# PREMIUM BEAT



## Valérie_D (Jan 29, 2018)

I know it's a RF library, anyone has experience with them?

Many thanks!

v


----------



## mc_deli (Jan 29, 2018)

There are surely more libraries than composers now


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jan 29, 2018)

mc_deli said:


> There are surely more libraries than composers now



LMFAO. That may be a true statement. Nonetheless, can you answer Valerie's question?


----------



## Dirk Ehlert (Jan 30, 2018)

I'm working with them for several years now, what do you wanna know?


----------



## tav.one (Jan 30, 2018)

What percentage do they pay to the composers?


----------



## Jeradatherton (Feb 5, 2018)

I'm interested in this as well.


----------



## tsk (Apr 3, 2018)

I heard from someone that they now only pay a buy out fee of something like $600 apparently (don't know for sure). This would mean that you'd get no percentage share of sales from license fees at all. If so, this is a really bad deal in my opinion and I'd avoid them.


----------



## will_m (Apr 8, 2018)

I don't have tracks with them but I had a conversation with someone in their AR department. The deal seemed to be 600 USD each track but it was like a buyout so no sync fees etc. This was about 2 years ago though.


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 8, 2018)

will_m said:


> I don't have tracks with them but I had a conversation with someone in their AR department. The deal seemed to be 600 USD each track but it was like a buyout so no sync fees etc. This was about 2 years ago though.


See here's what I don't get. I'm all for keeping the writers share, but while I certainly have tracks that make more than $600, I have a fair amount of tracks that made close to $0.
Keeping in mind that some people crank out 1-2 tracks a day, at 2 a day that's $6000 a week. 
For $6000 a week, I'd sell my liver, kidney and possibly a lung 

Even at _measly_ 2 tracks a week, that $5000 a month.
Now, I don't know how likely they are to accept _all_ your tracks, but I know composers who'd die to make $5000 a month.


----------



## will_m (Apr 8, 2018)

R. Soul said:


> See here's what I don't get. I'm all for keeping the writers share, but while I certainly have tracks that make more than $600, I have a fair amount of tracks that made close to $0.
> Keeping in mind that some people crank out 1-2 tracks a day, at 2 a day that's $6000 a week.
> For $6000 a week, I'd sell my liver, kidney and possibly a lung
> 
> ...



There is a potential there but like you say you have to have the tracks accepted. Its also a hard pill to swallow if they license your piece for say a few thousand and you make 600 dollars.


----------



## tsk (Apr 8, 2018)

will_m said:


> There is a potential there but like you say you have to have the tracks accepted. Its also a hard pill to swallow if they license your piece for say a few thousand and you make 600 dollars.



I've heard from some people that tracks make a lot more in sales than $600, so accepting the deal seems like effectively giving up a lot of amount money from license / sync fees that you'll never see.

Also, I'm not sure how many tracks they'd accept either.

For the record, I'd never accept $600 for a complete sync buy out of any track which I thought was 'good'. I don't think almost any of my 'good' tracks have made less than that from sync in their lifetimes.


----------



## Dirk Ehlert (Apr 8, 2018)

Since I have been working with them for more than 5 years now, I can say this. It may be not the cream of the crop in terms of licensing deals (in regards to high profile licenses like trailers, commercials or TV) but it is also no Audiojungle or Pond5 either. In the end they are a business, and the initial aim of a business is to make money. From my experience, when you have a batch of ten tracks that they sign, that's a 6k figure directly in your pocket, plus the writers share for everything that runs on air (which can add up over time significantly). 
Although I have no direct insight into the hard facts in terms of what my tracks have made, I know that on average one of these ten cues pays for the batch and then some. If they're lucky there's more tracks that run well, but when and if at all, is absulutely at their own risk. The "risk" for you as a composer is to loose on sync if a track might have performed well (or better) elsewhere where you keep your sync, maybe 50/50. For me that's a lot of ifs and maybes. Over the years having such a deal at hand has saved my a&& many many times when cash flow was low or I had time in between other projects. I totally understand that some people will be put off by the fact that they get 600 bucks for a track that may make them 6000 in sync. But we all know this biz is a gamble and the great thing about our "product" is , that I can always do something "similar" to what I've done and given away again, and again and again. They also have evolved over the years and raised there standards and what they accept nowadays, it's more about quality than quantity meanwhile.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

de_signs said:


