# Music Publishing - Why it's not working for composers of today



## Walid F. (Dec 11, 2015)

Here's a very interesting video from Oliver Codd, a fellow trailer-music composer. What do you guys think of this?



While I agree on basically every point he's saying, I'm also wondering about the amount of work and stress that the publishers deal with. It would be very insightful to hear what publishers deal with and the amount of commitment they have in this - and if it even justifies a regular 50/50 deal with no upfront.

W.


----------



## Guffy (Dec 11, 2015)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## karelpsota (Dec 11, 2015)

Self-publishing is the way to go.


----------



## rgames (Dec 11, 2015)

I share the frustration but the solution is simple: if it's a bad deal, don't take the gig.

Then, when the publishers can't find any composers, they'll sweeten the deal.

That's how markets work. Supply and demand. I know that sounds harsh but it's the only way to deal with the problem.


----------



## timtom (Dec 11, 2015)

karelpsota said:


> Self-publishing is the way to go.


Good luck with that...


----------



## timtom (Dec 11, 2015)

rgames said:


> I share the frustration but the solution is simple: if it's a bad deal, don't take the gig.
> 
> Then, when the publishers can't find any composers, they'll sweeten the deal.
> 
> That's how markets work. Supply and demand. I know that sounds harsh but it's the only way to deal with the problem.



You 're right, in a perfect world this would work...sadly we live in a world where composers are undercuting/underpiching other composers up to the point where they even work for free to get the job/project and this is being used against us from (not just publishers) everybody up to production companies, studios, networks ect.

Even on contractual regular productions (TV Score's ect...) most of the studio's, networks and production companies force you to sign away a big portion of the publishing shares to them, even they don't do any publishing deal or work themselves...its just a way to get back money.

Every jung man with a computer who lives at home with his parents tries to get a feet into this business and does everything (incl. working for free) to get a job and therefore (without knowing/understanding the whole picture) is destroying the business.

All attempts to get some kind of regulation into this business never worked. I've seen (and still see) it on a daily basis where composers sit together and agree on not underpitching the price and all have a minimum price they will not undergo.....the moment you leave the negotiating table each of the composers is going under the price again up to even working for free to get the job....it's ridiculous. That's one of the reasons the business is where it is at the moment...doesn't matter if library business or regular contractual music production for tv, cinema ect...

I've see projects where the composer is paying quite a lot of money to actually work on a movie...
welcome to today's music production world! And it's the composer's own fault. Not good business people.

Let's be honest, if you have a store down the street where you get coca cola for free...will you still go to the supermarket and pay for it???

so much for supply and demand...


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 12, 2015)

The problem is market saturation. There is a ridiculous oversupply with "composers", because the technical obstacles of producing music disappeared, since anyone can accomplish decent results with a laptop from the supermarket and NI komplete (i.e. an investment of less than $1k).
Let's face it: In a saturated market, prices won't go up. No collective effort of the composers will suffice to accomplish anything to that end, no matter how unfair the deals are. Prices will only go up again, if for some miraculous reason a desaturation of the market would occur. Let's say: people start thinking "Damn, making music is just _really not cool_, I wanna become a professional snooker player" or something to that effect.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

rgames said:


> I share the frustration but the solution is simple: if it's a bad deal, don't take the gig.


Correct.



rgames said:


> Then, when the publishers can't find any composers, they'll sweeten the deal.


If Publishers only needed good music that would be the case, but as most clients can't tell the difference, and there is no shortage of bad composers, they'll just find someone else.



rgames said:


> That's how markets work. Supply and demand. I know that sounds harsh but it's the only way to deal with the problem.



Yes of course, but as the supply vastly outstrips the demand, it is no solution.

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Sebastianmu said:


> The problem is market saturation. There is a ridiculous oversupply with "composers", because the technical obstacles of producing music disappeared, since anyone can accomplish decent results with a laptop from the supermarket and NI komplete (i.e. an investment of less than $1k).


Actually that's not really true. They are not decent results. They are cr*p. It's just that most people can't tell the difference, and don't really care anyway.


Sebastianmu said:


> Let's face it: In a saturated market, prices won't go up. No collective effort of the composers will suffice to accomplish anything to that end, no matter how unfair the deals are. Prices will only go up again, if for some miraculous reason a desaturation of the market would occur. Let's say: people start thinking "Damn, making music is just _really not cool_, I wanna become a professional snooker player" or something to that effect.


Agreed, except that I would have stopped at "prices won't go up".

D


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> Actually that's not really true. They are not decent results. They are cr*p. It's just that most people can't tell the difference, and don't really care anyway.


