No thanks, close this window
hey Roy! I have a question I can't seem to find an answer to . . . I want to downgrade my membership while I'm recording my next set of material & don't have time to aggressively pursue licensing opportunities. don't want to delete it though! how do I do this? thanks! Annie
Annie, Good question. Just shoot us an email at customerservice@broadjam.com and we can help you out. And don't forget to let us know when the new material is done.
Hello. Nice work for work in evening and night. Dreamy music. Check mine Annie, if you want. Best Regards, PC Sam
Hey Roy . . . Feeling frustrated seeing that some of the licensing opportunities I've submitted to have been changed to "no BJ artist selected" before it seems even one of the songs has been listened to . . . and only about 1 in 10 of my submissions are even listened to. Any insight?
Annie, Thanks for your note.....I looked into this and here are the stats. You have submitted to 20 opportunities and only 4 of them have a status that says no artists were selected. 12 of your submissions, including the 4 mentioned above, were submitted before September 17th when the provider song-play tracking was put in place. Remember, we only show provider listening activity after that September 17th, 2010...Many of the more recent opportunities you submitted to have plenty of time to be reviewed by providers as many of the expected decision dates for the projects are in 2011. 9 of the opportunities you submitted to have songs marked as "considered," perhaps you might be assuming that means "no songs were selected?" I hope this helps and thanks for being a member. Best of luck, Roy
I was actually worried about that myself... Noticed I never saw any of my work get played even though I received notifications "so many tracks reviewed." Another real concern is that I've noticed on average only songs with the highest peer rating or average have been getting selected in opportunities as well. This is troublesome being I've lost faith in the peer review system on BJ and don't want to feel as if my work won't be heard if it gets two votes and only two votes that put it on the bottom o the pile. I'd like an option to remove my submissions from the peer review. Sorry... But if my submission is never heard based on the opinion of a couple people... It seems like wasted money to me. I'd like to know all of my submitted work is given a fair shot and previewed by the opportunity providers at least once without being tainted by my competitor's opinions. Just thinking outloud.
"I've noticed on average only songs with the highest peer rating or average have been getting selected" It may depend on the provider. I had a song accepted to one of those "Major cable network seeking multiple songs" library listings that was rated at 8%. Still, not a bad idea to be able to opt out of the review process. I see that providers can decide not to use the review system if they so choose. Not sure if opting out would increase your chance of being listened to though. Looks like providers have hundreds of pieces to go through per submission, they will probably still start with the highest ranking ones.
If I were a provider that had to go through all the reviews, I'd go for the 90% and above first too... I've just lost faith in the peer review system is all. Too few votes for really accurate percentages in my opinion. That and the 1,2,3 system just doesn't do the system justice. I'll hit reviews with three amazing songs and then get several reviews with nothing that I feel deserves a 3 or even sometimes a 2. No offense to the musicians that put their heart into the work... But the truth can sometimes hurt... for myself included. Its just too archaic for me... Music is so much more than a good better best. There should be more, like a "props" and a "this sucks" tab next to the inappropriate button. Seriously... This way, if I really like something there is a way to identify that even if I'm forced to give it a lower than 3 rating. And if I really don't like anything... I can equally voice that opinion with that 3 or even 2 I'm forced to hand out. I won't even review anymore being it serves me no purpose to do so. Even when I find work I simply love... Metadata often falls short when it comes to finding it... Especially if the work is instrumental. And don't get me started on appropriate submissions. I won't even review in the 6 Pack anymore because I just can't stomach it this year. There's plenty of good work available... But I feel as if a lot of it simply doesn't belong.
I could not agree more- it's seems impossible to put this any other way- when I get peer reviews I listen to some of the reviewers stuff and the quality of the songwriting is equal to the quality of the review. And that is sometimes really not too good. I know I'm inviting the wrath of the Broadjam Gods down upon me but please believe me- if the song's good it doesn't matter to me whether it's my cup of tea or not, because good is good- period. I know I can get better but I've actually raised a family and bought a house and paid bills playing music for a living and I've been fortunate to work with some fine and talented people. I have always tried to be honest with myself- it's never been 'my dream'. But just because I don't like rap for example doesn't mean I haven't heard some really well done stuff. But I know the difference between rap and crap. Peer reviews are only as good as the ears listening to the music and most folks don't have the good ears. Now I've gone and done it......
