When it Comes to Exclusivity, Who Wins? It’s Not Teachers and Students

When a music publisher announces that their content will be exclusively available on one company’s platform, it’s often marketed as a “win” for teachers and students. A win for who? Do they really think that teachers and students care about exclusivity? When a music teacher reads a press release announcing an exclusive partnership, do they celebrate? Absolutely not. They probably don’t even care. The idea of a music publisher exclusively licensing their content to a single interactive platform can be dressed up with all sorts of marketing babble about saving time, providing instant feedback, and enhancing the practice experience for students. But that deceptive marketing approach really only covers up the obvious truth: exclusivity really only benefits the corporation that owns the exclusive rights far more than the educators and learners in schools. Making resources available only through one platform fundamentally restricts choice, inflates costs, and ultimately limits what teachers can do for their students. One of the most important parts of running an ed tech company focused on such a unique market as music education is that you provide the best tools and content possible at the most affordable price. Dealing with competitors that think otherwise is always part of the game, but I think that only teachers and students suffer the consequences. Exclusive contracts are nothing new, but in my opinion, the parties that enter into exclusive licensing deals are only in it for one thing: the money.

Imagine if a distinguished sheet music publisher said you could only perform its works if your band used instruments from a single manufacturer. At first that might seem like a really weird partnership. But when that requirement means the only way your students can play these pieces is by trading in their current instruments for a specific brand, the choice isn’t about quality anymore, it’s about compliance. Suddenly your program’s budget, your students’ comfort with their instruments, and your artistic choices are subject to a commercial mandate. This is precisely what happens when educational content becomes walled off behind a proprietary platform: teachers are told “this is the way” not because it’s pedagogically superior, but because it’s contractually mandated. The available tools to music educators and their students becomes narrower, not broader. Competition is good for everyone. Make better products and let teachers make an informed choice. I guess when you know that a competitor is superior, the only option is to do anything you can to make them go away. That’s not the philosophy behind anything that we do at MusicFirst. I would much rather win on merit and/or price than trying to make my competitors product “go away”.

For music educators who strive to meet the unique needs of every ensemble that they teach, the ability to choose tools and content that fit their pedagogical philosophy is essential. A teacher shouldn’t have to ask, “Does this platform carry the book I need?” or “Is this curriculum even compatible with what we’re already doing?” Teachers deserve the freedom to blend content and tools in ways that serve their students, not constraints that serve a vendor’s market strategy.

Exclusivity deals often come with the implication that because a platform “offers” a resource, it is somehow the only or best way to access it. That’s a narrative crafted to drive adoption, not to support instruction. It’s corporate strategy masquerading as educational innovation. But schools operate in a real world of tight budgets, varied technology infrastructures, and diverse learner needs. Locking valuable pedagogical content behind a single provider forces districts to evaluate whether they must adopt a whole system—not because it best serves learning, but because they want access to one part of it. A partnership that sounds exciting in a press release can look very different in the classroom when the lever being pulled is not better learning but increased platform adoption.

It’s also important to acknowledge how these exclusive arrangements shape the market. When one company locks up specific pedagogical material, other platforms and tools are handicapped. They can’t offer the same resources because they’re prohibited from doing so. That stifles competition and innovation. Teachers and students lose out when alternatives can’t thrive, not because they are less effective, but because they are shut out by contractual terms. The result is a homogenization of choice where one company’s platform becomes the de facto standard, not because it is the best product for every educator, but because it is the only place to find certain content. Absolutely silly.

In contrast to this trend, MusicFirst has always consciously choose not to enter into exclusivity contracts with publishers. We know that music education as a whole is better off when teachers have the widest possible access to content and the freedom to pair it with the tools that best support their students. These platforms focus on interoperability, open access to pedagogical material, and flexibility, understanding that education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Students flourish when they have multiple pathways to engage with content, and teachers flourish when they are empowered to construct those pathways without corporate restrictions.

Ultimately, music education is about enabling expressive, creative, and deep learning. That mission is best supported by a marketplace of ideas and tools, not one where access to key resources is contingent on one specific platform. Again, the only one who wins in this situation is the companies that make this type of decision - not the teachers and students who rely on their content. I guess we should change the old adage from: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” to “If you can’t beat ‘em, sign exclusivity deals.” It is disappointing to me when competitors forget about this important point, and instead resort to anti-competitive tactics. The focus of any company working in music education today should always be on expanding access, supporting teacher autonomy, and creating environments where students can fulfill the full potential of their musical abilities, not on locking up resources to serve a corporate bottom line.