Yes, I think that's the second half of the problem, actually. They might be cr*p, but so are the productions they are used for. The quality of the music matters for something like Star Wars, but it certainly doesn't matter for the newest episode of 'dating naked'.
The market for media music is peculiar, because the quality of the product is far less important than in other areas.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Sebastianmu said:


> Yes, I think that's the second half of the problem, actually. They might be cr*p, but so are the productions they are used for. The quality of the music matters for something like Star Wars, but it certainly doesn't matter for the newest episode of 'dating naked'.
> The market for media music is peculiar, because the quality of the product is far less important than in other areas.


Yes I agree emotionally, but in fact the music for block busters doesn't matter either, because most people can't tell the difference, and don't care about the music anyway. It may matter to us. It may even matter to the director and producer (not a given, no matter what they might say), but the general public doesn't care. As long as it is loud. 

D


----------



## Jaybee (Dec 12, 2015)

Speaking as someone who works professionally in the photography (stock) industry you could replace the word 'composer' in this thread with 'photographer' and it would equally apply as would the client attitudes to quality and price. 

Back in the 'good old days' to make a decent photograph on film (especially transparencies) you had to nail the exposure and lighting spot on, first time. There was no 3" LCD safety check or delete button. You pulled a Polaroid or two to test the lighting and off you went. Those that didn't really have a clue what they were doing failed. Those that could do the job made some good $. Natural selection applied. 

Then digital happened. Photoshop could rescue even the worst exposure errors. A safety net had appeared for those a little or a long way out of their depth. For the first few years the 'cost of entry' was incredibly high. My first digital camera was 2.7 Megapixels and it cost me the equivalent of $5k. This was 2003 and I jumped in late. A friend of mine leased an early Kodak/Canon hybrid in 2000, 1.2 Megapixels resolution (chortle) and to buy it was $18k. Twelve years on my $300 phone can make better images and post it on the web before it's back in my pocket. But that emerging tech meant clients wanted what it produced, the speed of delivery, the instant feedback on set etc. and they were prepared to pay good $ for it. 

Meanwhile in stock photography (where the cheesiest of shots could sell multiple times each month and rake in $$$), the big agency players that were around at the time were slow to react to the emerging digital market. Trying to join the largest one that starts with 'G', for example, was like trying to join a private club. All very secretive and a "we'll call you" attitude. So the talented guys who were getting into digital in a big way but with no outlet for sales turned to the new online only "internet" agencies, who welcomed all. Their model was Royalty Free, and cheap. Very cheap. 

Though they were licencing images at a fraction of the cost of the "traditional" agencies, most photographers (growing exponentially thanks to new tech) signed up to the new "micro-stock" agencies as they were selling lots of volume. Clients love getting something for $5 they used to pay $500 for. 

Fast-forward 10 years to now and my industry is in steady decline. I can see it from my own charts. The larger agencies have slashed prices to a fraction of what images used to sell for in order to compete and at the same time 'crowd-sourced' new content (as traditional pros moved out of stock due to the declining sales) and will now take anyone and anything. For lone photographers it's simply impossible to supply in enough volume each year to combat the decline in sales from:

a) falling prices & 
b)increased competition - 37,000 images of the Eiffel Tower on one agency alone... :o 

The high end sales are still there but few and far between. Clients fill their boots with 'general' stock from the lower priced agencies (who offer all-you-can-eat subscription deals as if the prices weren't cheap enough) and only venture north into semi-serious budget territory if they really need exclusivity or something a regular photographer doesn't have access to. 

All I can say is, _be thankful you're not photographers_ guys. Almost everyone carries around a camera in their phone nowadays and photography is a very popular hobby. The agencies know this and actively court the amateurs to "sell their pics"...because to the agency, 1000 x $1 sales = 1 x $1000 sale. The amateur contributors barely make enough for a coffee but for many a "credit line" is all they want to show the family. Vanity publishing 101. 

At least the oversupply of 'composers' is not as rampant as it is in the imaging world. Come the day when you can pull out your phone, whistle a ditty into an app and it bluetooths a fully arranged score to Sibellius or similar which loads up the correct articulations in your template it might be time to get out the pipe and slippers  

Until then I'll leave you with one final thought. Although there's more people entering these professions enabled by rapidly evolving tech a very high proportion of them don't have a clue what they are doing. Even with all the tech available today people still seem able to produce some shockingly bad images. They don't shoot/write for the end market needs (they shoot sunsets and 'pretty' things) and they don't really have the business nous required to make an impact or regular $. 

Hopefully there won't be an app for the latter in the forseeable future...


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 12, 2015)

Our problem is our monetary system!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 12, 2015)

It's a very subjective video because there are many assumptions made in a ball park way.

Interesting analogy with the photography agencies but where it tends to differ greatly with music publishers dealing in PRO registered music versus RF, is the dreaded search engine. AFAIK, with a PRO library there is no search engine.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> ...with a PRO library there is no search engine.


All big library music publishers have a search engine.

