Let’s focus on the potential tiers of the subscription model. This thread should stay as a place for general discussion.
Please write your thoughts in the topic from the link below. Many of you already wrote your ideas here, so you can copy-paste it in the new topic.
I’ve got a slightly different question about Elements.
In the market place my understanding is that the transaction is between the author and the purchaser, with Envato charging both parties a fee for handling the transaction. This means that any breach of the licence terms is primarily a matter between the author and the purchaser.
Whereas with Elements there are two transactions involved; Envato purchases from the author the right to sell licences (via the subscription model) to the purchasers. There is then a separate transaction between Envato and the Elements subscriber.
My question is whether this makes Envato accountable to the author for any misuse by the purchaser of the licences being sold through Elements and responsible for policing the use being made of tracks, including taking action if there is any misuse?
Especially since authors do not have access to the buyer/intented use data, this really needs to be addressed. Who is enforcing, and how is it enforced?
I don’t think that Element could do something like that. Element doesn’t have full usage rights on items they sold. It’s different with the competitor with upfront payment.
I heard that they register all their tracks on Content ID, so they can track the buyers and prevent any piracy on their items.
I’m guessing the same.
The thing is, with AJ we do have access to buyers data, albeit partial. So we can enforce the terms ourselves. With Elements authors do not have that data and thus are left completely clueless and powerless. Since Envato is not willing to police their terms themselves, with Elements there is no accountability whatsoever.
To all music producers in the world, Please listen. Please think very very hard about your involvement in this subscription model or any out there. The model truly only serves to exploit you, pay you less, and keep data and information about your customers away from you.
Focusing on customers who do not have any money is not going to increase your revenue. We have many marketplaces out there where we can set our own price. That system is as fair as it gets. You have an asset for lease, and people buy the license FROM YOU. Why would you want the transaction to happen any other way?
You are being manipulated into this model by promises of an “extra revenue” stream. Have you begun to think of the disaster that will unfold 3 to 5 years down the line? Or is it just too important to pick up that extra $200 to $400 now while you gradually destroy the existing licensing business you have built?
Are you really happy watching your cut go from 70% to 50%?
How is this not self destructive insanity from the willing participants?
If you want to engage in a subscription model do it yourself from your own site. Charge your customers an annual fee in exchange for unlimited downloads of your own catalog so you can keep 100% of the subscription fees.
This shared revenue model dealt by the “controlling authority” with “points” assigned to your “item” is probably the most exploitative business models out there and it only serves to enrich Envato while gradually destroying an individual artists’ ability to earn from selling sync licenses.
If you really believe in fair capitalism where buyers and sellers meet and agree on a price, you would run away from this as fast as possible.
Why sprint to serve the bottom when time and again, the market proves that professional companies with professional projects and real marketing budgets will always and willingly pay a bit more for a quality soundtrack or song? Who is asking for cheaper music licensing options? Can anyone answer that?
Some customers may say “Well our business needs music in bulk” The response from Envato should be “Great, we can get you a lot of tracks…just deposit $5000 with us and start downloading away. Each download will debit your account by the authors asking price.”
I can! Yes, there are plenty of professional companies with professional projects, but there are a hell of a lot more individuals without professional projects that may not have the budget for such things. Sure, Envato could just ignore them, but a lot of people paying a lot of money and loads of people paying a small amount of money can work out to about the same.
They do have some money… at least $198 a year or $33 a month.
Well that’s exactly the same as AudioJungle and all the other marketplaces, but you still signed up. Any disaster that occurs in 3 to 5 years won’t be because of the Elements format, it will be the same as on the markets… unsustainable growth of an authors content, compared with the massive growth of the marketplace’s content, and steady (but only small) growth in customers an total marketplace revenue. At least with Elements there’s the opportunity to positively impact that small growth in customers by bringing on-board people who might not have had the budget for content here.
And what about the non-exclusive authors? Are they really happy watching their cut go from 36% to 50%?
I’m still having trouble understanding why some people really aren’t liking this whole points thing! So if somebody downloads two items… one of your music tracks and some other guy’s sound effect… you’re fine with getting $8.25 and you’re fine with the other guy getting $8.25? I wouldn’t be! The only way to avoid that is to assign a points value to items. As for the ‘controlling authority’… Envato have always been the ‘controlling authority’, as it’s their company and they decide how things operate. I don’t quite understand how that’s now become so much of an issue with Elements when it wasn’t before.
I would have at least offered them a small discount… no need to be so rigid!
Let´s rather ask: Who is NOT asking for cheaper licensing options?
Subscription business model from a competitor site thats been mentioned earlier in this thread:
Then this text below: For corporate content or content created for a third party please use the Track Shop link. Need a corporate subscription covering multiple platforms? Please contact us at xxx
“Track Shop link” has to be replaced by AJ marketplace and then you get the idea.
content created for a third party this would also cover video editors buying music for a project they are working on for a client right? Or am I wrong?
Please enlighten me what is bad about this business model from the companies perspective? Lets ignore for a moment that they have exploited music producers to the fullest by buying their tracks cheap. Just focus on how they collect money? Are they good at what they do? Is it sustainable for their “track shop”?
If you don´t now what site this is, just google royalty free music and look at the very top.
