# Your compositions on stock music sites?



## zeng (Sep 10, 2016)

Hello people,

What do you think about stock music? Do you publish your compositions on stock music sites and do you earn money? I've many many compositions not posted anywhere and wanted to get your ideas.

Thanks,


----------



## pixel (Sep 10, 2016)

I have few on AudioJungle and I'm absolutely not happy that more than half of my earnings goes to AJ. Not to mention that I can't withdraw my money if it's below $50. At the beginning I thought 'why not' because idea was to upload stuff that in my eyes is not good to do anything with it but after I've sold one track more than I expected I'm not happy anymore with their system: cheap licenses where at the end you get only ~40% from that.
But it was good bad lesson for me because it seems that my stuff is better than I thought.
If you think that your stuff is good then try to publish it on better sites than AJ

EDIT: and withdraw is taking them few weeks to send money!


----------



## zeng (Sep 10, 2016)

I see pixel. Thanks for the info. Can we discuss other stock sites here? I don't know which are better than AJ?


----------



## Waywyn (Sep 10, 2016)

There is absolutely no prediction on what is going to sell at what stock, license, trailer company!
Yes, AJ is taking a lot of % depending on if you sell it exclusive or non exclusive, but on the other hand as far as I can see, AJ is the portal with a lot of activity, so keep in mind even at this % you get a lot of exposure and therefore you can create lots of money if you have a few "runners". I always don't understand this but why worry about a high percentage when you may have the chance to make more money with this model than somewhere else?

During my, let's say, whole time of business existence of around 11 years I tried almost everything possible out there until I finally now settled with one exclusive deal ... but I observed that even good executed tracks with bigger companies made just a few cents while another track which I consider as crappy (not because it is badly executed, but it just doesn't feel right to me) on a little stock library website made more money than whole several game projects combined!

Besides that, why is it a bad thing when AJ is just able to pay after a few weeks once you have withdrawed if BMI, ASCAP etc. only pay every three months?


The bottomline is, just observe, compare and find out for yourself. Ten people of this forum could tell from their experience and you hear ten different versions on what is the best stock, trailer, license option!


----------



## pixel (Sep 10, 2016)

Worth to mention that after money split author/AJ there's additional tax which is taking another amount of earnings away. Watching that from every $100 you'll get around $40 is not pleasant especially that licenses are cheap. Especially for someone who live in UK


----------



## d.healey (Sep 10, 2016)

What about this site: http://www.youlicense.com/FAQ.aspx


----------



## Waywyn (Sep 10, 2016)

pixel said:


> Worth to mention that after money split author/AJ there's additional tax which is taking another amount of earnings away. Watching that from every $100 you'll get around $40 is not pleasant especially that licenses are cheap. Especially for someone who live in UK



Sorry, but after doing a tiny bit of quick research (literally 30 seconds) you can put in your tax information and all is settled! If you pay your tax over at the states or your country doesn't really matter, no?

... and I can't say this often enough! If there is a license company which gives you 100% and you sell 20 tracks for 100 bucks, how much better is this than a company who is paying 50%, but you are selling 500 tracks (due to exposure) for 15 bucks (which would be just 7,5)??


----------



## pixel (Sep 10, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Sorry, but after doing a tiny bit of quick research (literally 30 seconds) you can put in your tax information and all is settled! If you pay your tax over at the states or your country doesn't really matter, no?
> 
> ... and I can't say this often enough! If there is a license company which gives you 100% and you sell 20 tracks for 100 bucks, how much better is this than a company who is paying 50%, but you are selling 500 tracks (due to exposure) for 15 bucks (which would be just 7,5)??



I've put my tax information and it doesn't matter [edit: because I'm getting the same amount of money after I've put my tax info]. Price for 'music standard license' is $19 (without tax) and on my transactions it's automatically $15.20 for start + author fee $5.70 - author fee $5,70 so finally it's $9.50. Where is missing $3.80 (19-15.20)? And if it's price exl. tax then they took $19+additional tax from buyer and after that from my cut they took away another tax? Sorry but it's not fair at all.

To answer your second question: Idk about other stock markets. What exposure AJ is giving? From my experience: none. You have to promote your stuff by yourself.


----------



## zeng (Sep 10, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> There is absolutely no prediction on what is going to sell at what stock, license, trailer company!
> Yes, AJ is taking a lot of % depending on if you sell it exclusive or non exclusive, but on the other hand as far as I can see, AJ is the portal with a lot of activity, so keep in mind even at this % you get a lot of exposure and therefore you can create lots of money if you have a few "runners". I always don't understand this but why worry about a high percentage when you may have the chance to make more money with this model than somewhere else?
> 
> During my, let's say, whole time of business existence of around 11 years I tried almost everything possible out there until I finally now settled with one exclusive deal ... but I observed that even good executed tracks with bigger companies made just a few cents while another track which I consider as crappy (not because it is badly executed, but it just doesn't feel right to me) on a little stock library website made more money than whole several game projects combined!
> ...



Hey Waywyn, can you tell me about exclusive or non exclusive more please? What is the difference? Is this an option during registration?


----------



## Waywyn (Sep 10, 2016)

zeng said:


> Hey Waywyn, can you tell me about exclusive or non exclusive more please? What is the difference? Is this an option during registration?



Well in terms of stock music companies it simply means that if you go with the exclusive option you are not allowed to host those tracks with another company, but therefore getting more percentage!


----------



## zeng (Sep 11, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Well in terms of stock music companies it simply means that if you go with the exclusive option you are not allowed to host those tracks with another company, but therefore getting more percentage!


Ok I got it, thanks Waywyn  I think there is no limit for uploading tracks. If I have more than 200 pieces composed by me, I can load them to stock site? And I have to check about taxes...


----------



## Waywyn (Sep 11, 2016)

zeng said:


> Ok I got it, thanks Waywyn  I think there is no limit for uploading tracks. If I have more than 200 pieces composed by me, I can load them to stock site? And I have to check about taxes...



I think it should be easy to find out about all of this by reading the FAQs of the stock sites you are interested in!


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 11, 2016)

I believe Audiosparx pays the same % to the composer regardless of whether it is excl or non-excl. Maybe the same at Pond5. But certainly at AudioJungle the % is higher if you upload exclusive content.


----------



## gtrwll (Sep 11, 2016)

Audiosparx is 40(artist)/60, Pond5 is 50/50.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

pixel said:


> I've put my tax information and it doesn't matter [edit: because I'm getting the same amount of money after I've put my tax info]. Price for 'music standard license' is $19 (without tax) and on my transactions it's automatically $15.20 for start + author fee $5.70 - author fee $5,70 so finally it's $9.50. Where is missing $3.80 (19-15.20)? And if it's price exl. tax then they took $19+additional tax from buyer and after that from my cut they took away another tax? Sorry but it's not fair at all.



They deduct the author fee twice?


----------



## devonmyles (Oct 23, 2016)

With AudioSparx, although 40/60, it can start to add up each quarter.
They have three different sites selling (if you agree to place on the three sites).
You also earn from:
Miscellaneous External Sales and/or Streams.
Internet Royalties Distributions.
RadioSparx Royalties Distributions.

All stats on your client page seem to be updated daily. Views etc.
You are notified immedialty a track sells or is licensed.
I have been uploading tracks with them for about 9 years, and have had reasonable results.
No problems with payments, also they are excellent at chasing up cue sheets when needed.

They do get some bad press from some, but for me, they are one of the most professionally
run sites out there. No doubt there is better, but I have never had a problem of any sort with them. Good, friendly folks to deal with via email.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

That's a bit ridiculous to give only 40% to the artist. Why is it if you submit apps to the app store you get 70% but for composers they all get shafted? I think Apple gives you somewhat bigger selling power and exposure than any music library ever would so I can't see why their fee is so high. At the end of the day its the composer doing all the work so why in the world would the majority go to the library?

I think you'll find it doesn't work like this in any other industry...the Apple example is not isolated.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 23, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> That's a bit ridiculous to give only 40% to the artist. Why is it if you submit apps to the app store you get 70% but for composers they all get shafted? I think Apple gives you somewhat bigger selling power and exposure than any music library ever would so I can't see why their fee is so high. At the end of the day its the composer doing all the work so why in the world would the majority go to the library?
> 
> I think you'll find it doesn't work like this in any other industry...the Apple example is not isolated.



Maybe I am the only one when it comes to this. Imagine a company giving only 10% but you get the best paid work or sell the most tracks ever!? Why do then people just look to the % but not to the total outcome? If there are two major famous composers who you can work for. One offers 25% but provides you with that much work which doubles or even triples your income ... how is that unfair to the other composer offering you 90% but hardly gets you a job.

It is like it is, some companies, AJ included have such a great exposure and are so well known, they can simply afford it and also I think the company needs a lot of money to preserve the status they have! I am not here to defend AJ, it is just logic to me to think like this!


----------



## eqcollector (Oct 23, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Maybe I am the only one when it comes to this. Imagine a company giving only 10% but you get the best paid work or sell the most tracks ever!? Why do then people just look to the % but not to the total outcome? If there are two major famous composers who you can work for. One offers 25% but provides you with that much work which doubles or even triples your income ... how is that unfair to the other composer offering you 90% but hardly gets you a job.
> 
> It is like it is, some companies, AJ included have such a great exposure and are so well known, they can simply afford it and also I think the company needs a lot of money to preserve the status they have! I am not here to defend AJ, it is just logic to me to think like this!



Completely agree with Alex on this one.


----------



## Fab (Oct 23, 2016)

I have some experience on a popular royalty free music marketplace, not the best of times...but It still apparently pays to have your occasional bits and bobs on there, though the overall appeal of the music in their _trending zone_ is not my favorite. What I find interesting though, is how good composers have gotten at making their logos and landing pages...

I have heard it quoted about royalty free music market sites becoming a 'race to the bottom'..and perhaps they can be thought of as encouraging more of the same, but maybe that's fine.

I know a few members here use 'x' stock music site, they may have differing opinions, these are only my thoughts at this time.

edit; and there have been a few who went on to create works i find more valuable.


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 23, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> At the end of the day its the composer doing all the work so why in the world would the majority go to the library?
> 
> I think you'll find it doesn't work like this in any other industry...the Apple example is not isolated.



Actually, it is the norm in industries with parallels to Stock Music such as Stock Photography which works on a very similar library basis. The latter has been my 'day job' for many years so I can speak from experience! The leading industry player pays 20-40% (call it 30% average to the artist). Others give the photographer 40% with some at 50%. I'm wary of anyone offering the artist more than 50% as it's often the case that these outlets make very few sales and the high commission % is there to simply attract content. 