D


----------



## Dean (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> _Actually that's not really true. They are not decent results. They are cr*p. It's just that most people can't tell the difference, and don't really care anyway.
> 
> .'most clients cant tell the difference',......'people dont really care'.....'the general public does'nt care,as long as its _loud'



I like to give 'most people' more credit than that. D


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Excellent video.
Publishers without composers are nothing. Composers without publishers are composers.
No harm intended to publishers, I mean, they really do an important job!, but yeah, composers deserve better shares IMHO.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> ... composers deserve better shares IMHO.


In what way do they "deserve" anything? Obviously the video was about trailers, which is not my field, but the guy knows nothing about Publishing in production music. In fact some of what he was saying was laughably naive.

D


----------



## Alatar (Dec 12, 2015)

Sebastianmu said:


> the technical obstacles of producing music disappeared, since anyone can accomplish decent results with a laptop from the supermarket and NI komplete (i.e. an investment of less than $1k).



True! And its great, isn't it? I mean: For the first time in history, composing music is getting accessible for everyone. It's a huge step I think. It is comparable to what inventing coloured pencils did for painting.

But to get back on topic: Very interesting video!


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> In what way do they "deserve" anything? Obviously the video was about trailers, which is not my field, but the guy knows nothing about Publishing in production music. In fact some of what he was saying was laughably naive.
> 
> D



Not at all!, this is pretty common in trailer music publishing, maybe it's different from what you know... 
But I agree with him, and a lot of friends who work on trailer music production think the same way...


----------



## Baron Greuner (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> All big library music publishers have a search engine.
> 
> D



Not in the same way as photographic agencies do. Or do your tracks get pushed to the bottom of the search engine if you don't add further material?


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> Not at all!, this is pretty common in trailer music publishing, maybe it's different from what you know...
> But I agree with him, and a lot of friends who work on trailer music production think the same way...


That's my point. You and your mates may think the same, but it doesn't mean you know anything about Publishing.

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Baron Greuner said:


> Not in the same way as photographic agencies do. Or do your tracks get pushed to the bottom of the search engine if you don't add further material?


It all depends on the search engine.Some have a weighting for more recent material to come higher up the searches. Some don't. However without a search engine the big guys wouldn't survive. I know nothing about photography search engines though.

D


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> That's my point. You and your mates may think the same, but it doesn't mean you know anything about Publishing.
> 
> D


That's a little rude assumption, considering most of them are actually music publishers now...


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> That's a little rude assumption, considering most of them are actually music publishers now...


OK, point me towards a link for their publishing companies and I'll apologise if I've got it wrong.


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> OK, point me towards a link for their publishing companies and I'll apologise if I've got it wrong.


I don't need you to prove my point... and you are being so rude!


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> I don't need you to prove my point... you are being so rude!


I was being direct, not rude. It's only rude it if offends you, and if it offends you then there is probably some uncomfortable truth in what I said.

Publishing is a lot more complicated than just filling in a PRO registration form, and whilst there are many examples of Publishers who are abusing their composers, there are a many other sides to this argument. I know that this will be very unpopular to hear, but Publishing is much more than sending out a few emails. If it was so easy to make a good living as a Publisher, all composers would self Publish and all would be rich.

D


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> I was being direct, not rude. It's only rude it if offends you, and if it offends you then there is probably some uncomfortable truth in what I said.


Not at all, you are assuming beforehand, that's what I meant... you don't know me, I don't know you.


Daryl said:


> but Publishing is much more than sending out a few emails


These are not my words, and as I said, publishing IS a pretty hard work, but it doesn't mean that the composer shouldn't get a little more.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

TomiLobosK said:


> Not at all, you are assuming beforehand, that's what I meant... you don't know me, I don't know you.
> 
> These are not my words, and as I said, publishing IS a pretty hard work, but it doesn't mean that the composer shouldn't get a little more.


OK, let's backtrack. You said that you agreed with the video, but he says "sending out a few emails" to dismiss the Publisher. So you don't agree with that part of the video? It's just that you think the agreements are not one sided enough? In order to know whether or not that was the case, you would have to know the details of the Publishers' accounts and the success rate of each track in their catalogue.

D


----------



## Jaap (Dec 12, 2015)

I agree with Daryl here and though some good points are made in the video I think most of us underestimate the value of clients the publisher has. Also for them it's a tough business with more and more companies popping up and even if they have an established client based, it's not always a certainy anymore that those clients stick with them. They have to do a lot of maintancy to land the deals, keep the clients, all the adminstration work (even if you have a good system then it's still a lot of work), optimising their databases to be as attractive to clients as possible etc etc.
I am getting nightmares if I have to do that all by myself. Even if I just think about all the networking and paper work that needs to be done before you get anything substantial. Start calculating those hours you would spend on that and you will be even more poor.

For the record, I work full time in this and know my deal. Though I am also having my concerns and I wish sometimes also that I get paid better it is still a viable business if you set your own standards to what you want to agree upon and what not.


----------



## Sebastianmu (Dec 12, 2015)

germancomponist said:


> Our problem is our monetary system!


