Tiers in the subscription model - Audio in Elements discussion

I will still try to write a hit track that cats around the world will want! We still will be able to make money with hits some how some way!

I´m truly happy for you, I have raised a a lot of my tracks to 39-59 $ inspired by you and Olexandr, and it´s working for me as well. Companies are actually willing to pay a lot more than most authors think.

Well you can say its depressing and sad, OR you can say that this is the reason why we need to fight for protecting the marketplace as long as possible. I don´t think the point of this thread is to discuss a world without subscription models, lets keep that in the Elements announcement thread. Lets focus on (this thread´s intention) how we can help Envato earn even more money since they clearly have jumped on this subscription train already. Money talks loudest as we all know. It is possible to negotiate a subscription model that exploits authors less and makes all parts earn more.

I think the reason why Envato listened about the broadcast licenses is because a lot of authors focused on that, and its always easier to win through when you put pressure on a single point than when you shoot in all directions. Thats why I think this thread is very important, and I hope some of the authors who are invited to Elements could chime in as well, there is no reason why they can´t contribute here as well as privately.

3 Likes

Mojo, indeed not everyone wants or needs a subscription. Basically I am posturing this way:
“If you need my track, sorry you will have to buy a license from me because my works are not included in the subscription pool.” It’s that simple. Will it work and will people be able to find better in the subscription? I don’t really know. Only Time will tell how customer behavior will evolve.

It is so amazing too the chorus of folks talking about earning more revenue from higher prices and yet seemingly so few want to give it a try, especially those in the top 20. Envato could have had 30 to 40% more revenue all along going back to 2007 if they had only 1. priced at $29 or 2. Put a floor in at $15 and let authors decide what their worth is through ADP.

4 Likes

Please stop off-topic. If you want to share complains regarding whole subscription model, please write them in the main thread.

@WiredMeadows you have shared with us your complains without sharing any idea how to make our market better. I’m not sure if that’s productive.

Our voice is important and we should discuss about changes. And yes, we have a small impact into these changes, like we had with excluding audio broadcast license from the Elements. And yes, we can negotiate only aspects which will be profitable both for authors, and for Envato, that’s obvious.

Or we can simply wait, complain, and wake up in a new model made in 100% by someone else.

3 Likes

I think a variation of this is the way to go. Here’s how I would break down a subscription. I know this is long, but it should cover everything.

  • "YouTube Subscription" - You could look at YouTubers as the bulk of your subscription users. However, not all YouTubers are commercial vloggers. Some do not monetize, especially now that YouTube has made it more difficult to qualify for monetization. There are so many different types of videos on Youtube, both commercial and non-commercial, that I would put all YouTube uses in their own category, then break down rates based on number of channel subscribers. To make it simple, I’d say one rate for a channel with 1000K subscribers or less and a higher rate for anything above 1000K. I selected that number because that is the minimum number of subscribers a channel has to have before they can monetize. We can assume that once they get over that 1000K, they will monetize at some point. In short, your subscription has two tiers that act as the equivalent of “non-commercial vs commercial” use on YouTube.

One thing that is very important here is that to qualify for the YouTube license, the video producer cannot be a third party getting paid to create the video on the channel owner’s behalf. If that’s the case, we go to the next type of subscription or to single track licensing.

  • "Professional Subscription" - This is for video freelance professionals and small production companies acting as third party video producers for non-corporate clients, like professional wedding video producers and freelancers contracted by small businesses. Both of these types of customers can use several pieces of music in a single video, so this will appeal to them. However, it merits a higher price than a regular YouTube subscription because they often have good budgets and operate as a professional business. They should pay more, but if they can get a subscription rather than have to go to single tracks, you will draw bigger numbers of them. Since some of these video producers also do corporate video, which is not covered on the professional subscription, you will still get single track licenses from them on some projects. This is a form of commercial use, but they would still need to go to single track licensing for broadcast use.

"Commercial use" would not fall under any sort of subscription service. This would be for corporate video producers, advertising, etc. and needs to be single track licensing. So if you’re not a YouTuber and not a small company or freelancer doing video for non-corporate clients, you must seek a single track license. This is your current ADP licensing and it would include YouTube use.

