Just got a check for 1K for this…which means the client paid 2K.
Little did the drug company know they could have found 6 million of these tunes on AJ for the whopping 19 bucks. This also gives us insight into how these corporate explainers, introduction videos are just produced relentlessly. But isn’t it interesting how some companies have 2 grand and others only have 19 bucks?
I don’t understand
They bought from you an item from audiojungle, item they used in a video promo and they paid you for this 2k, from which you get 1k?
Whohoo…This is nice. Very nice. I should find another carreer
No, I guess I never remembered to upload this one to AJ…or perhaps it was rejected. I can’t remember everything I do with my entire catalog. I don’t even really remember when I wrote this track, frankly. This was sourced through another publisher and I will not name who. The point is that this is the draw back of these ridiculously low fixed music license prices. They just do not allow for buyer and seller to negotiate “perceived higher value”. Money is just often left on the table. Price DOES communicate quality and value. Price IS a form of communication.
A Church in South Dakota needing a track for a community inspirational video is being treated as “equal” to a company like Disney or Microsoft (who may need a music bed for a video like above) on the AJ market.
I also am still convinced that to this day video producers probably quote music licenses at higher fees to their corporate clients, like drug, health care, and technology companies, but then they license here at $19, and invoice for “Music” at a much higher rate when they send THEIR invoice to the final customer for a video like the one above.
The fact of the matter is that Xermelo, could have come here, found a track (there are only 17 Billion just like the one they picked right here on AJ)…paid $19 and saved themselves $1881. There just is no infrastructure to court the “high end, deep pocket” companies on AJ and that is just…well…eternally sad…
I think it is very interesting and important that you share this experience in the forums with all of us. As you highlight, our work has been devaluating these last ten years abysmally. That is why it is very good to show that there is another reality already outside audiojungle and for other types of clients as well.
It seems hard for an author to reach the point for decent monthly income but that’s what at the end we all are fighting for
Definitely an interesting part of the industry. Something similar happened to me with the song starting at 10 seconds. I guess it’s the race to the bottom. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
@Melody4Media…not sure what you are stating here? Did you also get 1K (based on a 2K invoice) for the sync license?..To all, including and especially ENVATO MANAGEMENT (CEO Collis Ta’eed and Chief Commercial Officer Ben Chan) it has always been very cool that we can all sell licenses to the “mom and pop” public, very small businesses, community churches, local non-for-profits and so on, but there has to be a way to distinguish between these organizations and Big Companies. Publicly traded, fortune 500 companies, Drug companies, Big Pharma, Banks, Tech companies, etc. These companies have truckloads of money, Billions of dollars, not millions, but BILLIONS. Your team needs to find better, more creative ways to court these folks and extract more money from them. I actually was fairly shocked by the fee my job above paid. I had nothing to do with the negotiations. The Publisher did. They extracted $2000 from the deal. Envato probably does get calls from big customers at times inquiring about licenses for specific end usage. Those are perfect times to roll up the sleeves and negotiate higher fees rather than just escort them to the $19 for the internet, corporate tutorial. Again, most likely the video producers do the escorting too, then they charge what they can (The old "Mark Up’) to the end client on their invoice.
Let us set our own prices at this point in the game. This market will become a lot more colorful and I am convinced will generate a lot more revenue even for you envato if people are allowed to bump up their prices because they decide their own worth, and if Envato trains staff to negotiate specific circumstances with big companies. Remember, price is a form of communication. It communicates quality, integrity, creativity, what an artist feels he or she is worth, what the artist feels the composition is worth, what an artist’s level of experience is. Why not have “Call For Quote” in the drop down menu? …it’s worth a try. There are companies who simply WANT TO spend MORE MONEY on media production. THEY WANT TO BELIEVE they are getting a higher value track for an important media project. Even if it is a canned and dry corporate tutorial/ explainer like the one above…@Envato Management…At least think about these ideas…
I just mean that I got paid a pretty substantial amount for the use of that song, when the producer could have likely found a similar track on AJ for $19.
I agree with everything you’re saying SteelSound. I wish there was more variability in pricing. A license that costs $19 seems more appropriate for a wedding video, not an advertisement on YouTube that could get millions of views.
BTW, Envato is planning to introduce custom pricing on AudioJungle as well (like on other marketplaces). Authors will be able to put custom prices on tracks.
As the current licenses cover almost every possible use, there’s no real need to ‘call for a quote’. The only reason I can imagine that might be useful is if the buyer wants to negotiate downwards. “I see that the music broadcast and film license covers all your needs at $304, but maybe we could discuss the possibility of you paying more than that” isn’t going to get many takers. I guess there could be negotitation on multiple uses, but same again, that’s going to make you less money… “So you need two licenses at $304 each. Maybe we can negotiate a custom license that allows for two uses of the track for $912?”
The only way Envato can extract more money from high value buyers is to change the licenses or charge more. Can’t see the licenses changing any time soon, but as OvertSounds says, Author Driven Pricing will be available soon on AudioJungle, so people can price their tracks however they like.
So authors will need to choose their target buyers. Which forfeits the whole point of AJ. A change in the license structure is the only way to address this issue.
