The way I wish Taxi would operate ...

[chaoticfractal]

Having been here a while, here is how I wish Taxi would operate.

I don't mind charging per submission.

But I think at $5 per submission, we should have an opportunity to potentially revise a track at least once and repitch to same session.

Like other sync places, maybe have an A-B-C grading system. "A" goes through. "B" has potential with minor revision. "C" is a miss. At $5, I would think having an opportunity to revise a track that wasn't a major miss should be an option.

I've always heard they charged per pitch to keep people from freely turning in junk. Makes sense. But to me, $1 or $2 would be enough for that.

So charge $2 for an "as-is" one-shot pitch (like currently).

And a $5 "advanced pitch" which would allow a revision re-pitch if close.

I've had several submission where they say "oh, you were so close to being forwarded". Now I don't want to be forwarded and not deserve it. So why not give me directions with another shot to nail it?

[Kolstad]

Nah, only submit finished music. If it needs "polish" ect, you have to work that into your own creative process, before submitting.

I don't want to pay for more talk, feedback, grading ect. I can compare my tracks with what was actually forwarded for each listing, and most often, that is where the "ahaaa" comes - not from the written feedback/grading. The proof is in the pudding.

Do you carefully examine the forwarded blog? https://blog.taxi.com/forward/

[Casey H]

People have suggested this before and it's just plain not practical. Kolstad said it well.

[Cameloide]

I agree. They should come up with a way to make this happen, if they want to stay alive. Mix revisions in general aren't practical either, especially in the analog days, but engineers found ways to make it work, and now it's easier than it's ever been. Maybe in the early days taxi's current method was enough, before the internet was what it is and getting material to music supervisors, publishers, libraries, etc. was hard/nigh impossible to figure out for people with no connections and who didn't live in the few musical hub cities. But with growing competition, it's probably time they re-evaluate and consider the ole "value added" idea and implement some changes like you're suggesting.

The main differences between submitting to a taxi listing and going directly to a library is that you get a little feedback from taxi (which half the time might be valuable), but you also have to make it past 2 sets of screeners with different tastes and what not. Seems to me that developing the talent that is closest to producing stuff on the level the industry needs would be a good way to ensure that what they send for the briefs is of the highest value to their customers (music supervisors, etc.).

Maybe on briefs that don't need to be expedited they could have an early deadline, maybe 7 days before the final deadline with a chance for a revision if the submission is really close.

A real world example...We submitted 2 Americana songs of about equal production/songwriting value. One got forwarded and signed by a library, the other one got returned and the feedback said something about "lose that heavy flickering, droning sound..." I thought maybe he was talking about the pedal steel type guitar. The drummer thought he was referring to what he was riding on...we were confused. By then the song had already been signed going directly to another sync agency. Anyways, come to find out the mp3 we had loaded for the taxi submission had a terribly obvious glitch in it, like a constant buzzsaw in the background from an off-line bounce (i was rushed for time and got it submitted with 1 minute to go). It was virtually un-listenable. Still they managed to make the feedback confusing (therefore less helpful) when all that needed to be said was "Something went wrong with the mix or the upload." I could have fixed it and re-uploaded it in 10 minutes, and they could've forwarded another song with obvious sync potential, considering it got signed by a sync agency on the 1st pitch. Instead, they managed to keep me and the drummer up half the night tossing & turning wondering about our musical and life choices, lol.

[AlanHall]

I've had several submission where they say "oh, you were so close to being forwarded". Now I don't want to be forwarded and not deserve it. So why not give me directions with another shot to nail it?

You make it sound as if there will never be another listing similar to the one you pitched at.
1. You do get directions
2. There will always be another listing to shoot for
3. if you want to save the second $5, offer it directly to the libraries you have contact with. After all, you've been given advice on how to improve, and you did improve. And the library will be impressed that you have more cues similar to the one they contacted you about.

