# Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Libraries



## Johnny4Lonnie (Mar 29, 2010)

A loaded question for sure. Looking for any opinions - is it better to lock into a multi-year exclusive with one company? Or spread your tracks over as many non-exs as possible?

If you use both and have an exclusive company representing some of your tracks, and several non-exs listing different tracks (by different I mean all the non-exs get the same tracks, but the exclusives get only tracks listed with them)...who do you send your best and newest material to? 

If an exclusive wants to lock you in to a multi-year deal but offers no up-front money, should you keep feeding some music to the exclusive and some to the non-exs?

When trying to make a name for yourself I think the tendency is to try and get with as many companies as possible (non-ex) to increase your exposure, but that will probably only dilute the value of your music as a whole. But then on the other side, if you go with an exclusive you are putting all your eggs in one basket and potentially missing out on the increased marketing that several non-exs can offer.

It's enough to make your head spin


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 29, 2010)

hey! if you can provide for both then go for it. then you see whats best. 

im still unsure on how legal or ethical is to have the same song but with different name on different non-exclusive libraries.


----------



## Johnny4Lonnie (Mar 29, 2010)

gsilbers @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> im still unsure on how legal or ethical is to have the same song but with different name on different non-exclusive libraries.



I thought that was the whole advantage for listing with non-exclusives. That it's perfectly legal and acceptable to have the same song listed with multiple companies. Heck, I don't even re-title unless they specifically require it


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 29, 2010)

"It's enough to make your head spin"

Yep.

Non-excl: you can have your tracks (re-titled) in as many libs as you want. No money up front, more exposure, but you are competing with yourself to some extent.

Excl: money up front per-track, less exposure, less chance a client will say, "ah jeez, there he is _again_", generally a better chance that those tracks will get placed.

I actually do both - but I would not go excl with a small/medium sized lib.

Cheers.


----------



## Johnny4Lonnie (Mar 29, 2010)

[quote="RiffWraith @ Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:21 am
Excl: *money up front per-track*, less exposure, less chance a client will say, "ah jeez, there he is _again_", generally a better chance that those tracks will get placed.

quote]

This is the decision I am facing now for a second time in about a week - a library offering exclusive with 5 year term but no up front money


----------



## Blackster (Mar 29, 2010)

I believe it's not really about an upfront payment when going with an exclusive deal. It's about your own reputation as a composer. Choose a library which promotes and distributes your material as good as they can and you got a much better deal (even without getting money in advance) then spreading your songs in all libraries which cross your way. 

Clients use google for everything. They find your songs even if they were re-titled. Just google for the composer's name and a song description and it's a matter of minutes. Because most of the companies don't write their own descriptions (it's too much work) they let the composer himself write this lines. The composer sends the texts to all libraries he has a deal with. And there you go, he destroys his own reputation because steals the clients' precious time when the client realizes that different songnames are used for the same track. In my opinion that's a bad thing and I would never advice to do that. In the long run you'll get some damage out of that (reputation, loss of profit, maybe even legal effects). 

If you place your stuff exclusively in one (not a cheap one) library you will probably make your best deal. At least that worked best for me but it may be totally different for you, who knows!?


----------



## midphase (Mar 29, 2010)

"This is the decision I am facing now for a second time in about a week - a library offering exclusive with 5 year term but no up front money"


If money is not exchanging hands then IMHO there is no exclusivity. The music library needs to share some of the financial risks and burdens...otherwise it's a lopsided arrangement.

Most reputable (and successful) music libraries in the USA pay up front. Usually the ones who offer no upfront money are those fly-by-night operations which more than likely will not benefit you in the long run anyway. 

Think about it for a second...if they're not willing to throw their composers a bone for doing all the work, where else are they cutting corners? 

Of course you're completely free to bend over and get boned by whoever you choose to...just don't the delusional idea that this is the path to success.


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2010)

First of all, the high-end libraries might not pay "you" upfront money....but I guarantee that their main guys are getting upfront fees. I'm well aware that for all those times that I'm getting upfront payment...other composers might not receive that benefit while still being asked for an exclusive deal.

Secondly, in this type of scenario, I find copyright to be overrated. Seriously...most of these cues are what I would consider "throw-away" type of music. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's crappy music...but it has limited usage and limited appeal, especially in a few years time. Samples get better, styles change, one's compositional skills evolve. How valuable is a generic hip/hop groove with some Nü Metal guitar licks gonna be in 3-5 years?


----------



## madbulk (Apr 1, 2010)

I thought retitling was a necessary consequence of splitting your publishing with upteen different non-exclusive libs. I agree with your google example and that it doesn't look good on the composer when there are five titles to one tune all with the same description. This is avoidable?


----------



## rgames (Apr 1, 2010)

zircon_st @ Thu Apr 01 said:


> I dunno why you would say that, since there are a number of high-end libraries who do exclusive licenses yet don't pay upfront.


I still don't get that - how can that be a benefit to the composer?

I've talked to a few libraries who do exclusive deals with no up-front payment and never had a good feeling about it. If you're not going to pay up front AND require exclusivity then you better at least share some info about how many placements you get and how many musicians you represent. Of course, none ever responds to my request for that information...

rgames


----------



## Johnny4Lonnie (Apr 1, 2010)

I guess it's the term - 5 years exclusive - that makes me wonder. I wouldn't mind so much placing some exclusives with no upfront $, but I'd like the chance to place them with somebody else if there's no activity in 2 years. 1 year would be better

What are you guys getting for term for exclusives?


----------

