Audio is Coming to Elements



Highly unlikely. 100% of marketing is in the direction Envato Market -----> Envato Elements
Ads don’t go both ways, and that says a lot about the true plans of Envato.


I hope you are wrong, but yes it is fishy that the marketing goes only one way. Ads are one thing, but no links to marketplace portfolios is just very weird. Does not make sense to me at all.


This is the only “marketing” that goes in the direction Elements----->Market
It’s the small menu on the bottom of Elements page :smiley:
This is nothing compared to banners on Envato Market, you can’t miss them. Considering that, I think the real truth is that Elements are the priority. I’m a customer on Elements for 3 months now, and I never saw an ad pointing to Market pages.


This is a really important issue to fix. Indeed there is a misunderstanding on the terms used regarding audience size. Because of the unclear language we are missing out on a lot of higher tier licenses.

On the bright side, now thanks to Element, we don’t have to worry about audience size anymore… yay! (I’m being sarcastic)


A reminder to all: Music and audio on elements will only come to fruition by music producers and audio producers who willingly accept the terms of the deal and agree to participate in the business model. No one is forcing you to participate. Invitations to join can be ignored. I personally refused to put my music in a similar model and also removed my music from another company that said “our way or no way”.

In fact subscription models anywhere, will only work with willing participants. If you do not want to devalue your work and music assets, don’t participate!


This is just really strange to witness. With ADP being implemented so recently, more or less a quarter of last week’s top selling tracks had prices 50% higher than the previous standard. So people are actually willing to pay a good bit more for the music they want/need, and these items have been undervalued this whole time.

It would just seem odd that after implementing such a major change (and not giving it some time to settle in) they would be willing to bundle everything up and give everything away almost for free.

Why would you undervalue your assets on purpose? This kind of feels like McDonalds selling a single Big Mac for 20$ while at the same time offering a month long all you can eat buffet for $16.50.




I wonder if that small percent should actually be a lot larger. I often find myself curious as to whether most customers even check which licence is the correct one which applies to their need, or rather, in the rush to the checkout, select the one they think will cover it. Or worse still, be completely oblivious to the fact that the advertised price doesn’t apply to all needs.

A mandatory step in which the customer selects what category their project falls under would remedy that, meaning that in order to purchase the wrong licence, the buyer would have to be actively untruthful.
for example: “Are you a TV broadcaster who’s cable TV platform has the potential to reach over 10 Million viewers? Well Broadcast & Film is the licence for you. Please select your method of payment and have a nice day.”
and “Are you a national TV channel who’s content is only available for people who live in Switzerland? Here is the 10 Million broadcast licence for you. Aren’t you lucky, enjoy.” (perhaps someone else should set the questions)

Your argument that only a small percentage of sales are broadcast licences would be more relevant if the licencing system was implemented properly to begin with.


With that to one side, the concern I have is that having broadcast 10 Million capability in Elements means that the forementioned Swiss national TV channel could potentially licence my track that’s perfect for the intro of their new family favourite early evening dinner time hit game show with a big celebrity host and I might see less than a dollar for the accolade and that fact doesn’t sit well with me.


Swiss National TV… along with some 145 other countries!


Yes, those too PurpleFog. Did you see the same list I did? :slight_smile:

I was alarmed by the issue that you had a year ago concerning a TV company purchasing the wrong licence. I think it would be fair to us for Envato to put some emphasis on making sure that companies are choosing the correct licence for their needs instead of just making the licence choice an available option. Especially since it seems there is ambiguity in the definition of the term audience size, even between it’s authors.

That point becomes even more poignant when broadcast licences can be potentially ‘snapped up’ for less than a dollar on Envato Elements. Could audience size be interpreted by larger broadcasters as: “Some of our shows have ratings less than 10 million viewers per episode. That makes us eligible for this cheap subscription service.”?
I know my example is somewhat extreme, but the danger is there when they start using the word broadcast in association with a stock music subscription service.


The very same :wink:

Well, since this is what happens on Audiojungle, I don’t see why there wouldn’t be the same issue on Elements. This is a very possible scenario.


I sincerely think that you as the Envato team are trying your best to do the right thing to attract a big market of customers, but with all due respect you seem to lack a tiny bit understanding how music differs from other assets. Not gonna discuss the search engine on this thread, no worries, but thats an example of how you treat music much like other assets, and its not optimal either for customers or authors.

So I really hope you take all the very constructive comments from long term music producers in this thread seriously. AJ authors have built up the site with their blood, sweat and tears and deserve a tiny piece of the “freedom cake” too, like for example control over broadcast use.

A lot of work is being done nowadays with how to give authors and P.R.O´s more control of HOW and WHERE the music is used, to help collect money. Just check the AJ threads regarding SoundMouse. I think its Envato´s responsibility to help this process and not work against it. Just because competiton sites do exploit music producers to the fullest does not mean Envato have to do it. Its not a clever move from any perspective anyway, IMHO opinion.

Like people have stated above, a low % of broadcast use can be an argument of just letting authors keep control over it as well. Another super important point stated above is that these licences could be implemented easier and milked a lot more.


We strongly believe in the future of Market and AudioJungle and want you to know that the risk to you is the same as the risk to Envato.