Those libraries that do sell have often got a good client base (or more importantly, great market share), built over time and can guarantee repeat sales from loyal clients. The library is actually "doing all the work" to get your content in front of clients and sell it. Don't underestimate this. In the digital age any of us can open an online library but very few will ever sell enough content to make it worthwhile unless they are marketing specialist content to a warm client base. The 'democratisation' of content provision that digital & the internet has brought means there are tens of thousands more content providers (and millions of pieces of actual content itself) chasing sales. The libraries that can actually sell content for $ rather than simply displaying it on the web are few in number. They therefore have the upper hand and set commission rates & entry requirements accordingly. 

Whilst this might seem 'unfair' on a per track/image basis the sales (on the good libraries) in the digital age can be far more frequent than they were in the old days. Thus, as @Waywyn points out, it's important to look at the _total income_ from a track or image over it's lifetime, which if it's good enough and you've placed with the right outlet, could be substantial. 

At the end of the day I'd rather have 30% of Y sales than 80% of Zero sales!


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Maybe I am the only one when it comes to this. Imagine a company giving only 10% but you get the best paid work or sell the most tracks ever!? Why do then people just look to the % but not to the total outcome? If there are two major famous composers who you can work for. One offers 25% but provides you with that much work which doubles or even triples your income ... how is that unfair to the other composer offering you 90% but hardly gets you a job.
> 
> It is like it is, some companies, AJ included have such a great exposure and are so well known, they can simply afford it and also I think the company needs a lot of money to preserve the status they have! I am not here to defend AJ, it is just logic to me to think like this!



Well yeah the amount someone earns on a music library is largely down to the composer. If you're Thomas Bergersen you get all the money, someone not so good won't earn anywhere near as much. Not sure what that has to do with what I said though.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 23, 2016)

I think some of us (myself included) sometimes miss the distinction.

Let's face it, there is an element of crap-shoot involved - on BOTH sides - and it is really easy to become somewhat disenchanted when you see a library "sharing" half the proceeds. You don't really know what they do behind the scenes, so it seems unfair, and if there is one thing we all hate, it is "unfair".

There is also that little guy on my shoulder preaching that if the split were in my favor I'd make more money - a tempting argument, but false.

In my more lucid and rational moments I fully understand that the best deal for me is the deal with which I walk away with the most cash, it matters not how much the other guy gets. IF I had the wherewithal to market my music successfully then I could keep all the money - and do all the work, and probably not have any time left to write, arrange, and produce. Hmmm... that ain't going to work is it.

What works is the get the biggest percentage of the biggest sale possible, optimizing the two requires you to let go a little and let someone else make some money too. And that isn't always easy.

Too bad I can't be lucid and rational all the time!

To prove that I can't, gee, the world would be such a nice place if artists could keep all the proceeds!

In the meantime, the only way to find the balance of percentage vs total sales that works for you is to do your homework, and asking here is a great start!


----------



## InLight-Tone (Oct 23, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Maybe I am the only one when it comes to this. Imagine a company giving only 10% but you get the best paid work or sell the most tracks ever!? Why do then people just look to the % but not to the total outcome? If there are two major famous composers who you can work for. One offers 25% but provides you with that much work which doubles or even triples your income ... how is that unfair to the other composer offering you 90% but hardly gets you a job.
> 
> It is like it is, some companies, AJ included have such a great exposure and are so well known, they can simply afford it and also I think the company needs a lot of money to preserve the status they have! I am not here to defend AJ, it is just logic to me to think like this!



Exactly Alex. The thing about AJ, is that you can make repeat sales quite easily there even though as an exclusive author you may only make half of $19 per track so $9.50 at the base liscence. Some authors are banking hard there as AJ is a place where YouTubers and game authors get their material fairly cheaply and is extremely popular.

You can put your track in a place like AudioSparx with it's high prices and may see a sale in a year if at that and they only pay every 3 months as well. 

That being said, I don't want to see people of Alex's caliber at AJ, too much competition!


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 23, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Well yeah the amount someone earns on a music library is largely down to the composer. If you're Thomas Bergersen you get all the money, someone not so good won't earn anywhere near as much. Not sure what that has to do with what I said though.



My post was more aimed towards your: At the end of the day its the composer doing all the work so why in the world would the majority go to the library?

.. but to be more particular to your Apple/AJ comparison. It also depends on who you are more successful with. Assuming you are able to craft cool apps but also write great music. You put music on AJ (40%) and apps into the Apple store (70%). Now, your music lifts off like crazy while you are app doesn't sell at all.

I know these are lot of coulds, woulds and so on but in the end all that matters is the total outcome!


----------



## pixel (Oct 23, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> They deduct the author fee twice?



From every let say $19 (excl. tax) I'm getting $9.50 for exclusive stuff. With time deductions are more blurry for me as I don't participate there for some time now and it fades away (I have like 256kB memory in my brain only  )



Fab said:


> It still pays to have your occasional bits and bobs on there, though imo the overall appeal of the music in their 'trending zone' is probably some of the most uninspired writing I have ever heard.



Yeah but for such price tag I can understand it. Basic stuff written without any engagement.


----------



## Fab (Oct 23, 2016)

^
I have since edited my post, just brought back some feelings is all


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> My post was more aimed towards your: At the end of the day its the composer doing all the work so why in the world would the majority go to the library?
> 
> .. but to be more particular to your Apple/AJ comparison. It also depends on who you are more successful with. Assuming you are able to craft cool apps but also write great music. You put music on AJ (40%) and apps into the Apple store (70%). Now, your music lifts off like crazy while you are app doesn't sell at all.



Oh I see so your music is much better than your apps...

Since Apple is clearly a much bigger platform than Audiojungle that's the only possible conclusion. Either your music is better or you tagged/wrote the description better or you're advertising it better on your Facebook page/forums etc.

Since Audiojungle don't ACTIVELY do anything to sell your music, certainly no more than Apple that's the only possible conclusion.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

I think the problem is threefold here 1. all you're thinking about is how much money you get and not the website who is basically doing nothing 2. you're confusing a big website with something like an agent or an affiliate marketer. 3. also you're suggesting that if you don't sell at pond5 (50% for the artist) you can sell at audiosparx (40%) or maybe audiojungle?

Seems to me they all have about the same 'shafting' rate.

These websites are just BIG and you're dropped into the sea of composers like everyone else. If you don't make money then somebody else will. Its down to you to have great music, advertise your page on your own website or forums, tag it correctly etc. All they are is a big platform. Its no different to just HAVING a facebook page with your music on.

An affiliate marketer or an agent is completely different and they would certainly deserve a much bigger percentage (although typically they don't) because they are actively trying to sell you and if they don't then they don't get anything. Particularly affiliate marketers who very often just push one or a few products at a time.

What you're doing is selling a product. If I list my car on ebay then are ebay gonna take $6000 out of the $10000 I sell it for? There are loads and loads of music libraries and none of them sell as well as ebay and apple sell stuff. So its not justified at all. There's no alternative though since all the libraries seem to get away with this.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 23, 2016)

I actually thought Apple's fee is particularly high. Freelancer take just 10% and ebay take a small percentage too. Taking higher percentages can be ok...like 30,40 or even 50% but taking MORE than the provider? That's just insane. They're not doing anything other than just being a big website...and often not that big. Certainly the libraries seem to be all much smaller than sites like eBay, Freelancer, Google Play, Apple App store etc etc etc.


----------



## mac (Oct 24, 2016)

Until composers stop using these services and agreeing to these kind of rates, nothings going to change. But composers have to earn a living, so what to do? It's a chicken and egg situation.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 24, 2016)

To be honest we can assume, estimate and bring in as many coulds/woulds/ifs as we want. All I can say from my experience is, that it totally doesn't matter if a company takes 10%, 50% or 90% or which service is more active or passive etc.

It all depends on which track hits a nerve to the right time to the right place/project.

I just have my humble experience and many other composers also have theirs, but I can say that I had my music going with all kinds of variations, deals and platforms during the years and - I think a lot of composers would agree with me - some really unpredicable stuff happened which I would have never thought of. It just varies so much, you really can't put out any predicable info. Some of my tracks have been recorded with real choir and real orchestra, all placed at a huge company but they are hardly used ... then I had some tracks which I would probably better delete from my portfolio and they were hosted on really small website services, but they are burning on tv shows and spots around the globe and generated more money than the orchestra/choir projects whole production costs!

... in the end it totally doesn't matter. I am not saying that one should brainlessly throw out his music - all I am saying is that "stuff will happen" and the only thing that counts at the end, assuming we are still talking license bizz, is the generated money! Afterwards it is always easy to say: "But look, if I would have been paid 60% or 75% instead of 50% I would have ...." Well, fact is, you don't!

Besides that I heard so many tricks, hints and valuable information about what to do or not ... the only thing I REALLY trust, if something worked out or not, is my bank balance!


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 24, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> To be honest we can assume, estimate and bring in as many coulds/woulds/ifs as we want. All I can say from my experience is, that it totally doesn't matter if a company takes 10%, 50% or 90% or which service is more active or passive etc.
> 
> It all depends on which track hits a nerve to the right time to the right place/project.



But that's still YOUR doing and is not because you went with a site that really promotes your music but takes 60% of the earnings. You said it yourself, it depends on which track, not which library.



Waywyn said:


> I just have my humble experience and many other composers also have theirs, but I can say that I had my music going with all kinds of variations, deals and platforms during the years and - I think a lot of composers would agree with me - some really unpredicable stuff happened which I would have never thought of. It just varies so much, you really can't put out any predicable info. Some of my tracks have been recorded with real choir and real orchestra, all placed at a huge company but they are hardly used ... then I had some tracks which I would probably better delete from my portfolio and they were hosted on really small website services, but they are burning on tv shows and spots around the globe and generated more money than the orchestra/choir projects whole production costs!



Well again....the difference is still what you did entirely on your own. If the track with no real choir on it did better then what's that got to do with the library?



Waywyn said:


> ... in the end it totally doesn't matter. I am not saying that one should brainlessly throw out his music - all I am saying is that "stuff will happen" and the only thing that counts at the end, assuming we are still talking license bizz, is the generated money!



Let's rephrase that "Besides that I heard so many tricks, hints and valuable information about what to do or not ... the only thing I REALLY trust, if something worked out or not whether I'm being shafted or not and all the money is going straight into the libraries pockets for doing next to nothing"

Not only that but music is being sold incredibly cheaply. Just $19 for a two minute track on audiojungle for the basic license. If you couldn't sell your car for example and it was worth $10,000 I could go up to you and say I could sell it no problem for $200 and would give you 40%. Sounds like a great deal right....? I'd sell it really easily 'cos its so cheap and I barely give you anything...and its your car so I have nothing to lose.

Its actually even WORSE than that because all I'm gonna do is add it to my website..well actually YOU need to add it yourself and tag it, promote it yourself in other place etc etc.



Waywyn said:


> Afterwards it is always easy to say: "But look, if I would have been paid 60% or 75% instead of 50% I would have ...." Well, fact is, you don't!