"Broadcast use" would be no different than what’s currently available here and does not apply to any subscription. Any thing that is going to be broadcast must obtain an applicable license as a single track license. Personally, I think the rate card is ridiculously low, but that’s Envato’s decision.

VERY IMPORTANT: I would also make the subscription a one year obligation paid monthly. If you give people the option to cancel at any time, they will just join for one month and download as much as possible. The fact that they are supposed to complete any projects during a subscription period can often not be enforced. It’s just the honor system. Make it a yearly obligation and you can guarantee at least one year of payments from the customer.

Also, note that since not everyone wants a subscription, anyone can use single track licensing. Subscriptions are not mandatory.

And speaking of the “honor system”, how would you make sure that a person doesn’t abuse this system and attempt to just go for the lowest price? You would have to use the sign-up questionnaire as a way to determine who can use a subscription, which subscription if qualified, and who cannot use either subscription. Key questions for creating a subscription account would be those that ask the customer’s intended use and job description. It would go something like this:

  • QUESTION 1: All subscriptions require a one year obligation payable monthly. Do you agree to this obligation? If the answer is no, they are redirected to single track licensing. If yes, they continue to the next question.

  • QUESTION 2: Are you a hobbyist (non-professional), a freelancer or small business creating video for a third party, or a corporate user? (check boxes for each)

  • ANSWER: Hobbyist - directed to YouTube Subscription. This would be followed by a question regarding channel size to direct them to which level they need.

  • ANSWER: Freelancer / Small Production Company - directed to Professional Subscription. This has a follow-up question regarding who their clients are. The options are:
    A - private individuals and small businesses - If they say this, they continue.
    B - large businesses / corporate - If they say this, they are directed to single track licensing.

  • ANSWER: Corporate User - they are told that they are not eligible and directed to single track licensing

These are just ideas. Pick and choose what might apply, or perhaps the full concept works as is. I often hear things like, “The customers need a simple solution.” To me, that doesn’t mean “cheaper solution” and it assumes that your customers are not very bright or that they are too lazy to read. I don’t make such assumptions. It’s on the company to figure out the best way to present something so that it does not appear to be too complicated.

5 Likes

Hi @jamesgiroux @Sarah_G We really hope you can push forward these ideas in the post above by @AAMediaMusic

Implementation of these ideas will mean a little more time and effort, but the long term investment is literally priceless. Neither Envato or authors can afford to “leak” medium and big budget clients for a cheap price. Also think about how you are then able to market both Elements and promote traffic to the marketplace(s) at the same time.


This is cut and paste from a competitor site that solves the problem in a very simple and understandable way (you can find it by googling royalty free music if you are unfamiliar)

  • First you are presented with 3 youtube subscription price options depending on channel size/views

Then this text below: For corporate content or content created for a third party please use the Track Shop link . Need a corporate subscription covering multiple platforms? Please contact us

“ Track Shop link ” has to be replaced by AJ marketplace and then you get the idea.


The music section of Elements is the most complex and you might want to implement price options in audio first and then see if you can remove corporate use and third party use from other marketplaces that are under the wings of Elements as well.

For example improvements can be done to drive traffic to VideoHive through Elements, and not just from VideoHive to Elements.

Thanks in advance for following up on this! :slight_smile:

2 Likes

It’s very simple and understandable.
Someone has already talked about this in the official branch (maybe even you). Compete with other trading platforms Envato arranged a game for survival (because other trading platforms took this game)is not how many tracks from each author to attract customers the (whole thing is to attract and entice customers to their front)).
Only to attract interest from potential buyers, and no more. I will give an example from life: for example: I like the grapefruit juice brand(I love bitter juice), and I go to the same store, but I also take goods with him along the way. Conclusion: You need a release on the Elements to promote authors on the Envato market, through the paths of Elements Audio. Only my opinion: Envato has few clients and there is no development, and they want to attract them, so you need to sacrifice something. Let the Devil curse me, but they are right (this is the standard move)! How can they compete with those(markets) who created the subscription? No - Elements Audio (no - subscription) there is no - competition with other markets. It does not even depend on Envato.

Well, I amongst many others, believe that companies and for example video editors working for clients are not asking for cheaper prizes than what we can offer on AJ. As far as I understand subscription models are aimed at capturing big masses of low budget youtube creators that needs a lot of music. And Envato can still compete with low prizes to that market.