I wouldn’t say the ‘whole point’ of Audiojungle is that everything is the same price. There’s a little bit more to it than that!
I meant that the whole point is to be able to make your portfolio available to the largest number. Just because an author would want to cater to big companies at a proper price as well, it shouldn’t result in alienating the small companies/individuals audience. Which will happen if ADP is the only option. The licensing model should take this into account.
The price still shouts “$19” on this site. That is the only price that is “communicated”. Drop down menus are not enough because that requires a click. Clients need to see all 5 next to the track and once again, the local community church in the countryside, is being treated as “Equal” to the microsofts, mercks, (in my case above Lexicon Pharmaceuticals). The licensing “menu” never takes into consideration company size, nor market capitalization of the buying company. Lexicon is worth almost $1 Billion. Call for quote is probably cumbersome but e-mail for quote is not. $304 for The Top level broadcast and film is still laughable and is communicating inferiority. Let me give a recent example of a negotiation I recently was involved in on another market. USA ad agency reached out for a quote for “Internal corporate usage only” Client: CITI BANK. 350,000 employees world wide! So the track would not air on youtube, would not air on citi’s web site, but ONLY be used internally and only their employees would hear the music on the video. I quoted $2000, we settled at $1500. Envato needs to find better ways to communicate price, or perceived value, with large companies. CITI BANK is worth $200 Billion by the way.
Finally let me close with my experience on other markets where I set the price. I earn 5 times more revenue than I do here. I charge more for the “standard” license. I have come to the conclusion that my higher price is communicating something to the end buyer. They see that the price is higher than most, listen to the music, and (I Hope) get a sense that the music has more “value” so they willingly pay the higher price. I am not here to brag. I am here to share my experience over the last 3 years. The approach is working well for me. AJ just screams $19, $19 and 1000 sales! In my opinion: PZ’s tracks are not worth $19, they are worth $69 for the base YT standard license. Gareths tracks are not worth $19. Soundroll’s tracks are not worth $19. You hear the depth, experience, and maturity in their tracks. You hear the difference!
This site would be a lot more colorful with authors determining their own worth. As it stands now it’s all about those sales stats and those are extremely biased because it’s based on 10 years of data. Tracks that sold 2,000 to 10,000 times 3 to 7 years ago still get all the glory on AJ. Tracks are only measured and valued by their “sales stats” in the eyes and mind of the client. I would love to see sales stats be optional. Why do any of us want to advertise “0 sales”? “0 sales” = problematic track in the eyes of the client. New releases are no longer gaining traction like they used to and relentlessly advertising “0 sales” to the client is not helping anyone. Let authors decide whether or not they want to display sales stats next to a track. Sales stats are the only thing that communicates “quality” on this site. I certainly would vote for “price” communicating: value, quality, maturity, creativity, etc…for a composition and it’s author.
“0 sales” needs to go. “0 sales” (especially for new releases) is a poor form of communication to buyers.
By the way if ADP is coming, when is it coming? Why does it take so long to introduce?
Had this so often. Big companies buying 19$ items. I know, could be just for an internal presentation or a draft, but it also could go on Television, etc., which tunesat showed me. It’s not only this. Smaller Production Studios/Filmmakers are getting hired to make commercials or imagefilms for big companies and many of them are going straight for the standard license. On top of that many of them are ingoring the PRO data and in the end I’m left with lousy 8$ for an job that could get me at least, well…
I’ve stopped putting more effort in this system which clearly exploits creatives and devalues digital goods. With ADP coming, I’ll have to put my pricetag way higher than it is now to compensate for this charade.
BTW, congrats @SteelSound
If you’re freelancing for a company or providing them custom work, custom licenses etc… by all means, take the size of the company into account. But altering the price for a specific item with a specific license (i.e. what the person gets is the same, no matter who they are), due to the company’s size or turnover? I think that’s ridiculous! It would be like getting to the checkout at the store… you’re buying a copy of GTA6 and your friend who’s next in line is also buying a copy of GTA6:
Just the game please.
How much do you earn a year?
Ok, that’s $100 please.
Ok, who’s next?
Me… same again, just the GTA thanks.
How much do you earn a year?
Ok, that’s $75 please.
The system hasn’t changed in the five years you’ve been here.
charging customers different amounts depending on how ‘big’ the customer is wouldn’t work, but i’ve seen sites where there is a much greater variation in licences.
i.e. the standard license would be for non-business use only, then there would be a license for web-only commercial videos, then there would be several tiers of broadcast license (as AJ already has in place), then beyond that, the most expensive licenses would be licenses for tv advertising - national and international.
Trolling again? Really SpaceStock? Lookup my last upload, over a year ago and that’s been an old track written in 2016. So please try at least to say something constructive instead of picking out “weaknesses”. I don’t know why you’re playing Envatos Advocate here.
What’s that got to do with anything? All I’m saying is that, apart from a few minor changes, the system has been the same for as long as you’ve been here… so I’m just curious why it was ok when you joined, but it’s not now? Nobody is playing advocate here.
Separating non-business purchases and companies sounds like a great idea. Of course some would cheat this system but I think a lot of people would play fair and pay extra for a “corporate license”