Rob: Exactly...
I'm having trouble seeing the benefit of the 'peer review' on submisions. maybe I'm wrong but it seems unfair to me. why not just let the providers listen and choose what they want? period! why should I be forced to give a 'good' to a song that deserves a 'best'? Why not make it 'first come, first served'? broadjam needs to do away with this 'peer review' thing. or maybe we should all agree not to review and maybe that way we'll all get an equal chance for our songs to be listened to. that sounds fair to me. Mr. Elkins, what are your thoughts on this matter?
Jesse and Roy have said repeatedly that there is NO contingency on the peer system.....you don't have to rate the songs being submitted for licensing and according to them, your songs don't have to be rated either....but I've had a hunch that this hasn't been adhered to and apparently it still is a requisite to rate and be rated, which would be ridiculous(which I've felt all along)when submitting to a company that knows what they want and doesn't need or want our influence anyway! I agree with Joe 100%......and its time that b'jam refrains from speaking with 'forked tongue' on this issue! Get rid of this stupid peer thing once and for all!
This is why I havn't submitted anything in a long time, and I won't until some dramatic changes are in effect!
I see I'm not alone on this issue.
I have to say the idea of my peers voting on the work was originally cool... But after 3 years of competing in the 6 Pack... Reviews... and Opportunity reviews... I've learned a bit about the human element here.
The regular review on Broadjam is a potentially very cool opportunity when the participants adhere to the rules. This should be the extent of the reviews...so let me be sure that I have this straight: I pay money to submit a song earmarked for a particular tv show or film.....now am I in addition to paying money to register a song for a prospective shot at a tv show, also required to review a number of songs also vying for that same commercial or another commercial....and if I don't do this then my song that I paid to be sent to these tv producers never gets there, OR scenario 2 is I pay to enter a song and then a whole bunch of my peers review it, and the consensus is they don't like it, or feel it won't be a good commercial for what I'm trying for........then it never gets to the tv people? Am I understanding any of this correctly?
Peer review has its moments... good and bad alike. The one on one reviews can be very rewarding and can equally throw you into a suicidal path of animosity... Its all about how you take criticism or slop reviews. One of the biggest drawbacks here is music is so personal to all of us... and this is a very business orientated website. Because of this people will sometimes go into it with unreasonable expectations based on their own preferences, unknowingly it would seem often, yet there it is. I think it boils down to identifying what's really in front of you. Examples: An 80's rock style rock band (artistic style of production wise) gets a solid mix and master on their work. It pumps nicely. The band loves it. Reviewer comes in. Hates 80's style rock. Gives song a 1 in the engineering/arrangement/etc category because they simply hated the song. Here's your review:) Things like this happen for every artist, in every genre, at every level of production... Too often some weeks. Not so often other weeks. Its give or take there. ..... Back to the issue thats at the core of the matter though. When I pay money... I expect one thing and one thing only. The sponsor to the op listens to my submission. We're in recession kids... I'm not submitting the same track to Major Cable Network Round 1,000 more than once. And if a Peer review prevents the track from being heard a first time... I'm out.
If you write a song with a specific audience in mind (I did) and you test the song with that audience and it works, you open yourself up for a never-ending WTF from the peer review process. Every song has a bit of the writer in it and pretty soon being thick skinned means dressing like an armadillo. But when you submit a song to make money (and it cost you money to submit) who needs this kind of dreck (drek?). Most of us have played somewhere that a drunken music expert has come up and asked the age old question- 'Do you do anything good? What kind of stuff DO you do? Freebird?'- oh the humanity..........
Rar ha! My album photographer wants me to remake freebird. He says no one has ever done it justice. lol
firebird
I have never submitted to peer reviews as it simply doesn't make any sense to me that my competition should be reviewing my songs... and frankly I am not interested in someone else's opinion... it's such a personal thing... what I do is rather unique and I know there is an audience for it because of the amount of CDs and digital downloads I have sold... however I also have never had a song chosen and after spending far too much money on what seemed like perfect opportunities that seemed a perfect match for the submission request, I have stopped sending anything... for now it seems like a waste of time and a waste of money... especially when you see that no bj artist was selected...
ps... just reviewed my submission status and saw that in 16 out of 20 submissions no broadjam artist was selected...
