I would like this as well. It would show us the amount of interest there is for a track even if it’s not translating into sales.
Staff please delete the thread I started in “Looking For”…This post belongs here. Please consider these ideas pointed out below…
Every now and again I click on these types of threads to see what a client is looking for:
I need something very like this. Anyone have any suggestions?1
I just listened to what the customer wants.
I’d be willing to make a bet that this type of track that the client is looking for would be rejected if someone uploaded it.
So what can be done about this? Start a category called “Specialty” and market it as just that “specialty tracks” I am thinking about cheesy polkas, corny mariachi’s, cheesy, dated 50’s vintage film scores, other corny or odd ethnic/ world music tracks. The main point is that there are always weird needs out there. Yes, most want that slick sounding contemporary, corporate, orchestral epic, or catchy pop/ rock track…we all are well aware of that.
Back to submissions and rejections: At some point AJ should consider thinking about changing it’s submissions policy. What should the change be? I’d propose vetting new writers/ authors prior to allowing for even their first upload. Make them send a link to a 5 to 10 track portfolio on their web site or Soundcloud page. They should essentially “apply” to be an author. Make them upload valid ID - Drivers License or National Identity Card. Listen to their works and then e-mail them saying they have qualified to submit.
For those of us who have been around long enough…Do we really need to wait 25 days now? I know this is starting to demotivate me. I talk to other authors who are also expressing dissatisfaction. I used to not care at 15 to 20 days…but wow, we’re now flirting with a 30 day cue? In these circumstances above with this customer, we do not have the ability to dig into our back catalogs on our own internal servers, locate a track that fits the description, upload it and have it instantly published for the customer to check out. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Additionally, with a change in policy from vetting writers skills first verses vetting each individual uploaded track, AJ will be able to reduce costs by spending less on reviewer labor. Are you not currently rejecting maybe 50% of all tracks uploaded by new authors? Isn’t reviewing labor a very high cost impacting your profit margin? I have the opinion that some authors no longer need any review. Anyone selling here for 3 to 8 years now with some level of success now knows not to release inferior, poorly produced music. I think it’s time to maybe just trust those authors and let them work in an “instantly self published” environment, but maybe cap the uploads to only 2 or 3 per week…even 1 per week would work. You can even delete the track if you really feel as though it’s not good. If anything, I think reviewers could easily get together and come up with a list of 300 to 500 authors (out of the 13,134 supposedly selling here!) and grant those authors “publish your works instantly without review” status. I just do not see any downside to this idea…only upside for AJ, authors, and customers.
Most middle and upper libraries and micro-stocks do this and it’s in everyone’s best interest for the low budget market to go this route as well. It used to be the norm everywhere before open submissions took over some years ago. In today’s market, with saturation levels being what they are, I don’t think there’s any way around composer auditions without drowning. Something has to be done to stop the massive influx.
Something tells me you won’t have to worry about this one. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I suspect this will happen. I support PRO registration because we as composers cannot afford to see “performance royalty free” (PRF) and direct licensing become the accepted norm. That has an adverse affect on every composer’s potential in every market and standing up for this right across the board is the best way to retain it.
I wouldn’t worry about that, Mike. If PRO registration is to be allowed, I’m about 99% sure Envato is going to change the submission policy to composer auditions. Once the dam breaks, Envato will patch the hole with this better method of screening. From what I can tell, Envato has some very cautious people working on these things and I doubt they would open the door too far without understanding the consequences.
And another thing…
It would be good if Envato started looking at certain situations and saying “enough already” by rejecting things that are too similar to music in areas that are already overstocked. As everyone knows, all you have to do is select “corporate” in the drop down search and move from one song to the next. Most of them sound the same - reverse chord opening on a crescendo, muted guitar washed in delay, simple chord progression, 4 on the floor kick. Come… on!!! There are probably thousands of these now, just like the ukulele tunes with about 12,000 of those. What’s worse is that this isn’t just AudioJungle. If you go to other low budget micro-stock sites and smaller music libraries, you’ll hear the same thing. Much of that is because of non-exclusive agreements (which are going to start disappearing sooner or later) with many composers spreading the same music over multiple sites. But, it’s also because of the mindless plagiarism that is prevalent in the music licensing game. It’s not true that this is “all the customers want”. Customers will license other things if they have options. When you leave them with nothing else, what can they do other than license the same old (and I do mean outdated and “played out” at this point) crap? It’s up to the micro-stocks and libraries to start pushing people towards composing more innovative music if the composers lack the creativity do it on their own.
Good ideas, i am agree.
Couple of interesting points here.
Haha Mike Sea I’ve been trying to tell you that on more than one occasion.
Unless things radically change at the PROs, and AJ change their policy, then technically I’m not sure they would still be a Royalty Free outlet. There’s a few RF companies out there watching all this with great interest.
Second point is about similar sounding tracks. If that was implemented, then AJ would hardly have any tracks. At least any tracks that sold in commercial quantities IMO. For instance, corporate tracks all sound more or less the same.
And if say one of the big selling authors submitted a track that sounded the same as someone else’s track that only had 2 sales, you think they would reject it? Don’t think so.
Also wiping non selling tracks from the site after say 2 years would probably only be of interest if it somehow helped to free up the servers.
I haven’t submitted a track here for almost a year, and I won’t do anything that jeopardises my PRO library work or my membership with the PRS until this gets properly resolved and makes any sense.
Every time words “PRO” - “not a PRO” popping out on forums, it makes me smile
And I’m trying to tell you that there’s a world outside of Britain and PRS. Other RF sites do allow PRO integration, they are still RF sites. He who laughs last, laughs best. Keep my words in mind and stop “educating” me.
I hope you’re right. If PRO will be allowed, they have to raise the bar somehow.
