How would YOU improve Audiojungle?

I have had 2 buyers recently simply asking me how to even rate the item they bought? They bothered to ask, i guess 95% or so is not going to try that hard to give a author a review, they can’t find out how to give a review… allready have the item, and will move on.


About going PRO

The only reason envato does not want to go PRO is cause there is a lot of ignorance. Envato knows some buyers think they will have to pay royalties to tv stations if they use PRO music. Yes, some buyers might be scared of PRO (‘we might have to pay’), but this is ungrounded.

Only the broadcasters (the tv stations) pay! They always pay a fixed amout (A HUGE SUM OF MONEY EVERY YEAR) a year to the PRO-organisations. A packidge deal. NO MATTER HOW MUCH MUSIC THEY USE. (Why? Calculating the amount of seconds of used music is too time consuming, so they use an averidge.)

Now it is up to the PRO-organisations to get the money to the right composers. This goes partly automatic using fingerprinting-technic and composers are paid for every second (without the client/tv-maker ever knowing). Now if you do not register your music, more money will stick with the PRO-organisation.

(In Holland/Netherlands this is Buma/Stemra. They used to have yearly golf parties in Portugal with free champagne etc. They have been in the newspaper a lot as being corrupt. They have a lot of extra money (could not find the composers) and invested and speculated recless in the 90s, making huge profits).

Another reason might be that Envato thinks buyers will be scared to fill in forms, cause everyone is scared of forms. A broadcaster form is extra scary as it looks official and you might get a bill for the music used! Not the case.

So not going Pro and having our music on tv without getting the royalties is just silly. My personal vieuw is that it’s ignorance at the expence of the artists.

There might be other reasons also…

I do give props to Envato letting us keep the rights to our music. We are allowed to delete the item when we want and then register it PRO if we so desire. I find this very respectful to us, and unique in this corporate media world where the artists almost never get to keep there work.



Thank you for clearing this up!

Absolutely, PRO has been discussed extensively in many threads here, but Envato still plays like either they have never heard about that before or they simply don’t understand the subject.

The thing is that high tier libraries DON’T WANT tracks which have already been uploaded to Audiojungle. This is my experience.

I’ve stopped asking for PRO here on Audiojungle because I don’t know how it will change the marketplace. There will definetely be a flood (either small or big) of new items and authors once PRO registration will be allowed. This might lead to a drastic decline of sales for ALL of us. One way to tackle this could be to allow PRO tracks only for exclusive authors. Or authors who are at least lvl 5. A restriction would be necessary.

Tags, titles and descriptions yes. But files no; it could too easily be abused.


Higher bar on uploads, more genres/subgenres, and making search query analytics available for authors.

Also fix some minor daily technical annoyances, like the “Download” link disappearing from portfolio when using the search field, ability to filter portfolio items by category (faceted portfolio search would sort this), calculate track duration and bpm automatically, ditch the manual watermarking, etc.

I’d also see more “shelf control” of items. How about some creative ways to “feature” or “search boost” tracks manually? Maybe there could be an author controlled “search points” system where you could distribute a number of “search engine boosting points” between your items on a weekly basis. That way you could “revitalise” good but forgotten tracks, or simply focus more attention on your last upload. These points would be of a discrete, per-item number, so that using up more points on one track (making it go higher in search results lists) would force you to lower number of points on other tracks (making them sink in search results lists). Fair for everyone and more control over your portfolio.

1 Like

A few more:

  • Hiding sales numbers would somewhat level the playing field, especially with the current search favoring top sellers.
  • The option to choose which tracks appear in the “More items by…” field on item pages. A buyer looking for a Corporate track is not likely interested in the Cinematic track(s) or whatever that displays automatically.
  • An “I’m Feeling Lucky” like Google’s function that would randomize search results
  • Make Grid view the default, as it allows more items to be seen without scrolling
1 Like

It would be nice to be able to make music packs the same way we make collections today. It could still be submitted for review, but it would be nice to not have to make a new zip file, preview file and link back to the items. The buyers would then have to download each item seperately.


All tracks should have a “Reviewed by” field. To add a layer of accountability.

(I just heard a track that any reviewer who was paying attention should have hard rejected. Or at the very least should have said “Try fixing the obviously wrong bass notes for starters, but don’t be surprised if it’s still rejected.”)


How about cancelling the option for refunds? Especially if someone asks for refund months later.

