Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 16:29:05 GMT -6
I bet on people preferring the convenience of streaming on Spotify/Apple Music. The only thing I use Soundcloud for is private embeds to press, maybe once the release has been out for a few months I'll put a song on there. I also make sure that the Bandcamp extras are there as I make more money from there.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 10, 2016 16:43:15 GMT -6
wiz putting your music online and giving an interview and for the rest hopeing for the best - this is not a marketing strategy! I am a bit unfair I did study economics and I get inspiration and information by friends working for labels. I cant say if my strategy will work, in a few months I will have an answer.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 10, 2016 17:09:10 GMT -6
wiz putting your music online and giving an interview and for the rest hopeing for the best - this is not a marketing strategy! I am a bit unfair I did study economics and I get inspiration and information by friends working for labels. I cant say if my strategy will work, in a few months I will have an answer. Its probably a language difference.. but its hard not to take offence at this. You have no idea, what I do or have done.... so telling me what I do, is inherently wrong.. is poor form... But, you might be a marketing genius who has released many successful albums... I have been wrong before... Or, you might not. Wiz
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 10, 2016 18:36:05 GMT -6
wiz putting your music online and giving an interview and for the rest hopeing for the best - this is not a marketing strategy! I am a bit unfair I did study economics and I get inspiration and information by friends working for labels. I cant say if my strategy will work, in a few months I will have an answer. Its probably a language difference.. but its hard not to take offence at this. You have no idea, what I do or have done.... so telling me what I do, is inherently wrong.. is poor form... But, you might be a marketing genius who has released many successful albums... I have been wrong before... Or, you might not. Wiz You get my point wrong.... I do not said its wrong what you are doing.... I said your strategy must have the goal to reach more streams..... And I never said that I am genius I just try to react on a market that changed.... I am sorry that you think like this...
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 10, 2016 19:10:23 GMT -6
Its probably a language difference.. but its hard not to take offence at this. You have no idea, what I do or have done.... so telling me what I do, is inherently wrong.. is poor form... But, you might be a marketing genius who has released many successful albums... I have been wrong before... Or, you might not. Wiz You get my point wrong.... I do not said its wrong what you are doing.... I said your strategy must have the goal to reach more streams..... And I never said that I am genius I just try to react on a market that changed.... I am sorry that you think like this... Yeah - mrholmes , your comments raised my eyebrow too - But I understand it's hard enough when people from the same region use conversational language in written communication, much less people from different regions, and even more amazingly, people for whom English is not their native language. wiz, your response is very appropriate - and yet sensitive to likelihood that mrholmes did not mean to offend. I hope the two of you don't mind that I stepped in support of you both.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 10, 2016 19:26:21 GMT -6
no probs
lets move on
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 10, 2016 20:06:34 GMT -6
You get my point wrong.... I do not said its wrong what you are doing.... I said your strategy must have the goal to reach more streams..... And I never said that I am genius I just try to react on a market that changed.... I am sorry that you think like this... Yeah - mrholmes , your comments raised my eyebrow too - But I understand it's hard enough when people from the same region use conversational language in written communication, much less people from different regions, and even more amazingly, people for whom English is not their native language. wiz , your response is very appropriate - and yet sensitive to likelihood that mrholmes did not mean to offend. I hope the two of you don't mind that I stepped in support of you both. Why should I offend Wiz I love his music. I did try to show a diffrent perspective ....