Yeah of course you don't have any choice. Just look at the reactions to what I've said, you all think its great despite it doesn't happen on freelancer, Apple, eBay etc. It all comes down to is what people will accept and use, and what people will complain about.


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 24, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> I could go up to you and say I could sell it no problem for $200 and would give you 40%. Sounds like a great deal right....? I'd sell it really easily 'cos its so cheap and I barely give you anything...and its your car so I have nothing to lose.
> 
> Its actually even WORSE than that because all I'm gonna do is add it to my website..well actually YOU need to add it yourself and tag it, promote it yourself in other place etc etc.



Apples and Oranges. A car is a physical object. You can only sell the same car once. You can licence a track hundreds of times. Once the cost of production of that track is covered everything else is pure profit.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 24, 2016)

I was about to write exactly what Jaybee already did! You cannot come along and take a physical object and compare to it to a digital available track you are just selling copies of!

But to spin your idea a bit further. Assuming you designed a CGI car model and there are only two CGI license companies you found while researching.

One takes a 90% fee (A) and the other 10% (B). (A) is a passive website, (B) got active agents who search the web to find you clients. Both sell your car design for 100 bucks.

Technically you would think that B would be the first choice ... but then - simply because you got enough time - you design two different car CGI models which are equal quality wise and offer one model to one company each.
(Of course it would make more sense if B would take the 90% fee, since they got agents to pay ... but this doesn't really matter, you can twist it around in this example .. but let's keep going!)

After the first month you check your reports and notice that A sold 1000 licenses. Giving you 10% means that you get 10.000 from a 100.000 USD sale, right?

The second company with the active agents and the 10% fee, managed to sell 100 of your car CGI models, earning 10.000. Giving you 90%, means you earned 9.000!

So all in all you made more money with A, even though it is "just" 1000 bucks different. Now you have to spin this further not just with one CGI car model but 100 or 1000 spread on 5 to 10 companies (models offered exclusive to those services, meaning no double sales of the same model on e.g. 5 websites). If you then check back after the first few years, you will definitely notice the wildest shit going on ... it is simply not predictable. Also another guy would be coming along saying: Well, I am so pleased with company B, they sold so much (and his work is not as good as yours) ...

.. but again, at the end of the day it totally doesn't matter if you would have, could have or were able to, sell it on this or that service for a better %. The only thing that counts is: How much did I bring home at the end of the year ...

So if e.g. you check Pink Zebra on AJ, who sold all in all sold around 70.000 items for 10 bucks each within 5 years, made around 140.000 per year! Wow ... I think this is the only thing that matters ... and not "Well, maybe I could have made more money on service B or C or whatever, taking less percentage. Maybe he tried that with several companies but AJ was the most effective!?


----------



## dannymc (Oct 24, 2016)

very interesting content here but shouldn't this be in the "working in the industry" forum and not members composition? 
where are the moderators? 

Danny


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 24, 2016)

I was told recently that the composers % on AJ increases based on the volume of sales; for every $4 you go up about 1% - and then it is capped at 70%. So all the big names on AJ are making 70%, which is better than most music libraries.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 24, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Its down to you to have great music, advertise your page on your own website or forums, tag it correctly etc.


I don't think these strategies help in anyway. Sites like Audiosparx etc encourage people to do this, but it is totally worthless. Stock music is just a commodity, like petrol or flour or sugar. And even if it were more than a mere commodity, there is no way to reach customers by making some shit facebook page or thinking Soundcloud will somehow bring customers to an RF site to buy your music.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 24, 2016)

Jaybee said:


> Apples and Oranges. A car is a physical object. You can only sell the same car once. You can licence a track hundreds of times. Once the cost of production of that track is covered everything else is pure profit.



So labour is worthless. You seem to think what you do is very cheap but personally I think writing music is something very valuable...especially full orchestral scores. Really don't know how this industry got like this. 

Maybe you could argue that $19 is perhaps acceptable 'cos you can sell it again and again but you can never argue that your percentage should so little. You can sell the same app again and again on Google play but you still get 70%...because YOU made it....Google Play aren't really doing much of anything and without you creating apps they're just a big empty website. You certainly need their platform but they clearly need you more. Otherwise Microsoft mobile apps would be doing just as well as Android...


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 24, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> I was about to write exactly what Jaybee already did! You cannot come along and take a physical object and compare to it to a digital available track you are just selling copies of!
> 
> But to spin your idea a bit further. Assuming you designed a CGI car model and there are only two CGI license companies you found while researching.
> 
> ...



This is a pretty terrible example for several reasons but in this case I'd still go with company B since they almost made me as much overall and they're not taking all my money away for their efforts. With company A 1000 licences already went so those buyers certainly won't be buying again and I'm not so blind to see that company A made $90000 off of all my effort.

Also since company A are a huge website, you'd also have to do all the work yourself to be even FOUND on the website in the first place. From tagging, to description and general optimisation, your own promotion etc. You'd certainly have to do a lot of work to make sure company A get their $90,000.

Not only that but since all composers seem to love being shafted these days, there aren't any alternatives like that! All the websites take about half of the earnings. Also your example is extreme, there wouldn't be such a difference. Affiliate marketers are normally pretty amazing and their only job is to sell your stuff exclusively, but loads of people who try to sell apps on The App store or music on Audiojungle just get lost and never sell anything since its entirely down to them. Its a platform is all.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 24, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> I don't think these strategies help in anyway. Sites like Audiosparx etc encourage people to do this, but it is totally worthless. Stock music is just a commodity, like petrol or flour or sugar. And even if it were more than a mere commodity, there is no way to reach customers by making some shit facebook page or thinking Soundcloud will somehow bring customers to an RF site to buy your music.



Well as a former affiliate marketer (a very successful one) I can tell you you literally could not be more wrong. If you don't tag your music and write keyword rich description you won't even be found in search results on AudioJungle. Also tags tend to show in google too.

And having your own facebook page for your music with 100,000 likes/fans etc wouldn't help? Hmm...ok....let's go with that then...

How can you compare stock music with sugar? Sugar is always basically the same wherever you get it from..the only difference is the price. It also doesn't take any creative talent or technical ability to create...it just grows.


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 25, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So labour is worthless. You seem to think what you do is very cheap but personally I think writing music is something very valuable...especially full orchestral scores.



Where did I say labour is worthless? My post was purely pointing out your flawed argument comparing a physical object to an infinitely repeatable digital one. 



Hasen6 said:


> Really don't know how this industry got like this.



Simple, the digital revolution & internet meant supply of content went way up. Anyone with talent could join in. The internet facilitated movement of goods for free. More demand for media? Sure. More supply? WAY more. More supply than demand? Prices fall. 



Hasen6 said:


> Maybe you could argue that $19 is perhaps acceptable 'cos you can sell it again and again but you can never argue that your percentage should so little.



I _can _argue that my percentage should be so little. I can argue it from the point of _reality _of the marketplace we all find ourselves in today. See point above. We are tens of thousands of suppliers of a commodity as @zacnelson nailed earlier. We are all trying to place our creations in order to sell them. The outlets available that are worthwhile have all the market share. They have the clients who want to buy music. You don't. So they call the shots. That's how it works. If you can pick up the phone and place a cue with CNN for $500 and keep 100% you won't need AJ. 



Hasen6 said:


> You can sell the same app again and again on Google play but you still get 70%...because YOU made it....



Google play are selling to the _public_. That's millions of people looking for apps daily. That's entirely different from the niche industry of stock music licencing. 



Hasen6 said:


> Google Play aren't really doing much of anything and without you creating apps they're just a big empty website. You certainly need their platform but they clearly need you more. Otherwise Microsoft mobile apps would be doing just as well as Android...



Google Play have market share. Where do you go to buy Android apps? Anywhere else? They are clearly "doing something" and that's positioning themselves as the largest outlet for Android apps globally. If these websites were "doing nothing" then you or I could easily set one up, stick a load of tracks on and wait for the $$ to roll in. Simple. Except it's not.

In my 'home' industry of photography I've seen exactly the same arguments over the years. People so precious of their photos that they wouldn't ever accept 40% to licence them via 'ACMEStockPhotos'. No, they set up their own websites, they have a cart and accept Paypal and they get to keep 100%. Most of the time it's 100% of $0. All the clients with money are licencing work from 'ACMEStockphotos' on a regular basis. Meanwhile their product, lovingly crafted though it is, sits unsold. They've got plenty of likes on 'Facebook' though. That must be a consolation. 

Though the internet has brought democratization it has meant those who got in early have the lion's share of the clients. It's the clients we need to make $. If I was a farmer with a dairy herd would I sell my milk from a pail at the end of my lane or would I sell it nationwide via the leading supermarket chain? Where people go to buy milk daily. 

That's the choice we have. Take it or leave it.


----------



## doctornine (Oct 25, 2016)

"Anyone with talent could join in".

No. Anyone with the means to make music, be it Garage Band and Apple loops, or whatever, joined in. 
Talent has nothing to do with it. Thats self evident.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 25, 2016)

Jaybee said:


> Where did I say labour is worthless? My post was purely pointing out your flawed argument comparing a physical object to an infinitely repeatable digital one.
> 
> Simple, the digital revolution & internet meant supply of content went way up. Anyone with talent could join in. The internet facilitated movement of goods for free. More demand for media? Sure. More supply? WAY more. More supply than demand? Prices fall.



Doesn't really explain why its not happening in all the other areas I mentioned. Prices fall because people sell themselves cheap. Freelance sites used to be great but now all the west are undercut by people from India and other poorer countries that are able to work for much lower prices. 

Although they're still at least getting their fair cut from the websites. You're missing my main point which is the cut the website is taking.



Jaybee said:


> If you can pick up the phone and place a cue with CNN for $500 and keep 100% you won't need AJ.



Why would they when they have so much choice on huge music libraries sold at such a cheap price? The point is less and people will be doing that these days. Just 10 or more years ago even small companies or even solo companies making mobile apps or whatever would need to hire a composer and pay about $100 to $200 per minute of music. Yeah it was custom music but all he really needed can now be found on AJ. You can score the whole game for the same price as one minute of music used to be.



Jaybee said:


> Google play are selling to the _public_. That's millions of people looking for apps daily. That's entirely different from the niche industry of stock music licencing.



And so that means what? Because they sell more overall they shaft less?



Jaybee said:


> Google Play have market share. Where do you go to buy Android apps? Anywhere else? They are clearly "doing something" and that's positioning themselves as the largest outlet for Android apps globally. If these websites were "doing nothing" then you or I could easily set one up, stick a load of tracks on and wait for the $$ to roll in. Simple. Except it's not.



Haha well why do you think there are such a ridiculous amount of music library sites? I actually saw someone on here responding to a question about music libraries and he said he would never get into that 'cos it doesn't work out fair unless you own the music library.