When I buy Waves plugins, they clearly state that “all purchases are final”, thus no refunds. There’s a demo version where you can try out the plugin and decide if you wan’t to buy it. It’s same with preview version of the track on Audio Jungle I guess.

  • Higher quality standards for new submissions
  • Better identify and reject submissions of uncreative soundalikes
  • Identify and delete old tracks that don’t fit today’s quality standards
  • Prohibit one-word-titles like “Inspring”, “Upbeat” etc.
  • Complete overhaul of categories (e.g. rethink the ‘Corporate’ category…)
  • More editorial features to give exposure to high-quality tracks (new and old)

Before prohibiting one-word titles, don`t forget to tell the clients not to search with one-word-queries)

very good point!
especially about preview files.

Yes, buyers are posting on the forums everyday searching for the music they have downloaded the previews for. And I guess you can multiply that with tens or hundreds of buyers who can’t be bothered with going on the forum and just ends up buying their music somewhere else. I wonder why Envato can’t get this to work when every other marketplaces has?

Here’s an potential unpopular suggestion: :slight_smile:

I would like to see an automated decluttering mechanism here on AJ. For example, an item would automatically get deactivated from the marketplace if it hasn’t sold a single time during the course of, say, the past 12 - 18 months or something like that (still keeping the item and files on the servers for stats and in the case of resubmitting).

The author could then ask for a new round of review if he/she really wanted to. I’m pretty sure that 90% of the deactivated tracks would not get re-approved simply because they either 1) no longer meet the increasingly higher composition and production standards or 2) because they originally were added to the bottomless pool of in-the-moment “trend”-tracks that per definition are no longer needed.

Example: SO many ukulele/handclaps tracks. That was the thing 1-2 years ago for corporate. But now, maybe not so much. At least to my ears most them sounds dated and amateurish. Do AJ really need a catalogue of almost 12.000 ukulele tracks? Just a though.

In 1-2 years from now, the muted delayed electric guitar styled tracks would probably not be so sought after as they have been for a while now since the trend moves on to something else. Why keep those around if or when they stop selling?

I think it would really benefit everybody if we got rid of all the old tracks that doesn’t sell anymore. Clearly, those tracks are no longer not in demand whatever the reason might be. This way AJ would have the latest and greatest only. A much better scenario for both buyers and authors.

I think there is something in this (and I’d take it on the chin if one of my tracks that got taken out this way) but you might easily end up with a flood of resubmitted tracks clogging up the review queues.

You would also inevitably end up deleting at least some very good tracks that just got “buried” when they were first approved. Even they haven’t sold yet, they would still genuinely be enhancing the range of quality tracks on offer to buyers.

However, there’s no perfect solution and I agree some kind of clear out does seem a good idea!

If a track is 2 years old and hasn’t sold I don’t think it’s going to come up very high on the search box. All you would be doing is getting rid of tracks that no one is ever going to find anyway.

True, but if a track gets buried it doesn’t it’s really matter how good it is anyway, does it? I mean, in the course of 1-2 years the author have had every chance to try out every kind of strategy to promote the track. Even if it come down to plain bad luck, an old non-selling item still doesn’t do anything else than just clutter. :slight_smile:

I agree we would probably see a lot of resubmitted tracks but the whole issue about the review queue is a separate problem that needs to be taking care of anyway. Maybe the resubmission of deactivated items could have a lower priority for the reviewers or something. But yes, that would be an issue.

On the other hand, I wonder how any “old” authors have stopped being active users a long time ago and thus wouldn’t do anything about it.

I think you’re absolutely, right. But I don’t see how removing stuff that nobody would ever find anyway would be a bad thing. On the contrary, it seems like a perfectly logical thing to do.

A bonus would be that if an author resubmit a deactivated track and it gets approved it would kind of get a new life again. Thus, all the good tracks that got buried would be able to resurface while the bad/outdated tracks would disappear. To me, that’s a win for everybody.

Not a bad idea at all though PaulGraves is right. Imagine how much tracks older than 1-2 years with 0 sales we have here.
If you would review them all again… :wink: Not easy to handle the burried tracks.
Beside many useless tracks for sure there would be likewise a lot of tracks which might sell great when they would be approved today.

Maybe there would be a chance to delete all tracks older than 2 years with 0 sales and open a special subgroup for all other burried but “new approved” tracks.