# Exclusive libraries w/ no up-front payment - worth it for orchestral cues?



## rgames (Aug 11, 2010)

Could have sworn there was already a thread on this but couldn't find it...

Anyway - has anyone here worked an exclusive library deal with NO up front payment? This has come up for me a couple of times and I just don't see how it's a good deal. However, there seem to be lots of folks doing it.

I've talked to a few libraries that do exclusive deals with no up-front payment and, of course, they never give any info on how many licenses they sell, averages per artist, separation by genre, etc.

So it seems like nobody would ever do it, but they do. Sure, they probably get more exposure for your library tracks but can it really be that much more than listing the same track across a bunch of different libraries?

Eternally confused on this one...

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Aug 11, 2010)

I agree with you Richard. If the company has no skin in the game, what incentive do they have even to put your music on a list or a hard drive, much less "market" it.

When someone has paid $10k to record a cue, that's another matter. I think that it's not so much about how big the fee is, but how motivated the library is to recoup its investment.


----------



## rgames (Aug 11, 2010)

Yeah - doesn't seem like anybody would ever do it with no up-front payment unless:

The exclusivity expires after a year or so

or

The library is a specialty library that matches what you do

However, I go to the websites and there are a lot of artists there, and the music is pretty good... so it still seems like there's something I'm missing.

rgames


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 12, 2010)

I had a similar offer with a German company.

Basically, they said that I would get money if my music was picked up. But there was no up-front fee. And they dint want me to sign up with ASCAP or BMI either - they wanted royalty free music.

John had been very kind to point out the same he has done to you. And Troels pretty much said it in a short message. BTW - Requeim Pro sounds awesome - we are doing a score back here in India with Sameer and wished if the update had come out sooner!!!! Definitely gonna use it on the next one.

I then gave them a counter offer to pay for basic production at least. I said - ok, you know as a good experience - if you pay (small amount) for live instruments and I can pad it up with samples later - then it would still be worth it.


I had asked for around $7800 for 15 fully produced tracks with edits.

In the end they dint even negotiate this amount and just said they had too much programming costs at the time and could not pay right now.


Here is another thing - 90% of this was re-coupable money. Basically what it means is - when my music did make money from licensing they would deduct the $7800 from my earnings. 

So, in all - it was just not working out for me at all. I could just sit on my computer and write tunes and it would basically mean the same thing.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## bluejay (Aug 12, 2010)

rgames @ Thu Aug 12 said:


> Yeah - doesn't seem like anybody would ever do it with no up-front payment unless:
> 
> The exclusivity expires after a year or so
> 
> ...



Because there are plenty of good composers with little to no understanding of business?

I know it seems crazy but there are a ton of great composers out there who want to do this for a living but have no real understanding of how to make money doing it. They make easy targets for exploitative business models.

cheers

James


----------



## Blackster (Aug 12, 2010)

bluejay @ Thu Aug 12 said:


> rgames @ Thu Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah - doesn't seem like anybody would ever do it with no up-front payment unless:
> ...



Maybe yes, but maybe no! 
 
I would consider a few more things than just an upfront BECAUSE it's a business!!

1) Are you spreading your music around in many libraries? If yes, don't do that because clients can and will use google in order to find the cheapest price for your music. If no, pick a library your music fits in (e.g. if you are writing trailer music don't try to get your music licensed through a library which concentrates on image films). 

2) If you decide to sign an exclusive deal, is it really exclusive world-wide? If yes, that's a big deal and you want to make sure that your trust in that library will be lucrative. Have a look at their songs, their clients, their business-engagement, their image, their composers, etc... some companies offer a "quasi"-exclusive deal, which means that you are not allowed to distribute your music through another library located in specific countries ... maybe that's a good alternative to think about before signing a worldwide exclusive agreement and get nothing in the end. 

3) Quality sells. If your music IS good you are going to get money for that through licensing. If you are picking a library where your music shows up next to Zimmer, Badelt, Gregson-Williams, etc. be aware of the fact that your music has to compete with their music. If you can't compete, choose another library in order increase your "quality-factor" ... I can't say if this will be working for you but it's worth a thought. 