Having options in the subscription model is a bit like: You come along and want to pay for endless refills of bitter grape juice for a monthly reasonable fee. Great I´ll serve you that, but if a bus driver comes along and the driver wants to feed all the tourists on his bus for a monthly fee, he would either have to pay a much bigger price OR just go to the store and buy without subscription :sweat_smile:

In fact, this is a dilemma, the same thing as sitting on a powder keg. Other trading platforms have created favorable conditions for some buyers and Envato does the same. At first, this is absurd (but you do not take into account the fact that the poor YouTube channel have the property to move forward and it does not matter how much to pay for the track in the future). It is necessary to look at two steps forward.

I think we all agree on this.

I understand that you do not support the increase in buyers due to Audio Elements?

Yes I do support an increase in buyers. Price options are just about handling different markets in an effective way.

1 Like

Thanks for the discussion! :slight_smile: I was pleased to communicate with you!

1 Like

They can buy all your tracks for $500 each, and own them, then offer them inside elements. Envato employees can write more music tracks for Envato elements. Envato can launch music in elements but they should do so with property they own or bought.

CMA, plaese do offer all your music assets in the elements ecosystem, I hope you earn a lot of royalties doing so.

1 Like

Also one of the options, but only in the event that none of the authors go to Audio Elements. One of the audio markets does that. By the way a good idea for a quick money for the authors(especially new authors, one-time work). Sounds interesting. 500$ is not enough, 800$ just right. :blush:

Hey guys did you saw the new announcement?
What they are doing with this Market?
Are we swiming against the waves and current?
https://forums.envato.com/t/were-removing-envato-credits-from-market/195361

Just because they removed the envato credits as payment method I remember this.
A simple idea for tiers that separate companies with high demand for music from companies with ocasional needs is this: (and this could work also for envato market too)

Buying Envato Credits for purchasing items. The more you buy the less the cost per credit.

Something like this:

  • Buy 1$ to 20$ in credits
    you get 1 credit per dollar - Exemple (10$ = 10 credits)

  • Buy 21$ to 50$ in credits
    you get 1.5 credit per dollar - Exemple (30$ = 45 credits)

  • Buy 51$ to 200$ in credits
    you get 3 credits per dollar - Exemple (100$ = 300 credits)

  • Buy more than 201$ in credits
    you get 6 credits per dollar - Exemple (300$ = 1800 credits)

This way buyers with high demand in music will pay less for each track but will buy more tracks and buyers with low demand for music will pay the normal price for each track.

An exemple:

Buying a track that costs 20$ (20 credits) using this credits method. (1$ equals to 1 credit.)

  • Buyer A
    Bought 20$ in credits and got 20 credits.
    So he use 20 credits buying that track sending a total of 20$ for 1 track.

  • Buyer B
    Bought 80$ in credits and got 240 credits.
    So he use 20 credits buying that track sending a total of 6.67$ for 1 track.

  • Buyer C
    Bought 500$ in credits and got 3000 credits.
    So he use 20 credits buying that track sending a total of 3.33$ for 1 track.

What do you think?

I hate to be “that guy” but…

Since they’ve just announced the end of Envato Credits, I’d say your suggestion (which seems too cheap at the top tier, IMO) is even less likely to be implemented than it was two days ago. And it’s far from certain they would have even considered it.

Could Envato respond to public pressure and reinstate Credits? Anything’s possible…

Don’t know but there is plenty of customers complaining I wish they could roll back that decision to remove credits.

Hi @benleong

Would you mind giving us a quick little reply if price options in Elements subscription is something that is being considered internally and you will collect feedback here? Or if it´s something that won´t be considered at the moment?

Shortly summarised the discussion here have been about the benefits of separate price options between private customers and companies/freelancers who work for clients. Simply because there are huge difference in budgets in these markets. On a more advanced level, the benefits of separating different different sizes of youtube channels etc as some other sites do.

As far as market research about what customers are willing to pay for music, optimistic results can definitely be seen among tracks on the popular tracks list. ADP impacts different in the markets, and AudioJungle ADP for sure looks very promising :slight_smile:

Thank you!