> Since I have been working with them for more than 5 years now, I can say this. It may be not the cream of the crop in terms of licensing deals (in regards to high profile licenses like trailers, commercials or TV) but it is also no Audiojungle or Pond5 either. In the end they are a business, and the initial aim of a business is to make money. From my experience, when you have a batch of ten tracks that they sign, that's a 6k figure directly in your pocket, plus the writers share for everything that runs on air (which can add up over time significantly).
> Although I have no direct insight into the hard facts in terms of what my tracks have made, I know that on average one of these ten cues pays for the batch and then some. If they're lucky there's more tracks that run well, but when and if at all, is absulutely at their own risk. The "risk" for you as a composer is to loose on sync if a track might have performed well (or better) elsewhere where you keep your sync, maybe 50/50. For me that's a lot of ifs and maybes. Over the years having such a deal at hand has saved my a&& many many times when cash flow was low or I had time in between other projects. I totally understand that some people will be put off by the fact that they get 600 bucks for a track that may make them 6000 in sync. But we all know this biz is a gamble and the great thing about our "product" is , that I can always do something "similar" to what I've done and given away again, and again and again. They also have evolved over the years and raised there standards and what they accept nowadays, it's more about quality than quantity meanwhile.



Since it's more about quality than quantity for music there now, $600 for a full buyout doesn't seem like a good deal to me at all. If it was $600 for a quick track you can make in a day then sure.

Also, $600 is 12 sales of a track (or 24 if let's say you get 50% of the license fee). I'd be very, very surprised if a track that's good enough to get accepted now, doesn't make at least 24 sales on Premium Beat in a year. Extremely surprised.

I've heard from other Premium Beat composers whose tracks make way more than $600 over their lifetimes. I've also heard that, as you say too, since the syncs are usually not very high profile or for broadcast, that the writer's share of royalties is very little, if anything.

If Premium Beat like your music, you could always ask them for a percentage split which is normal with other libraries.


----------



## Dirk Ehlert (Apr 9, 2018)

tsk said:


> Since it's more about quality than quantity for music there now, $600 for a full buyout doesn't seem like a good deal to me at all. If it was $600 for a quick track you can make in a day then sure.
> 
> Also, $600 is 12 sales of a track (or 24 if let's say you get 50% of the license fee). I'd be very, very surprised if a track that's good enough to get accepted now, doesn't make at least 24 sales on Premium Beat in a year. Extremely surprised.
> 
> ...


Overall, each to their own, of course you could try to negotiate with them a 50/50 deal instead of a buyout (although I doubt that) but of course you don't have to deal with them if you don't like their deal. For me it has worked out greatly and in terms of royalties (I actually have quite a lot TV placements with my catalogue there). 
Do better deals exist... of course, but I personally find it to be a fruitful and monetary interesting side solution to other revenue streams I am working with.


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 9, 2018)

de_signs said:


> From my experience, when you have a batch of ten tracks that they sign, that's a 6k figure directly in your pocket, plus the writers share for everything that runs on air (which can add up over time significantly).
> The "risk" for you as a composer is to loose on sync if a track might have performed well (or better) elsewhere where you keep your sync, maybe 50/50.


So at the end of the day it boils down to whether or not you think your your sync alone is worth more than $600 as you STILL get writers share. In my experience this is standard procedure in US and $600 is certainly more than several large indies and majors I know of. I really don't see the bad side to this.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

R. Soul said:


> So at the end of the day it boils down to whether or not you think your your sync alone is worth more than $600 as you STILL get writers share. In my experience this is standard procedure in US and $600 is certainly more than several large indies and majors I know of. I really don't see the bad side to this.



Honestly, we as composers not seeing the bad side to this is how we will write ourselves out of a job.

The bad side is when they sync your track to the value of more than $1,200. Then you're losing out on money you otherwise would have earned. Over a period of 5 years, that's pretty possible, if not extremely likely in my opinion.

If they license the track 6 times on I think their extended license at $199, then that's happened already.

Although we may also be competing against each other, we as a whole have to help each other to avoid being taken advantage of. Remember, there is no composers union advising me on Premium Beat's contract when I sign with them, and I can't easily team up with other composers to get a better deal. I also can't easily go round and discuss with a legal rep since it's so expensive for an individual, and even if I could what good would it do when I would be the only trying to negotiate? I think right now is a time of opportunity, but also a time when things could get real ugly for composers in production music.

