Tadcast: Would You Pay To Get Your Music In An Online Video?

image from t3.gstatic.com Paying to find fans has been around as long as there has been music and advertising. Once that meant a billboard on Hollywood Blvd, but with the net has come options that put advertising within reach of developing artists as well. Targeted Jango and and Facebook ad campaigns, for example, have proven worthwhile for some. But should artists pay to place music inside videos from the viral internet's video stars rather than be paid for music use, as in the traditional model? Tadcast thinks so and has created a marketplace to facilitate it.

Details & Video Demo:

Artists upload music to Tadcast, which has provided a similar service to traditional advertisers for some time. and offer it for inclusion in online video productions. Producers include a link to anywhere the artist wants, like a music store or their website. Artists pay for this exposure on a per view and pay for click model much like Facebook or Google ads. Of course, unlike a banner or text ad, placement in a video means that potential ads actually get to hear your music.

How Tadcast Helps Musicians! from Tadcast on Vimeo.

Question: Could Tadcast be a worthwhile investment for some artists that leads to more fans and more income? Or does Tadcast eliminate yet another source of income for artists.

Share on:


  1. I don’t see that there’s really much difference between paying them to use your music or hiring a videographer to make a video for you. The main issue is whether this matching of music and videographer will be as or more effective than you having input into the video being created.

  2. Jeremy from Tadcast explained the service to me over the phone, and it’s completely different than hiring a videographer. The video doesn’t even need to be related to your song. For example, this morning I discovered my song is being used in the closing credits of this Harry Potter-related video:
    Every time you click on the link, it costs me a dime, so show some restraint. 😉

  3. I understand that it isn’t the same, but I was saying that we are willing to hire people to make videos for us, so if that is ethically okay, this is probably also ethically okay.
    We don’t talk about “pay to play” when we hire someone to make videos for us. This seems more like a “pay to play” but one can really just view it as a kind of paid service. The primary issue will be whether it turns out to be a good way to spend promotional money.

  4. I would be more interested in having video producers searching for music for the videos, and pairing THEM with us for a charge. Not the other way around. Or connecting video producers with musicians just for the sake of being creative. I don’t like services that charge musicians for using their music. Just seems shady, all this companys need to realize that musicians are not racking in a lot of profit and that there is A LOT more money by charging the public, than by charging starving artists.

  5. It’s absolutely pay to play, but maybe closer to Facebook Ads or Google Adwords than radio. You bid what you’re willing to pay per click, and videographers only get paid for what they deliver. So far I’m only on the hook for a dime, and the video has 237 views (though my Tadcast control panel says 601, hmm…). The targeting *should* be better than traditional ads though, since you’re reaching people who are already enjoying media, and who actually heard the song. I think it’s a promising concept, and you can bet I’ll report on my findings!

  6. No, I won’t pay to get my music in an online video. It works the other way around. I should be paid for the use of my music. I can see the argument for letting a producer use a song for free in return for a promotional opportunity. I’ve done it, and I’ve found out that in reality most promo opportunities aren’t worth much. I can give you plenty of examples as I provide music to TV shows, films and video games.
    Here’s a YouTube example, since this is where Tadcast is playing. Take one of Bite Me TV’s Field Trippin’ episodes that has 150,000+ views. How much would I have had to pay Tadcast to place a song in that video? They max out at $250, so I could have paid up to $250 for the placement. Have I received $250 in promo value for those 150,000+ views? Have I sold that much in iTunes or Amazon mp3 downloads due to the placement? No. That’s a pie-in-the-sky idea. There are very few (like count on one hand) examples of music placement in someone else’s YouTube videos leading to any meaningful promotional value.
    Paying an outfit like Tadcast to place your music is going to be money in the toilet for 99% of musicians/songwriters/composers. It’s just another way for hungry musicians to be taken advantage of.