Maybe the problem is that people have to _make_ things all the time, it's like a disease, they just can't stop! 
To be serious: There may be good reasons to think the whole paper currency thing is a little buggy, to say the least. But I think this wipes away the _specific_ problems of the media music market a little too easily.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Jaap, as with many things there are two sides to this equation. It ought to be a symbiotic relationship, but in some cases it isn't. Of course everyone wants to be paid more, but in order to get to a fairer solution, both sides would need to be honest and up front about their costs and expenses. It could even turn out that the composers were being over paid....!

For example, if a track takes two weeks to write (two weeks?????) and the composer's share of the licence fee is $2K, then it does seem that the composer is limited to around $45K a year. However, this also assumes that the track is only ever licenced once. If every track gets licenced twice, the income goes up to $90K. Now if one ignores how much the Publisher gets, this doesn't seem too shabby to me. It only causes a problem because of the cashflow issue when a composer has very few tracks.

However, then greed sets in. Why should the Publisher be making so much? They didn't write the track. Blah blah blah. You see it's not about income at all. It's about getting more than someone else. The chap in the video even admits this.

As I said, what it needs is for both sides to be honest and upfront about what they do and what income they need to run their business and things can be equitable for both sides. However, I see little chance of this happening.

D


----------



## Jaap (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> Jaap, as with many things there are two sides to this equation. It ought to be a symbiotic relationship, but in some cases it isn't. Of course everyone wants to be paid more, but in order to get to a fairer solution, both sides would need to be honest and up front about their costs and expenses. It could even turn out that the composers were being over paid....!
> 
> For example, if a track takes two weeks to write (two weeks?????) and the composer's share of the licence fee is $2K, then it does seem that the composer is limited to around $45K a year. However, this also assumes that the track is only ever licenced once. If every track gets licenced twice, the income goes up to $90K. Now if one ignores how much the Publisher gets, this doesn't seem too shabby to me. It only causes a problem because of the cashflow issue when a composer has very few tracks.
> 
> ...



I can only say a big +1 on this Daryl!


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 12, 2015)

Hey guys,

Thank you for all of your comments. I would like to say, I didn't mean to downplay the huge amount of work that is involved with owning a publishing company. Obviously there is WAY WAY more involved than sending out emails. I wanted to record the video in one take as if I was sitting there talking to you directly, and as a result, some things just came out a little differently than I had wanted. 

Originally the video was intended for my immediate composer friends on facebook who are mostly involved with trailer music. There has been a very positive exchange on FB between publishers and composers that I wish I could share here. 

We all agree that both composers and publishers work their asses off. The underlying issue is that many (not all) publishers are taking 50% of the total pie. That would be acceptable to me if I had a publisher who was working only on my behalf, so that when I put in a full time job composing, he puts in a full time job selling my stuff and my stuff only. That's not the case however. Publishers have many composers. Can we honestly say that the amount of work they put in is equal to that of x amount of composers, and they are entitled to 50% of the total income? 25% of a large handful of composers work can add up to a LOT of money. 

I don't want to re hash everything I mentioned in the video, but I do honestly think that what I said is fair, and so do many other composers. You don't have to agree with me, and you can call me naive, but there is no denying that many composers like my self are not satisfied with the current system, and I'd rather step up and start a conversation with the risk of being called out than sit back and do nothing. 

- Oliver


----------



## muk (Dec 12, 2015)

Without knowing much about publishing, I find the idea of upfront money for the composer which then is deducted from the backend revenue when the track gets licensed sounds good. All sides could benefit from this. Without upfront money, all the risk is on the composer. The publishers can simply add as much music as possible to their catalogue without any cost. That's bad for the composers, and it is bad for the clients. Upfront money ensures that the publishers are more careful in selecting quality tracks - if a track does not get licensed, the upfront money is lost for them.

For the publishers it shouldn't make much of a difference. They should add only tracks to their catalogue that they think they can sell anyway. And because the upfront payment will get deducted from the composer's share when the track does get licensed, the composer isn't payed more as before - or only in the case that a track doesn't get licensed. Sounds good to me for all parties (except for the crappy music), but maybe I'm missing a few important points.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Oliver, thanks for weighing in. I can't answer your points, as I don't work in trailers, but the problem is that everything you say about Publishers is based on assumptions. Without facts to back things we can't know the answers. I do know that selling is not the only thing a Publisher has to do, and all members of staff have to get paid, as well as office rent and (in the UK) business rates, NI, pension contributions etc. I would love to say that composers should get paid more, but currently don't know enough about your market to have an opinion.

However, there is one thing to bear in mind. You can stop work and still receive income for a few years, even if you write nothing (leaving aside the delay in payments, which you rightly point out). A Publisher doesn't have this luxury. They day they stop work is the day that they receive no income.

