are teens really the core customer at Audio Jungle driving the vast majority of sales? Have teens really been buying licenses for $18 to make a personal YOUTUBE videos? I doubt it.
You’d be surprised.
They make up my main portion of buyers in the RF market (from my personal analytics; 13-17 and 18-24 year age ranges respectively, almost exactly a 50% split between male and female). I regularly speak with hundreds of them on a monthly basis, and more so than any other demographic, so it serves as good evidence to me who my buyers are.
Just look at all the baggage below associated with using music from that scheme. Pay close attention to the last 2 paragraphs. If I was a business owner that needed a track for my marketing video, I certainly would not want to deal with all this confusion. People want to buy a music license and feel good that they have the rights to use the music. The last sentence is enough to scare people away. This info is copy and pasted from the youtube audio library page:
The Ad-supported music tab features music that copyright owners, like record labels, manage through Content ID. Copyright owners can decide how they want their music to be used on YouTube. You can search for music in the Audio Library and see how the owner’s policy will affect your video.
Review the copyright owner’s policy
You can follow these guidelines to see what will happen if you upload a video that includes certain music.Go to the Audio Library Click on the Ad-supported music tab Search for the music you want to use Once you find the music you want to use, you’ll see the copyright owner’s policy for videos that include it. There are a few types of policies you may see: Monetize: Ads will appear on your video and revenue will go to the copyright owner. Block worldwide: One or more copyright owners don’t allow use of the music, and your video will be unavailable on YouTube. Block in some countries: One or more copyright owners have restricted the countries in which the music is available, and your video won’t be viewable where the music is blocked. Note: If you upload music listed in the Ad-supported tab, you won’t be able to monetize your video. Copyright owners can change policies and issue copyright takedown notices under certain circumstances, so your video’s status may change in the future—it may even be removed from YouTube. Policies displayed in the Audio Library describe only what will happen to your video if you publish it on YouTube. YouTube cannot give you information about legal liability or other issues that can occur off the platform. You may wish to consult a qualified attorney if you have questions about your use of music.”
And will the millions of 15 year old vlogger and gamer kids pay much attention or even read that? Nope.
For the last few months, I’ve regularly been receiving messages and comments from YouTube users that they’ll be using the free music “cos it’s easier and free”, despite my efforts to explain and convince them otherwise.
The fact that we, as composers disagree with all of this means very little to the millions of impressionable users Google/YouTube are now catching in their net; who would’ve otherwise found music via a Google search.
@SteelSound: I completely agree with you that composers need to look at things like this closely and treat their music as their assets.
However, this free audio library is a different kettle of fish in purpose compared to AdRev for example, and I do worry that if YouTube opens it’s doors in the future to accept any old Tom, Dick and Harry composer, [royalty free] music will be massively devalued even more than it already is, with YouTubers just opting for the free and easy option.
But this still doesn’t address the issue that there is now a pretty big (and getting bigger) catalogue of free music available directly from YouTuber’s accounts. I remember just a year ago when they had only 150 cues up there for free usage. That was a red flag right there, and even joked with a couple of composer friends predicting that number will be 150,000 within a couple of years. Well here we are already.
Ideally, we shouldn’t be discussing this at all on these forums for obvious reasons, but I do think it’s a real threat to our work, hobbies and livelihoods. As with the AdRev related discussion, it needs to be openly discussed, rather than brushed under the carpet until it’s too late and we’re all sat around wondering why we’re seeing above than normal drops in sales.
I have been listening to the tracks there as I write, I would not source music from that catalog for any meaningful media production needs. After 10 to 20 tracks I find it really bland.
It would be hard to describe the vast majority of YouTube videos as ‘meaningful media productions’, yet these users who create such videos account for a very large proportion of royalty free music consumption.
I believe this is set to change going forward, and these users will simply use the free music presented to them (however bland it may be), rather than going through the process of sourcing music via Google search and/or third party sites. It’s a reality of how things work I’m afraid.
Also, the music within this library are sourced by YouTube themselves and has music selections distributed to them via various third party libraries they have struck up deals with. (You may see some well known music library names within the song selection list). I don’t beleive composers can manually submit and send their music to it, at this point in time at least.
When I read about this approach by Big G the first time, I asked my self: “What is their intention on this?”. I mean, is it profitable for them to push their free music by leaving RF music behind? What is the return on invest. I haven’t got it yet to be honest.
Because this ‘free’ music library will generate an unbelievably huge amount of advertising revenue for Google via their YouTube platform.
Users can now simply choose from many thousands of extremely high quality tracks, in many genres, including tracks by many well known famous artists. Just search for ‘YouTube Audio Library’ to see exactly what I am talking about here. It’s pretty clear that Google are attempting to get the majority of YouTube users into the mindset of using music from their own catalogue which can be used on both monetized and non monetized videos alike.
Remember that Google’s main model has always been to generate revenue via advertising. It’s also become evident over the past few months (especially after speaking with AdRev) that they’re trying to reduce administration of clearing copyright claims from third party music providers and CC material. So this is one way they can combat it, by keeping the user within their ecosystem, whilst simultaneously forcing smaller third party music providers out of view from search (which they have full control over).
It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but clear as day from my end and personally I’m already making steps to cater for these changes.
If it makes you feel any better, I’m having my worst sales/revenue month since 2011 . I agree with Phil that historically this is the slowest period of the year, though it’s definitely a worse January than usual based on my experience. Other marketplaces have not been stellar either, though I’ve noticed some momentum in the past few days.
Yep, I can echo this exactly. I’m still blaming the Big G for this too. I was recently speaking to an owner of a private library I sell on and they’ve been experiencing a colossal drop in traffic over the past few months as Google continue to push RF libraries out of the picture.
A finger is also being pointed at the huge free music library that YouTube have been rolling out. Bit of a game changer by the looks of it, so be aware!
An excellently produced and insightful video! Great to meet Adrien in the flesh as it were. Montréal looks like a truly wonderful place; hope to make a visit one day.
Also, had to smile at the strategically placed ukulele that made a couple of appearances! I hope you carry that with you at all times Adrien!