As VH Author, who also sells on Elements:
My VH earnings are around the same as they were before joining elements even with current sorting methods (with ups and downs). But Elements earnings do growth every month and now they are ~70% from VH earnings. I guess April’s earnings will be around 75-80% from VH. And I’m Elite Author not that big but still. And new Authors got situation when Elements earnings are higher than VH earnings. And whether somebody likes this or not Elements will live further - earnings speak for themselves. Situation may be different from market to market but I guess it has similar patterns over them
1 Like
Dreamyard, I am happy that you are doing well. But you have to realize that if Elements were open up to every videohive author and every single piece of video was for sale inside elements, your earnings would drop into the abyss. Envato is carefully hand selecting and inviting very slowly and cautiously only certain authors. I do not doubt that money can be made inside a subscription model, but if the market opens up to all, everyone will earn substantially less, Do you understand that basic economic concept of supply and demand with Price $16.50 a month being the main factor?
There are conditions which are wright now without any “if”.
Someone looses someone gains, we all have different options: to fight the system, to adapt, to do nothing or any other - no one has signed Death Contract with Envato 
If I wouldn’t be invited to Elements I might have to search some more incomes.
And if the AudioJungle market wasn’t opened up to all from the beginning… then everyone would probably earn substantially more. But you’re basing your assumptions on something that hasn’t happened… and at present, there’s no indication it will. Feel free to complain about actual negatives, but you’re pushing it a bit by complaining about potential negatives. I mean, I could say… “if AudioJungle sets their commission rate to 95% to them and 5% to the author, then AudioJungle will be one of the worst audio stock sites in the world for earnings, so you’re all idiots for submitting your work to them” but as that’s unlikely to happen ever (at least not any time soon), then it doesn’t really work as a valid argument.
3 Likes
Who is complaining? Not me. I am just pointing out basic economic facts. As more video content flows into elements, the more authors you have to split the pool of money with. Therefore, less monthly subscription revenue will be collected by each participant. However, Envato really does not need to concern themselves with that fact because no matter what, they collect 50%. You see how this business model is an extremely slippery slope?
There is nothing wrong with pointing out how dangerous a business model is for authors. It’s quite obvious that it’s not nearly as risky for Envato because they keep 50% no matter what. The house wins, customers win because they get grossly devalued content, authors lose. It’s already happening SSF, many authors are reporting declining revenue. Market revenue is declining because customers are paying less than before the subscription model. Elements gives customers a “download in bulk” (really, download all if you want) option that is about 95% cheaper than market prices.
2 Likes
Also remember that customers base will only grow and so will the money pool that will be divided by even more authors. And yes envato gets 50% no matter what, but I think lowering the prices to absurd amounts doesn’t make sense for envato either. Cause then they will get less with that 50% cut too, than they could potentially get without lowering or even increasing the prices.
Obviously competitors might push envato and others to play with pricing, but also at some point I think they’ll be leveraging authors and who will have the best items. Since Envato won’t be the only monopoly in this game, it won’t be able to do whatever and get away with it. Authors will choose the best place for them as well, at least I hope so. So I guess we’ll see how things will play out throughout the next few years as more and more marketplaces will move to unlimited subscriptions.
If all goes to pile of garbage then oh well, we still got the skills and can move on to doing other things…
1 Like
It’s crazy to think this way…you clearly recognize the potential danger, so why then even participate and embrace a business model that presents the risk of ruining your business?
Judging from other similar services, one of which I managed the inventory for for 3 years, artists are probably earning between $0.02 - $0.20 per download. This is absurd for a product that I charge $100 for on my own site.
Doesn’t this quote scare the hell out of you?
2 Likes
Cause right now the income and other things fit me well, and overall seem promising with adobe rush templates introduction, and other marketplaces increasing growth. I can’t always be paralyzed into doing nothing, or remaining only in obviously dying marketplaces (ehem videohive), based on what if. I would rather risk and try to establish myself in the new thing, and then the other and next one. Or might quit this all and become a chef, why not, always liked cooking lol 
It won’t be the end of the world.