Yes hoping is always good Mike. I try to rule hope out of things and just deal with facts.
1 - a maximum of 3 days to approve/reject a track. I can’t believe that actually the time to analyze a song is the same time spent to analyze a template…
2 - increase number of hard reject to discourage copy-paste producer (even for me, just in case)
3 - Hide selling counter on single tracks to stop “it sells a lot, it works! i’ll purchase!”. Leave general counter.
4 - explain why a song has been rejected to quickly teach composers on how things work in the market. more work at the begininng, less work in the future…
5 - give visibility to new items for a longer period of time even it they don’t sell.
6 - delete tracks with a ratio < 1 sale every 6 months. ok this could be a bit nazi…
That’s all, i suppose…
1 - a service developed by Envato replacing Soundizer (for clients to find a track, for authors to find a track used by videohive guys)
2 - a private section in Forums for authors (to communicate directly with staff, or between us to complain and complain again discreetly about rejections)
3 - more reviewers
4 - a separate review process for SFX (especially big libraries)
5 - the return of the intake questionnaire to avoid the same mistakes and the same questions on the forum
more ideas later…
I would love there to be a new genre for music with an ‘edge’. .
Now as soon as a song has some distorted 808 percussion (like pop stars like Skrillex use) your track has a huge chance of being rejected.
Also psychedelic music is always rejected. Even when you upload it as experimental…
I understand the aim is towards corporations. The money is there… But all the film makers and documentary makers I talk to always say: on audiojungle it’s mostly cheesy midi music…
Time to also get that edgy Adidas/Nike feel here… Especially when soon PRO music is allowed. AJ should also be “cutting edge”. Mixing experimental music with what works for videos…
So you’re saying if there was a category named “Edgy” people would not be uploading cheesy tracks there?
Basically what you’re saying is spot on and AJ with its long standing “affordable” branding has a steep hill to climb when it comes to polishing its reputation as an “edgy” high end selection. But clearly, “up is the best way to climb”, and seeing how Envato is thoughtfully embracing change towards higher quality and making efforts trying new marketing concepts (Elements, Unstock, etc) it’s probably only a matter of time before some kind of “progressive division” appears within AJ as well. Although “elitist” in nature, and somewhat less “inclusive” (which has been a cornerstone of Envato growth since the start), it’s probably the decent thing to do, if AJ ever is going to cut a piece of the “savvy” market. Sorting by sales isn’t likely to bring up the most exciting or avant garde stuff, and simply tagging or titling the track “edgy” or “high end” isn’t going to garner a lot of attention.
Given the low licence prices, it’s nearly impossible to have an AJ track pay off if it’s not already tailored to an established, popular genre or concept. Almost by definition a potential high seller will have to sound a bit stale or copy-paste already when it hits the queue, even if it is masterfully crafted. An “edgy” category would be nice, but it would not solve the base problem of earning exposure by means of ingenuity or analysis of untapped markets. Not unless a good bit of scarcity is introduced (read higher bar of approval). Also, a boost in licence prices would be required for tracks that mainly attracts buyers with higher demands (and bigger budgets), since these by nature are fewer in numbers. Maybe if author driven pricing comes to AJ authors would at least have a chance to market their tracks according to their perceived “worth” - even if that scenario would surely be a hard blow to the “copy-pasters” and “cheesy midi producers” of the world. I say “maybe”, because you never know how many outstanding tracks will persevere in drawing down competition into unsustainably low pricing, and of course there’s also a high probability that all too many “cheese makers” try their luck in the higher price segments, making sorting by price a fruitless endeavour for the potential “high end” customer. Nevertheless an interesting alternative to the cookie-cutter structure we abide to as of now.
Time may tell
You are a poet!
I for one would welcome a more edgy section as my portfolio lends itself more to that area than a corporate sector. Of course doing more edgy work brings it’s own unique problems such as low quality sound sources being used but then if we are placing our efforts onto Audio Jungle then we must be listening to what the market demands.
All very true…!
One more important factor in giving “edgy” tracks tailored for a high-end market (film, TV) exposure in an overcrowded market full of copy-pasted music would be what I’d call “curated marketing”. I think Envato should start making high-end collections (or “albums” as other libraries would call them) and market them to customers on dedicated landing pages.
I honestly don’t understand why they don’t do this already. But then again Audiojungle’s role in the Envato universe might still simply be too small for them to be interested enough? They’d have to hire experienced people to do this - and that of course costs money. Still, I’m sure that this approach would pay off in the long run.
BTW: I tried to start a discussion around this topic here - yet that didn’t seem to gain too much traction…
Glad to see that the topic itself (the general theme of “quality vs. quantity”) actually is of interest to some people here! I’d be really happy to hear more thoughts and ideas on this…
One other idea on how to improve Audojungle:
I think the way ‘versions’ of music tracks on Audiojungle are presented could be improved a lot. From my perspective, versions can play an important role in maximizing the usability of a music track for potential customers…
What would be an immediate remedy to many problems would be the possibilty to set links in your item description that directly send the user to a certain timestamp in your item’s Audiojungle player.
With a feature like this, we wouldn’t have to tell the customer “please skip to timestamp xx:yy in the player to hear version z” (which I think is an inconvenience to most potential buyers). With a link to a timestamp we could lead customers directly to a version that could be of interest for them.
What I’m talking about is basically the same feature Youtube has, like in the video description here:
Is there some sort of function like this already that I don’t know about? If not, how hard would it be to implement something like this? Maybe the player itself already has some feature like this and Envato would “only” have to activate it?
PS: I actually was at that Radiohead concert. Great experience…
Well - you know - on “another site”, 30-60-90 second versions of a full track are considered individual items. Together with author driven pricing (minimum $15), it provides additional sales opportunities. The idea of including up to 5 different versions for one low price has always seemed odd to me.