Long story short - hard reject. I know how it works, I got few of them during the last 7 years on hive. I totally agree with AE rejects. The templates were very simple and sometimes out of style. But here is the thing with the Apple Motion rejects: all Apple Motion rejects were applied to the templates, After effects and Premiere Pro versions of which were accepted by the review team and they were selling incredibly well (300+ sales). And now I have faced the hard rejection of the Motion template that is a potential (maybe not the best, but good) seller for the third time. This template was in development for over a month. I should say that Apple Motion is not as comfortable to work with as the After Effects and is at least as quarter as powerful but still, I wanted to maintain high standards of quality in animation, composition and other stuff. I’ve even rendered dozens of particles effects and footages from AE because Motion can’t do particles on a decent level. And of course, before creating the audio visualization template I’ve checked the target audience, analyzed the needs etc. So what are the reasons for this hard reject?
Here is what the review team says:
“The item does not meet our minimum design, animation, and technical requirements. We strive to accept professional quality projects, and unfortunately this submission doesn’t quite meet that criteria.”
Okay, let’s try to decompose the rejection reasons and try to analyze them.
Does the item meet minimum design requirements? The design looks at least average on the market. There is a whole bunch of templates that look less stylish (including my templates too).
Does the item meet minimum animation requirements? The animations are as smooth as silk. All the titles are animated. All the keyframes are eased. Each of them was adjusted individually in order to be in rhythm with each other.
Does the item meet minimum technical requirements? Absolutely. Motion 5 and FCPX 10 that is used by everyone. No plugins.
So what is the reason for hard reject here? I don’t get it.
Okay, let’s continue with the reviewer answer:
“When reviewing projects, in addition to overall quality of design and execution, we take into consideration the flexibility, usefulness, appeal to a broader audience and broadcast readiness of the file. Unfortunately, we don’t feel as though this project meets the standards we have set for these criteria.”
Let’s try to decompose this statement too and analyze the rejection reasons.
The flexibility: you can use it for animating ANY audio you have. Import the audio file, import your images or videos and you have a fancy 4-K preview. You don’t like template #1? You’ve got 20 more. You can make dozens of variants of your visualization with the help of only one visualization template. All the position, scale, font, timing parameters are published and available for tuning. You can change the size, color and style of the waveform. Waveform represents the exact audio file you use. Want the waveform to be high and harsh? You can do it. Want it slow and smooth? Go for it. And this is for only 1 of 21 templates. What is the amount of variations with 21 of them?
Usefulness: How useful is this template for a potential buyer? It gives anyone an opportunity to have a nice looking preview for the audio in order to upload their music to youtube, facebook, instagram, etc. Usefulness increases with the number of holders for the photos of the artist and album. With one template one could make previews for music, lyric videos, podcasts and audiobooks. Isn’t it useful enough?
Appeal to a broader audience and broadcast readiness of the file: There is at least a couple thousand musicians who upload their music to youtube. Let’s add here a couple of thousand of podcasters and the same amount of audio books or whatever audio content one needs to upload to social media. Isn’t it broad enough?
So here is the question I’ve got: Which criteria is not satisfied according to the review team? All of them? If so, which quality level do you need the template to meet in order to be accepted? I understand and support the fact that useful nice-looking templates are the most valuable thing on the market and I do my best to release the highest quality content, but I can’t really get the required quality level. Apple Motion is a way more basic tool that AE but envato has the quality criteria for it to be way higher than for AE. Why is that? The amount of templates on the market is incredibly low and I see no reasons to reject such templates as this one I have. Moreover, this happens while other templates that consist of two layers and one blood footage are being easily accepted. Is it incentive to make simple two-layer titles instead of high quality templates? Or is it the reason to leave the Apple Motion market? Dear Envato reviewer team, I just don’t understand you.