I know some people who make their living just because of the permanent licensing of a handful of their tracks. So it's no magic and it's not the bad industry either ... at least that's my opinion.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 12, 2010)

well, Blackster, this is good advice -- excellent advice -- but it doesn't speak to the specific issue of zero up front, plus no production costs.

To me, it's important that they have some incentive to make the money back, especially if it's not one of the top five libraries. 

I guess another situation would be one in which one already has sold the music -- and been paid already, plus maybe some production costs. In such a case, it makes more sense to me to consider a placement, but even so it seems kind of painful. At least it should have a reversion clause or nullification if, after some specified period, the music has not been placed.

And last, this whole royalty-free thing is total robbery. SOMEONE is going to get those royalties, and by law in the US it's the composer. You should be careful that cue sheets are not going out with the producer's kid listed as the composer.

As others have said, always bear in mind the reputation of the organisation, and weigh Blackster's and others' advice about the form of one's agreement, and read it carefully.


----------



## midphase (Aug 12, 2010)

"has anyone here worked an exclusive library deal with NO up front payment? This has come up for me a couple of times and I just don't see how it's a good deal. However, there seem to be lots of folks doing it. "


My dream is that this whole "everybody else is doing it" way of thinking will someday disappear.

There are lots....LOTS of people on YouTube who insist on doing very painful things to their crotch...their numbers is not a valid reason for me to jump on that bandwagon...same is true for those libraries.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Aug 12, 2010)

Q: Exclusive libraries w/ no up-front payment - worth it for orchestral cues?

A: No.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 12, 2010)

I guess - a follow up question to the original question is:


How do you get to write music for libraries? Does one contact them or its only through connections or reccomendations? 

For example, how can I start doing this for a living?


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## _taylor (Aug 12, 2010)

vibrato @ Thu Aug 12 said:


> I guess - a follow up question to the original question is:
> 
> 
> How do you get to write music for libraries? Does one contact them or its only through connections or reccomendations?
> ...



1- Write a ton of tunes, 
2- go through musiclibraryreport.com 
3- demo away... 

Hone in on the libraries that serve the clientele and release similar music to what you are writing. 

4- Collect fat checks. :lol:


----------



## rgames (Aug 12, 2010)

Good - at least I'm not the only one who thinks it's a bad idea. Like I said above, though, I might do it if the exclusivity ends after a year or two or it's a specialty library.

My guess is that the libraries that do the exclusivitiy w/ no up-front are actually collections of folks who know each other. A couple of them pitch the tracks and when one decides he wants his unlicensed tracks out, well, no big deal. At the same time, though, they try to dig up tracks from other folks.

Thanks for the comments,

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 12, 2010)

vibrato @ Thu Aug 12 said:


> I guess - a follow up question to the original question is:
> 
> How do you get to write music for libraries? Does one contact them or its only through connections or reccomendations?
> 
> For example, how can I start doing this for a living?




I honestly feel that the pool has been tainted. People who are doing "ok" with libraries have been doing it for many many years and have established relationships with those libraries. They mostly fall into a "top tier" category which is very full and not looking to add any new names (unless they're very recognizable names).

The train has left the station a few years ago...not saying that there aren't exceptions...but that's exactly what they are....exceptions. For a new composer to start doing tracks for libraries, he'll be asked to work for free with no up front, and will be thrown into the pile of assorted other free stuff. These composers tend to become the "b-side" filler to the more polished tracks, and they are in a position of not really benefitting from their track being picked except by random chance.

This is both a good and a bad development. It's good because hopefully it phases out more new composers from a ridiculously overcrowded market. It's bad because those who are left are bound to be very competitive, driven and talented...which is an all around bad recipe for libraries who expect exclusivity with no up front payment.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 13, 2010)

Hmm... I'm not so sure that's accurate, midphase. While I agree the market is insanely overcrowded (hasn't it always been like that?) I first started earning money from my music via libraries when I was 17, or about 6 years ago. Since then I've been finding new libraries and opportunities and, without going into too much detail, have created a nice revenue stream for myself to supplement my other activities. I've even had three buyout deals, and I've never had to sign a exclusive deal with no upfront money. 

To be fair, there are more TV shows, video games, films and ads than ever, and all of that needs music - new music. There's always room for more exceptional talent.