How is your 50% writer's share going to look when Netflix, Amazon and Hulu take over completely and we're left with only the totally awful streaming royalties? Then you've given up pretty much everything as far as I can tell!


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 9, 2018)

Just being curious but how does someone work with Premium Beat? Do you submit tracks and they get back in touch whether they accept them and then talk about a deal or is it invite only etc? I only ask cause I'm working with a few publishers now and they all work differently.

EDIT... Just found the Submission page and small print.

Probably worth a punt. Especially for those times when the piggy jar is deflated and dinner consists of Stale Bread and Super Noodles.


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 9, 2018)

tsk said:


> Honestly, we as composers not seeing the bad side to this is how we will write ourselves out of a job.
> 
> The bad side is when they sync your track to the value of more than $1,200. Then you're losing out on money you otherwise would have earned. Over a period of 5 years, that's pretty possible, if not extremely likely in my opinion.
> 
> ...


So out of the 100s or even 1000s of tracks you have out there you are telling me that you make _on average_ more $600 in sync alone - per track?

I just had statement through from an exclusive library - with no sync buy out - making me a whopping £0.07 for all of 2017 for around 8 tracks. Yes, that might well be Netflix etc. but I doubt I'll ever make $600 per track here.
Sure, if you can place every track with Universal or Extreme, you certainly don't need Premium beat, but I don't see mid range or lower tier libraries making you any decent money.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 9, 2018)

$600 per track and keep writers share?! thats very good if you can do two to four tracks a week. you only loose the sync licnese and publishing so thats good probability wise. the chances to get sync license is already very low. 
i guess some folks are still aiming for the high pedestal and get one huge sync lincese but with todays competition i think money upfront like this, almost like a proper well paid day job might not be bad at all. thats of course, if they accept all the tracks submitted. 
and if sync deals is a concern im sure there are other libraries out there to not put all eggs in one basket.


----------



## SillyMidOn (Apr 9, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> $600 per track and keep writers share?! thats very good if you can do two to four tracks a week. you only loose the sync licnese and publishing so thats good probability wise. the chances to get sync license is already very low.



Not in Europe, sync fees are still alive here, unlike in the US, where they have been withering for years.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Apr 9, 2018)

I have to agree with those saying it doesn't sound like a bad deal. You can't get too emotionally attached to your tracks if you're playing the library quantity/volume game. I'm finally making a living off of royalties now, but the ability to make $600 or more in between those quarterly checks (the wait can be depressing) sounds like some nice icing on the cake.

Considering I've been doing library music for 3 years now and I've only found one publisher that pays up front per track (a very low amount, as well), $600 up front is really good. If I'm in that dip right between quarterly checks, hell yeah I'd sell a few tracks for $600 each. Why not? You can always write more.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

R. Soul said:


> So out of the 100s or even 1000s of tracks you have out there you are telling me that you make _on average_ more $600 in sync alone - per track?
> 
> I just had statement through from an exclusive library - with no sync buy out - making me a whopping £0.07 for all of 2017 for around 8 tracks. Yes, that might well be Netflix etc. but I doubt I'll ever make $600 per track here.
> Sure, if you can place every track with Universal or Extreme, you certainly don't need Premium beat, but I don't see mid range or lower tier libraries making you any decent money.



Honestly, yes, they make much more than that on average from sync.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

gsilbers said:


> $600 per track and keep writers share?! thats very good if you can do two to four tracks a week. you only loose the sync licnese and publishing so thats good probability wise. the chances to get sync license is already very low.
> i guess some folks are still aiming for the high pedestal and get one huge sync lincese but with todays competition i think money upfront like this, almost like a proper well paid day job might not be bad at all. thats of course, if they accept all the tracks submitted.
> and if sync deals is a concern im sure there are other libraries out there to not put all eggs in one basket.



It's not good if the main income of that library is sync fees. Sync fees include every single youtube license sold, for which you get zero, absolutely zero, in writer's royalties. A huge amount of money is made from these types of sales in the market beneath the top libraries like Universal and Extreme.

We're not just talking the first year of the track, when it will probably make more than that anyway on Premium Beat in sync, if it's good enough to be accepted in the first place, we're talking about _the entire rest of your life_ not getting any sync, in any form, from any change that may ever happen, _ever_


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

StevenMcDonald said:


> I have to agree with those saying it doesn't sound like a bad deal. You can't get too emotionally attached to your tracks if you're playing the library quantity/volume game. I'm finally making a living off of royalties now, but the ability to make $600 or more in between those quarterly checks (the wait can be depressing) sounds like some nice icing on the cake.
> 
> Considering I've been doing library music for 3 years now and I've only found one publisher that pays up front per track (a very low amount, as well), $600 up front is really good. If I'm in that dip right between quarterly checks, hell yeah I'd sell a few tracks for $600 each. Why not? You can always write more.