Jaybee said:


> Though the internet has brought democratization it has meant those who got in early have the lion's share of the clients. It's the clients we need to make $. If I was a farmer with a dairy herd would I sell my milk from a pail at the end of my lane or would I sell it nationwide via the leading supermarket chain? Where people go to buy milk daily.



People go on strike for exactly these kinds of reasons.



Jaybee said:


> That's the choice we have. Take it or leave it.



That tends to be the same attitude the Chinese have.


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 25, 2016)

@Hasen6 Not sure I can explain 'supply and demand' any more succinctly or have the time to do so. I've tried twice and you're just not understanding my points either so I'll leave you to your own conclusions.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 25, 2016)

Stock/library music has become a numbers game. I don't know much about RF stock music and how it works, but if library/stock music was simply about a general consensus from those who know, _only about perceived quality_, there would be about 200 tracks out there in the entire market place today.

Writing music today because of the technology, has become a little bit like playing a video game for the majority. The majority shun any form of musical training and basically churn. Churning is how a lot of writers make money in the music game and always has been. 
Good churners, don't ever get caught copying. Bad churners copy all the time.

Don't believe me? Check out the half million or so Hans Zimmer or Thomas Newman tracks out there alone. Either that or those two boys have been very busy.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 25, 2016)

Jaybee said:


> If I was a farmer with a dairy herd would I sell my milk from a pail at the end of my lane or would I sell it nationwide via the leading supermarket chain? Where people go to buy milk daily.


Brilliant!


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 25, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> If you don't tag your music and write keyword rich description you won't even be found in search results on AudioJungle. Also tags tend to show in google too.


I'm sorry, I accidentally included the bit about tags when I quoted your post.... I DO agree that you should tag correctly, but only so you don't get lost on the AJ or Audiosparx (etc etc) search function. Although with over 400,000 tracks in some of these big RF libraries (I know for a fact AJ and Pond5 both have those numbers) it's absurd to think that your tags are going to appear on Google. Especially when the tagging is constructed in a very limited way on the sites.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 25, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> All the websites take about half of the earnings. Also your example is extreme, there wouldn't be such a difference.


That's actually a good observation, and you're right it's not sensible to make an argument based on extremes, unless those extremes are displayed in reality. Generally artists get from 35% to 60% of the cut, and the lower end of 35% is only for non-excl music on AJ, excl authors can get up to 70%. However, you made the same error of going to extremes when you responded to my comment about facebook pages ..... you talked about having a page with 100,000 likes.... you might as well say it would be easier to travel overseas if you were a bird. I could go on for ages with examples of how useless this strategy is. A friend of mine is at the highest tier on AJ (he has made over $125k so he gets 70% revenue) and his facebook page has 11 followers, and those 11 are fellow musicians and are selling music on AJ as well. I could list many other examples like this of facebook pages or youtube channels setup with no followers.

Your proposal is the equivalent of a dairy farmer trying to advertise his milk at the local dairy farmers club, when in reality all the milk is identical and his only chance at an income from milk is to produce enough milk to be a significant portion of the overall volume of milk that is distributed to the places where the milk CUSTOMERS shop. Customers who don't care about the name of the cow, but who need the milk for a function and are not going to become loyal customers of your `brand' or visit your farm and introduce themselves.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 25, 2016)

Jaybee said:


> they set up their own websites, they have a cart and accept Paypal and they get to keep 100%. Most of the time it's 100% of $0.


Yep, I've seen this too many times on the internet! The time and money some musicians waste setting up a fancy website with graphics and artwork and photography, just to try and sell from their tiny catalogue of 20 to 100 tracks, it's ridiculous. I could show links to some very fancy websites by composers trying to sell RF music directly, interesting to note that these same composers have their music plastered all over the usual sites for sale also. So what if one day they sell a track for $200 on their site.... they are probably spending more than that every year just creating and maintaining their site. And I guarantee they don't make a single sale `direct'.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 25, 2016)

Jaybee said:


> @Hasen6 Not sure I can explain 'supply and demand' any more succinctly or have the time to do so. I've tried twice and you're just not understanding my points either so I'll leave you to your own conclusions.



Supply and demand is not the only thing that determines price. In fact it can often be responsible for a _*raise*_ in price. Its also down to what people are willing to 'sell' for. That's why I gave the example of the poorer countries undercutting the western competition and lowering the cost of things like web design etc. I really don't think that price went down because of more demand.

Also supply and demand don't explain the cut the music library will take from you WHATSOEVER. Which was my main point all along.

You can explain it again if you want but that won't make it any more or less correct.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 25, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> That's actually a good observation, and you're right it's not sensible to make an argument based on extremes, unless those extremes are displayed in reality. Generally artists get from 35% to 60% of the cut, and the lower end of 35% is only for non-excl music on AJ, excl authors can get up to 70%. However, you made the same error of going to extremes when you responded to my comment about facebook pages ..... you talked about having a page with 100,000 likes.... you might as well say it would be easier to travel overseas if you were a bird. I could go on for ages with examples of how useless this strategy is.



Its not the same at all. I can give an example of facebook page with a billion like and its still valid because you said it makes NO DIFFERENCE. If even just ONE person goes from your facebook page on to audiojungle and buys a track then that was worth doing. If you've paid for loads of likes and got only one sale then maybe it wasn't.

I found someone on AJ who was one of the top orchestral music sellers with already loads of sales and he had youtube, facebook, twitter and soundcloud all promoting his AJ page with many fans and likes everywhere....and his music wasn't even that good. In fact it was acceptable at best.



zacnelson said:


> A friend of mine is at the highest tier on AJ (he has made over $125k so he gets 70% revenue) and his facebook page has 11 followers, ALL of them are fellow musicians and are selling music on AJ as well. I could list examples like this all day.



So how is he getting more sales than everyone else? His music is average at best....no social marketing, he didn't bother tagging, no keywords in description or anything? Maybe you should check his bookshelves for anything on Chaos Magic?

I don't know I'm even trying to convince you to be honest. I just pray all the other composers on there are like you too haha. Actually you're right, when I was an affiliate marketer, the product pretty much sold itself. I just created a website and waited for the money to pour in.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 25, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> Yep, I've seen this too many times on the internet! The time and money some musicians waste setting up a fancy website with graphics and artwork and photography, just to try and sell from their tiny catalogue of 20 to 100 tracks, it's ridiculous. I could show links to some very fancy websites by composers trying to sell RF music directly, interesting to note that these same composers have their music plastered all over the usual sites for sale also. So what if one day they sell a track for $200 on their site.... they are probably spending more than that every year just creating and maintaining their site. And I guarantee they don't make a single sale `direct'.



Does a fancy website make people GO to your site or does it just help with conversions if they're already there? I never can remember that one....


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 25, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So how is he getting more sales than everyone else? His music is average at best....no social marketing, he didn't bother tagging, no keywords in description or anything?


I don't know where you got any of those ideas.... all I said was he is getting great sales, and that he has no presence whatsoever outside of AJ; he has never been in any band which gained popularity, he has no website or youtube or soundcloud or facebook presence (except for 11 friends who are not customers). But I don't know why you have concluded that he doesn't tag or write good music.... his music is absolutely fantastic, he does nice descriptions and graphics on his AJ tracks, he uses all 30 keywords wisely, makes sure he provides alternate versions (like 30s and 60s edits). But none of his success can be attributed to networking or personal advertising; he just happens to sell his milk at AJ and people like it more than the other milk. But the existence of AJ is what creates an opportunity for him to sell milk all over the world, because that's where people go when they want milk. Similar to what @Waywyn said, it's better to sell 10000 tracks for $19 than a handful of tracks for $1900. (Although I know I'm saying something slightly different to him, it's kind of similar).


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 25, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> I don't know where you got any of those ideas.... all I said was he is getting great sales, and that he has no presence whatsoever outside of AJ; he has never been in any band or collaborated with any other musicians, he has no website or youtube or soundcloud or facebook presence (except for 11 friends who are not customers). But I don't know why you have concluded that he doesn't tag or write good music.... his music is fantastic, he does nice descriptions and graphics on his AJ tracks, he uses all 30 keywords wisely, makes sure he provides alternate versions (like 30s and 60s edits). But none of his success can be attributed to networking or personal advertising; he just happens to sell his milk at AJ and people like it more than the other milk. But the existence of AJ is what creates an opportunity for him to sell milk all over the world, because that's where people go when they want milk. Similar to what @Waywyn said, it's better to sell 10000 tracks for $19 than a handful of tracks for $1900. (Although I know I'm saying something slightly different to him, it's kind of similar).



Well there you go then, there's always an explanation. Even if he is making money he could always be making more. The point is its not AJ, Pond5 or Audiosparx doing some amazing thing promoting your music that warrants them taking a higher percentage than say Apple or Google play, its always pretty much down to the individual. You are successful on these sites for several reasons 1. social marketing etc like I talked about before - basically advertising 2. you have amazing music and thus you have more of a viral thing going on or your conversions are just so much better 'cos your music is just so good 3. you tag things, write great keyword rich descriptions and thus have success within AJ.

It seems your friend is doing points 2 and 3. Obviously doing all 3 would be best. All the top composers do advertising despite already having amazing music. Thomas Bergersen has obviously incredible music but still has great presence on twitter, facebook etc and his stuff is literally all over youtube with his iTunes buy link. Sure he doesn't get any sales at all from any of that though.


----------



## zeng (Oct 26, 2016)

What about income tax? Are you paying taxes for income coming from stock sites like AJ?


----------



## Kony (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Even if he is making money he could always be making more.


How exactly?


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Kony said:


> How exactly?



Well he's not doing any promotion so of course he could be making more. Like the example I gave, the bad/average composer was making all the money because he promoted well.


----------



## Kony (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Well he's not doing any promotion so of course he could be making more. Like the example I gave, the bad/average composer was making all the money because he promoted well.


So you're saying it doesn't matter where you sell, you can always increase your income by self promotion? I'm not convinced, given the saturated nature of the "market" (for want of a better word) - there are so many composers promoting themselves ... not all of them make lots of money and I don't think it's necessarily based on talent (as you've pointed out) or self promotion.

Even if what you say is true, better to go with an exclusive model (with higher artist percentage) and promote oneself as much as possible to maximise income, yes? In that scenario, the return is not so bad.

By the way, Apple and Google make lots of money from a variety of income streams - I don't think it helps to compare stock sites to these corporate giants (aside from the fact these two corporate giants pay virtually zero corporation tax).

The answer is fairly clear though ... if you don't like the financial terms of the stock sites, don't use them. You have no control over how others use them and how cheaply they are prepared to sell their product - complaining about it is not going to change that.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Kony said:


> So you're saying it doesn't matter where you sell, you can always increase your income by self promotion?



Nope...