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

muk, I agree with you about giving recoupable upfront money. It is a nice idea. The snag is that this puts all of the risk onto the Publisher, and in a capitalist society, he who dares, wins. In other words, there is no logical reason a composer should even get any of the licence fee, if they have already been paid to write the music.

D


----------



## muk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> In other words, there is no logical reason a composer should even get any of the licence fee, if they have already been paid to write the music.



Well, that would depend on how much upfront money is involved. In my eyes the sum should be set so that a composer is payed _partly _with the upfront. In that case the risk would be on both the publisher and the composer, and splitting the licence fee would make the other part of the payment for the composer.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

muk said:


> Well, that would depend on how much upfront money is involved. In my eyes the sum should be set so that a composer is payed _partly _with the upfront. In that case the risk would be on both the publisher and the composer, and splitting the licence fee would make the other part of the payment for the composer.


In which case one could argue that the composer should receive less than 50%, because the Publisher's share of risk is greater than the composer's.

Look, I am not disagreeing that there are some very one sided arrangements in existence, but it is clear to me that a percentage means nothing in the scheme of things. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration and every situation is different. For example one could ague that with a lesser known Publisher a composer should get a bigger share, as the total income is likely to be less, even though the composer is spending the same amount of time on a track as usual. Unfortunately the converse of that is that if a Publisher is well known, the composer should get paid less...! It's not easy.

Obviously things are different to the way they were when I started in the industry. It was very simple. I wrote the music, the Publisher paid for production and we split the income. Now that composers are doing most of the production, one could argue that they should be paid more, but the income has reduced, so maybe not. No one size fits all, I'm afraid.

D


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 12, 2015)

Time is money. If I take a day, 3 days, 2 weeks, whatever to write a track for a publisher there is risk involved. Why shouldn't the publisher have to take any risk? The more risk, the harder they are going to push for a return. That's the whole issue. It's risk free for them. The more tracks the better, and the more tracks, the less the have to charge for each track. They end up doing great financially, and most of the individual composers barely scrape by, or don't actually see any of their money in time to make payments and pay bills.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 12, 2015)

Sebastianmu said:


> Maybe the problem is that people have to _make_ things all the time, it's like a disease, they just can't stop!
> To be serious: There may be good reasons to think the whole paper currency thing is a little buggy, to say the least. But I think this wipes away the _specific_ problems of the media music market a little too easily.


It is our monetary system! Almost all problems in the world are based on our monetary system!
"Cross off as much as you can and pay as little as possible!" - This is how it works .... .


----------



## tomaslobosk (Dec 12, 2015)

Daryl said:


> OK, let's backtrack. You said that you agreed with the video, but he says "sending out a few emails" to dismiss the Publisher. So you don't agree with that part of the video? It's just that you think the agreements are not one sided enough? In order to know whether or not that was the case, you would have to know the details of the Publishers' accounts and the success rate of each track in their catalogue.
> 
> D


Exactly, the video itself is not that diplomatic, that's why I said "I mean, they really do an important job!", but there are some points that I must support, e.g. more % share in favour of the composer. 50/50 is not that fair, considering that some publishers don't even re-invest their money into the composers.


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2015)

Oliver_Codd said:


> They end up doing great financially, and most of the individual composers barely scrape by, or don't actually see any of their money in time to make payments and pay bills.


Again, if it's a bad deal, don't take the gig. The debate about what's fair and sharing information about costs and revenues is pointless. It could be a very fair arrangement that is not a good deal for you. Likewise it could be very unfair and still a good deal for you.

So what's a good deal? Well, that's up to you to decide and then negotiate. If you can't negotiate a deal that's good for you then you walk away.

That's how markets work and that's the essence of running a business.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2015)

And just to clarify - bringing composers together to force the publishers to accept a better deal for composers is a good way to negotiate.

But that's going to be really tough because of supply and demand...


----------



## rgames (Dec 12, 2015)

Here's an analogy: let's say you hire a violinist to record a solo line on one of your tracks. You pay the violinist $150.

You then make $10,000 on licensing the track. Is that fair?

It doesn't matter. It was worth it to the violinist to spend a couple hours in the studio recording the track. Therefore, he took the gig. If the violinist had to drive three hours each way to do the gig, then it's probably not worth it and that violinist wouldn't take the gig.

Whether or not the gig is worth it is up to the violinist to decide. You lay out what you're willing to pay and then choose among those who decide it's worth it to them. If nobody takes the offer, you up the price. If a bunch of people are willing and *really* want to do it then you can drop the price. That process occurs across many composers and many violinists and a market equilibrium rate emerges.

In the market that is composers and publishers, the equilibrium is 50/50 right now. There is sufficient supply of composers willing to take the 50/50 deal that it meets the demand, so the rate is stable.

