Sorry if this one has come up before and I’m just too lazy to find out – but I just wanted to make a suggestion regarding the rating system.
No doubt there are many good criteria to judge a potential distribution partner on (from a composer’s perspective) – but I think all but one are relatively obvious from the content of this site (and if you don’t know – you can always ask). Surely the thing that is most important for any of us to know (to make the best use of our non-composing time)is whether they’re actually selling anything.
I’m not sure what the exact calculation needs to be (maybe that would be worth a member vote?) but really, any kind of ranking criteria would be useful. In theory, we pay them their cut because they have contacts we don’t (hopefully no-one still believes you can just build a website, fill it with tunes and they’ll sell any more?). But we have no idea (in many cases) whether they have skills at selling our music.
I do realise that just because they can sell rock doesn’t mean they can sell orchestral etc. – and maybe that would be an interesting way of setting up the criteria (each member gets one vote per pop/rock/world/dance/orchestral etc.) per library to say ‘yes, they’ve sold a track(s) for me of that genre’. I’m not sure percentage of income or number of sales is meaningful due to the wide spread of experience levels among the membership – but if a library has sold World music for 100 members then – if that’s a genre I write in – that library can a) sell my stuff and b) might be interested if I send them some.
If we want to know whether they’re nice people or pay on time then I’m sure the truth will out in the postings!
From the “Ratings” page: “I have tried implementing a multi-criteria system in the past but never could get one to work. It’s not a perfect system and very subjective but all we have for now.”
I do understand, but as you’d created the Strings Library comparison poll – I figured I was proposing exactly the same functionality; but with members using polling functionality to relate their experiences rather than state their preferences. Essentially one poll module per library page.
I guess my concern is that where you have libraries where no-one has reported selling anything outranking those where many have said they derive much of their income (due to ill feeling / warm and fuzzy feelings due to communication styles or percentage splits) then the current rating is potentially misleading. Do you believe there is a common understanding between all members who cast a vote as to what they are ‘marking’ the library in question on?
With over 400 libraries it would be quite a task (I’m not even sure the polling plug-in would handle it) and once again there is no way to “vette” the voters. People could game the poll as easily as the ratings.
I don’t think there is an easy answer for this. I’ll think on it though.
There are certainly polling plug ins that only allow 1 set of votes per member (per poll) and though I guess library owners could set up ghost accounts – maybe members would be prepared to sacrifice a little anonymity (voters list shows names & websites = legitimate composer) to get more meaningful rankings. (maybe you could set up a poll to ask them? . This is a serious business concerning the livelihoods both of composers and the libraries – I’m not sure that there is any legitimate reason for a member to maintain an anonymous status.
I can imagine the PITA effort it would take to do it – but it would represent a real value-add in cost benefit terms once you get to the point of charging fees for membership. Knowing that we are dedicating our time to supplying libraries who are able to make money for us would be worthy of investment from any composer.
Hi Art,
It’s great to have joined the site, there is a lot of really helpful info and advice. I have only begun to upload music to libraries this year and have only joined a couple so far but have found Audiosparx very helpful and have had a couple of placements through them. The information on MLR is so useful to somebody like myself who is relatively new to the whole process. Many thanks.
Hi Art, I wantted to thank you for this site and the wealth of information available, especially the interesting discussions among the experienced and talented composers here! I have gotten a lot of great feedback from this site and I appreciate it. I’m very new and feel fortunate to have my tracks with several libraries that I first heard about here! I’m in it for the long haul and think what you have here is very helpful to us all.
Yeah, I agree with everything Cari says. Great site and thanks a million for providing it.
I have a suggestion, if I may be so bold, I notice that some libraries/licensing companies require a minimum number of songs in your catalog in order to be considered for acceptance. For example, Audiosparx requires I think 30 original tracks before you can even submit. Is there a way we could add that information in their profile? So in addition to knowing whether a library is exclusive, nonexclusive, takes submissions via upload or what have you you know how many minimum songs they require for inclusion into their library.
Hey, Art: I just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for your work here. The comments and suggestions of you and the others have been invaluable to me. bren
I removed all “Pay To Play” sites when the company with the most complaints threatened a lawsuit. I believe I would have won but I really didn’t have the time, money or energy to deal it.
Ok, I understand. It’s too bad that those sites can threaten with law suits, but I totally understand your case. You’re doing some great work with this site, and it’s better that you focus your energy on keeping it up than dealing with those kind of sites.
I guess it’s more or less common sense to be very careful with the kind of sites that don’t make money on the actual sales, but instead make money on the artists on their monthly fees. It’s a business model with a pretty weak incentive for the hosting site to be successful with artist placements – they get their money anyway.
Hi Art,
Sorry if this one has come up before and I’m just too lazy to find out – but I just wanted to make a suggestion regarding the rating system.
No doubt there are many good criteria to judge a potential distribution partner on (from a composer’s perspective) – but I think all but one are relatively obvious from the content of this site (and if you don’t know – you can always ask). Surely the thing that is most important for any of us to know (to make the best use of our non-composing time)is whether they’re actually selling anything.