You can always accordingly adjust to that pricing. Stop doing packs of 40 items and do only packs with 6 items? 1 item? Create high quality item and split it into mini items. If it were to reach such low incomes, I’m sure everyone would be outraged and either the item “size/value” requirements would be lowered or something else would happen. And that 0.02$ revenue is probably for photos or some vector elements, for which it makes sense, since it took the author what, an hour, 10 minutes to make? If adobe rush would become super mainstream, even 0.20$ per one lower third animation would seem not so bad, when it has a potential to be used by millions of users.
Today is 2019 year, a lot of people earn money with sharing their work for free. Majority digital markets start to offer subscription model. And you still arguing about Elements…
Come on! There will be always somebody who don’t get it.
Why are authors selling with Elements?
Best Answer: We don’t have choices, we have to blend in with the new business model, a subscription model isn’t a bad thing, in my opinion, it’s promising for now, but who knows what the future hides for us.
1 Like
That’s been the same with the marketplace from the beginning though. Gradually increasing author/item numbers, and also gradually increasing buyer numbers (but at a slightly lower rate). All results in gradually less money split between all the authors. Virtually impossible to avoid unless you limit author numbers, which so far appears to be working on Elements. And yeah, of course marketplace earnings would take a hit from Elements, that was inevitable before the doors opened. So are you just saying how it’s bad for the marketplace authors who aren’t on Elements? I thought you were going for a ‘why it’s bad overall… in general’ kind of vibe.
How do you earn money by sharing your work for free?
Oh I do get it! $.16.50 for all you can download is pretty easy to get. But yes…I do not get that insanely low price from Elements or any other subscription model. What I do not get the most is how so many artists accept that terrible deal. Anyway selling music and selling video products is not comparing apples to apples. There is a lot more risk associated with music, and you are dead wrong about the majority of music licensing markets adopting that model. That is not the case.
First of all where is you read about my free sharing of my works? Please, before asking any questions read carefully what I write.
Second, google one of this things: opensource software, blog, vlog, free tutorials, free audiobooks, free music, free sounds, free photos, public domain, CC0, CC-BY, etc.
Do you think that all this things people do for free and they don’t earn anythings? Free content doesn’t mean that person (who create it) earn nothing.
With Elements it’s the same. “$16.5 for all you can download” - it doesn’t mean that Elements Authors earn little money.
Keep in mind that the minimum you can pay for ‘all you can download’ is $33. Sure, it’s not a massive difference in actual money, for what you’re getting, but you are 100% out.
Because so many artists are earning more with Elements and the marketplace than they were with just the marketplace.
BlockquoteBecause so many artists are earning more with Elements and the marketplace than they were with just the marketplace.
We know, but the result seems to just be a revenue shift. The artists that are not selling inside elements are earning less. In fact the banner ad guides them away from making one off sync license purchases, and many customers have expressed disgust over the fact that they thought they’d be getting access to every item for sale on all envato markets when buying the subscription.
I also recall you mentioning ( or some other moderator) mentioning how it would be discriminatory to make new authors apply to sell on market, yet it’s not discriminatory for Envato to hand select certain authors to sell inside elements?
Again, it’s OK by me because philosophically, I don’t like the deal offered inside subscription model. They are very non-transparent models, and it’s so obvious that Envato knows a lot of artists would probably change their mind if the download data was shared. Earning 2 cents to 20 cents a download verses $10 to $40 per download is what everyone needs to think about long term.
SSF your earnings are protected, for now, because the number of authors adding their items inside the sub model is limited. Envato knows that they have to keep contributors happy in there. Because if you were not making more combined monthly revenue, you’d simply remove your items from elements.
Just imagine what would happen to your earnings if Envato opened the elements door to every videohive author today? I know I know…you don’t have time to worry about “if”. The reality is that Envato controls all the cards. In a one off license model, the transaction is truly a transparent transaction between willing buyer and willing seller, Envato is just the platform “brokering” the deal.
In Elements, Envato has essentially taken 50% ownership of your content. But artists are cool with that. That clearly does not bother them.
Look, Envato can do whatever they want, even shut down all their services, so what?
Nobody signed “Till Death” Contract with Envato, so everybody has options to choose from.
This already had happened with Market before Elements were launched. Oversaturation of new authors with lots of similar items, so by hand-picking Authors they can control amount and quality of items more precisely.
And one more: It’s already useless to fight against Elements, because Elements contributors do understand what they can get.
Now in Total (VH+Elements) I earn more than I earned in my best months on VH.