But you can always increase your sales wherever you are or even on your own website with promotion. I really didn't think I'd have to explain the benefits of advertising to people but there seems to be several here that don't get it.



Kony said:


> I'm not convinced, given the saturated nature of the "market" (for want of a better word) - there are so many composers promoting themselves ... not all of them make lots of money and I don't think it's necessarily based on talent (as you've pointed out) or self promotion.



So they're talented, have good products to sell, promote really well but still don't make any money? Not sure if that's actually possible...



Kony said:


> Even if what you say is true, better to go with an exclusive model (with higher artist percentage) and promote oneself as much as possible to maximise income, yes? In that scenario, the return is not so bad.



Like I said with my main point (which incidentally doesn't seem to be getting across at all) is its not so much about what you make but the website itself.



Kony said:


> By the way, Apple and Google make lots of money from a variety of income streams - I don't think it helps to compare stock sites to these corporate giants (aside from the fact these two corporate giants pay virtually zero corporation tax).



Having other streams doesn't justify anything. So if I run a restaurant and also earn money trading online should I then start to pay my waitresses less?

Any websites like this whether its eBay or Apple charge a small commission because 1. they're not actively doing much other than just being a popular website platform and 2. the supplier is just one person whereas they have countless suppliers. ie they get 30% from god knows countless thousands of suppliers whereas you as just one single person thus earn the larger share of 70%.



Kony said:


> The answer is fairly clear though ... if you don't like the financial terms of the stock sites, don't use them. You have no control over how others use them and how cheaply they are prepared to sell their product - complaining about it is not going to change that.



Yeah if you accept it all then of course there will be nothing to do about it. The fact the rates are so bad comes down to the suppliers, the amount they are willing to work for. You can't just say you're gonna sell a product and demand the wholesaler supply them at your price, no matter how low - even if you are the largest distributor. But if another supplier is willing to sell at this cheap price just to get going 'cos they are a new start up then they may well be willing to sell at that low price.

The problem is is that people are willing to work for peanuts and with a very small cut. Because if you don't then someone else will. Its like I said with freelancers being undercut by Indians willing to design websites and do computer programming for much lower prices. Although having said that, even they wouldn't be willing to work for such a small percentage.


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So they're talented, have good products to sell, promote really well but still don't make any money? Not sure if that's actually possible...



Sorry in advance for this direct question and please no offense meant here, ... but you are not working a lot in the music industry, no?


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> Sorry in advance for this direct question and please no offense meant here, ... but you are not working a lot in the music industry, no?


I'm saying its not possible in *any* industry to have a great product, effective advertising, great demand and still sell nothing. Always has to be some reason why the product is not actually selling.

Maybe you have an example of someone with loads of facebook fans/likes, twitter followers, youtube fans, paid advertising even and great music that is not making much at all? If I could see the example(s) maybe I could understand you better.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> I'm saying its not possible in *any* industry to have a great product, effective advertising, great demand and still sell nothing. Always has to be some reason why the product is not actually selling.


Yes it is. Don't confuse usage with selling. If your fans are the sort of people who don't pay, just use, it's exactly what does happen. That's the problem with Copyright generated income of digital products. People think that not paying is a victimless crime, because "well, if I'd had to have paid, I just wouldn't have downloaded it".

Sorry for the digression. Back to your normal programming...!


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Yes well apart from stealing and piracy my argument stands...that shouldn't be happening. If your stuff is not selling either its your content or your advertising, or there's no demand for the specific type of thing you're selling. This rule applies in any industry.

Equally you could be making money purely because you promote well but your content is only average...or vice versa. But you always have the potential to earn more by doing both. Promotion, conversions, content.

Promotion (advertise effectively and in many places), conversions (there's that pretty website with the call to action or buy links from all your social bookmarking sites), content (great quality music that people actually are looking for).


----------



## doctornine (Oct 26, 2016)

I think you're missing the point of Alex and Daryl's argument. Let me explain :
I'm a full time library/trailer/whatever writer, from which I make my living. I write the music, the publishers sell it. I make the content, they do the business.
Now, for fun I do a little music project and I sell via bandcamp and promote via social media. 
I do the content and the advertising. To date I've done maybe $500 worth of sales - in almost 18 months.
Thats *peanuts* compared to my library income.

You see what I'm getting at ?


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> I'm saying its not possible in *any* industry to have a great product, effective advertising, great demand and still sell nothing. Always has to be some reason why the product is not actually selling.
> 
> Maybe you have an example of someone with loads of facebook fans/likes, twitter followers, youtube fans, paid advertising even and great music that is not making much at all? If I could see the example(s) maybe I could understand you better.



So, to answer my question: No, you don't! ... because if you would, you would know tons of people being good at composing and do a lot to promote their music but still woudn't be able to buy a slice of bread!


Besides that, we both probably agree that it wouldn't be the nicest thing to link to people or whatever, but just speaking from emails or Facebook messages you wouldn't believe how much I received from finished Berkley students and other skilled composers with quite a bit of experience who would love to simply help out, assist or asked for work. Some more desperately, some just to get in contact. Also you can go to AJ or any other license website and you will find tracks which sound great on its own but sold nothing or not that much! Furthermore you will find lots of people here on this forum who are composers but doing it just part time job because they make their main money with their dayjob. Being skilled or promoting yourself means almost NOTHING!

... and one other thing concerning social media. You have to be aware that a lot of folks get followers for all kinds of reasons. I have written a decent amount of library demos and therefore I got around 5000 SC followers which is pretty decent in my position. Does that make me get more jobs? Not a single one except the usual: "Hey can I get your track for free for my project?" Requests. I also have a decent amount of subscribers on YouTube. Does that make me get a living from it? No, because most of those guys were just interested in my tutorials! ... and so on and so on.

But at a specific point, talking of the composers who have great amounts of fans, likes or whatever, people start following simply because they ALREADY know you from a tv show, a very famous album or a live gig! At this point people are following you because you already made it ... followers, fans and connections do just very little workwise! Even though it works out very rarely that you write someone and this person is willing to work with you!


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 26, 2016)

Great post @Waywyn you've said everything that is in my mind


----------



## Kony (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So if I run a restaurant and also earn money trading online should I then start to pay my waitresses less?


I thought that was the point you were already making about labour being hived off to less developed nations like India, or was there some other reason why you thought massive multinationals outsource there? Giants like Apple rise up in sales and popularity in western liberal democracies, then source everything from cost efficient places like India and China.... 

Apple did try to give away copyright material by the way - to wit the dispute Taylor Swift had with Apple last June over royalties and free streaming ... the same free streaming issue continues with YouTube, you know, it's owned by Google...? 

You make some pertinent points about good product, advertising and marketing, but you're not getting the fact that the market is saturated. There are thousands of good actors trying to make it in Hollywood ... are they all going to become successful?


----------



## dannymc (Oct 26, 2016)

> You make some pertinent points about good product, advertising and marketing, but you're not getting the fact that the market is saturated. There are thousands of good actors trying to make it in Hollywood ... are they all going to become successful?



so it will just come down to those who are lucky and those that are not. but also i think there is an element of hard graft too. we think of the big hollywood stars like tom cruise and di caprio as being one of the lucky ones who made it but if you actually listen to the likes of cruise or di caprio in interviews you realize they are fanatical about acting and put blood sweat and tears into their art. i think that might be the difference between those who make it and those who dont. if you're really honest with yourself ask, did you really go that extra mile for that project were you locked yourself away in your studio for days on end skipping food and sleep just to finish it and make it perfect? most people have every day lives that they also have to lead so its difficult to balance both to that level without sacrificing something so i think going the extra mile and getting that lucky break is the key. i think everyone gets a lucky break at least once its just whether everyone realizes that's their opening and grabs it with both hands. but maybe i'm just a very naive hobbyist. 

Danny


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 26, 2016)

dannymc said:


> so it will just come down to those who are lucky and those that are not. but also i think there is an element of hard graft too. we think of the big hollywood stars like tom cruise and di caprio as being one of the lucky ones who made it but if you actually listen to the likes of cruise or di caprio in interviews you realize they are fanatical about acting and put blood sweat and tears into their art. i think that might be the difference between those who make it and those who dont. if you're really honest with yourself ask, did you really go that extra mile for that project were you locked yourself away in your studio for days on end skipping food and sleep just to finish it and make it perfect? most people have every day lives that they also have to lead so its difficult to balance both to that level without sacrificing something so i think going the extra mile and getting that lucky break is the key. i think everyone gets a lucky break at least once its just whether everyone realizes that's their opening and grabs it with both hands. but maybe i'm just a very naive hobbyist.
> 
> Danny



I have to disagree with "lucky"  ... or better generally add something to this word: lucky
I mean of course you can be lucky, by just accidentally composing something (not in the sense of throwing stuff together and see what comes out) which hits a nerve ... but there is more to it than just luck:

- listen to the market!
what is currently needed, what do producers want, what is top 10 in license music stock sites. Don't copy but just focus on that style!

- don't give up
just don't compose one track, put it up there and make a sad face when nothing happens!
No! Compose 10 or even 50 or 100 tracks in that style ... even better, make it regular! ... and put them up there. You just need ONE runner and you could get some dimes rolling!

- disregarding you are doing license music, make it unique!
I mean, come on! Some license music just HAS TO BE generic or without melody etc. ... because this is not about crafting art (you know what I mean) but about supporting a dialogue, transporting a scene or selling a product! Noone gives a shit how fancy your melody is, when it is a industry presentation of a vacuum cleaner and there is a guy talking all the time. They pick your stuff because it fits the video! Then put something into your music which is really jumping out in terms of sounds or a production procedure, which simply let guys say: Hey, this is cool, this sounds different!

- last but not least: Invest a shitload of time into researchin on HOW a platform works. There is something special going on on every platform, especially on AJ when it comes to so many genre coming together! 


So, if you follow all these things, .... yes, one could say: Yeah, dude was just lucky! ... but actually you know what you did!

Just to add some private experience in this post. People back then asked me why I write all these demos. Some insulted me, that I just wanted all that stuff for free ... some had this kind of "you are just stupid" undertone in their voice because why I simply didn't buy them and use the time to work on my projects! ... but they forgot something which was obviously going on in the demo scene: PUBLICITY! ... tbh I can't count the jobs which were rushing in when suddenly all my music was exposed ... and no, I wasn't just lucky. I put shitloads of efforts into those demos to make them unique in a way. There are so many demos out there which simply focus on just presenting the library and play back some sounds from the lib, but I just I added vocals or added something which you couldn't hear in other demos. I just wanted to make them special in a way, tell a story or simply use the library in a full working environment! The ball started rolling back then!

So in the end you have to keep analyzing all these things. Many people want to start working in the game scene. They just start writing other composers if they got some work, then get "depressed" if there is none and call others lucky! ... then I simply ask those guys: Hey, did you just check through the Apple or Android store, check out all those game companies, check their websites and contact emails and writ shitloads of cool application mails or call them etc.? ... "Oh cool, I never thought of that!"