Why is Envato even taking this risk with music files? Why are you chasing after the “we don’t have any money” crowd or the youtubers who just want free scores? Why? I ask WHY? because I am seeing so many customers willing to reach into their wallets and buy a license for $20, $30, 50, $100 and up but now there is a competing offering by Envato for UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS for $16.50.
Is audio jungle losing customers? Are less music licenses getting sold than before?

Who are these “clients” anyway? 14 year olds with nothing better to do except play around on youtube?

We only earn when you earn and we’re watching the way customers respond to these changes as closely as you are.

The change you are making is HUGE, it is another offering, another “product” and “service” that competes directly with the general AJ market for $16.50 a month.

Our continued focus is on growing the number of Envato customers who are actively purchasing.

Really? growing customer size by reducing the price to “everything you want” for $16.50 is more important than ringing up as many sales as possible at $20, $30, $40, $50, and so on? Haven’t you seen the many posts about guys saying their revenue is going up as their prices went up. Isn’t MORE REVENUE a better goal than more customers paying a lot less?

We know that there are many potential customers out there who visit Envato Market without ever making a purchase.

Who cares? We all visit sites every day and don’t open up accounts. Win customers over with good music and nothing other than that.

You only earn when a visitor becomes a customer and we want to do our part to ensure that happens as often as possible.

Indeed we want to earn more revenue, but we are not concerned with more customers paying practically nothing for music. More customers paying practically nothing will not equal more revenue for music assets.
We want MORE MONEY AND REVENUE, not more customers supplying a lot less revenue, and having a loophole to broadcast the music on air, and ENVATO not telling us who the customer is or which brand may be making a TV spot with the track, etc. When customer clicks “add license” - we do not see who the customer is correct?

Elements represents a new opportunity for us to activate visitors who otherwise might not purchase from Envato, and increase the pool of recurring earnings for everyone.

Again, more teen youtubers for $16.50 a month “all you can eat” is not going to increase revenue and earnings for everyone. All you are going to do is allow companies that actually do have decent corporate budgets a chance to get music for nothing.

James who is the customer base for elements? Individuals? or companies? or both?


I wonder, what would prevent a new user from joining elements, downloading all the tracks he can in a month providing very vague usage information (of which we, the authors, will never have a clue in this new model), and then simply unsubscribe.

It all seems so absurd… a costumer who could potentially spend, lets say, over $400 a year with the current ADP system, could stock himself with a huge batch of tracks for the ridiculous amount of $16,5 and then just vanish for ever.


Mainly because it would be pretty much a full time job for the month, and time is money. Sure, some will probably download a bit ‘more than their fill’, but it seems like most subscribers pretty frugal when it comes to download numbers. I mean, there’s a whole bunch of subscribers who don’t download anything!


I think this is the billion dollar question (literally). Why can´t Elements be for private users and companies routed straight to the marketplace? If companies are heading towards bankruptcy they can always enjoy the 5$ market. But seriously what is the pros and cons of dividing subscription users up as a private user or as a company?


@jamesgiroux I have a tiny portfolio and a tiny amount of sales, but was preparing to build a much bigger presence here, especially in light of positive feedback on ADP. I’d like to add my voice, for what it’s worth, to those of many authors here in saying that introduction of audio to Elements in general, and broadcast licences in particular, is a bad business move. It will hurt authors, and will not be sustainable for Envato, at least not in the existing format.

Elements is all about simplicity. You can tell by the wording of the pitch and even by how the site is designed. Apparently Envato does not want to complicate things by adding a system of tiers and the inevitable “some restrictions apply” wording that comes with it.

It’s also obvious that Envato, unlike many of its competitiors, is in a position to offer a one-stop solution membership where subscribers can have access to whatever they need in terms of stock material, and audio is an indispensable part of that (one subscription with access to video, graphics, audio, etc. How cool is that?).

My suggestion then would be to include a very limited number of carefully selected audio items (pretty much like Youtube’s Audio Library) and refer subscribers to AJ for more specific or substantial needs. This way Envato would still keep things simple, maintain its competitive advantage by offering all food groups under one subscription, and make more revenue by referring customers to its more lucrative “boutique” department.

Then Elements would truly be an additional source of revenue for everyone, including Envato.


Good idea, but i hardly believe it will be implemented this way.


The question everyone needs to ask themselves is: what pricing strategy brings in more revenue?

What I can say from my personal experience here and on other markets is this:
Raising my prices here on audio jungle has increased my revenue. I can officially say that August and September revenue has handily beaten July’s Revenue. I was at $19 a track in July and shifted to $49 on August 2. I am selling less units, but still making more revenue.

The same results happened on another market. I raised my prices and then I started making more sync fee royalties each month.

And yes a company that lowered prices probably out of fear that they were too high relative to the competition, that resulted in LESS monthly revenue.

Let’s face the facts: Envato is proposing to lower the price of music with Elements, not just a pinch either. This is a massive price drop for music from on average $20 a unit for 1 single use standard license to $16.50 all you can download.

I just don’t see how you make up all that revenue with Quantity. Lumen, your prices are up, and you’ve got a hit track for envato producing recurring sales (congrats again btw)…how is it going with your price increase?

It’s kind of at the point where Envato has to ask themselves, is it in our interests to market a high quality offering to people who do have money and are willing to spend money? or shall we court the amateur youtube crowd, people who don’t have much money and gradually cannibalize the existing AJ market?