I agree. Envato created this marketplace and is making moves they feel will put their company in the best position to prosper going forward. I have said this before and will repeat it here, some of those moves may be at odds with authors’ interests.
I am not sold on Elements style licensing of music at such a low price being something that will benefit music producers, long term.
I believe that if this method of licensing music gets a strong foothold in the stock music business:
It will have happened because music producers chose to participate and devalue their work.
The “where are my AudioJungle customers?” complaints heard on the forums in the last few years will seem like the good old days compared to what potentially lies ahead.
But responsibility to make choices that positively affect your ability to have a sustainable career producing music now and in the future rests squarely on your shoulders.
Choose wisely. This is no small development. This is a big deal.
It seems to me that the decision to devalue our work stems from a fundamental misconception that what we do has universal appeal; that is, if we make our assets cheap enough, then EVERYONE is a potential customer. What they fail to understand is, in the scope of the world economy, stock music is a tiny almost imperceptible blip on the radar. (And from what I understand, Audiojungle accounts for a miniscule percentage of Envato’s overall revenue.)
Stock music is not Coca Cola; not everyone is ever going to need or want it. Making it almost free is not going to change that fact.
I also have to conclude that “no change” in revenue really is a lost “increase in revenue” opportunity for those authors contributing to Elements. Here is why? Some authors have consciously embraced the drastic price dumping and devaluation of their works by agreeing to the terms of elements. If their music was never in that pricing model and only could be found on market, people would have had to pay more for their product which means most likely the author would earn more. The only way authors succeed in elements is when they earn more total revenue between the two markets. Example, an author who used to earn $3000 a month on Market but now earns $750 from Elements but only $2250 from Market is not benefiting from the arrangement and should leave elements.
It’s just a matter of time before customers are comfortable with both search engines. If they find a track advertised on market for $29, they will click over to elements and search the same tune to see if they can get it for $16.50 and also know the added benefit of being able to download UNLIMITED amounts more.
In all my years of doing business I have never seen composers, film editors, designers, any business really, make themselves more money by making their product and service cheaper. When you make yourself “cheaper” the perception customers have of you is that your product is cheap and not worth it.
It’s your choice. No one is forcing you to cheapen yourself and your works.
FYI all, because of ADP My Jan 2019 revenue was up 35% compared to Jan 2018 revenue. Increased prices, to my amazement are still working 6 months into ADP. (I hope my pricing comment is not flagged as collusion and price fixing)
Envato is doing 95 Million in total annual revenue. I have to believe Audio Jungle is responsible for at least 10 to 15 million…so the music market is not tiny by any means. Collis did say that they saw growth in music in 2018 too. I have to believe AJ generates 1 million a month in revenue.
I crunched some numbers using data from popular items sold and old “Top Author sales” data which is no longer published…Maybe the figure is only 5 Million to 10 million. I guess we need to research how many music licenses were sold in total in 2018 to figure it out.
This pretty much sums it up I think. Also remember it’s only 4 months since we had to have that far out alien discussion about why broadcast licenses should not be in Elements. Luckily authors were listened to at that point.
Honestly what surprises me the most is how few authors on the different markets have spoken up about this. How can Envato see this as a big problem if there are just some handfuls of authors criticising this?
If you are an Elements author, this market banner is certainly not your friend either, especially if you are a top seller at the market, you are leaking market share more than anybody.
Yes, the customers should have choices and subscription models are here for good. I have no problem understanding why a huge company want’s to get into new huge markets.
BUT talking about AJ specifically I think it’s safe to say that Envato still lacks sensitivity and understanding of how the different music licensing customers must be separated. The banner is a proof of that. No price options for companies/private users is a proof of that. The broadcast threads and discussions we have at AJ (still in 2019) is also proof of that.
If you are an affiliate author driving traffic directly to Elements, that’s done by the authors own choice and you get good pay for your work as an advertiser. But this banner is not a choice, it’s forced upon exclusive authors, in the same way transaction fees/credits removal were forced upon long time loyal customers.
Then again why should we expect authors to be treated with more respect than customers have been? Are we just some un significant digits in the overall accounting for all the markets as well? Just asking.
Another issue where one really must question the ethics. I also recall Collis stating how it was a bad idea to have the banner ad on our pages, at check out, prior to check out and so on. Still nothing has changed. I still place all the blame on participating authors. If they never fed the beast known as “elements” with music content, none of this would be an issue.