The last previous sentence is basically ... why others are more lucky than others! They do not tend to think to the details! They just see an empty glass on the table, thinking that this glass is empty ... but not checking all the details and suddenly notice that there is a reflection on the glass surface of a table behind them with lots of full glases of all kinds of stuff! Analyze and make use of the details and keep the ball rolling, then you are a lucky one!


----------



## InLight-Tone (Oct 26, 2016)

Great post Alex! Very inspiring!


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 26, 2016)

Brilliant post, thanks for the advice Alex.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

doctornine said:


> I think you're missing the point of Alex and Daryl's argument. Let me explain :
> I'm a full time library/trailer/whatever writer, from which I make my living. I write the music, the publishers sell it. I make the content, they do the business.
> Now, for fun I do a little music project and I sell via bandcamp and promote via social media.
> I do the content and the advertising. To date I've done maybe $500 worth of sales - in almost 18 months.
> ...



So you don't have any social media or any links going to your library music? See, this is the problem, composers know how to compose but not how to promote. Also audiojungle aren't affiliate marketers so if you're successful on audiojungle and are noticed enough to make sales when they are loads on there that make nothing that must be down to either your content being great or your tagging/descriptions etc.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Yes it is. Don't confuse usage with selling. If your fans are the sort of people who don't pay, just use, it's exactly what does happen. That's the problem with Copyright generated income of digital products. People think that not paying is a victimless crime, because "well, if I'd had to have paid, I just wouldn't have downloaded it".
> 
> Sorry for the digression. Back to your normal programming...!



Well that is an external factor but doesn't have much to do with the cut the library takes. But if you sell MORE tracks for a lower price then it stands to reason that music will be more likely to fall into the hands of pirates.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Kony said:


> I thought that was the point you were already making about labour being hived off to less developed nations like India, or was there some other reason why you thought massive multinationals outsource there? Giants like Apple rise up in sales and popularity in western liberal democracies, then source everything from cost efficient places like India and China....



Yes my point is that it seems in this industry its not necessary because certain composers are willing to sell for lower and lower prices so the market is becoming cheapened without India and China. But again, that's not my point because that's lowering prices but is nothing to do with the cut the library takes.



Kony said:


> You make some pertinent points about good product, advertising and marketing, but you're not getting the fact that the market is saturated. There are thousands of good actors trying to make it in Hollywood ... are they all going to become successful?



Ok the app market isn't saturated? Let's go with that then....


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 26, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> So, to answer my question: No, you don't! ... because if you would...



So, to answer my question: No, you don't have any examples ... because if you did you would have listed them.

Other than that those are some good points about how to be successful in the face of it. But its kind of like if for example someone kept going round your house throwing rubbish in your face while you try to compose. You could say just don't give up, erect a board to block the rubbish hitting you etc. Although the main point you seem to be saying is that promotion does work which I certainly agree with.



Waywyn said:


> Besides that, we both probably agree that it wouldn't be the nicest thing to link to people or whatever, but just speaking from emails or Facebook messages you wouldn't believe how much I received from finished Berkley students and other skilled composers with quite a bit of experience who would love to simply help out, assist or asked for work. Some more desperately, some just to get in contact.



Yes its the desperate new composers who probably cheapen the market by willing to sell for less.



Waywyn said:


> Also you can go to AJ or any other license website and you will find tracks which sound great on its own but sold nothing or not that much!



Yes that's when it comes down to promotion/tagging/descriptions etc. It doesn't matter how good you are if nobody knows about you...


----------



## Kony (Oct 26, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Yes my point is that it seems in this industry its not necessary because certain composers are willing to sell for lower and lower prices so the market is becoming cheapened without India and China. But again, that's not my point because that's lowering prices but is nothing to do with the cut the library takes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok the app market isn't saturated? Let's go with that then....


It looks like you are taking my quotes out of context and addressing them by sidestepping the gist of what I'm saying rather than admit you're wrong. You asked if someone starts making more money would they then pay less labour, and your premise was that they wouldn't. I gave you an example of why I think you are wrong, citing the corporate giants you've been championing in this thread and how they outsource labour to less developed nations. You've then twisted that into suggesting I was saying less developed nations provide cheaper music, which I wasn't. You also sidestepped the point I made about how these corporate giants you've been so positive about have tried to give away music via streaming services, and some still do. Have you got a response to that? 

I'm not sure what your point is about the app market. I used actors in Hollywood as an analogy and asked you a question - you responded by not answering the question but asking me one.... So I'll ask again, are all the good actors in Hollywood going to become successful, yes or no?


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 27, 2016)

Kony said:


> It looks like you are taking my quotes out of context and addressing them by sidestepping the gist of what I'm saying rather than admit you're wrong. You asked if someone starts making more money would they then pay less labour, and your premise was that they wouldn't. I gave you an example of why I think you are wrong, citing the corporate giants you've been championing in this thread and how they outsource labour to less developed nations. You've then twisted that into suggesting I was saying less developed nations provide cheaper music, which I wasn't. You also sidestepped the point I made about how these corporate giants you've been so positive about have tried to give away music via streaming services, and some still do. Have you got a response to that?



Your argument is really odd that's why. Why would they charge less just because they make more profit elsewhere? You could equally say they don't need to make apps at all since they already sell profitable computers. And what about eBay and freelance sites that charge even lower rates? I supposed they all outsource to less developed nations.



Kony said:


> I'm not sure what your point is about the app market. I used actors in Hollywood as an analogy and asked you a question - you responded by not answering the question but asking me one.... So I'll ask again, are all the good actors in Hollywood going to become successful, yes or no?



No it comes down to more than just being good, you have to promote as well. I think I talked about this in almost all of my posts. Some people in this thread have been arguing against that, why don't you respond to them instead? Your argument that its saturated is moot 'cos its also saturated in the app market.


----------



## Kony (Oct 27, 2016)

Did I really need to add a qualifier that you don't need to continue talking about advertising and marketing? I've already said you've made pertinent points about that - even if I did feel you have been stating the obvious repeatedly in numerous posts. And you keep repeating the points about advertising and marketing because...? 

I'd assumed you'd infer that all of the good struggling actors in Hollywood who aren't all going to be successful are all using advertising and self-promotion. Or would you think they'd go all the way there to just hang out and hope for the best? 

Do you really think it's a good idea to compare musical compositions to apps? I only ask because you've then cheapened music to something any IT (app) programmer could create - and I thought your thrust was that the value of music needed to be increased, not undervalued as you suggest it is by stock site owners.

Not sure what you mean about my point being odd - I'm stating facts about how multinational corporations (which you've been promoting) outsource in order to increase their profit margins. They didn't need to, they were already successful before they outsourced. It had nothing to do with charging less for product - and you've once again added an inference to a point I made which wasn't there. You also once again ignored the point about how these multinationals rip off artists by free streaming (qualifier: this is a separate point to why they outsource). 

You can continue to reply if you want, but I'm assuming the response is going to avoid the direct questions I asked you because the answers to those questions will contradict the points you've made earlier - aside from stating the obvious about how advertising, marketing and self-promotion might increase one's chances. You will also probably add more inferences to my points which aren't there. Because of this, I'm going to leave this here - feel free to avoid the stock sites and good luck with Apple/Google/eBay etc....


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 27, 2016)

Kony said:


> Did I really need to add a qualifier that you don't need to continue talking about advertising and marketing? I've already said you've made pertinent points about that - even if I did feel you have been stating the obvious repeatedly in numerous posts. And you keep repeating the points about advertising and marketing because...?
> 
> I'd assumed you'd infer that all of the good struggling actors in Hollywood who aren't all going to be successful are all using advertising and self-promotion. Or would you think they'd go all the way there to just hang out and hope for the best?



Ok what point are you trying to make here and how does it ONLY apply to music libraries and not to freelancers, people selling stuff on ebay, making apps etc? Honestly think this applies everywhere. I've already said that you need to be good and promote too. You say I've already talked about promotion so honestly no idea what point you're trying to make here.



Kony said:


> Do you really think it's a good idea to compare musical compositions to apps? I only ask because you've then cheapened music to something any IT (app) programmer could create - and I thought your thrust was that the value of music needed to be increased, not undervalued as you suggest it is by stock site owners.



You seem to be arguing against your own points. How have I cheapened it?? That's what I've been arguing about all along but everyone else insists music hasn't been cheapened, that's exactly how much we should be paid. If music is not as 'cheap' as an app as you put it then why do the websites give you a smaller cut off the profits? All your arguments seem to be against me and everyone else in the thread. Honestly don't know quite what you're arguing for or against here.



Kony said:


> Not sure what you mean about my point being odd - I'm stating facts about how multinational corporations (which you've been promoting) outsource in order to increase their profit margins. They didn't need to, they were already successful before they outsourced. It had nothing to do with charging less for product - and you've once again added an inference to a point I made which wasn't there. You also once again ignored the point about how these multinationals rip off artists by free streaming (qualifier: this is a separate point to why they outsource).



Again I think you're losing what your own point is. There's no justification to take a smaller or larger card from a provider just because you made some more money elsewhere. It should come down to what the provider is providing and the value of it. You seem to think music is way more valuable than an app or game that even contains several tracks of music so you should agree here.



Kony said:


> You can continue to reply if you want, but I'm assuming the response is going to avoid the direct questions I asked you because the answers to those questions will contradict the points you've made earlier - aside from stating the obvious about how advertising, marketing and self-promotion might increase one's chances. You will also probably add more inferences to my points which aren't there. Because of this, I'm going to leave this here - feel free to avoid the stock sites and good luck with Apple/Google/eBay etc....



_I'm_ contradicting my points?? I talked a lot about the benefits of promotion because many people here seem to think its not a factor and just uploading your music to a library is enough, hence they should get a larger cut off the profits..even to the extent that they get a bigger cut than the person providing the actual product itself.



Kony said:


> You asked if someone starts making more money would they then pay less labour, and your premise was that they wouldn't.



Not "wouldn't", *shouldn't....*



Kony said:


> You also sidestepped the point I made about how these corporate giants you've been so positive about have tried to give away music via streaming services, and some still do. Have you got a response to that?



Like what? They shouldn't do it.....? Not sure what you want here and what does that have to do with the fee music libraries charge?

How does the market being saturated justify the library taking a larger fee when compared to all the other saturated markets that don't?


----------



## Waywyn (Oct 27, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So, to answer my question: No, you don't have any examples ... because if you did you would have listed them.



Imagine you would be one of those composers desperately looking for work and then you would see your name on a forum on someones post mentioning you as a unsuccessful composer who is trying hard! Clients you have contacted recently start googling about you, just to do some research on you and suddenly find this post of someone mentioning you being not that successful! Very cool!