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2016 13:34:12 GMT -6
John, why not put the songs on iTunes etc yourself and keep the publisher's share as well? It's more curiosity than anything. CDBaby gives me all the royalties, I just pay 50 up front. You can find my music everywhere on any streaming thing, and can choose to exclude who I want to exclude streaming company wise. Do you think you owe it to the publisher to make sure they continue wanting you to submit songs to them? Or is it simply ease of use and habit? I have a co-publishing deal, so I am legally required to pay my publisher their royalty. They own half of the publishing of everything I write...but in return, they pay me an advance...that they can recoup later...wait...what a shitty deal. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2016 13:40:59 GMT -6
I get what Mrholmes is saying...honestly, marketing is more important than the music if sales are the concern. That's the only reason to go with a major label anymore...I think it costs $40k a week to promote a single on the country charts...Crazy. No one likes or wants music until they're told they like it lol. Or it's shoved down their throat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 13:55:58 GMT -6
John, why not put the songs on iTunes etc yourself and keep the publisher's share as well? It's more curiosity than anything. CDBaby gives me all the royalties, I just pay 50 up front. You can find my music everywhere on any streaming thing, and can choose to exclude who I want to exclude streaming company wise. Do you think you owe it to the publisher to make sure they continue wanting you to submit songs to them? Or is it simply ease of use and habit? I have a co-publishing deal, so I am legally required to pay my publisher their royalty. They own half of the publishing of everything I write...but in return, they pay me an advance...that they can recoup later...wait...what a shitty deal. Sigh. So if the music makes more than their advance, you earn, otherwise you don't? Where do the earnings eventually come from. is it from artists licensing songs? Sorry to bombard you with questions just curious as how this stuff works. What about other people here, how do you earn?
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Aug 11, 2016 14:31:41 GMT -6
I get what Mrholmes is saying...honestly, marketing is more important than the music if sales are the concern. That's the only reason to go with a major label anymore...I think it costs $40k a week to promote a single on the country charts...Crazy. No one likes or wants music until they're told they like it lol. Or it's shoved down their throat. With the difference that marketing for Independent musicians is dirt cheap due to the invention named internet. How many of the indies have advertising budgets in their business plan? I guess not much of them / us.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 11, 2016 14:44:13 GMT -6
It's a nightmare. Here's a SHORT explanation.
There are three types of royalties: 1) Publishing/Print - Print royalties are generated from sheet music for writers or publishers only. These royalties are typically bundled with performance rights royalties. Since I have a co-pub deal, I would receive 50% of these...If the publisher owns the publishing and has administration rights, they own the song, you were just hired to write it for them. They can re-sell and make a profit on futures (at least there used to be value in selling catalogs.)
1) Performance - A performance-rights license allows music to be performed live or broadcast. These licenses typically come in the form of a "blanket license," which gives the licensee the right to play a particular PRO's entire collection in exchange for a set fee. Licenses for use of individual recordings are also available. All-talk radio stations, for example, wouldn't have the need for a blanket license to play the PRO's entire collection. The performance royalty is paid to the songwriter and publisher when a song is performed live or on the radio.
3) Mechanical - A mechanical license refers to permissions granted to mechanically reproduce music onto some type of media (e.g., cassette tape, CD, etc.) for public distribution. The music publisher grants permission for the musical composition to be reproduced. The mechanical royalty is paid to the recording artist, songwriter, and publisher based on the number of recordings sold.
Most first-time contracts are set like this scenario:(although, they can be setup pretty much any way)
Publisher signs writer to a 100% publishing deal. Advances him a salary - lets just say $20,000. So, lets say at the end of his second year, the writer gets a big cut and it's on a million selling record. These are mechanical royalties. The publisher has now advanced the writer $40k. Songwriters get 9.25 cents per song that appears on a record. So, 9.25 x 1000000 = $92,500. Sounds good, right? Well, it was a co-written song, so half of $92.5k is $46,250. THEN, the publisher takes their 100% publishing portion of the song - which is another half. So - the writer is left with $23,125. But wait! There's more. The writer was advanced $40,000 - so the publisher recoups their advance leaving the writer $16,875 that they still owe to the publisher. (To be taken out the next time he gets a cut.) So - writer has a song on a million selling record and owes the publisher $17k. Now - the writer doesn't OWE this...if he is let go, he doesn't have to pay this back out of pocket - but all catalog they have goes towards paying back the "debt."
