If ContentID is to become our industry standard, it would be best to let our buyers know about the process, so that they’re comfortable with it and know how to deal with it on their own.
+100. The best thing is to deal with these things as they arise. It’s a lot less (often unnecessary) work for you and gets buyers familiar with the process, as Pierre says.
Regarding channel whitelisting, you indeed have to contact AdRev about this, and provide them with the URL of the YouTube channel in question. However, there is a caveat with this. AdRev will firstly have to review the channel whitelist request, as on occasion they won’t be able to do this if the client’s channel already has existing, uncleared AdRev claims by other AdRev registered composers on their videos.
Whilst this isn’t a big problem right now, as more composers join AdRev going forward, this could become more of an occurrence, so another reason why it’s important that buyers get used to the claim clearance process.
What´s your experiences with Steven Slates plugins? Any specific “must have” plugins ? Cheers!
I’ve been using Slate’s Virtual Buss Compressors for a while now, and they’re just superb. Based on the original high grade studio hardware (SSL 4000, Focusrite Red and Fairchild 670) they’re incredibly transparent, easy to tame and very versatile, as each compressor has it’s own unique qualities suited for certain roles.
More often then not, I’ll have an instance of the FG Grey compressor on my master stage, just to add a touch of gain reduction to smooth things off, which these do very well at. They’re basically a joy to use, look great and are actually very good value for money, when compared to similar plugs from other developers.
Wonderful news Pavel, Congratulations! Best wishes to your family and new addition!
contourchromatic saidIf I check too often, my mood swings make me feel like a teenage girl.
try and minimise the number of times per week you check your sales
Hahaha..man that made me laugh!
Have to say though, haven’t seen such a sharp drop in sales in a very long time. And I’m seeing the same as Marb over on other sites. I’m willing to bet it is indeed a combination of Big G, global EU VAT changes and time of year. Not looking too rosy in the RF garden right now.
That’s also not objective. Old authors have worse ratings, because some time ago ratings were anonymous. Now you know who rates you, you can even discuss bad rating with your buyer and he may change it. Now bad ratings are really rare, because haters are not anonymous.
+1 Was thinking exactly the same thing myself.
I should also add that I’ve been left with some pretty ‘dirty’ ratings in the past, which have decimated sales on those items.
But on approaching Support about the matter, I’ve been given some copy/paste BS about how customers rate on ‘their overall experience’. Give me a break. I thought the idea was to rate the actual music they’d just purchased. I really wish they’d abolish this silly, silly system.
I use ReverbNation, but only as a distribution aggregator for my music on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc. They send the music off to the retailers for a fee (think it’s $19.95 for an album in the first year, then $49.95 after that) and distribute the earnings back to me each quarter, which I can withdraw straight to my PayPal account.
As far as a promotional tool, I don’t use them for that at all and refuse to pay for that kind of thing. I just point any links to my music on iTunes, etc via YouTube and all other free social media platforms I use.
Regarding artist pages on these portals – although digital distributors deliver your music to them and they’ll be available to purchase/stream on these retailers, the retailers will actually grab written content and information on artists from corporations such as Rovi and use that. Apparently it’s possible to submit content to Rovi via allmusic.com below, although I haven’t quite got this far yet!http://www.allmusic.com/product-submissions
Great input Alumo. I suppose just like anything in the music business it’s all about getting that “Hit track” working for you. I think the scheme will only work for those who have licensed a track 1000 or more times on AJ. Otherwise, most of us are looking for pennies under the car seat.
Not necessarily. One of my biggest revenue generating tracks has just over 100 sales here on AJ. The reason it’s generating higher ad revenue is because some YouTuber ripped it directly from either my YouTube channel or SoundCloud account, unedited and re-uploaded it within a video that garnered millions of views. Other users have gone on to rip it from that person’s video and re-uploading it on their own videos, and so on and so forth. It took a fair while for that to happen, but now I’m seeing the results of this phenomenon, a year down the line.
I think the real issue is finding a way to make things easy on customers at the point of upload to YOUTUBE. Maybe there needs to be a way they can present their purchased music license to Google/ Youtube at the point of upload so ads do not go on?
The crux of the problem is YouTube’s communication with it’s users. However, we have to remember that aside from a video streaming platform, YouTube is a colossal business/revenue making machine and is at the very essence of it’s existence. Without that advertising, YouTube wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be faced with this dilemma in the first place. With that in mind, YouTube are hardly going to go out of their way to offer customers the chance to release advertising off their videos from the outset. It’s up to the customer to initiate that, with their License Certificate or written permission from the copyright holder (ie. us).