  7. The most damaging part of this idea is that flipping things around so that instead of collecting license fees musicians should be paying for music placement, musicians then lose one of their main ways of making a living.
    Tadcast got started as a product placement outfit, and what they don’t seem to get is that music placement doesn’t work like product placement. Companies trying to sell most products are willing to pay for product placement in order to spread awareness of their product and push sales. But for musicians, the collecting of license fees for use of their music in various media is an income stream. It’s not part of a marketing campaign to try and sell CD’s.
    It’s difficult to try and make a living making music. Most can’t rely on CD sales or mp3 downloads for income, especially with increases in piracy. So it comes down to playing live, selling merchandise and collecting license fees and royalties. If we give up collecting license fees by paying some middleman to place our music in other media, we shoot ourselves in the foot by killing one of the only ways we can make decent money.
    So if you want YouTube video producers to use your songs in return for credit and a link to your website, then reach out to a bunch of YouTube producers. Why pay a middleman to do that for you if it’s going to ruin a lot of your income potential?

  8. Druu,
    Does your bite me TV do licensing, maybe that is the reason you re so negative. I don’t get were you are coming from. Youtube producers are not paying for music. Musicians wil never make money from you tube producers. Its not gonna happen. i am a big youtuber have 50,000 plus subscribers and I would never pay to use music. Unless you know me and I like you, I will not oput your song with a link to your website in my video. Its not gonna happen Druu. What Tadcast does, it allows bands who want to get huge exposure to pay a little — to get there music into the most popular videos. Maybe some of my videos or even biger youtube stars then me. It seems from your comment you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Here are the facts. 1. Youtube producers are never gioing to pay for music. If they do use music they will use their friends or they just won’t use music. 2. Unless your friends with a top youtiuber, you will most probably never get into one of their videos and never get exposure 3. Tadcast is allowing an automated process to bridge the gap. 4. As a youtuber who makes very little money, this seems like an awesome idea. If I can now make 250 or more and help a musiican nget huge exposure then it is a win win for all parties.
    Druu, I took a look at your site nand you seem to be in the licensing business– no wonder you hate this idea. This Idea will allow musicians to egt huge amounts of promotion and it will allow youtubers to make a little money. 250 doolars here and there won’t do much for me, but if I can make that and help out bands at the same time. Why not
    And maybe if you didnt make 250 dolalrs back, from placing your music in a 150,000 view count video — jsut maybe its either because your music sucks and no one likes it. That just might be it. No one like your music, your not veru good at it. Or lets say you are good at msuic and people liked it, maybe you increased your fanbas, maybe those people are now your fans and they may buy your albums in the future, maybe those fans went to one of your shows or maybe they told their friends about your music and they will buy your songs.. In general I don’t think you can jusge the success of a marketing campaign by how many sales you have in a week or a month.
    I am willing to guess though – if you had 150,000 people listening to your music and you couldn’t sell 250 dollars, you must be horrible.

  9. Druu is 100% correct on all counts. Tadcast recently approached me about putting my music in their system and I declined. If it were at no cost to me, I would have considered making some of my music available to see if it had any promotional value. It’s one thing to let someone use my music for free if there’s significant opportunity for exposure. It’s quite another to pay to have my music placed when usually music placement is a source of revenue for musicians. I just watched the video which used Brian’s song. They used about 30 seconds of the song at the end, and the video now has about 500 plays. I wish Brian luck, but sincerely doubt that sort of placement is going to generate any significant exposure. In fact, I’m rather glad I had an opportunity to see the sort of placement Tadcast is offering, because it only reaffirms my decision to not work with them.
    yello8blue12: it is you who clearly doesn’t understand much about the world of music licensing. Whether or not a placement in a viral video generates sales has a lot to do with numerous factors: how and where the song is used, how much of the song is used, etc. Tadcast’s service doesn’t promise you that your song is going to be featured in a significant way, just that it will be used. 30 seconds of audio rarely generates sales, which is why streaming 30 second audio samples in digital sales outlets has been a failure. People don’t decide to buy a track based on a 30 second sample.
    You’re certainly entitled to choose not to pay for music for your videos, and as long as you’re not using someone’s music without their permission, I have no issue with this. Your videos, whether or not they suck ;-), probably don’t generate enough income to be worth using music that requires you to pay a licensing fee (though fees for online usage are generally pretty minimal, and many independent artists probably would let you use their music without compensation if they felt your video would be good exposure.)
    But paying to have your music used is a whole other matter, and frankly, it’s just a crock of ****.

Comments are closed.