[cosmicdolphin]

It would be a completely unworkable mess if you could keep amending the track for re-screening - The whole process would just drag on an on

It should always be a straight yes/no to keep things clean and simple

[Casey H]

First, I do understand why people feel this way but as has been said, not workable. BTW, we submit tracks to libraries all the time and only get yes or no, with no explanation. Same if you submit to music sups, etc. We have to get used to a yes or no world to be in this game. With one of the popular Taxi-friendly libraries, you submit, wait 2 (sometimes 3) months, and then get yes or no. You have no idea why and never will.

I've been a Taxi member for 2 decades (a few years off in there). I've been on this forum since it started around 2004. Well meaning people are always telling Taxi how to change their business model. It's easy when you are on our side of the fence and our livelihoods don't depend on the company's success. There probably isn't a business model change suggestion in the universe that Michael hasn't heard since the start.

The other thing everyone has to keep in mind (I used to lose sight of this) is any ONE listing is not as important as you might think a that moment. Remember, you may or may not get the forward, the client may or may not be interested in the song, it could get signed to a library and never make a penny, etc, etc. It is almost unheard of that one listing makes or breaks anything. (Not impossible, of course). The truth is you need numbers, a lot of quality tracks being pitched as much as possible through Taxi and any other way you can.

The good news is you do get some info as to why the screener returned a song. You may not agree. That's OK. But it's info. Look for patterns where multiple sources (qualified) give you similar feedback.

Best
Casey

[admin]

While I think one of the main reasons TAXI has thrived for 29 years is that we always look at what we do/offer from our members' perspective, when considering this issue, members would have to spend a week in our shoes to understand why it's incredibly impractical.

We couldn't even think about doing it for listings with pressing needs and shorter deadlines. ("Why can't you offer it for this listing when you offer it for others?") How many times a day do you think we'd have to answer that question?

We would have to add at least a week into every deadline's timeline. As it stands now, there are 16 steps (if memory serves) that each listing goes through from first contact, to follow up on music delivered. The complexity of the behind-the-scenes system that members never see is beyond the scope of what most people could imagine. We've spent at least $100,000 and countless hours in the last 18 months) on programming/tweaking/testing/improving the back-end of the listing component of our website and work flow.

Just some of the steps that come to mind as I write this are:
New listing company vetting/music request ingestion/listing writing/reference research/reference check and verification/3 steps of proofing/listing emails send to members/submission tracking/work load projection and timeline back-out/screener scheduling/delivery timeline monitoring and adherence/actual screening/QC on feedback/QA and QC on forwards/delivery to clients/member forward-return notification/screener feedback analysis, grading, tracking, and post-screening mentoring/member question & complaint response system, etc.

Programming for RE-submissions would be a nightmare:
Do we give that chance to EVERY submission that would be returned? Imagine if the listing got 213 submissions and 187 were returned. How many people do you think would hit the second deadline?

If we don't give a second chance to ALL returns, who decides which ones, and how do we take care of members who aren't happy they didn't get a second shot?

We would have to do these steps AGAIN:
Submission tracking/work load projection and timeline back-out/screener scheduling/delivery timeline monitoring and adherence/actual screening/QC on feedback/QA and QC on forwards/delivery to clients/member forward-return notification/screener feedback analysis, grading, tracking, and post-screening mentoring/member question & complaint response system, etc.

Who would pay the screeners for the second listen/screening?

What if it they re-submitted and didn't get forwarded a second time??? Just the time and cost of the customer service aspect of that would be a very real expense.

I could come up with many more of these, but I need to get to work!!

The thing you can't program for is the nature of human beings. If we let members know they had an opportunity to fix and re-submit, these are some of the things we'd hear:
Can I have an extra day or two to fix it?

Can I have an extra week because I'm waiting for my new monitors to arrive from Sweetwater?

Can I have an extra week because my vocalist isn't available? How many phone calls and emails do you think we'd get?

I didn't see the email letting me know I had a chance to fix it. (Members only open 26% of the emails we send them).

The email went to spam, so I didn't see it. Can I have an extra week?

I fixed the mix, but it STILL didn't get forwarded. (Yeah, but the vocal is still pitchy)

This list could go on endlessly. It's the "my dog ate my homework" paradigm. We know it well

As to charging only $1 or $2 per submission. Yep, and I'd like BMW to only charge $16,000 for a new 540i. Developing pricing models that work for all parties is incredibly complex.