As sillymidon was saying, there are regions of the world which pay good sync fees. But besides this, there are regions which pay up front, and still pay you 50% of sync and 50% of writer's royalties.

Saying that not sharing in sync but getting $600 in a one off fee is a good deal, is to me, a death knell for composers. We have to work together to get more for our music and understand how these kinds of deals could impact us over our lifetimes! We're on the same side here.

(I've been in library about 11 years and have seen all kinds of things, some of them very unpleasant by a few library companies)


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Apr 9, 2018)

tsk said:


> As sillymidon was saying, there are regions of the world which pay good sync fees. But besides this, there are regions which pay up front, and still pay you 50% of sync and 50% of writer's royalties.
> 
> Saying that not sharing in sync but getting $600 in a one off fee is a good deal, is to me, a death knell for composers. We have to work together to get more for our music and understand how these kinds of deals could impact us over our lifetimes! We're on the same side here.
> 
> (I've been in library about 11 years and have seen all kinds of things, some of them very unpleasant by a few library companies)



It's just a value proposition. If I can spend a few hours on a track and get $600 plus writers royalties down the line, that's a nice hourly rate. I'm not saying everyone should do this and this is the future. But considering how rare it is to get paid up front for a track at all in the library world, $600 is very significant and could really bail you out of a tough financial situation. I can almost pay my mortgage for a month with $600. It's worth it to some people, but not to others.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 9, 2018)

But when you need money...


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 9, 2018)

tsk said:


> As sillymidon was saying, there are regions of the world which pay good sync fees. But besides this, there are regions which pay up front, and still pay you 50% of sync and 50% of writer's royalties.
> 
> Saying that not sharing in sync but getting $600 in a one off fee is a good deal, is to me, a death knell for composers. We have to work together to get more for our music and understand how these kinds of deals could impact us over our lifetimes! We're on the same side here.
> 
> (I've been in library about 11 years and have seen all kinds of things, some of them very unpleasant by a few library companies)


Are you talking about trailer libraries?
Cause AFAIK other libraries make small amounts in sync fees.

My first library albums are around 9 years old now and placed with 2 medium exclusive UK libraries. The usage these days is miniscule. I think your 'entire life' is closer to 5 years unless your music is completely timeless.

I'd love to know these libraries you are referring to, cause they certainly seem better than what I've run into so far.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

StevenMcDonald said:


> It's just a value proposition. If I can spend a few hours on a track and get $600 plus writers royalties down the line, that's a nice hourly rate. I'm not saying everyone should do this and this is the future. But considering how rare it is to get paid up front for a track at all in the library world, $600 is very significant and could really bail you out of a tough financial situation. I can almost pay my mortgage for a month with $600. It's worth it to some people, but not to others.



I do see what you mean. I think it's unlikely Premium Beat would accept a track that takes a few hours to create.

It's also that I honestly believe you could make a lot more from Premium Beat if you had a sync split with them than giving up all sync for $600. That's really the main thing I'm trying to say I guess.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

R. Soul said:


> Are you talking about trailer libraries?
> Cause AFAIK other libraries make small amounts in sync fees.
> 
> My first library albums are around 9 years old now and placed with 2 medium exclusive UK libraries. The usage these days is miniscule. I think your 'entire life' is closer to 5 years unless your music is completely timeless.
> ...



I also have a couple albums from some years back with mid level UK exclusives, and they haven't made much in sync either. I can relate to that. That is because those libraries try to get UK TV placements a lot, lot more than Premium Beat. They also don't seem to get almost any youtube license sales (which Premium Beat gets a ton of) which pay sync but no royalties.