2 Likes
Ok, and why is that bad? Some people win and some people lose. Previously other people were losing and other people were winning. Swings and roundabouts.
Agreed, the marketing could be a lot clearer, but that doesn’t really alter the overall concept of Elements and whether it’s inherently bad or good.
Definitely wasn’t me. I’m 100% for discrimination when it comes to the quality of items and authors accepted onto any of the Envato platforms.
No. Earning X per month versus Y per month is what everyone needs to think about long term… revenue per download is irrelevant as a stand-alone metric. Didn’t you yourself say that marketplace earnings are reducing? So surely 200 x 20 cents downloads are better than 1 x $10 download? X per month pays the bills. X per download does nothing but pander to the ego.
And your earnings are not protected because the number of authors adding their items inside the marketplace model is unlimited. But that’s fine for some reason? And the model created to protect people’s earnings isn’t ok for some reason? But still… my earnings (and pretty much everyone else on Elements) are protected. Isn’t that a good thing? Yes, they’re not as protected if the numbers aren’t limited… but your marketplace earnings aren’t as protected if the commission increases, the withdrawal fees increase, elements subscription reduces to $1 a month, they introduce a fee to join, taxes go up etc etc. Ifs and buts have nothing to do with actual reality… unless you have evidence of a plan to remove the limitations?
Yeah, they’d probably be worse than they are currently. And just imagine what would have happened if Envato hadn’t have opened the marketplace door to every Audiojungle author… just imagine what would have happened to your earnings then? But once again, it seems to be one rule for the marketplace one rule for Elements. Elements is bad…marketplace is good, there’s no wiggle room on that.
Are you new around these parts?! You do realise that new authors to all Envato marketplaces get 50%… and if you’re non-exclusive then you get a lot less than that, at 36%?* A good portion of your reasons for disliking Elements, seem to apply just as much to the marketplace as they do to Elements… but Elements is horrible and the marketplace is ok?
*Sure, varies quite a bit with the ADP, but you know what I mean. And yeah, it goes up to 70% (give or take) if you’re Elite… but is 50% all that bad for Elements?! What were you expecting? What’s a reasonable cut-off point for a win-win percentage?
1 Like
Your arguments are delusional and this debate is no longer worth engaging in. Subscription models grossly and recklessly devalue work, period. $16.50 a month for all you can eat is ridiculously cheaper than market prices. That is just a fact. Some of us are not for devaluing digital assets, others, clearly think it’s a great idea!
I just happen to not be one of them.
With all respect…why are you keeping this discussion open? Elements is here to stay and that´s it, whether we like it or not. There are some things I don´t like at all, for example the big Elements banner on top of Videohive, new Best Sellers sorting… but who cares if I like them or not? This is money and earnings (market or/and subscription). And there´s nothing we can do about it. You can stay only on market, or market and subscription, or just go away. There are not many options. This is the end of discussion, at least in my humble opinion.
Yeah but the subscription model is here, and it’s here to stay for the foreseeable future. This discussion isn’t about whether it devalues work or whether it’s too cheap or whether people think it’s a good idea… it’s about why authors are selling their work on Elements. And the answer to that is that they’ll make less money if they don’t. It’s that simple.
Does it devalue work? Probably… but what can we do to fix that? Sure, everyone could take their stuff off Elements so that Elements goes away. But if they do, you’ll have just as many authors queuing up, ready to take their place. Elements is here to stay and whatever negative effect it may have on the marketplace, or the value of our work in general… that’s already happened and it’s already happening. It can’t be stopped. What can we do to lessen the effect of reduced sales on the marketplace? Sell on Elements.
It’s obvious that the amount per sale is the only important thing for you, but for most people it’s how much money they actually make at the end of the month. Having a job that pays $100 an hour is fantastic… but it’s not all that impressive if you only work one hour a week. Try telling the bank manager that you make $40 per download if they ask you your monthly earnings… I guarantee they’ll say something along the lines of “Erm, right. Yes, that’s lovely… but how much do you actually make in a month?”
Elements is here. You can’t change that. Authors who are on Elements or who are invited to Elements have two choices… stay on Elements (or join Elements) and earn more. Leave Elements (or not join Elements) and earn less… but sleep better at night knowing that you’re keeping the old ways alive, no matter the cost. Do you run a side business selling VHS tapes and floppy disks?