Come on dude… I can understand your thoughts on the broadcast license vibe, but the formula is there in black and white, you’ve even posted it in the forums and you’ve had it explained to you more than once.
While I’m 100% in support of the idea that Elements not include broadcast licensing, or even corporate use, you do have to deal with the reality of what is already available from the competition. There are already subscription services specializing in royalty free music, some of which allow broadcast and commercial use and have very good music. I’m not saying Envato needs to match that. I’m just saying it’s out there and people are taking advantage of it.
Subscription services, whether we want them or not, may be the unfortunate destiny of this industry. Despite what you’re constantly told by some, supply has far surpassed demand. The rise of YouTube has not caused a significant change in need when you consider how much free and Creative Commons music is available on top of the vast universe of licensed music, and the fact that many of those videos do not use music at all. In fact, several of these existing subscription services specifically target YouTubers, so that “big demand” is already being supplied. While everyone is aware of market saturation, I think the market in general has become even more saturated than any of us realized. Subscription services make that worse and I think they are the inevitable death of the single track licensing market in RF. They also technically exist in the non-RF market in the form of “blanket licenses” (yes, blanket sync licenses, not performance licenses) at the corporate level. They are expensive annual rates, but they are still a “subscription”. Give it time, and those rates may also drop, decreasing the opportunities for single track licensing in the traditional market as well.
I think corporate powers will continue to have their way because we as musicians have continually failed to stand up for ourselves and sold out on every single point made during the decline of this industry. No matter how bad the deal is, there are always too many musicians standing in line to sign the paperwork.
4 Likes
But in this topic the majority of us do not fight against a subscription model. Right know we are trying to negotiate the best conditions of existing model. Conditions which will be profitable for both sides and which will be competitive with other markets.
We propose no broadcast use in Elements but we are open for negotiation hoping that staff will hear our voice.
3 Likes
Can anyone explain the elements payment process for an author?
That’s cool. Sounds like it’s too late to turn back.
So, if that’s the direction you want to take maybe there are some options that might allow you to get a better deal. Perhaps checking out the competition on music subscription services that are NOT associated with digital asset marketplaces selling other things under the same subscription might be useful. A music subscription service should be different than one for other types of digital assets because there are more variables, like corporate and broadcast use, that can be used for higher rates within the subscription model. You probably want higher rates on those to make up for the losses you’ll suffer on the single track licenses if Envato refuses to remove those use types from Elements.
Here are some possibilities:
- You might be able to get a two tier situation with a standard subscription and a more expensive enhanced one that would allow limited broadcast use. I know of one service that has a standard license for $150/year that only allows YouTube and social media and an extended one for $560/yr that allows corporate and local (but not national/international) broadcast use.
- One very popular subscription service has three rates ranging between $15/month for basic YouTube users going up to $150/month for corporate YouTube users. That is scaled according to monthly estimated YouTube views. It does not, however, include corporate use, which also rules out broadcast use - not that it matters in this case because they only work with composers who are not PRO registered. But, the tier pricing idea is there for consideration.
How do those compare to Elements?
There are several others out there. Unfortunately, the service that might be your hardest competitor is being heavily promoted by video makers, has one yearly fee of $135 and allows unrestricted broadcast use. They claim to be adding about 600 or so subscribers weekly and 200 new songs monthly. Their music is overall probably the best I’ve heard of the subscription offerings at this point.
All reasoning from profit is very good, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the" element “will get less than half of the” elite authors " not to mention the rest.
Those people who write music in the home Studio may not even dream of an invitation.Many customers will prefer this system. This fiasco. 
Hey Everyone. Thank you for your comments. We hear you and understand your concerns. I’ve posted in the main Audio on Elements thread and encourage you to read our reasoning for the decision there.
Thank you.
1 Like