I’m not sure what the exact calculation needs to be (maybe that would be worth a member vote?) but really, any kind of ranking criteria would be useful. In theory, we pay them their cut because they have contacts we don’t (hopefully no-one still believes you can just build a website, fill it with tunes and they’ll sell any more?). But we have no idea (in many cases) whether they have skills at selling our music.
I do realise that just because they can sell rock doesn’t mean they can sell orchestral etc. – and maybe that would be an interesting way of setting up the criteria (each member gets one vote per pop/rock/world/dance/orchestral etc.) per library to say ‘yes, they’ve sold a track(s) for me of that genre’. I’m not sure percentage of income or number of sales is meaningful due to the wide spread of experience levels among the membership – but if a library has sold World music for 100 members then – if that’s a genre I write in – that library can a) sell my stuff and b) might be interested if I send them some.
If we want to know whether they’re nice people or pay on time then I’m sure the truth will out in the postings!
Just my 2 cents.
David.
From the “Ratings” page: “I have tried implementing a multi-criteria system in the past but never could get one to work. It’s not a perfect system and very subjective but all we have for now.”
Hi Art,
I do understand, but as you’d created the Strings Library comparison poll – I figured I was proposing exactly the same functionality; but with members using polling functionality to relate their experiences rather than state their preferences. Essentially one poll module per library page.
I guess my concern is that where you have libraries where no-one has reported selling anything outranking those where many have said they derive much of their income (due to ill feeling / warm and fuzzy feelings due to communication styles or percentage splits) then the current rating is potentially misleading. Do you believe there is a common understanding between all members who cast a vote as to what they are ‘marking’ the library in question on?
With over 400 libraries it would be quite a task (I’m not even sure the polling plug-in would handle it) and once again there is no way to “vette” the voters. People could game the poll as easily as the ratings.
I don’t think there is an easy answer for this. I’ll think on it though.
There are certainly polling plug ins that only allow 1 set of votes per member (per poll) and though I guess library owners could set up ghost accounts – maybe members would be prepared to sacrifice a little anonymity (voters list shows names & websites = legitimate composer) to get more meaningful rankings. (maybe you could set up a poll to ask them?
. This is a serious business concerning the livelihoods both of composers and the libraries – I’m not sure that there is any legitimate reason for a member to maintain an anonymous status.
I can imagine the PITA effort it would take to do it – but it would represent a real value-add in cost benefit terms once you get to the point of charging fees for membership. Knowing that we are dedicating our time to supplying libraries who are able to make money for us would be worthy of investment from any composer.
Hi Art,
It’s great to have joined the site, there is a lot of really helpful info and advice. I have only begun to upload music to libraries this year and have only joined a couple so far but have found Audiosparx very helpful and have had a couple of placements through them. The information on MLR is so useful to somebody like myself who is relatively new to the whole process. Many thanks.
Thanks Ross, best of luck!
Hi Art, I wantted to thank you for this site and the wealth of information available, especially the interesting discussions among the experienced and talented composers here! I have gotten a lot of great feedback from this site and I appreciate it. I’m very new and feel fortunate to have my tracks with several libraries that I first heard about here! I’m in it for the long haul and think what you have here is very helpful to us all.
Thanks and have a great night (day?),
Cari
Thanks Cari, glad you are finding MLR useful.
Yeah, I agree with everything Cari says. Great site and thanks a million for providing it.
I have a suggestion, if I may be so bold, I notice that some libraries/licensing companies require a minimum number of songs in your catalog in order to be considered for acceptance. For example, Audiosparx requires I think 30 original tracks before you can even submit. Is there a way we could add that information in their profile? So in addition to knowing whether a library is exclusive, nonexclusive, takes submissions via upload or what have you you know how many minimum songs they require for inclusion into their library.
Just a thought.
@sonicsysops. Anything is possible. It’s all about time and culling that info would take a lot of it!
I’d rather be writing and promoting my music:-)
Hey, Art: I just wanted to let you know how grateful I am for your work here. The comments and suggestions of you and the others have been invaluable to me. bren
Yes, I 100% agree with that comment.
Thanks guys, happy to help!
Hello there,
I believe I saw reviews of the the sites Taxi and Broadjam here before, possibliy classified as “submission sites” or something like that.
Where did those review-pages go? Or do I confuse this site with another one?
Best Regards
/Christian
Hi Christian,
I removed all “Pay To Play” sites when the company with the most complaints threatened a lawsuit. I believe I would have won but I really didn’t have the time, money or energy to deal it.
Ok, I understand. It’s too bad that those sites can threaten with law suits, but I totally understand your case. You’re doing some great work with this site, and it’s better that you focus your energy on keeping it up than dealing with those kind of sites.
I guess it’s more or less common sense to be very careful with the kind of sites that don’t make money on the actual sales, but instead make money on the artists on their monthly fees. It’s a business model with a pretty weak incentive for the hosting site to be successful with artist placements – they get their money anyway.
Best Regards
/Christian