Different Titles for Tracks Submitted to AdRev/Music Distribution vs Titles Used on AudioJungle


#1

Hi all, I’m brand new to AudioJungle and I’m just beginning to submit my first tracks. Great to connect with all the other composers out there! (This is my second post.) If this question has been covered in a different thread, please feel free to direct me there…

When we submit tracks for licensing on AudioJungle, often an author will use short descriptive keyword titles such as “Happy” “Uplifting Cinematic” “Inspiring Corporate Track” etc. I gather this is done to make the track easier to find when buyers search for music by keywords and it makes perfect sense.

When a composer makes a composition available through distribution on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube etc., or titles the piece for ContentID via AdRev, naturally it’s more common to give the piece a different, more elaborate kind of title such as “Scene By The River” or “The Essence Of Bliss”. (This could perhaps be referred to as an “artistic” title.)

So when we upload a track to AudioJungle that has a title which is not keyword-friendly, is it recommended to have a separate title for the AudioJungle version (e.g. “Epic Cinematic Percussion”) from the title used on AdRev and for distribution to fans/listeners (e.g. “The Final Day Of Battle”)?

Because the AudioJungle title tends to be fairly generic, it doesn’t differentiate the track by title from the many compositions available in the online world as a whole. There’s something satisfying about giving a composition a unique title that sets it apart, so that when it’s featured in a video it displays that title rather than “Happy” for example, but this doesn’t work as well for the title on AJ.

What is your usual approach? Looking forward to any thoughts you’d like to offer on this. Thanks…


#2

Would also like to know the answer to this question!

I think in the meantime a sensible compromise is to title the track using a combination of generic and unique words.