----------



## dannymc (Oct 27, 2016)

> I have to disagree with "lucky"  ... or better generally add something to this word: lucky
> I mean of course you can be lucky, by just accidentally composing something (not in the sense of throwing stuff together and see what comes out) which hits a nerve ... but there is more to it than just luck:
> 
> - listen to the market!
> ...



great post Alex thanks for that. this is gold dust for those of us who are only starting out so greatly appreciated.

btw has anyone had their cues/tracks used in anything cool from selling on these stock music sites or is it just all low budget student films and you tube videos that are buying on AJ, Pond 5 etc?

Danny


----------



## InLight-Tone (Oct 27, 2016)

dannymc said:


> great post Alex thanks for that. this is gold dust for those of us who are only starting out so greatly appreciated.
> 
> btw has anyone had their cues/tracks used in anything cool from selling on these stock music sites or is it just all low budget student films and you tube videos that are buying on AJ, Pond 5 etc?
> 
> Danny



I think the market is mostly YouTube creators and advertisers as well as I've heard many AJ tracks on ads. On the forums many composers announce that they are getting film licensees as well which are $300 a pop or $150 to the composer.


----------



## Greg (Oct 27, 2016)

Self promotion doesn't work?? WTF are you guys smoking. Use those creative artist brains and figure out how to do it right.


----------



## dannymc (Oct 27, 2016)

> On the forums many composers announce that they are getting film licensees as well which are $300 a pop or $150 to the composer.



really? but i thought these places are mostly RF as in the buyer pays for the license once $40 or whatever and can use forever. where would they be getting the $300 film licenses from? 

Danny


----------



## JC_ (Oct 27, 2016)

dannymc said:


> really? but i thought these places are mostly RF as in the buyer pays for the license once $40 or whatever and can use forever. where would they be getting the $300 film licenses from?
> 
> Danny



The license is valid for one project only and there are tiers. $300 is most expensive license and it's mainly for films that will have a broadcast audience over 10 million people (as far as I know). Obviously still peanuts compared to if you got the track licensed by regular means but these sites are mainly about selling lots of licenses of the same track.


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 27, 2016)

The $300 licence is for film or TV with a broadcast audience between 1 and 10 million. And then you can also make money from PRO royalties.


----------



## dannymc (Oct 28, 2016)

> The license is valid for one project only and there are tiers. $300 is most expensive license and it's mainly for films that will have a broadcast audience over 10 million people (as far as I know). Obviously still peanuts compared to if you got the track licensed by regular means but these sites are mainly about selling lots of licenses of the same track.



oh right, is that something AJ have? the only RF i use is pond 5. i like them because they allow you set your own prices but i don't see anything like this here. 

Danny


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 28, 2016)

Well they HAVE those licenses, whether or not they get used a high percentage of the time is another issue... My friend who has 7000 sales on AJ said the higher licenses are very very rare, he would know since he's in the category of `elite author' on the site.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 28, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> The $300 licence is for film or TV with a broadcast audience between 1 and 10 million. And then you can also make money from PRO royalties.


I thought that AJ didn't allow you to register the track with a PRO?


----------



## Jaybee (Oct 28, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I thought that AJ didn't allow you to register the track with a PRO?



They do since 4th October: https://help.market.envato.com/hc/en-us/articles/208477896?_ga=1.90891930.1083019538.1476433446


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 28, 2016)

Moved to Working in the Industry on request.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 28, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I thought that AJ didn't allow you to register the track with a PRO?



I think by the sound of it Daryl they (Aj) must have done a deal. That said, I'm not sure how they could have done that with the PRS based on my knowledge with them over the years. But I have not talked to anyone at the PRS for a time now, so it's very possible they now take a view that it's simply a matter of being a collection agency and they will collect on registered tracks regardless of origin.


----------



## pixel (Oct 28, 2016)

I just want to add that there is good and bad marketing. Doing marketing doesn't mean that it will be successful one. Likes and followers on FB, SC can means absolutely nothing (seems that Alex talked aout this earlier) as most of them are people who are not your real target (if they're real people at all). 
There's a reason why we have Marketing and Business courses. It's more difficult than making auto-campaigns on Google, FB or whatever. To sell a product (music) we have to think about ourselves as a business subject and follow steps of business marketing. It begins with Research. I bet that a lot of people think that their music is good/great and it's enough to make money. It's not. There's above 7 billion people on the world right now and first step is to find out which one of them are looking for our product. Find out where and who they are etc etc. After deep research it's possible to make proper marketing and avoid shooting blindly. Thousands likes and followers from poor countries where one basic license = monthly salary, doesn't help at all. 

Good marketing is an art itself and not everyone have skills to do it. We have examples of smart people who make success in really short time because they knew how to make people go crazy about them/their product. Yesterday I read about this guy: Chance The Rapper - check this out. His music is nothing special at all and he 'made it'. 

Ps. my friend did last time official FB campaign and for first time he got hundreds of post likes in few hours. He went suspicious and he found out that all likes are coming from poor regions of the world (even that he chose other regions in campaign). So it seems that now even official ad-campaign on fb are the same as all those 'pay for like' services, just more expensive


----------



## zacnelson (Oct 28, 2016)

pixel said:


> Ps. my friend did last time official FB campaign and for first time he got hundreds of post likes in few hours. He went suspicious and he found out that all likes are coming from poor regions of the world


Yes I've seen this happen to people. A friend had a band page and paid a marketing service, in no time at all he had 10,000 likes on this band page.... which is absolutely massive compared to most bands starting out. It took me a long time to convince him that no, he didn't actually have 10k fans. It's weird, he just seemed unable to believe he had been duped.


----------



## doctornine (Oct 29, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> So you don't have any social media or any links going to your library music? See, this is the problem, composers know how to compose but not how to promote. Also audiojungle aren't affiliate marketers so if you're successful on audiojungle and are noticed enough to make sales when they are loads on there that make nothing that must be down to either your content being great or your tagging/descriptions etc.



I don't need to, 99% of the libraries I write for don't need me to do their promo. But then I'm not talking about Audio Jungle or any of the RF end of the market, I'm talking about libraries that are mostly part of Warners, BMG, Universal etc etc...
I do share some of their promo on my on FB, but then my FB friends are all by and large in the same business as me so it's hardly advertising is it ?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 29, 2016)

Not sure how distribution works with RF libraries, but with PRO libraries it's really all about their distribution networks worldwide, so stuff like FB or Twitter aren't really that important afaik.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Not sure how distribution works with RF libraries, but with PRO libraries it's really all about their distribution networks worldwide, so stuff like FB or Twitter aren't really that important afaik.


Yes, that's pretty much it. Whilst they may get traffic from their FB/Twitter accounts, they get very little work. Most of their clients come from searches being made on their Websites, phone calls to the sales people, or vice versa. The model for established library companies has very little to do with the RF model.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Yes, that's pretty much it. Whilst they may get traffic from their FB/Twitter accounts, they get very little work. Most of their clients come from searches being made on their Websites, phone calls to the sales people, or vice versa. The model for established library companies has very little to do with the RF model.



Don't just make a random guess. If you don't look at the traffic analytics for their websites you wouldn't know. And if its not to your own website you wouldn't know anyway. You can't track where the traffic to your AJ page (or wherever) comes from - trust me it would surprise you. Some people get more traffic from google etc, some from social media. Most people a combination - all depends on how you promote.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Don't just make a random guess. If you don't look at the traffic analytics for their websites you wouldn't know. And if its not to your own website you wouldn't know anyway. You can't track where the traffic to your AJ page (or wherever) comes from - trust me it would surprise you. Some people get more traffic from google etc, some from social media. Most people a combination - all depends on how you promote.


I do know. I talk to all my Sub Publishers on a regular basis, and they know where most of the licences come from.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I do know. I talk to all my Sub Publishers on a regular basis, and they know where most of the licences come from.



Well that's just some people. All it shows is the traffic they're getting from facebook is not targeted. Either that or they didn't ask every single customer 'how did you find me?'. Loads of people make fortunes on facebook. The difference is people who know how to do it and people don't. Don't blame the tools. Personally I always preferred Google traffic as well but knew that the SEM experts were making a killing just the same.

Most composers don't really know much about promotion (very apparent reading this thread) so maybe their Facebook efforts aren't working. I hardly think blaming Facebook is smart though.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Well that's just some people. All it shows is the traffic they're getting from facebook is not targeted. Either that or they didn't ask every single customer 'how did you find me?' to.


I think that I shall bow out of the discussion, because neither I, nor my company have any music on RF sites, and they are obviously a very different way of working than the traditional model, so I'm not adding anything to this subject. For a start, I wouldn't be thinking in terms of $300 for use on a film. There would be at least another couple of zeros at the end of that figure.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I think that I shall bow out of the discussion, because neither I, nor my company have any music on RF sites, and they are obviously a very different way of working than the traditional model, so I'm not adding anything to this subject. For a start, I wouldn't be thinking in terms of $300 for use on a film. There would be at least another couple of zeros at the end of that figure.



Not to mention the library takes about half of that (or more!) in their fee....


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 29, 2016)

You just have to do the hard work to make the most money.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Not to mention the library takes about half of that (or more!) in their fee....


Ah, well that's a totally different subject for various reasons, so feel free to start another thread, and I'll participate if I have anything to add to the discussion.


----------



## zeng (Oct 29, 2016)

what about taxes? are you paying income tax for sold music on these sites?


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 30, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Ah, well that's a totally different subject for various reasons, so feel free to start another thread, and I'll participate if I have anything to add to the discussion.



That's what I was talking about since the very first post I made in this thread. Don't worry nobody else seemed to notice my main point either.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 30, 2016)

Desire Inspires said:


> You just have to do the hard work to make the most money.



Yeah....especially with people taking more than half for everything you sell.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 30, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Yeah....especially with people taking more than half for everything you sell.


 
I only do 50/50 deals. Anything more than that is not beneficial to me.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 30, 2016)

Desire Inspires said:


> I only do 50/50 deals. Anything more than that is not beneficial to me.



Even that is really terrible. To be honest I even though Apple's cut was too big at 30%. I was used to eBay, Freelancer etc where its less than 10%. These companies make money because they are one, dealing with masses of providers. So they try to make a good deal for each individual provider by giving them each at least 70% and they make money by the 10-30% cut x10,000,000 effect.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 30, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Even that is really terrible. To be honest I even though Apple's cut was too big at 30%. I was used to eBay, Freelancer etc where its less than 10%. These companies make money because they are one, dealing with masses of providers. So they try to make a good deal for each individual provider by giving them each at least 70% and they make money by the 10-30% cut x10,000,000 effect.



Please, don't harass me.


----------



## chillbot (Oct 30, 2016)

Desire Inspires said:


> Please, don't harass me.


Your irony is dead sexy.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 31, 2016)

Desire Inspires said:


> Please, don't harass me.



