries are solid, reputable ones making lots of placements for composers. And they generally re-title your track ONE time to differentiate their placements/uses from anyone elses for purposes of PRO royalties.

The only issue is whether or not to place the same track in multiple non-exclusive libraries. Many advise against that, suggesting you treat every library deal for a given track(s) as exclusive, regardless of whether the library is exclusive or non-exclusive. This is a decision each person has to make based on understanding the pros and cons and what makes sense for their particular situation.

Casey

[markjsmith]

+1 Casey!

[CHuckmott]

I follow thanks. Working on placing a few select tracks and going from there. Thanks.

[DesireInspires]

This is good advice!

[slideboardouts]

It might have been covered already but there are a few reasons. They are mostly internal to the library, similar title already exists in the library, some libraries will add a short prefix to the title to designate the library (I know exclusives and non-exclusives that do this-still technically a re-title).
I know of an exclusive library that does a different prefix for each show they market to.
I think libraries are actually smart do add some sort of prefix, as many titles are pretty generic. How many cues out there are called "Tense Situation"?
Also many register their cues with a PRO with their own publishing company having the intention of marketing it themselves, but change plans and go with a library instead.
I don't think re-titling is a real problem in this industry as much as the people who sign the same track to 20 different libraries. I think that will change to some degree with a lot of libraries changing to the exclusive business model.

Lets not forget re-titling so that they can give production companies a kick back on the publishing as well as re-titling so that they can put their entire library (or at least a portion of it) in another non-exclusive library via a "distribution" deal. Yeah, its OK for the library to re-title so that they can make an extra buck but you lowly composers better not dare do that exact same thing lol. Give me a break

It never ceases to amaze me how the exclusive libraries or non-ex libraries starting exclusive collections send out emails about how composers need to "go exclusive" because thats the way the industry is going and then they turn right around and re-title for other entities to use their collections. And they mostly do gratis deals with cable networks that any non-excusive library or even a somewhat well connected COMPOSER can get. Unbelievable. And then the REAL exclusive library that I write for that pays an upfront advance and will pull in $10,000 plus in sync fees on just a few licenses doesn't say a damn thing about this whole non-ex vs exclusive thing. Hmmmm....

-Steve

[DesireInspires]

Lets not forget re-titling so that they can give production companies a kick back on the publishing as well as re-titling so that they can put their entire library (or at least a portion of it) in another non-exclusive library via a "distribution" deal. Yeah, its OK for the library to re-title so that they can make an extra buck but you lowly composers better not dare do that exact same thing lol. Give me a break

It never ceases to amaze me how the exclusive libraries or non-ex libraries starting exclusive collections send out emails about how composers need to "go exclusive" because thats the way the industry is going and then they turn right around and re-title for other entities to use their collections. And they mostly do gratis deals with cable networks that any non-excusive library or even a somewhat well connected COMPOSER can get. Unbelievable. And then the REAL exclusive library that I write for that pays an upfront advance and will pull in $10,000 plus in sync fees on just a few licenses doesn't say a damn thing about this whole non-ex vs exclusive thing. Hmmmm....

-Steve

Ha ha ha! I totally feel where you are coming from!

I have seen exclusive music publishers distribute their music on non-exclusive retitle sites. It actually happens all of the time. I believe the reason that this is done is because the non-exclusive retitle sites have great connections and large catalogs. They have the relationships and the leverage to make things happen.

I used to get angry and frustrated about the contradictory practices I have seen. I now realize that this is business. Things happen because it makes financial sense. The best way for composers to deal with these challenges is to learn the business and monetize their product.

I can honestly say that I have never signed a bad deal. Even the deals where I signed the copyright away for free were beneficial. I was forced to learn more about how music publishing and PROs operated. There are lessons to be learned that are not in books.

[CHuckmott]

For the guys who are doing the "treat every library as exclusive" thing, can I ask how many you guys juggle and what is your system for supplying them with new music? Although I am a fan of scrapping a track that isn't working, are we selective about what we submit or if we write a track, feel o.k. but not great about it, and pitch it anyway? FOrme as I step up my writing , if I were to be honest and probably not completely objective, maybe one in five in my opinion are standouts. I know that's a touchy question so if you feel better about PM ing me on that, feel free. I strated typing the following before I had a chance to review this thread and read the whole thing, but coudn't seem to find answers to the questions below:

Actually thinking about going this route, treating submissions from this point forward as exclusive, although I plan on signing at least for now to nonexclusive libraries in case the library or my tracks "underperform". It IS difficult getting into some of the bigger name (re: exclusive) libraries forcing thosr of us fairly new to submitting to libraries to go with startups or those with smaller catalogues who are trying to build their business. That said, with those the waters are untested and I would have a problem signing an exclusive deal with them. However for example, one that I was fortunate enough to be accepted to who recently sent out a request for specific cues for a specific pitch, I signed their exclusive contract for (my suggestion, in the interest of building up that relationship). I can say also working this way really simplifies the process - no more having to bounce 8 different stems, i.e. in 8 different formats to upload to 8 different libraries, so I am becoming more of a fan of this way of thinking for a variety of reasons Knowing what I know from reding this thread, I don't feel right writing for a specific request and shotgunning it all over knowing it is pitched for a specific purpose. On the other hand, if it is picked up for TV use, it is for a specific purpose.

Are you finding that you are not having an issue when you approach new "exclusive" libraries that you are waiting weeks/months/ up to a year for your tracks to get reviewed for inclusion?FOr you more experiened folks would that be a red flag for you? Or simply a reflection of the huge amount of composers (regardless of their level) piyching to these libraries?

FOr the record, all my taxt pitched music are for Taxi's ears only until they get returned. Which brings up another questionL what is a safe waiting period for Taxi tracks that got forwardd but you have yet to hear back ? Anyone have a system for that (big on systems here).