----------



## midphase (Aug 13, 2010)

Andrew....you are the exception...and even then I would question how much money you're truly making from your music library stream...and how often....your omission of detail leaves me a bit skeptical.

Secondly...no, the market hasn't always been this insanely overcrowded. You go back about a decade ago and things were still "human" so to speak. Things have been getting exponentially worse and worse over the past few years, to the point where we have reached a boiling point.

If I was just starting out today...I wouldn't. Things are simply too nuts nowadays for new composers fresh from the crib.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't feel comfortable giving out specific figures relating to my income on a public forum. I'll just say that the total income I've earned from production music (including music written for that purpose AND album music set up for licensing through libraries) has totaled into the five figures - enough to pay for quite a few expenses.

Since I started out, I've had three full-album buyout deals, about 8 tracks worth of additional buyouts, and then otherwise I've been primarily licensing a single CD non-exclusively with libraries like Pump Audio and Crucial Music. This is certainly less than what other composers could be doing if they were focusing full-time on production music composition, but my time was split between this sort of work as well as earning a college degree full-time, freelance composition for video games, sample development and sound design, etc.

As for # and frequency of placements, again without going into significant detail, I can expect about 4 pages worth of placements twice a year from a mere 13 songs (including Heroes on NBC, an Atari video game trailer, a Bank of America ad campaign, various cable shows on MTV, Food Network, Science and Discovery channels, an Xbox 360/PS3 video game, etc etc) and in the last 6 months I've compiled two more CDs of material to add to that. 

Also, my mistake for saying "hasn't it always been like that?" That's actually not what I meant to write. What I meant to say was, "isn't the music industry as a whole like that?" In other words, it's no better for composers looking to get into film music, video game music or TV music, or bands, or songwriters or lyricists. I managed to get into licensing with absolutely no connections of my own and no real experience. The first set of buyout deals I got (the single tracks) were from a company that contacted me personally. Subsequent deals with other companies were solely the result of me cold-calling and sending CDs out to various libraries. The results were pleasantly surprising.


----------



## midphase (Aug 13, 2010)

Your situation seems very particular to you, and it's possible that you might have tapped into a "hole" in existing music libraries that was in high demand...not sure which.

This no-money up front thing is not a good thing...and it's coupled with companies paying out less and less licensing fees due to the high number of available libraries with decent material.

Look at it this way...you could create 40 tracks which you think would license well (usually at least 2 minutes long each, with 15 and 30 edits, and in some cases stems)...that's a boatload of work. Then let's say you're able to convince a number of libraries to carry those 40 tracks or a portion of them with no exclusivity deal (most of them frown on this since they don't want the same tracks floating around with the competition).

Lastly...let's say a handful of your tracks get placement. Most music libraries will do a blanket license for about $1k. So that means that not only do they suck 50% of that right off the bat...but also the other 50% has to be split up between the various composers who are used on that blanket...let's say that's 20 guys....so now you only get $25 for your share of the license. Further, let's say that blanket license was given to an industrial video presentation for employee training...that means no ASCAP or BMI royalties since it will never be broadcast. The same is true for TV ads, videogames, trailers and TV promos...they just don't get tracked except in a few very rare cases. A national TV ad will pay about $2500 for a "generic" music library license. Once again...the company grabs 50%, and assuming they don't do some "funny accounting" and tell you the whole truth (which they can hide extremely easily) you're getting $1250...not horrible...but how many tracks did you actually compose before getting that payoff?

There are always exceptions...but most guys who are just starting out right now and who don't have a very unusual and specific sound will not have the same experience as you.


----------



## rgames (Aug 13, 2010)

I tend to agree with Kays on this one - that's similar to my experience with libraries, though I've been doing it seriously only for a year or so (by seriously, I mean writing tracks specifically for libraries).

In my estimation, it's a total crapshoot: I actually started submitting to libraries about three years ago but I didn't take it seriously - it was just somewhere to dump the tracks that didn't get used elsewhere or where I kept the rights. Quite frankly, I feel the quality of my tracks has improved tremendously over that time period. However, I see no correlation between what I consider the quality of the track and how much revenue it generates.

I've discussed libraries with a number of folks and success always seems to boil down to one of two factors:

1. Quantity
2. Luck

You can offset one with the other: if you get lucky, you don't need many tracks. But, while waiting on luck to show up, write a boatload of tracks. Talent doesn't matter quite as much, I'm afraid.