"saw that in 16 out of 20 submissions no broadjam artist was selected" About a year ago I worked up the numbers to see if it made sense for me to submit anymore. I came up with 13.5 percent of opportunities using BJ artists. Out of my total submissions over the time period I was looking at (one year), 2.5 percent were accepted by the provider. Most were just for inclusion in libraries, which are easy enough to get your music into without paying anyone. At that time, income I could trace back to broadjam was just about equal to what I had invested in submissions. So I broke even and I'm not submitting as much anymore. I try to wait until the half price specials. $2.50 is more in line with the costs charged by other services. For example The Film Music Network charges $1.99 to it's members. Of course there are other reasons to be a member here. Website hosting and storage for your music. Song transmitting and playlists are features I use. Roy and the staff are always helpful. Michael Nickolas www.studionineproductions.com www.studioninelicensing.com
Everyone, thanks for your good thoughts on the submission process. As requested, here are mine. Remember, our goal is to present the best music to the provider first. This keeps them engaged, not only with the list, but with Broadjam and our members. But even with that goal in mind, most providers log in frequently (some daily) and therefore the peer ranking doesn't have the influence that one might think as they might listen before the song gets reviewed. It is simply a guideline and a suggested listening order if they need it. In every case to date, the review mechanism puts good songs at the top and the ones that need work at the bottom. However, this doesn't mean that occasionally a good song will end up in the bottom of the list and a rough one will end up at the top. But what we have ensured is our providers are going to hear good music out of the gate (if they are not logging in daily) and that is critical to the success of our members. I randomly looked at a few listings and the licenses generated from it. Here are the results: 48% of licenses came from songs with peer rankings 80% or higher, 16% with rankings between 60-80%, 10% between 40-60% and 26% under a 40% ranking. The peer system is working exactly how it was designed and we will continue to work on improving it. In summary: 1.) The peer review mechanism simply provides an order for our suppliers to listen. Since many log in daily, it certainly doesn't have the relevance one might think. 2.) It is likely that more than half of the songs are picked with higher ratings because the provider feels the same as the reviewers. Remember, no supervisor will ever pick a song because of a rating system, recommendation engine, suggestion from a friend, a website, etc. They pick it because it works for their project. We know that no system is perfect and will continue to work on ours. In addition, we will continue to add many other services and features beyond licensing opportunities. Your feedback is important and heard. Thanks for all your input, I really appreciate it. Roy
You all make me feel like I just stepped into a two year money pit. It's true that during a peer review rotation, that I sometimes hear 3 songs I can't stand, and somehow need to come up with a "good, better, best" verdict. OK, I'll say it...I think the peer review process is nonsense. I mark songs "inappropriate" when it's an instrumental and the description says: Instrumentals accepted: NO. Really? Putting competitors on the front line if filtration makes me feel like I'm dealing with an organization that is milking the dreams of songwriters over a decision that's already been made. If a provider is making 50% or more on an opportunity, shouldn't they appoint someone who is closer to what the provider is really looking for, for a given opportunity, to screen submissions? While I enjoy hearing my competition (and I know peer ratings aren't manditory), what difference does it make what I think of them. The listings are often vague anyway. I didn't sign up for an interactive "American Idol". Can you just tell me if what I submit is what you're looking for?