This is the main point Mojo. The market is cratering to service a wedding videographer and “youtuber” but is seemingly forgetting about the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of corporate customers and post houses who have corporate clients willing to spend money on a license. It’s official, September is in the books and I had my best month of 2018 selling at $49. The revenue was 3 times that of Junes and More than double July’s. Things had been trending down big time at the $19 price tag. Boy did that change fast with ADP. My business thesis seems to be correct: corporate clients with marketing and production budgets simply do not care about that extra $20 or $30 for a track because it’s small potatoes within an overall video production budget.
This beautiful “more revenue” story that has been unfolding for my portfolio is about to be decimated by subscription models but only if the music producers of the world continue to feed this monster. My customers are obviously not looking for a better deal, even at $49. I have not gotten one e-mail from a client asking why my price is at $49 and most others are $20.
Once music on elements enters the ecosystem, My revenue growth will be destroyed. Why would anyone buy my tune at $49 when they can have all you can download for $16.50? My revenue will be hammered to nothingness, but so will everyone else’s.
Music Producers love to destroy their careers and accept less money. That I will never understand.
The market as it stands now with ADP is finally a fair market where buyers and sellers meet and agree on a price.
Don’t join the dark side. You will regret it. There is no way that the revenue loss (from the core corporate and post house client) you are about to experience is going to be made up by “thousands of more elements subscribers.”
Remember our customers with money are about to be handed a massive discount. They are not even asking for it. SAD!!! STUPID! DUMB! RIDICULOUS! INSANITY! CORPORATE GREED ON STEROIDS!
Exactly, and thats why everbody needs to take hard and long look at the competition site I´m reffering to above. They collect the best of BOTH worlds separately, not in the same pot. That also goes for marketing, they can market their audio and reach out to both the low budget clients that needs a lot of music, and to those that have significant budgets at the same time.
When your are browsing their single track pricing you also understand that $49 tracks are not as bold as many think, quite modest in reality.
They only have 30,000 to 40,000 tracks and THEY BOUGHT ALL OF THEM for $300 to $600 each (again only stupid composers sell their works outright for that kind of money). They invested millions in the content. Envato is investing $0 in the content and simultaneously taking 50% ownership of the content essentially for free (as if it is their content too) Is everyone thinking about that?
STAND STRONG
STOP THIS RELENTLESS CORPORATE GREED
DO NOT DECIMATE YOUR FUTURE, YOUR LIVLIHOOD, YOUR ABILITY TO EARN A LIVING THROUGH SYNC LICENSING.
RESIST SUBSCRIPTION
YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED AGAIN
THIS MODEL IS INSANE
ONLY YOU ARE TO BLAME BY JUMPING ON BOARD
YOUR SYNC REVENUE EARNINGS WILL ULTIMATELY BE DECIMATED
Yes I agree its an awful concept for music producers, one i never in a million years would join myself. My point is just that they collect money from different markets in a very clear and simple way.
For what it’s worth, September was the first month I raised prices, and it has been my best month of 2018, also.
And let’s not forget about how nice, responsible video editors (with integrity) and post houses like you Promosapien have some money to throw around to composers and music producers because at the end of the day, it’s not your money, it’s your clients money. And it’s folks like you who “get it”…you instinctively know that 3 cents a track via a subscription model is just not good for the overall health of an industry and the concept of fair compensation.
Essentially what I get from you in this thread is that you do NOT want to spend less because there is no need to spend less and you also realize that we need to make some foxing money at this in order to continue to want to produce and remain creatively motivated to try and produce hit soundtracks.
I love being able to do creative work for a living. However, it isn’t all sunshine and roses all the time. It has not made me wealthy…yet 
.
I appreciate the work that goes into it, and the struggle it can be.
If, as a producer at a small video company, I’m being asked to list complaints about what’s wrong with royalty-free music offerings, “prices are too high” wouldn’t be on the list.
But doesn’t Envato’s implementation of ADP already serve those customers who feel that royalty-free music is too expensive for them? Aren’t there tracks here now that buyers can find that are very inexpensive? ADP has permitted the community to offer a wide range of prices.
I mean, how much cheaper does royalty-free music need to get? I just can’t get behind the logic of providing it for pennies per track.
I have an idea…OK I get it…there is a lot of “micro-money” out there from the youtubers. Maybe Envato codes into the site a statement like this “Is the basic/ standard license too pricey for your ultra low budget, student film, private individual youtube project? make an offer.” Then the customer e-mails an offer to the author and they either accept or reject. The main requirement though would be the customer must type in their intended end usage.
All I am saying is this: We MUST do everything in our power to protect what I believe really is our core client - the corporate video professional servicing small, medium, and large corporations. Companies that produce at least 500K in annual revenue. Hell maybe even 250K. When I see an independent photographer buying my tune for $49, that says a lot. Either he is willing to invest his hard earned money in a project to market his firm or he’s buying the license with his customers money. Let’s not forget that point either. Most of our customers are really spending their customers money, not their own personal money. When a post house buys a track here, they are spending their larger clients’ money. Basically what will happen with this model is that video folks and post house folks will obtain massive cost savings but still charge their client a music license line item on their invoice. Video people will be making more money off our music than we would. That is how sickening this model really is.
Hi @MojoSoundtrackMusic I think it will be great if you bring this idea to the other thread in case you have not already brought it Tiers in the subscription model - Audio in Elements discussion
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.