It’s a bone of contention, I agree, but that’s the way Google/YouTube operate and there’s no way around it for now (unless no longer uploading our creative content online is an option). In the meantime, we have to make the most of what we’ve got and help the license holders to our music, if and when they ask for help and point them in the right direction. Otherwise, it’s a case of sitting back, watching people ripping and using our music for free, right from under our noses, willy-nilly and letting things in our industry eventually spiral out of control.
The questions are: Does Google have the manpower to look at each music license at the point of uploading to clear it from future copyright infringement claims?
Firstly, the user doesn’t receive copyright infringement notices. It’s actually referred to as a ‘copyright notice’. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but they’re very different things.
Anyhow, as I just mentioned, Google probably wouldn’t do this. They want as much advertising appearing as possible, so it’s up to the user to clear the notices with their License and/or request channel whitelisting from us, the copyright holders. It’s always been this way on YouTube, nothing new here. It’s just that some composers freak out when an occasional license buyer freaks out.
Does ADREV have the manpower to field 1000 emails a day (I am “guestimating” here) from music producers or YOUTUBE video makers requesting ads removed from YT videos? There has to be a better way than the system in place now.
AdRev are a fast growing business, so I would imagine they’re on the ball in terms of scalability. But it’s also worth noting that they’re a YouTube partner, so they too are under the terms set by the almighty Google/YouTube and can only do so much. Like I said, we have to work with what we have, and personally I’m not having any problems with it.
I’m really starting to second guess the decision to engage in ADREV. If people can chime in with their earnings, I think we can all make more informed decisions. I personally have been told I am making $1 a day in this scheme, some other folks have stated the same thing to me. We have to ask ourselves: is annoying customers and ourselves by having to send e-mails and read e-mails from annoyed customers worth $1 a day? $365 a year? I say no.
Now I know some may have a very well thought out YOUTUBE strategy like Alumo, but what we need to know is where is the money coming from? I do not want to service customers who buy my tracks for $18 and spend 30 minutes of time each week eliminating ads for disgruntled customers for a lousy $7 in ADREV earnings. I did finally get my customer’s video white listed, but it was a very annoying process that required about 7 notes to write between he and I and myself and ADREV. YES, ADREV’s customer service is exceptional and they do react very quickly, but how can that be sustained if hundreds of writers are writing in daily asking “please whitelist this video, that channel, or please do this”...etc…
Thoughts from others please?
This just may not be worth it for $1 a day!The experience I had this week with 1 customer was not even worth the $35 I have earned from ADREV.
Yep, you see therein lies the problem. Digitally fingerprinting our work should never primarily be viewed as a money making exercise. First and foremost, it’s a way we can track, monitor and have extra control over the copyrights of our property out on the wild plains of YouTube, which was an impossible task until now. Personally, I like having that extra benefit. But with having access to that benefit, comes responsibility, as with anything in life.
That said, things can soon turn financial when unauthorised usages of our music ends up on a bunch of non monetized videos, each with 20+ million views. It only takes one ‘famous’ YouTuber to use it, then for all their flock/subscribers to think ‘I want that song on my video too’. Only then, the snowball effect begins. If I hadn’t fingerprinted my music, I’d be sick to the back teeth by now. And whilst I’m not prepared to dish out details of my revenue earnings, I can say that I’ve benefitted relatively well from having my music digitally tracked.
Ultimately, I could pretend it’s still 2005 and come up with a whole bunch of reasons why partaking in AdRev, or any other digital fingerprinting platform is a bad thing, and using the occasional grumpy customer as a device for resistance. But we’re not there any more. The Internet is forever evolving and platforms like YouTube are thousands of times bigger than they were back then. As online entrepreneurs (after all, we’re selling our music here, right?) it’s wise to move with it, rather than clinging on to old ideas in a faced paced landscape.
I’ve spoken to Brett from AdRev about this and can confirm it seems to be a beta feature that YouTube had recently rolled out, seemingly arbitrarily placing slide-in ads on videos containing AdRev registered music.
Good news is there won’t be any need for us to ‘opt out’ from this going forward, as AdRev are on the case and working with YouTube on the issue, presumably so these don’t appear on previously claim released videos.
PS. as a quick side note, can I suggest that AdRev authors don’t copy/paste their email conversations from AdRev directly into this thread. There’s a confidentially notice at the bottom of our correspondence with them, so it’s probably best to adhere to this and explain our discussions with them here, in our own terms.
Update: Just heard back from AdRev. I was able to completely opt out. They said it takes 24-48 hours for it to take effect.
Same here, all done.
So in the meantime, I suggest AdRev registered composers here get in touch with AdRev support and request that they opt out of such advertising programs.
Hopefully they’ll look to add an opt-out for this type of advertising at the registration stage in the future, which would be massively helpful to RF licensing musicians, like us.