So I think Oliver is doing the right thing in trying to motivate composers - that's where the problem lies. Not with the publishers - they're just adapting to the market. Again, though, that's going to be really tough...

rgames


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 12, 2015)

I agree with you Rgames. It is totally up to the composers to make a change. I guess I did the video to encourage composers to stand up for themselves and push for what they think is fair. I personally made the decision that 50/50 splits don't work for me anymore, and if that means I never work for another publisher again, so be it. Thanks to you, and all others in this thread for sharing your thoughts and taking the time to listen to what I had to say. 

Cheers,

Oliver


----------



## wpc982 (Dec 12, 2015)

Are there 'publishers' in trailer music? Who? (Forgive please if this is a naive question). 

Then consider performers of music -- midi, synth renditions have surely put a lot of people out of business, but there are still classical and session performers who are making a living, and there are still singer/songwriters who can't necessarily even play (or write) but are generating a lot of money for somebody.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

Oliver_Codd said:


> Time is money. If I take a day, 3 days, 2 weeks, whatever to write a track for a publisher there is risk involved. Why shouldn't the publisher have to take any risk? The more risk, the harder they are going to push for a return. That's the whole issue. It's risk free for them.


Well this is where I can't answer you, because I don't now anything about trailer Publishing. However, I can tell you that in the more general production library business there is no such thing as risk free music for the Publisher. Agreed, in the short term the composer spends more time on the track than the Publisher, but it's not as if it takes no time to do all the admin (and many Publishers do the mastering as well) for each track, and the selling doesn't only happen once and only in one territory. In fact once you get sub Publishers involved, the composer usually does much better than the original Publisher.


Oliver_Codd said:


> The more tracks the better, and the more tracks, the less the have to charge for each track. They end up doing great financially, and most of the individual composers barely scrape by, or don't actually see any of their money in time to make payments and pay bills.


Again I think that this is specific to the trailer business.

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

rgames said:


> The debate about what's fair and sharing information about costs and revenues is pointless. It could be a very fair arrangement that is not a good deal for you. Likewise it could be very unfair and still a good deal for you.


That's why I said earlier that percentages mean nothing. However, I disagree that sharing information is not useful. It is useful in that it stops people thinking they are being taken advantage of, if they can see what the actual costs of the Publisher are. I do agree with you though that in the end it's only income that matters. Not percentage.

D


----------



## Daryl (Dec 12, 2015)

rgames said:


> And just to clarify - bringing composers together to force the publishers to accept a better deal for composers is a good way to negotiate.


Never going to happen, as long as there are more composers than gigs, and in any case they may even be able to get a suitable quality from part timers and young composers wanting to enter the profession.

D


----------



## rJames (Dec 13, 2015)

50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. (I've done the math)
Marketing; reputation; contacts; experience...


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 13, 2015)

rJames said:


> 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. (I've done the math)
> Marketing; reputation; contacts; experience...



That argument really doesn't hold up, and that's the kind of attitude that really harms composers and this industry today. Where do you draw the line? "1% of something is better than 100% of nothing" I could say the same to a publisher. 25 percent of something is better than nothing too, especially when you start pulling 25% from a large handful of composers work. You make it sound like we should be lucky to get paid anything at all, which is total rubbish.


----------



## rJames (Dec 13, 2015)

Oliver_Codd said:


> That argument really doesn't hold up, and that's the kind of attitude that really harms composers and this industry today. Where do you draw the line? "1% of something is better than 100% of nothing" I could say the same to a publisher. 25 percent of something is better than nothing too, especially when you start pulling 25% from a large handful of composers work. You make it sound like we should be lucky to get paid anything at all, which is total rubbish.


I'm going to agree with Daryl that your idea is very naive.
My argument holds up in my life since I worked in the model you describe; I've gone out on my own (and gotten trailer licenses); and I'm now back with a publisher.
What you say is fine in theory but not realistic at all. 
If you want an immediate return, sell your work for upfront pay. I was offered to do that in the beginning. I decided that I would rather wait to share in sales because I believed in myself and would rather have 50% of the big trailer payouts rather than taking an upfront fee. The difference in the first year was about $40K (in my favor) in the first year. That's assuming a $2K buyout per cue. Those 30 cues are still working for me 10 years later.
IF YOU CAN demand an upfront fee AND the ability to keep 50% share THEN more power to you. My hat's off to you.
Believe me 50% of something is WAY-Y-Y better than 100% of nothing. I say that from experience.
rGames is correct here. Its about the market. Currently, the market cannot and will not sustain your "theoretical" model.
The world is changing the opposite way from what you desire. It is becoming harder and harder to represent yourself. And too many composers who are very good, from places where $10,000 is a year's salary.
BTW Its not where I draw the line... it is where the competition draws the line. This is the way it is in the free market.
Don't know how far you got in math but yes, 1% of something IS better than 100% of nothing.

Ron


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Dec 15, 2015)

rJames said:


> 1% of something IS better than 100% of nothing.


I offered to score the new Star Wars movie for only 1% of box office, but Williams undercut me.