EDIT: OK I disagree with Kays on the no-up-front thing being bad in all cases. I only think it's bad if it's an exclusive deal with no reversion clause, or a long period of exclusivity.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 14, 2010)

I however agree with you on quality not really being such a huge factor. If one listens to what plays under your average reality TV show (by and far the largest consumer of library music on TV), most of the time it's a simple drum loop with maybe a bass line added for spice and not much more.

To this day the track that has generated more $$$ for me than any other is something that I would be ashamed to play for my dog.


----------



## kid-surf (Aug 14, 2010)

It's the screenwriter equivalent of a "free option" or a "$1 option". It's not a good deal, at all. Because you are giving exclusive rights to someone for FREE. The only person risking anything is the artists/writer. The producer is left to collect as much material as humanly possible with the idea that "something in my slush pile has got to land, and I didn't have to pay ANYTHING to find out"

That's a shitty deal in screenwriting also because: if the producer can't pay you anything or get a studio to pay you anything, what makes you think he's got enough juice to get your movie/TV show made? Normally that's the case. Sometimes, under specific conditions, that doesn't apply [more on that in a sec]

OPTIONS: [with an expiration date] are common in the film/TV world. BUT, no agent would go with no upfront money on an option. In fact, the agent will attempt to "front load" the deal. Basically the agent would say: "We want you to commit more money upfront BEYOND what the option price is in order to show good faith in how hard you'll push this project, otherwise we're talking to other operations who we feel WILL give us this front-loaded option deal." In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

Back to specific conditions:

The one time [as a screenwriter] you DO want to work for free up front is when you are "gambling" on a big-ass spec sale. You've got two choices as a [signed] screenwriter; You can either try to sell your project as a pitch in order to get paid upfront to write it [which has a minimum fee of $100,000] -OR- if you feel that your project is a really big and valuable movie/hot property you may want to gamble and go write it on spec for free in hopes of landing that big splashy payday once you take it to market. It's a long shot. In the gamble scenario you may want to work on it with a "name" producer in order that there is a touch of anticipation to read this 'secret' project. In fact, with one recent project: An agent at my agency suggested a particular writer go off and write his movie on spec [with the producer] instead of trying to sell it as a pitch [with the producer]. All involved agreed with this approach. They sold it for 1.5 Mil instead of the writers lower [I'm guessing] $300,000 quote. Not only that, they got a deal whereby the studio essentially agrees to give back the material/script if they are not in production within a year. That's right, the writer would keep the 1.5 Mil and could go out and sell the script to someone else if the studio doesn't go into production within the year. AND...now the writer's quote got a significant bump due to the splashy sale. All because they gambled.

That's the same approach I'm taking with my current project. I'd rather gamble for more money. I want at least $500,000 for this thing. In the worst case sale scenario the least I could make is $100,000. But the most I could make is 1 Mil+. Why not gamble for that vs. trying to get 100k right now? I feel it's always best to gamble for a big payday on a HUGE idea. But that means you have to do the work for FREE, initially, and gamble you'll get paid later. But that's what I did with my last project and I was successful.

Problem with composing is that they never see the music as holding that degree of value.

That's why I skated on composing. Not to be a downer but think of it this way: I can spend 2-3 months writing music for FREE aimed at landing a few thousand dollars on a library -OR- I can spend 2-3 months writing a screenplay that may sell for as much as $1,000,000. Both are about the same odds. Amazingly.

Obviously, I don't write music all that often anymore.

I'm half asleep after lunch and a beer...if this doesn't make sense, that's partly why...


----------



## impressions (Aug 31, 2010)

har, i just started conversing with such libraries-most if not all of them aren't paying up front. the best chance for a composer to actually made some buck out of it is to have tons of fabulous tunes, and work with a starting, aspiring library.

btw, here is a very good article about exactly this situation(how much it sucks to be a starting composer adays):

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5790

i don't know what the truth is on the internet people, but i think alot of the working people here are those who started working when the industry wasn't as swamped as it is now, hence they have a better starting point, but no one can prove either, its just an opinion(don't mean to cause arguments).


----------

