Did someone from the Elements Authors got his first report?

If so, please share some insights.


And if i may add to this… did a second batch of authors get added to Elements?

1 Like

Basically you should expect anyone who had a successful earnings experience to remain very silent about what they earned. My sources tell me that many were “pleasantly surprised” by what they earned on elements. The early word is that their presence on elements did not seem to have an impact on their AJ sales. Not yet at any rate. Clearly Envato has to make this situation worthwhile for their favorite and privileged authors whom are their priority. This includes all reviewers. If Envato were to open up the gates and allow everyone into the elements party, then everyone’s earnings from elements will be diluted because the amount of music offered will not keep up with demand from subscribers.

All of the current participants who had successful statements will now add even more music in there which may further dilute everyone’s earnings.

I heard that some participants made no money at all.

This can become a very slippery slope to music asset devaluation. Buyer behavior changes slowly, but buyers will wake up to the cost savings opportunity. Eventually people will start asking themselves the question " why should I license a track for $20, 29, 39, $49, when I can pay $16.50 and download the exact same track and a lot more tracks?"

This can and will have a very negative impact on Envato AJ Market eventually, but also slowly.

The birth of subscription models is ultimately going to be very destructive to the business as we know it. It is a very real threat to the one off sync license business model. My sources also confirm that no data whatsoever is given to them about who licensed the music? (we get invoices from customers on AJ market)

The early participants will be celebrating their short term earnings boost, those who made no money will be depressed. Some will win in this game, but ultimately, we will all lose if this model becomes the “new normal”.

Envato will have to move very cautiously with how many tracks they allow on that market, because logic says that if too many great tracks are offered in there, all customers will eventually see the cost savings opportunity and select the $16.50 all you can eat option.

We have two products in direct competition with each other, one is just a lot cheaper than the other. Eventually people seek out cheaper options. Why wouldn’t they? When everyone panics and flocks to subscription models, it will be a classic case of weak handed mis-informed musicians and composers voluntarily devaluing their works for no reason whatsoever. It’s sad and absurd just the way $14 and $17 “royalty free” licenses were 6 years ago. Corporate machines really do know how to prey on people’s fear and greed.

Think about it: All the participants are not getting any data as to how many downloads of their music content even occurred. The assets are just in there and it’s a free for all - unlimited downloads. If people are truly filling out license information at each download, why aren’t the authors getting copies of those licenses?

I think the only data these folks are getting is how much shared revenue a track generated in a specified period. Hopefully a participant will chime in with their thoughts, but I would expect anyone making money in there to just remain silent. Why would anyone want to invite increased competition?


This is such a good response- measured and thoughtful, but also engaging with the potential- and, in my view, crippling- downsides of this shift. I, for one, am totally baffled as to why a company with a very profitable and prosperous business model (AudioJungle) has been one of the first to take a leap into something that inevitably seems to lead to less revenue for them and artists.

The thing I was shocked to learn was that, as I understand it, the licence for an Elements customer to use a track in their project does not expire if they cancel their subscription. This seems utterly bizarre. Although the Fair Use Policy states: “You must only download Items when you have an intention to use them”, it seems as though any policing of this system is going to be impossible to enforce in practice.

I currently have no intention to apply to Elements with our portfolio, but I said the same about Spotify in 2010- and jungle sales have dropped very sharply this month. Like Spotify, this strange, slightly vague and unenforcable business shift will provide musicians with another sobering opportunity to reflect on their ultimate lack of control over their own destiny.

1 Like

ContourChromatic, part of the paranoia problem starts with individuals getting overly nervous because a day or three go by without a sale. Hyper short term thinking and worrying makes music producers insecure so they panic and make il advised decisions such as participating in subscription models and dropping prices to below $10 a unit. Others get on board out of pure greed. They want more money now and do not consider the long term ramifications of their participation.

I sell 243 music assets for $49 a unit. I could not imagine offering those same 243 assets for $16.50 a month all you can download. The contrast of the two price options is insane! The customer would have 2 choices: 1. Buy one license for $49…or click over to elements and pay $16.50, then download all 243 of my assets if they chose to. I agree 9 out of 10 customers would not do that but the fact that they can is sickening and a very slippery slope for our business.