----------



## rJames (Dec 15, 2015)

jacobthestupendous said:


> I offered to score the new Star Wars movie for only 1% of box office, but Williams undercut me.


Ah, there you go. You get the concept. (NOT)
More like this...
John Williams is getting busy so he offers you 1% of the fee that he will be paid for scoring the new Star Wars movie but you will have to score the entire movie as a ghost writer.
Hmmm, what should I do?????


----------



## dannymc (Dec 23, 2015)

is this not the very point that lex (a full time trailer composer here) was making on this fantastic thread from some time ago?

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...ilers-loves-it-and-make-a-living-at-it.46203/

basically that the trailer game is a high risk high reward game? like many things in life i think you've got look at diversification, spreading your risk. if you were playing the stock market and you put all your shares into one stock lets say facebook and you didn't cash out at the right time and lost everything, the Warren Buffets of the world would tell you you should of never put all your eggs in one basket and expect a guaranteed win. 

i dabble in the stock market just for fun and believe me diversification is the name of the game. i think composers need to start thinking along those terms when it comes to making money from their music. 

Danny


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 17, 2017)

Is it really that stressful? It’s just music.


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 17, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> Is it really that stressful? It’s just music.


Absolutely. I am playing at a church this Sunday, and while I was talking to the pipe organist just right now he said, "Now Rod, I am going to play a Bach piece, please don't judge me picking apart every little nuance. I get more stressed about playing at church than a recital. Oh, and by the way, I might need you to flip pages for me on the spot for another piece."

Then I said, "Oh great, now I'm stressed."


----------



## givemenoughrope (Nov 17, 2017)

If a small publisher (one with drastically reduced overhead) with a great track record/contacts decided to make their deal 25%/75% (or something like that, in favor of the composer) wouldn't more composers approach them thus giving them more talent/content to draw from? It would be the publisher undercutting other publishers essentially(which I acknowledge doesn't need to happen in a market saturated with composers).

I'd like to see this thread continue.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 17, 2017)

Rodney Money said:


> Absolutely. I am playing at a church this Sunday, and while I was talking to the pipe organist just right now he said, "Now Rod, I am going to play a Bach piece, please don't judge me picking apart every little nuance. I get more stressed about playing at church than a recital. Oh, and by the way, I might need you to flip pages for me on the spot for another piece."
> 
> Then I said, "Oh great, now I'm stressed."



I know the feeling! I perform (in a rock band) in front of hundreds of people every weekend, and practice piano diligently every single night. When I get to the conservatory for my weekly lesson, I can see the teacher patiently watching from my peripheral vision....and I instantly f++k up (guaranteed!!). He simply grins and says the same thing' "It's only music". He is right! But psychologically, it has that bizarre affect on my performance.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 17, 2017)

givemenoughrope said:


> If a small publisher (one with drastically reduced overhead) with a great track record/contacts decided to make their deal 25%/75% (or something like that, in favor of the composer) wouldn't more composers approach them thus giving them more talent/content to draw from? It would be the publisher undercutting other publishers essentially(which I acknowledge doesn't need to happen in a market saturated with composers).



Never going to happen. The publisher is taking all the risk. They also wouldn't really be undercutting and so called talented composers are generally not that talented. Publishers are awash with tracks being sent in and in the end are more inclined in getting and keeping a core of writers that write to their strengths and to required briefs.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 17, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> They also wouldn't really be undercutting and so called talented composers are generally not that talented.



LMFAO!

So talent doesn’t matter that much then.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 17, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> LMFAO!
> 
> So talent doesn’t matter that much then.



Yes I'd say it matters a lot. It just depends on who is making that judgement. For example, in library music there are publishers that are as descibed as above, and publishers that will throw a ton of shit at the wall in the hope some of it sticking. Very similar to how sales organizations work when hiring a sales force.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Nov 17, 2017)

ColonelMarquand said:


> Never going to happen. The publisher is taking all the risk. They also wouldn't really be undercutting and so called talented composers are generally not that talented. Publishers are awash with tracks being sent in and in the end are more inclined in getting and keeping a core of writers that write to their strengths and to required briefs.



Ok, sure. I guess I'm trying to think of this from a slightly different angle, although I'm not quite sure what that is yet. I was thinking that if the deal seemed more fair that it might attract the types of writers that the publisher wants, you know to push their brand and define a niche.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 17, 2017)

givemenoughrope said:


> Ok, sure. I guess I'm trying to think of this from a slightly different angle, although I'm not quite sure what that is yet. I was thinking that if the deal seemed more fair that it might attract the types of writers that the publisher wants, you know to push their brand and define a niche.



I guess the main question is will the publisher make enough money by doing a deal that gives the composers more money.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 17, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> I guess the main question is will the publisher make enough money by doing a deal that gives the composers more money.