Lets say that same song gets on the radio and goes No.1. This is performance royalty. BMI, ASCAP and SESAC collect from radio, streaming, etc. But lets talk about radio. A No.1 in Country (pop pays substantially more) can generate anywhere from $400-1 million. Lets just say $1M. So - it was co-written - so now the pot is $500k. Then the publisher gets half for their publishing share of the performance - $250k. Leaving $250k. This is the only place writers get paid fairly. In MOST contracts, (fair contracts) the publisher can't recoup on performance royalties...(although more and more are trying to add that in)...So the writer gets all of that. (Remember the publisher got their $250k too) NONE of the publisher's publishing share goes toward recoupment. So, while The writer made $250k for a No.1 (How many No.1s do most writers have in a lifetime?), he still is $17k in the hole on the balance sheet. So, when the writer goes to renegotiate their contract the publisher has leverage saying, "Well, you're $17,000 in the hole...we can't give you any kind of raise..." It's a fucking racket.
So it's really simple. Only write singles. Only have them go Top 10. Live on a $5000 a year advance...Do all that and you're golden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 15:23:32 GMT -6
True, mrholmes, marketing is at least cheaper than in the 80's and 90's. Everyone has a device to enter the net, watch things on youtube, get viral things via social networks etc.. And getting a kind of famous sometimes does not need a budget and not even a management, if you have the rare luck to land a viral video, which generates a demand for commercial products of the artist. This actually can happen due to totally unforseeable circumstances. Somebody links your YT video in a big facebook group from where it can raise huge interest and gets shared exponentially. It's fascinating, and yes, i saw an artist who plays at the fleamarket on the street, who barely got a few clicks on his videos, whom i saw shortly afterwards going viral with a short funny clip, generating 10,000s of clicks on youtube from one day to the other on his videos, free publicity due to beeing featured on gawker etc..... Ways simply impossible decades ago. Facebook ghetto marketing became popular among young artists here a while ago. (Essentially spamming FB groups with music interest, local groups etc., groups with thousands of subscribers)
Giving away streams for free is something everybody should seriously reconsider, who wants to earn money nowadays. Streams will be the media of the future. If you give away your music for free in even half decent quality, most people most probably see no reason to buy anything, may it be downloadable mp3s or aacs or streams or physical media. Let's face it, you have to be a fan to still buy then.
What i see a lot lately are so-called "trailers" of albums on YT. Bands or single artists presenting a part of a song or a crossfaded selection of the music, while showing pictures, videos, live videos, arts and the marketing information. It makes curious. Me. And others. If there's a buying link in the video description, i most probably will glimpse there, bandcamp, itunes, whatever, and think about just buying a song or the album out of curiosity. Yes, i already bought quite some music this way. I even watch this video trailer stuff to decide if i go to a local band's concert in case i don't know them already.
"Full quality" for paying customers while making lower q streams freely available may be more interesting for genres that go into the audiophile domain. Think of listening to an iphone with, ehm, beat(z)s inears. Or tiny (wireless) mobile speakers that look funny, are placed somewhere in the kitchen or living room. No demand for high quality if you listen to music like this exclusively. Let's face it. The majority of potential buyers don't give a shit about real sound quality. The mix must translate to really shitty devices nowadays.
Hm. Interesting but sad, the changing market....
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Aug 11, 2016 15:39:04 GMT -6
I think this is a large problem that most people don't even notice, because they don't visit the desktop version of youtube anymore:
in the description you'll find:
So, some publisher gave youtube their entire record collection, and then YouTube auto-generates videos of the song. I'm sure a lot of people aren't even aware that youtube does this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 16:47:37 GMT -6
Oh, wow. What the heck, what is the idea of the publisher behind doing this? Huh?
OK, the music example is a nice german broadcast big band, and people who listen to this kind of music are more likely to actually buy quality sound anyway, no matter if download or physical CD. It's just the way it is, jazz lovers have a.)most of the time more money to spend on culture/music than average b.)they are fans and proud of musical knowledge and most probably collectors c.)they are more likely to be audiophile. because they can afford it and are more obsessive than average. d.)it is considered "good taste" to hear this kind of music among intellectuals (or so-called ones), and of course having physical media to put into the Linn CD player.
OK, i exaggerated a tiny bit, don't take the list too serious, but you get the picture.
(Yes, i can laugh about myself when i get ironic. I had an expensive Linn CD player for many years. And listened to Miles Davis on vinyl with a Bang&Olufsen player, just like a real snob...) ;-)
Doing the same thing as a publisher for pop music would not make any sense to me...
|
|