Single use(less) license for SFX


#1

Well, i want to talk about single use lisense for sfx (maybe music also have this problem).

Is it really worth to sell it? As i know, almost everybody who buy such sounds are NOT using them in single project.

Also isn’t it stupid to make a single use lisense for sound packs? Pack already mean, that this sounds will be used without any restrictions in several projects.

So what you think? Maybe it’s time to change the rules of the game?


#2

This is reasonable. But how to keep track how many projects use these sounds?


#3

if we will sell only multi licenses, tracking will not matter at all


#4

Sales would drop. You’d essentially be selling something at a higher price, something that a lot of people won’t necessarily need. In that sense, the reaction would probably be exactly the same as it has been to single size licenses on Photodune.


#5

Yeah this is true, I’ve sold things on other platforms for higher prices and the sales volume is dramatically lower. The problem with the licenses is that there’s no way to enforce them as the only way to do that would be to audit every business just on the suspicion that they don’t have a license to use sfx for multiple projects. Not much can be done, but maybe the price could be increased to like $1.5 per sfx cause that’s still less than most other platforms. Ultimately this is like an extra cost because the risk of a license misuse should actually represent a higher demand which means the prices should actually be slightly higher.


#6

I didn’t meant to increase the price (low cost of sfx is another problem). I meant that things must be much clear, there is no need to sell single licenses for SFX (at least sound packs) at all.
Price could be the same, we need only to remove one type of license.


#7

But if people buy an extended use license that means there’s a higher demand for that audio, so they would have to do a weighted average of the number of sales of single use licenses with extended use licenses to find a new higher price, but also account for the fact that a percentage of people buy single use licenses and treat them as unlimited use licenses, meaning the consumer demand is even higher than originally anticipated. AJ would make more money if they increased the price a little bit after getting rid of the single use license.


#8

“there is no need to sell single licenses for SFX (at least sound packs) at all.”

That would be like McDonald’s saying you have to buy two burgers, you can’t just buy one. What about the people who legitimately only need to use the sound effects once? Or only want one burger?

What about the people who are making a golf video for a client and they need one sound of a golf bll being hit, they use it in the one video and have never worked on golf video since?

What about the people who working on a Webby award winning Facebook app to promote Assassins Creed that need loads of digital interface sounds that he never been used again.

A dragon’s roar for a logo sting, a car revving it’s engine for a title sequence etc etc.

I can think of dozens of other examples and that’s just stuff that I’ve worked on. And I am only one human. Add up all the humans that frequent the hallowed halls of Audio Jungle Land, and you’ve probably got a considerable bunch of humanoids that need sound effects once, and rarely need to use them again.


#9

That analogy only makes sense if you sell the unlimited use sfx at their current price, which is like $5. But if you sold them at say, $1.50 (which makes some sense as part of a weighted average for the frequency I see people buy extended licenses from me) for unlimited use, you could still make more money while undercutting platforms like Pond5.


#10

Well what is it now, three times the normal? That’s a bit of a bargain if they can use it unlimited times. Still, if ADP is introduced on AJ then authors can set the different licences at whatever price they like… although the buyers fee for the unlimited license would probably be more than the single use, so the minimum you could sell at would be $3 anyway. So yeah, maybe not much use.


#11

Analogy with Mc is not so good IMO. There is no warranty that person who bought SFX haven’t used it several times illegally.

And some words about pricing in addition to License. Time based pricing for SFX is complete crap because even if i want to make a sound effects pack, i must split all sounds and sell them one by one. Also, are you agree that sound packs can’t be used once and are made in thought of multi use? For example https://audiojungle.net/item/swoosh-pack-6/19062186?s_rank=1
I’m pretty sure that this pack can not be used once in any way.


#12

Ok, I’ll give you a more accurate analogy to make it a bit clearer!

Some people only need to use a sound effect once. Some people need to use a sound effect more than once. There are two different licensing options which address both of those needs. If one of those options is removed, then the people that only needed that type of license won’t be very happy. Those people will likely look elsewhere to find a license that does meet their needs.


#13

Out of interest, how do you know that? Have you heard one of your sounds being used in multiple places while only one license was purchased for that particular sound?


#14

Well, how I know that is that surprisingly, some random people tell me that, like on sites where I’m talking with game developers or people who do stuff in media, and that’s in addition to all the stories I see here about people misusing licenses and even using watermakred songs in commercials or videos, some of which I’ve found and reported myself. Because there’s no way to enforce that whole license thing, they don’t really care. Er well actually, I don’t think big companies misuse the licenses because they don’t want to risk anything like that. I think it’s independent developers and freelancers who are a lot more likely to misuse a license. That’s why I think it would be better to just have one license plan, there’d be nothing to misuse.

It is a bargain, but then again Envato’s main strategy is that everything it sell’s is cheaper than at other places but for the same quality. If authors set their own price and the minimum is $3 (which is higher than pond5’s $2 minimum), AJ would lose like half of it’s SFX customers. And, if authors set their own price, the authors who used the lowest price would automatically get the most sales.
We’d really need some data to move forward, like how many people buy extended licenses vs single licenses and then what percentage of those licenses are misused.


#15

I live in country where 80% of internet users are stealing digital property^ so maybe a can be mistaken about whole world.


#16

So 80% of people wouldn’t buy any license at all? And the remaining 20%, if they’re not stealing, will buy one of the two licenses available to them, which meets their needs?


#17

They buy single license and use it multiple times if it match their needs.


#18

That’s stealing though, so those people are included in the 80%. The other 20% aren’t stealing, so must be using the correct license. You’re missing the point though… nobody likes being forced to pay for something they don’t want or need… and making legitimate, honest buyers pay extra… due to the actions of a few dishonest buyers, isn’t going to go down very well.


#19

I’m talking not about forcing people to buy. I’m talking about that people feel much comfortable when they are not restricted by usage of their purchase. And repeat again, one license can make it comfort for end user come true.


#20

No one likes having to pay anything at all. Your analogy still doesn’t make sense because a digital file isn’t something that gets used up, you can make indefinite copies of it. If people only want to use it one time, well then they’d still be willing to pay for it, hence the suggestion of the weighted average of prices.