If these are sample based compositions, then yes. If these are live instrument based compositions, then maybe. Of course if it's only sample based, there is likely to be a problem with Global distribution, unless you are a very big label or have something that nobody else has and that is perceived (Globally) to have commercial value. There is too much competition in this field for an established Sub Publisher to be interested for most new start-ups.

However, I've always taken the view that the only real advantage a small label has, is if they are run by a composer. In that case the label doesn't have to make a profit, as even if it breaks even, the composer will make money.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Nov 18, 2017)

Regardless of the downside, I am going to continue to make music and put it out there in the marketplace. The only way I see myself as having a chance at success is to continue to work. Work hard too. Whether that means spend a little time on a lot of tracks or spend a lot of time on a few tracks. I have to put in the hard work and release the product.

No risk, no reward.


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Nov 18, 2017)

givemenoughrope said:


> Ok, sure. I guess I'm trying to think of this from a slightly different angle, although I'm not quite sure what that is yet. I was thinking that if the deal seemed more fair that it might attract the types of writers that the publisher wants, you know to push their brand and define a niche.



All you really need to know is publishers are human beings and a lot of the time they like the idea of making money. Daryl points out that some of them are also writers too. For instance, my two publishers were writers for Universal for around 25 to 30 years each. And other labels like Warners etc.

On the payment side, it probably varies, but the PRO take for a publisher (whereby your deal as a writer is typically a 50/50 split) is not usually 50%, but more like 25%, because their sub publishers/distributors are taking 25%. Sync fees are usually better for the publisher and an example deal could be literally 50/50, or 66/34 if the track is played in the country of origin (in the writers favour). That deal might not be quite so typical. Some publishers don't pay sync fees at all to their writers.


----------



## dannymc (Nov 18, 2017)

Oliver_Codd said:


> I agree with you Rgames. It is totally up to the composers to make a change. I guess I did the video to encourage composers to stand up for themselves and push for what they think is fair. I personally made the decision that 50/50 splits don't work for me anymore, and if that means I never work for another publisher again, so be it. Thanks to you, and all others in this thread for sharing your thoughts and taking the time to listen to what I had to say.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Oliver



its 2 years on, not sure if Oliver is still a member on this board but i'd be curious to know where he has gone from that post. has he stuck to his guns and decided not to work for any trailer labels that offer 50/50 splits? has he since left the trailer business? has he started his own publishing label? Oliver if you are still here it would be great to get an update on your journey since this post. 

Danny


----------



## rJames (Nov 18, 2017)

Regarding these last few posts, 50-50 split etc. You get more than just representation from a publisher. You guys should be tired of hearing my story by now but it fits various threads. I've been a musician (average) all my life. I found this website in the first week as everyone was migrating from Northern Sounds. Except for my natural abilities, basic musicianship; everything I know I learned here (or as a result of meeting ppl at VI control).
I got lucky and got a phone number of a publisher. You can really do the same thing by cold calling if you have the chops to back it up. He liked the CD I sent but as I sent more material he barely responded. I kept sending and a few months later he called and told me this was a good idea for an album and these cues will be on it.
The moral of that part of my story is that I had to persist and listen to his feedback.
Then with each submission he would say, add 4 bars to that or take that out or make this part really loud and in your face... honestly I don't remember specifics.
That is a value that he added by mentoring me, badgering me and leading me to the goal. (his goal)
Then he changed the name of my cues and added metadata because he had the experience to know how editors and music sups found the material.
I took lessons and got better and through connections (EIS graduates) I got a phone number, I pushed my way to another great connection. I kept sending material and nothing was accepted but I got detailed feedback. This is also a value added. And at that time, this 2nd company was not making a dime from me. Eventually, my works were recorded by the LSO at Abbey Road through this company.
I always thought of the 50-50 share (its even less with the live recordings) was, "paying my dues."
After all, a plumber has to be an apprentice. A carpenter has to be an apprentice.
Ron
PS I am very lucky and I work hard and I persevere and I have been an entrepreneur my whole life. I HATED looking for a job so became self employed... which means that you're always looking for a job. I changed careers to music when I was 50, I've been in the business 15 years and started my own publishing company 5 years ago.

PPS Whether or not a new publisher could get the best composer/producers by offering a 40-60 split in favor of composers will only be known after someone tries it. But you'll have to offer the business model that gets cues into media for great $$$. And with that reputation, will you want to split 40-60 any more?


----------



## AdamAlake (Nov 18, 2017)

Sebastianmu said:


> Yes, I think that's the second half of the problem, actually. They might be cr*p, but so are the productions they are used for. The quality of the music matters for something like Star Wars,



Not anymore.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 14, 2019)

dannymc said:


> its 2 years on, not sure if Oliver is still a member on this board but i'd be curious to know where he has gone from that post. has he stuck to his guns and decided not to work for any trailer labels that offer 50/50 splits? has he since left the trailer business? has he started his own publishing label? Oliver if you are still here it would be great to get an update on your journey since this post.
> 
> Danny



I want to know what happened since as well.


----------