Wow, never expected all this from posting that question. This is great. Roy, can you explain to me your thinking behind the "you must complete 2 sets of peer reviews in order to see your ranking"? I wonder whether it isn't detrimental to the process? I definitely don't have time to be doing this for every opportunity (who does???) I submit to, and since I don't see many of my scores, I have no incentive to participate in the process. Also might I suggest switching to rankings of 1, 2, 3 instead of Good Better Best. Because to be honest sometimes I have a hard time marking any one of a set of three songs as even good. 1/2/3 seems like a more comfortable way to organize the ratings. Also is there any way for reviewers to actually leave notes for songs they listen to? I.e. making it an actual review . . . Thanks for sticking with this, Anne
"I mark songs "inappropriate" when it's an instrumental and the description says: Instrumentals accepted: NO." Ron, I was doing the same but it turns out this doesn't do anything. I was recently told no song has ever been removed from an opportunity because of being marked as inappropriate. You can read about this in the broadjam blog "Music licensing submission status update" (http://www.broadjam.com/blog/broad jam-blog/music-licensing-submission -status-update/) Michael Nickolas www.studionineproductions.com www.studioninelicensing.com
Ron, Thanks for your thoughts. All the songs are presented to the providers, so there is no screening. The peer review is simply a prioritizing mechanism for the provider if they are not logging in daily. Most of the providers are logging in daily, so the peer process has nowhere near the effect that is being echoed here. Granted, it does have some influence in organizing the presentation. Many have echoed your comments about listening to the competition. I agree as well and think it's a valid comment and it can be educational to hear how others interpret a listing, but reviewing is not required. BTW: Many listings don't have a peer review component. It's only there when the provider request it. Annie, You are not required to review. 2 sets was a number we picked years ago when we launched our contest mechanism.....Currently, reviewers do leave notes to review later, but they are not public. We are considering this option and you will see it next year. Thanks for your suggestions as well. Michael, On occasion we have someone who repeatedly submits inappropriate content. While we never remove the content, we do need to have a way to identify a person who is consistently submitting inappropriate material. Thanks for your comment.....Roy
Roy: Thank you for taking time out of your day to cast some light on the process here. I think as artists... A lot of us are simply very passionate about our work. When we submit... I suspect there's an eternal optimist in all of us thinking "they're gonna hear it and they'll love it!!! There's no way they simply won't love it!!!" We do it because all of us have so much hope and faith in the possibility of a miracle one might say. Some of us spend thousands of dollars a year chasing this goal... This childhood dream. When it fails to materialize... Its very easy to occasionally falter and feel the need to point a finger. We look for reasons "why." Sometimes we look for reasons while living in denial, its such a powerful urge... But mostly we just wanna understand "why not us? Why this guy? And where the heck did I put my left shoe last night?" Your insights and observations are much appreciated. They help dispel some of the smoke in a very cloudy room. Best: N
I like peer reviews when the reviewer leaves comments, bad or good. I agree that the system would be better if it were 1, 2, or 3 rather than best, better, good. I think we all feel like best, better, good means I like this one the most, better is not bad, and good doesn't cut it. Sometimes it's more accurate than that, but there's no way to know. Why not just look at the individual song scores in the reviews?
The qualitative peer review system (the one with space for comments etc.) is well thought out and very helpful. My only grouch there is that I seem to write more reviews than I get. I currently have 23 credits and I've had 10 reviews back since the beginning of October. Maybe not many people are doing them. I do have some doubts about the other peer review system, which seems a bit of a blunt instrument. "Good", "Better" and "Best" is vague, and open to both abuse and laziness. There's also a strong element of chance. Say your song is reviewed three times. If on all three occasions, the other two songs against which it is reviewed happen to be strong candidates, your song will have a lower percentage than if, on all three occasions, the other two songs chance to be weak candidates. That has nothing to do with the absolute merits of your song, or even its relative merits if measured against all other competing songs. There is also some scope for manipulation. If, when reviewing other people's songs, you systematically mark the strongest one "Good" and the weakest one "Best", then (assuming that everyone else isn't doing the same), your own song will probably move higher up the list. I can understand that Broadjam needs to give some sort of quality pointer to the opportunity providers. Otherwise, presumably, it would soon have fewer providers. But I gave up on one of Broadjam's competitors because it used a listening panel as a gatekeeper to opportunities. I felt that wasn't what I was paying for. But at least the listening panel was composed of industry professionals. Judging by the figures, the random peer review system on Broadjam is either predicting or deciding the fate of the submissions. If the peer reviews have become the clincher, they probably need looking at. Just a minor point, though. I think Broadjam is a great idea and a great service.
"Influence In Organizing The Presentation" is more influential then it really needs to be....the consensus of Broadjam 'Cornerstone Members' who have all contributed to this stream is to get rid of peer reviews as it applies to the licensing opportunity.....withdraw the opportunity of giving the clients a choice! No other site offers this! Think about it.......