There is much more to consider than a "wish." While I wish we could solve this situation for you, we've looked at it for 29 years, and through many generations of staff and consultants.

And then there's the sports analogy: Can we play that last inning over again because we didn't like the outcome and feel like we could do it better if we had a second chance?

There will be other innings and other games.

Hope this helps,
Michael

[2lane]

While I think one of the main reasons TAXI has thrived for 29 years is that we always look at what we do/offer from our members' perspective, when considering this issue, members would have to spend a week in our shoes to understand why it's incredibly impractical.

We couldn't even think about doing it for listings with pressing needs and shorter deadlines. ("Why can't you offer it for this listing when you offer it for others?") How many times a day do you think we'd have to answer that question?

We would have to add at least a week into every deadline's timeline. As it stands now, there are 16 steps (if memory serves) that each listing goes through from first contact, to follow up on music delivered. The complexity of the behind-the-scenes system that members never see is beyond the scope of what most people could imagine. We've spent at least $100,000 and countless hours in the last 18 months) on programming/tweaking/testing/improving the back-end of the listing component of our website and work flow.

Just some of the steps that come to mind as I write this are:
New listing company vetting/music request ingestion/listing writing/reference research/reference check and verification/3 steps of proofing/listing emails send to members/submission tracking/work load projection and timeline back-out/screener scheduling/delivery timeline monitoring and adherence/actual screening/QC on feedback/QA and QC on forwards/delivery to clients/member forward-return notification/screener feedback analysis, grading, tracking, and post-screening mentoring/member question & complaint response system, etc.

Programming for RE-submissions would be a nightmare:
Do we give that chance to EVERY submission that would be returned? Imagine if the listing got 213 submissions and 187 were returned. How many people do you think would hit the second deadline?

If we don't give a second chance to ALL returns, who decides which ones, and how do we take care of members who aren't happy they didn't get a second shot?

We would have to do these steps AGAIN:
Submission tracking/work load projection and timeline back-out/screener scheduling/delivery timeline monitoring and adherence/actual screening/QC on feedback/QA and QC on forwards/delivery to clients/member forward-return notification/screener feedback analysis, grading, tracking, and post-screening mentoring/member question & complaint response system, etc.

Who would pay the screeners for the second listen/screening?

What if it they re-submitted and didn't get forwarded a second time??? Just the time and cost of the customer service aspect of that would be a very real expense.

I could come up with many more of these, but I need to get to work!!

The thing you can't program for is the nature of human beings. If we let members know they had an opportunity to fix and re-submit, these are some of the things we'd hear:
Can I have an extra day or two to fix it?

Can I have an extra week because I'm waiting for my new monitors to arrive from Sweetwater?

Can I have an extra week because my vocalist isn't available? How many phone calls and emails do you think we'd get?

I didn't see the email letting me know I had a chance to fix it. (Members only open 26% of the emails we send them).

The email went to spam, so I didn't see it. Can I have an extra week?

I fixed the mix, but it STILL didn't get forwarded. (Yeah, but the vocal is still pitchy)

This list could go on endlessly. It's the "my dog ate my homework" paradigm. We know it well

As to charging only $1 or $2 per submission. Yep, and I'd like BMW to only charge $16,000 for a new 540i. Developing pricing models that work for all parties is incredibly complex.

There is much more to consider than a "wish." While I wish we could solve this situation for you, we've looked at it for 29 years, and through many generations of staff and consultants.

And then there's the sports analogy: Can we play that last inning over again because we didn't like the outcome and feel like we could do it better if we had a second chance?

There will be other innings and other games.

Hope this helps,
Michael

Rubbish!
The main reason you have survived so long is the membership fees.
Not saying you don't work for the best writers, but you would surely fail if you had to survive on just submission fees, or strictly the successes of those forwards.

[irthlingz]

The main reason you have survived so long is the membership fees.

Well, yeah, but the membership fees wouldn't keep rolling in if what TAXI does/offers didn't continue to work for the members.