The sync fees I'm referring to are not trailer libraries at all. They are libraries like Premium Beat. Those kinds of libraries make the majority of their income from sync fee sales. Even though a license is only $50-$200, they go for volume and there are a lot of youtube videos (think of all the gaming networks alone like Machinima!) that add up. As an example, there are composers making more than $600 in sync fees from tracks on Pond5.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 9, 2018)

Premium Beat looks like a short term endevour to build up a music library for internal usage. Whilst it may pay $600 a track now (sounds rather high to me), it is unlikely that this is sustainable, particularly for tracks that only take a few hours to create. Looking at the business model, I would say that it is not really in the interests of Shutterstock to go after TV placements. If there are some, all well and good, but that is not what they're set up for. Therefore PRO Royalties are not a priority, and can't be replied upon.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Apr 9, 2018)

Daryl said:


> Premium Beat looks like a short term endevour to build up a music library for internal usage. Whilst it may pay $600 a track now (sounds rather high to me), it is unlikely that this is sustainable, particularly for tracks that only take a few hours to create. Looking at the business model, I would say that it is not really in the interests of Shutterstock to go after TV placements. If there are some, all well and good, but that is not what they're set up for. Therefore PRO Royalties are not a priority, and can't be replied upon.



Just so you guys know, the "a few hours" thing was just a hypothetical. I have never submitted music to Premium Beat so I don't know how strict they are with quality control, and obviously people work at different speeds. I'm accustomed to working very quickly due to time constraints from having a kid and doing a lot of TV work.

Even so - if I spent a whole day writing a track and getting $600 for it, that's way more than I've ever made per day at my old office jobs. I realize it's possible to get WAY more from a track, but a sure $600 will pay bills more effectively than a maybe $5000 a year after writing the track. I would love to be working with libraries that pay up front and collect and split sync fees regularly, but that hasn't happened for me yet.


----------



## will_m (Apr 9, 2018)

Like a lot of libraries when they start out I think the acceptance rate is higher but as they grow and saturate this tails off, Premium Beat have been going a while now so I'm guessing that the quality is at a place where you probably need to spend longer on tracks and they'll look for live instrumentation and better production standards.

Also I believe the amount of different versions required is quite steep, a full length, 60, 30, 15, 10 and then loop packages and stems which all takes time.


----------



## tsk (Apr 9, 2018)

StevenMcDonald said:


> Just so you guys know, the "a few hours" thing was just a hypothetical. I have never submitted music to Premium Beat so I don't know how strict they are with quality control, and obviously people work at different speeds. I'm accustomed to working very quickly due to time constraints from having a kid and doing a lot of TV work.
> 
> Even so - if I spent a whole day writing a track and getting $600 for it, that's way more than I've ever made per day at my old office jobs. I realize it's possible to get WAY more from a track, but a sure $600 will pay bills more effectively than a maybe $5000 a year after writing the track. I would love to be working with libraries that pay up front and collect and split sync fees regularly, but that hasn't happened for me yet.



Fair enough, and it is up to each person to decide, but I honestly would rather take a good chance at $5000 in a year, plus more in the future, than $600 today and nothing ever again from sync.



will_m said:


> Like a lot of libraries when they start out I think the acceptance rate is higher but as they grow and saturate this tails off, Premium Beat have been going a while now so I'm guessing that the quality is at a place where you probably need to spend longer on tracks and they'll look for live instrumentation and better production standards.
> 
> Also I believe the amount of different versions required is quite steep, a full length, 60, 30, 15, 10 and then loop packages and stems which all takes time.



I hadn't considered that and it's a good point. Creating all the loops, short versions and stems is time consuming.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Apr 10, 2018)

Go for it.


----------



## Anders Bru (Apr 11, 2018)

This might be dumb question, but on their "Submit" info-page it says "[...] samples are NOT permitted." Surely that means samples, as in using pre-existing music, and not samples from Kontakt libraries?


----------



## will_m (Apr 12, 2018)

Anders Bru said:


> This might be dumb question, but on their "Submit" info-page it says "[...] samples are NOT permitted." Surely that means samples, as in using pre-existing music, and not samples from Kontakt libraries?



Yes it will refer to samples from others people music, so for example if you wrote a hip-hop track and took a vocal sample from an old funk song. Most sample libraries allow you to use their samples for all project types but worth checking the EULA to be sure. I seem to remember some older samples libraries saying you needed an additional license for trailers and games.


----------



## Anders Bru (Apr 12, 2018)

will_m said:


> Yes it will refer to samples from others people music, so for example if you wrote a hip-hop track and took a vocal sample from an old funk song. Most sample libraries allow you to use their samples for all project types but worth checking the EULA to be sure. I seem to remember some older samples libraries saying you needed an additional license for trailers and games.


Thanks!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 10, 2018)

I submitted to Premium Beat a few months ago (I completely forgot), and received the rejection email today. Ironically, the tracks I submitted for the "audition" have been exclusively licensed recently anyways.