I agree with you about Spotify. In 2010 to 2012 the wiser artists said “why in the hell would I release my albums to a free streaming music site and not make any money at all and compete against my I-tunes offering?” While Spotify does pay, they only pay .002 cents a stream or something along those lines.

I listened to your offering and you may want to consider adjusting the prices to increase monthly revenue. You have some really solid underscores and the portfolio has a distinct sound. You need to leverage that differentiation and ask for a higher price. You need to target those professionals who actually have some money and want to spend money. Isn’t it ironic how elements caters to those who do not have any money? Creating a product for those who do not have any money to start with is ultimately going to destroy our core business: selling sync licenses to professional media producers who actually have a budget.

The question every artist/ composer/ songwriter has to ask themselves is this: where is all the paranoia and nervousness coming from? and why do you allow yourself to be controlled, manipulated, and used by the big corporate temptress?

None of these elements authors will dare step into this forum and say “wow I made $1000 or $3000 last pay period.” because they then know the applications to jump in will skyrocket which invites more competition, and most likely results in diluted earnings because subscribers will have more music to chose from and download. Their own assets would be downloaded less with increased competition and more music to chose from. Eventually customers will find tracks on market for $20 to $50, get wind of elements and then click over to see if they can get the same track for $16.50. Customers will catch on to the cost saving opportunity eventually. Right now they will go through a “confused” phase, but eventually the confusion will disappear.

I just do not see how this will result in “more revenue” for artists long term? I can only see how it will result in substantially less revenue long term. I also do not think it can be corrected once the train starts up and reaches 300 Kms per hour. I write to persuade all to really think about their actions. If you want to sell individual sync licenses 5, 10, 20 years from now, you better resist these subscription models with everything you have. If you feel as though you have a professional product to offer to companies that have money to spend, hold your ground, raise your prices, and respect yourself. Put a real value on your assets.

Why do music producers love to devalue themselves and destroy their own business?


I am with you, @SteelSound, and will be the first to step up and fund a replacement keyboard when yours wears out - from consistently, emphatically advocating for one-off sync licenses and valuing music.


Envato added 2000 tracks since Audiojungle Elements was launched.
from 8600 tracks to 10,500 tracks today.

Meanwhile, the end of the month is coming soon and apparently it’s going to be the worst month for me since 2015.

Envato said that elements is about adding new kind of buyers,
Currently the buyers are moving from here to Elements.



Just to share a recent personal experience from these past few weeks: I regularly do freelance audio postproduction for two medium sized US based production agencies. They’ve been using Audiojungle as their main source for music, purchasing 4 or 5 tracks per project, as they produce rather long pieces. Though they don’t manage huge budgets, the prices here never seemed expensive at all for them, rather the opposite. I’ve been working for them for about 3 years now and they spent at least $200 a month in Audiojungle.

Of course, they flew over to Elements as soon as they heard of it and now those $2500 they spent a year turned into $198 or less if they just download a batch (fairly, with all declared non-broadcasted projects) and cancel the suscription. It’s completely beyond me.

Needless to say, I’m seeing this massive flee reflected both in my sales number and monthly income.


It’s a sickening, music producer created “problem” that never had to happen. Music producers are willingly devaluing their works. This is a choice and was a choice. Your example is very real. $2500 in “corporate/ professional” annual spend that NO ONE EVER MINDED or COMPLAINED ABOUT SPENDING has now been reduced to $198 in corporate annual spend! Think about this people!

And everyone stay very patient. December 20 through end of Jan is always slow. Don’t panic because of low sales volume in January. January is always slow because corporations are still figuring out which projects to produce, when, and how much money to allocate to those projects.


Thanks for the encouragement! Most of my items are ~1 minute or shorter, and I did raise them from $15 or $12 to currently $24 and $22. It was a life saving move given this whole Elements thing. I’m waiting for these turbulences to settle and definitely will consider giving a chance to a further price adjustment in the near future.

@WormwoodMusic, I have told the exact same story on the forums over and over.

I am a video producer who puts together TV spots, fundraising videos, and product videos for the web, trade shows, etc. I shoot the video, edit it, and mix the audio.