Harass you?? You're so odd. All I did was state some facts. Me stating them or not stating them doesn't make them any less or more true. If you don't like it take it up with the music library...it wasn't my doing.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 31, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> Even that is really terrible.


It all depends on the library. If it's AJ, and there is no money spent by the Publisher on producing the tracks, I agree.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 31, 2016)

Daryl said:


> It all depends on the library. If it's AJ, and there is no money spent by the Publisher on producing the tracks, I agree.


You mean in house mastering? Do audiosparx do that then or other libraries? I thought only the hard to get into ones do that.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 31, 2016)

Hasen6 said:


> You mean in house mastering? Do audiosparx do that then or other libraries? I thought only the hard to get into ones do that.


Whether or not I could classify them as "hard to get into", I don't know, but what I meant was I meant spending £30K on recording, doing the mastering, doing the Metadata and doing the selling. Under those conditions, the Publisher is probably entitled to alt least 50% of licence fees. Obviously this is not AJ, so it is not strictly speaking relevant to this thread, but when thinking about percentages, it must be taken into account.


----------



## Hasen6 (Oct 31, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Whether or not I could classify them as "hard to get into", I don't know, but what I meant was I meant spending £30K on recording, doing the mastering, doing the Metadata and doing the selling. Under those conditions, the Publisher is probably entitled to alt least 50% of licence fees. Obviously this is not AJ, so it is not strictly speaking relevant to this thread, but when thinking about percentages, it must be taken into account.



Yes I would agree with that but you don't mention which libraries actually do that? My whole argument is that the libraries are not doing enough to warrant their cut. Libraries like Pond5 and AJ (by the looks of things Audiosparx too) what they're doing is reviewing tracks so they maintain a certain level of quality that is expected from buyers, and beyond that they're just a popular website. Certainly hard to achieve in itself but they're not actively selling your music. Based on that I would say they should be taking 20-30% or perhaps even less. They somewhat have a volume advantage. "The many" vs "the few or the one".

All the real hard work is done by the provider. They provide the product itself, from composition, to recording, to mixing and mastering. I can't stress enough how important the product is! No matter how good you are at selling its no good without something to sell. But not only that but the actual selling part is also largely performed by the provider since its necessary to make an attractive homepage on the music library, a header image, composer bio, other images, links to other music you have, music packs etc, the thumbnail that goes with the song, the description of the song, the keywords etc etc etc.. Not to mention the most important thing which is when the potential buyer listens to the music itself.

You may feel privileged to just BE on AJ but really you're just lost in a sea of composers and music and its down to you to make yourself noticed. Its not really much different to having your website indexed in google....but google don't take any fee for that. Ironically the libraries probably get a large part of their traffic (that 'warrants' their huge fee) for free from sites like google, facebook, twitter etc.


----------



## asherpope (Nov 1, 2016)

I can't think of any composers who would ever feel privileged to be on Audiojungle


----------



## Hasen6 (Nov 1, 2016)

asherpope said:


> I can't think of any composers who would ever feel privileged to be on Audiojungle



Well most people in the thread seem to disagree with you since they all think AJ and other libraries are fully justified in their fee and are doing more than enough work to 'earn' it.


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 1, 2016)

asherpope said:


> I can't think of any composers who would ever feel privileged to be on Audiojungle



... unless you are PinkZebra, Tim McMorris and soundroll!


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 1, 2016)

I just went and listened to quite a few of these tracks (not all the way through) from these top selling people at audio jungle.

I don't think I would ever sell a single track on that site. No chance at all.


----------



## zacnelson (Nov 1, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> I just went and listened to quite a few of these tracks (not all the way through) from these top selling people at audio jungle.
> 
> I don't think I would ever sell a single track on that site. No chance at all.


Why? Is it because the music is beyond what you are capable of, or is it because you would hate to compose in those genres?


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 1, 2016)

Can't compose in those genres or styles tbh. The kind of thing I have habitually got into, just wouldn't be required based on what is selling on their site.

Haha the last track I had accepted on the library I contribute to, is University Challenge meets Fawlty Towers meets Brandenburger. That would go down a storm on an RF site NOT!


----------



## zacnelson (Nov 1, 2016)

Now I think I have to hear it!


----------



## asherpope (Nov 1, 2016)

Waywyn said:


> ... unless you are PinkZebra, Tim McMorris and soundroll!


Touche! Good point well made!
Speaking from my own experience, I've had a lot more success with ukulele/claps and positive corporate tracks with PRO libraries that actively seek out placements. Would love to get a slice of the McMorris micro-stock cash, but I can't justify spending my own time on the crap shoot that is trying to be a best seller on AJ


----------



## Baron Greuner (Nov 3, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> Now I think I have to hear it!



Don't expect little treats like this all the time. 

60 sec version. Definitely not in the RF style.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Nov 3, 2016)

Check out Sky on Aj for something more trailerish and look at how much that dude is banking...


----------



## dannymc (Nov 3, 2016)

> Check out Sky on Aj for something more trailerish and look at how much that dude is banking...



Sky is the name of the track? don't know how anyone can find anything on that site.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Nov 3, 2016)

Sky-Productions actually is the composers name/label. He's only got 44 tracks in his portfolio but he's selling extremely well. What I don't get is who is buying this stuff? His featured track on his profile page "Hollywood Trailer" has sold 1018 times!

https://audiojungle.net/user/sky-productions


----------



## dannymc (Nov 3, 2016)

> Sky-Productions actually is the composers name/label. He's only got 44 tracks in his portfolio but he's selling extremely well. What I don't get is who is buying this stuff? His featured track on his profile page "Hollywood Trailer" has sold 1018 times!



i agree, how could there possibly be a 1000 needs for a track like this out there especially with so much other similar tracks doing the rounds. so this guy has made 1018x$19=$19,342 on this track alone. would he even make that if he signed to a big trailer house but maybe got one sync or even none at all. its hard to argue these figures. 

Danny


----------



## InLight-Tone (Nov 3, 2016)

I know it's pretty mind blowing the action some of these bigger players on AJ are getting...


----------



## dannymc (Nov 3, 2016)

> I know it's pretty mind blowing the action some of these bigger players on AJ are getting...



yeah but i cant help feeling its a bit of a sell out going for this bargain basement model with you're music. even this guy i cant help feeling he's selling himself a bit short. why not spend a bit more time and effort on those 44 tracks and aim to get them into the top exclusive libraries instead. but i guess everyone is different in how they view these micro stock places. 

Danny


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 3, 2016)

Guys, you have to realize one tiny little difference and stop thinking big movie, trailer, tv show, 1000, 5000 or 10000 bucks a track license business here. Audiojungle actually mostly aims towards people who are uploading their holiday movies, owners of a small business presenting their new product on their small YT channel, people who have a YT channel or a more or less successful YT show out there and wanted to legally buy music for it, people who worked on a project, like a picture, a sculpture or whatever and showing the process (and want to show a time lapse video), people who did a little documentary on whatever topic, small presentations for school, university or whatever, a local tv or radio station ... I could go on for hours!!

... but again, this is the problem most of the people forget when they bash platforms such as AJ or general RF libs! ALL or most of these platforms are affordable for the little man! All of these companies sell music for hundreds of thousands of little videos which are being produced each day!

So again, selling a track for "just" 8 or 10 bucks sounds lame in the first moment, but if you think about that someone who is uploading a little holiday movie for their friends or a little business owner showing a new process or product isn't able to license an expensive trailer track from a well know trailer house it all starts to make sense!

... and if you really think about it, those top selling people on e.g. AJ simply offer tracks the little man at home can afford which at the end of the day can sometimes be much more than someone selling a top trailer track for movies once or twice a month!


----------



## Greg (Nov 3, 2016)

Actually AudioJungle kick started my career...

I began getting a few sales of cues I had laying around from dabbling with production and that inspired me to write more and more. This gave me the outlet and confidence I needed to really light a fire under my ass to write music every day. Eventually I honed my craft and fast forward 5 years, ended up composing the new theme for Village Roadshow Pictures working with Immediate Music, my proudest musical achievement.

I disagree with a lot of AJ's practices, especially their lack of care for PRO's till recently, and especially especially the terrible search engine. But the accessibility their company provides for aspiring creatives to immediately see results from their work is fucking incredible!

You can be bitter about devaluing music, ect or you can be happy for all the people there filled with excitement and vindication for their creativity.


----------



## dannymc (Nov 4, 2016)

> Actually AudioJungle kick started my career...
> 
> I began getting a few sales of cues I had laying around from dabbling with production and that inspired me to write more and more. This gave me the outlet and confidence I needed to really light a fire under my ass to write music every day. Eventually I honed my craft and fast forward 5 years, ended up composing the new theme for Village Roadshow Pictures working with Immediate Music, my proudest musical achievement.
> 
> ...



thanks Greg thats very inspiring. the problem i have with these sites is how is anyone ever gonna possibly find your music among another 400k tracks? so unless you're really lucky and every time someone goes to search for a trailer cue who's to say you might only get a sale here and there. and for $20 were the library keeps 50% that could end up being very demotivating rather than inspiring. like take for example that sky productions guy, how is that his 44 tracks among another 400k (i know they are not all gonna be trailer) gets found by so many buyers to get sales over and over again.

i'm not snobby at all about these libraries and i know there are different markets i just think its probably alot harder to get your music heard swimming in a sea of hundreds of thousands of other tracks and all to make $10 when you do eventually make a sale. we're also seeing the guys that are the biggest sellers but there are probably hundreds or thousands of other composers who cant make a sale here.

anyway i have no problem with RF in general and understand there are different markets. pond 5 was the first places i sold music and it was a great feeling to know someone would actually pay to use my music but i price my tracks at about $60 which i can live with. maybe i would make more sales if i lowered my prices to $20 but it just doesn't sit well with me because of the amount of work i put into making those tracks.

Danny


----------



## zacnelson (Nov 4, 2016)

Danny, some excellent points there. I can only conclude that people find a composer's tracks by perusing the composer's personal profile, rather than searching the entire library. So if someone has one successful track, that brings more sales to their older lesser known tracks. Of course, the mystery is how do they ever get that first successful start.... and most of the time, it is due to being selected as the featured track of the week.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Nov 4, 2016)

zacnelson said:


> Danny, some excellent points there. I can only conclude that people find a composer's tracks by perusing the composer's personal profile, rather than searching the entire library. So if someone has one successful track, that brings more sales to their older lesser known tracks. Of course, the mystery is how do they ever get that first successful start.... and most of the time, it is due to being selected as the featured track of the week.



Also notice that the top composers have a large number of "followers" so probably repeat buyers looking for that particular style...


----------



## Greg (Nov 4, 2016)

I'd be surprised if it wasn't because he got a Videohive user to use the song in their project and that took off in sales.


----------