----------



## R. Soul (Jul 10, 2018)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I submitted to Premium Beat a few months ago (I completely forgot), and received the rejection email today. Ironically, the tracks I submitted for the "audition" have been exclusively licensed recently anyways.


I submitted some tracks a couple of months ago and got rejected as well. I then submitted a new batch in a completely different style, but have not heard back yet for those.
But like you, I have interest elsewhere now, so even if they said yes, I'd have to turn it down.
They must be losing out on a lot of music if they take 4+ weeks to get back. 
Most libraries get back to me in a couple of days.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Jul 10, 2018)

Same boat here. Got the rejection email today, but everything I sent them forever ago has been signed exclusively elsewhere since then 

Either it was an all hands on deck A&R day or they decided they're good on tracks for a while and hit the "reject all" button!

Now to try again!


----------



## mouse_anon (Oct 1, 2018)

Is it always about a month to hear back?


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 1, 2018)

mouse_anon said:


> Is it always about a month to hear back?


The 2 times I've submitted, that has been the case.


----------



## paularthur (May 8, 2019)

R. Soul said:


> The 2 times I've submitted, that has been the case.


i submitted in March and got a we're reviewing e-mail but never heard back..


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 11, 2019)

paularthur said:


> i submitted in March and got a we're reviewing e-mail but never heard back..



Send in more music.


----------



## paularthur (May 11, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Send in more music.


i'm pretty sure they have a policy of wait to get accepted or rejected on your first batch before trying again in x___ amount of time but i think someone here ^ probably knows better than i on this matter.


----------



## Desire Inspires (May 12, 2019)

paularthur said:


> i'm pretty sure they have a policy of wait to get accepted or rejected on your first batch before trying again in x___ amount of time but i think someone here ^ probably knows better than i on this matter.



Until they tell you to stop sending in music, continue to send in music. Sometimes being consistent and persistent pays off.


----------



## paularthur (Jun 6, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Until they tell you to stop sending in music, continue to send in music. Sometimes being consistent and persistent pays off.


I like your thinking.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 7, 2019)

paularthur said:


> I like your thinking.



Yeah, I keep submitting and asking for feedback until I get a hard answer. Sometimes these companies forget you and your submission. That is why I keep on going until I get a contract or told “no, not at this time”. The rejection is always better than silence.


----------



## Michael Stibor (Jun 7, 2019)

Dirk Ehlert said:


> Overall, each to their own, of course you could try to negotiate with them a 50/50 deal instead of a buyout (although I doubt that) but of course you don't have to deal with them if you don't like their deal. For me it has worked out greatly and in terms of royalties (I actually have quite a lot TV placements with my catalogue there).
> Do better deals exist... of course, but I personally find it to be a fruitful and monetary interesting side solution to other revenue streams I am working with.


Hey Dirk, thanks for all of the info. Quick question for you if you have a moment. Is it better to submit all within the same style. Is it better to show your versatility among your tracks?


----------



## WaveRider (Jun 7, 2019)

PB do a good job curating and keeping their library high-quality-only. They won't accept anything sub-par or not professionally mastered. Kind of the opposite of Audio Jungle. That's being said, their library is relatively small in size compared to other sites.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jun 8, 2019)

AJ is pretty ruthless nowadays, read the boards, full of "why did I get rejected" posts...


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 8, 2019)

Man, they seem pretty desperate at AJ. Sad to see.


----------



## Duffcat (Nov 22, 2019)

I’d like to propose something to a few artists like myself who sell their souls to companies such as PB, AJ, music houses and third parties that exploit our music. WHY DON’T WE START AN ARTIST COLLECTIVE THAT GIVES FULL OWNERSHIP TO US THE MUSICIANS? If you are interested in this idea and how it could work, let’s chat. My email is [email protected]. Let’s turn this exploitive system on its head! There’s power in numbers!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 22, 2019)

Duffcat said:


> I’d like to propose something to a few artists like myself who sell their souls to companies such as PB, AJ, music houses and third parties that exploit our music. WHY DON’T WE START AN ARTIST COLLECTIVE THAT GIVES FULL OWNERSHIP TO US THE MUSICIANS? If you are interested in this idea and how it could work, let’s chat. My email is [email protected]. Let’s turn this exploitive system on its head! There’s power in numbers!



I still have full ownership of all my tracks.


----------