The experience you described is identical to mine. My clients do not have huge budgets, but they do not object when I purchase 5-7 tracks from the AJ marketplace to use in a 5-10 minute fundraising video, for example.

I cannot see any way that offering audio on Elements (a lower-priced alternative to marketplace music) and aggressively promoting it on the marketplace is in the best interest of those who create music and sell it exclusively here.

And without going too far off on a tangent, those "unlimited audio for $16.50” banners are misleading - intentional or not. Probably intentional. Customers are given the initial impression from the banner that all music on AJ is available as part of that subscription fee.

If nothing else, doesn’t all of this at least raise the question, what exactly is the value of being an exclusive author here - when the marketplace company, with no reservations whatsoever, actively directs customers away from your portfolio each and every day on the website, in promotional emails, at checkout, etc. to an alternative service that pays music creators a few cents per download - as opposed to $12, $24, $30, etc.?

That would be like Nike offering “Nike Elements, Unlimited Nike Shoes for $17!” and promoting it nonstop on Nike’s website, to customers who are already perfectly happy paying $150 - $400 for athletic shoes.

All right. Rant over. Value your work. That’s my message for today. I am one video producer that is not asking you to starve or struggle to pay your bills so I can use your music for .08 per download.


I like you Man! Thanks!

EDIT: I just confirmed that they were already subscribed to Elements for stock footage, so they now literally don’t spend an extra dime on music assets, and this must be the situation of a LARGE number of producers and companies from around here. 2,5K lost. Brilliant move.

Shame…on envato and those musicians who embraced the model in the name of paranoid greed.
I just do not know what else to say.

Oh I guess we may change our mind when envato signs up billions of new subscribers! LOL! …good luck with that.
Anyone subscribed to elements for stock footage only , and used to buy sync licenses on Envato market will of course stop buying sync licenses on audio jungle. Why would they buy individual sync licenses when they can get music for free as part of the “elements” subscription they already paid for?

Again, to all you willing, paranoid, early participants, and lame music devaluers, I truly hope your own annual sync licensing revenue declines fast and hard. No one forced you guys to jump on board, but you did. You have to own your own decision.

In 5 years you can reflect and say “I helped kill the individual sync license by getting on board with subscription.” SAD!


I may have posted this earlier, and maybe it was a fluke, but last January was surprisingly good for me. This year, unless things pick up quickly and dramatically, I’ll be lucky to do 1/3 the number of sales (1/2 the revenue, thanks to ADP). I certainly hope this slowdown is a temporary setback resulting from the ebb and flow of the market, and not due to Elements.


8 ball, just hang in there and look for opportunities elsewhere. For what it’s worth I already topped Jan 2018 revenue and there are still 10 days left in January.

Check this out: Last year I sold 32 licenses at $19 or so in January 2018 and made $656. Here we are now, live in 2019 on Jan 21,2019. I have sold 16 licenses . 50% less units sold but have already earned $690.

Imagine that, 50% less units sold, but already more revenue…and…we have 10 more days to go. Anything can happen if you price like a Professional. I may sell a top tiered broadcast license out of the blue and the account can leap to $1400 in earnings.

8 ball, you and your tracks are pro, price yourself as a pro! Your music is worth it!

Hi all. I’m posting here as an official warning, as this thread has started veering into dangerous legal territory.

On all marketplaces using Author-Driven Pricing: it is strictly prohibited to have an agreement, arrangement or understanding between competing businesses (such as two authors) about what price point to sell at.

You can see more details in this Author Help Centre article: Setting Prices Responsibly.

As an example, this sort of thing is generally fine:
“Corporate tracks could sell for much more - you should experiment with different price points and see what works”

This sort of thing is definitely out:
“Your prices are far too low - you should sell your tracks for at least double”

That second case is considered price fixing, and it is not permitted in any context.

As warnings go, this is as serious as it gets. It’s not just our community guidelines - this type of activity is illegal.

I realise that advice in this thread has been offered in good faith, but any further posts advising authors on what prices they should sell at may result in an immediate ban from these forums.

Exactly! And in addition, the competing service being promoted is also one which you cannot even participate in (unless you are one of the chosen few)