Happening here too – I think a bunch of changes have been made in the back end recently that are messing things up. Staff, are you preparing a huge explosion of sales for us all? Make my 2014 (please)!
$87 to go until my Silver Paw and sales have been as dry as a cat’s tongue this month. I have good feelings about February though… @PaBlikMM, what’s the forecast?
Nice one Mike! Careful not to connect too closely with Satan, heard he’s a grumpy old sod at times
@Ryan, I can see your point, but there are still people out there who use our music without watermarks without a license so what happens with those people?
Something you might be interested in reading – from staff on another big royalty free marketplace:
“We work directly with our clients and YouTube to navigate issues surrounding the use of our content on their platform. YouTube’s content ID system is in its early stages and has some wrinkles that are being worked on an ongoing basis. For the amount of files that are licensed daily vs: the amount of ID conflicts that kick back – things are working fairly well. That being said, we are continually woking with YouTube to align understandings and the application of content rights on the YouTube platform.”
As I said, I think this is more about good communication with customers, fine-tuning the system and making it easy to resolve the flagging quickly. All new things take a while to be accepted and this looks like a good thing to me as a composer. We shouldn’t complain about piracy and then complain about the very systems that try to combat it.
I’ve heard it’s a pretty simple process to resolve these cases i.e. just sending an email to AdRev with the YouTube URL to remove the ad or clear it for the video owner’s own monetisation purposes.
To play the devil’s advocate, could it be that the problem is not so much the service itself, but the miscommunication around what it is, why it’s appeared and what to do when an ad appears on a video? By that I mean pro-actively letting customers know that you’re protecting your work and that removing the ad is like presenting a license as proof of purchase?
To me, these systems sound like filling in a license code for software you’ve purchased to remove the demo version. Legitimate buyers can do so, while the one-eyed Interweb bandits who are distributing your music across the web for free have to make do with an ad on their video so you get paid for your hard work.
If it’s just a matter of sending an email with your video URL, I don’t see the problem, just let your clients know what’s going to happen and what they need to do to resolve it. We’re also talking about customers who are only using the music on YouTube videos – as we don’t have access to stats about our clients’ projects, we don’t know if something like this will actually affect many clients or just a few. I’d be interested to know how many (genuine paying) customers are actually affect by something like this.
@MikeSea – that authour says ‘I signed up because, as an artist, I am entitled to attribution whenever my work is used, especially when that use is without a license’. Why would you sign up to an ad-revenue service, which is all about making money, if all you wanted was recognition of your work? His article sounds like an advert for his services more than a genuine apology to his clients.
First of all, really sorry to hear about those events in the last few years Like ScoreStudio said, that’s really sad news, you have my condolences.
Regarding your question about the 5 years badge – personally, I do think it influences things as, like you, I was ‘dormant’ on the site for three years and then only started uploading about 2 years ago. After an initial ‘bump’ in sales at the beginning, it’s been almost impossible to get out of what feels like a threshold of sales per month.
It’s great that the sales are consistent, yet frustrating that I can’t seem to ever break out of the range I’ve been in for the past two years despite the quality of my uploads improving, knowledge of what works and what doesn’t becoming more fine tuned and expanding my portfolio. I think that’s partly due to the number of years I’ve been here as people think I’ve sold few tracks for the time I’ve been here.
Personally, I would start afresh as I think it will make you seem like ‘hot new talent’ if things go well for you and will give you a better chance of increasing your ‘threshold’ limit (assuming such a system is in place).
Enhorabuena Juan! Me alegro por Allegro Impressive achievement rising up the ranks so quickly, enjoy the meal tonight
That’s a great result, really impressive Matt. I either need to up my game massively or my 5 year old account is too old for success here as I’m on 600 sales after 2 years of uploading tracks
Back to the grinding stone, I’m sure there’s a little pile of treasure hidden in the dust around here somewhere…
Not personally a fan of the ‘day rate’ as I don’t think producing music lends itself very well to that, but if you can make it work for yourself, who am I to argue!
I agree, day rates aren’t right for this industry in my opinion as well. Like you Gareth, I charge by the minute for music in general and gauge what is needed in terms of expenses (like session musicians) and usage (i.e. which territories, how long for, exclusive rights etc.?).
I’m intrigued by the rates on video games going around you mention Gareth – if you’re ok with it, I’d love a pm from you with the kind of figures you’ve come across as I believe you’re closely involved in that industry correct?