The site needs to attract both buyers and authors, and still maintain itself as a worthwhile venture. Tricky trepidation if you ask me, but I’ll let HQ come to its own conclusions, while agreeing with you that a good number of your points have a lot of merit, imho.
Just something I want to say here in regards to that point. Audiojungle is based on a model of being cheap and attractive for buyers – ie. $10 a track is cheap compared to a lot of other stock audio sites out there. However, you can’t have your cake and eat it as the saying goes. You can’t charge a small amount for tracks, and then still expect to make a good profit by taking away more from the composer to make up for the fact the tracks are cheap.
I completely understand that this current payout rate is something which has been like this since the start, and based on the original flashden model.
However, that is not an excuse to keep it the way it is. I think its great that new licenses are finally coming in, but il hold my breath until it comes in.
One way perhaps to calm composers would be to show us exactly where our money is going.
Well I was talking to someone about this today and I thought about – if theres 100k members, say on average, everyone one buys one $10 file a week (which would be right I would say at the very least)
Thats $100k dollars coming into them each week (for arguements sake say)
Say they are spending 25% of that on advertising, 25% on paying us, and 50% for themselves.
That means they would spend:
$25k on expenses each week.
I know that the site takes up a lot of bandwith. I know that they use amazon S3 for storage:
Maybe I’m wrong, but from what I can see, 1tb of storage would cost $120 a month – all the tuts sites use up that per month, so I would say audiojungle/flashden/themeforest use the same lets say (1tb per site)
Thats average hosting costs of approx $500 a month.
That leaves quite a lot of money still for expenses….
It also means that they make $50k after “expenses” each week. You could get a nice group of solicitors for that, to draw up some licenses within a few days
And just to finish on. I think we all need to be honest and open about this. Theres no point in everyone being annoyed at whats going on and just doing nothing. At the same time, its good for the site to hear feedback from the people who make the content for it each and every day
musicformedia: It would be really nice if things were quite that simple. We’ve responded to the rates issue many times before so that is not what I want to address so much right now, especially as this thread is about the forthcoming licensing feature. What I do want to do is clear up some very unrealistic assumptions that are coming into play here and might be fueling many of these rates discussions.
For one, the membership count is for all Envato Marketplaces. The user system is shared because that way you can use your credit on any of the sites. AudioJungle certainly does not have 100,000 active users nor does it make the income that has been suggested in a week. We wish we did, for both our sake and for the sake of our authors, though there are very, very few sites that do make that much weekly in existence — sites close the caliber and popularity of Amazon and eBay, for instance (though those two particular sites make much more, but you know what I mean). The rates are the way they are because the site is still very young and requires a lot more growth before the economies of scale can kick in and make it more profitable for everyone. Much of the time, both AudioJungle’s income and expenses are still neck and neck — which is very much normal for a site of AudioJungle’s age. AudioJungle needs to grow until it is profitable on its own; it can’t use FlashDen or ThemeForest income to prop it up, or, as all business owners will know, there’s no point in keeping the site open. But we want to keep the site alive, and we want it to grow as we know it provides a lot to the community that most other stock sites don’t.
Also, as you’ll know if you’ve dealt with lawyers, you can’t throw money at them and get licenses drawn up in a few days. This is complicated stuff with a lot of factors at play, and let’s face it, lawyers are slow no matter what you do. But the licensing features are coming.
In short: the licensing stuff is coming and will make AudioJungle even more useful and profitable to you, and we think our licensing options are going to beat the competition in every way. And also, the income suggested here is hugely exaggerated and the costs of running the site take up almost all of it at this point. This is normal at this stage in our growth. What I’m saying is that those who love AudioJungle, and I know most of our community prefers AJ to the competitors, if they want to support the site and see these things change with time, just need to sit tight, even help the site grow, and wait for the economies of scale to work to our benefit. Until then we’re just doing what we have to do to keep things alive.
There’s no reason for concern. AudioJungle has been growing steadily every single week without backslides. It is very exciting to watch! But it’s gradual growth, given the niche we’re in, and we all need to make it work and grow if you really love the site and want to see things improve.
I would like to close by mentioning that everyone at Envato thinks the community of authors we’ve built here is an awesome one and we do our best to do everything we can for them. However, all the information about rates and payouts is posted at the front door for all to see, so to speak, so none of you are joining the site under false pretenses. We have a policy of honesty that all the staff here believe in. There’s no need for excessive anger or offensive postings on any subject because the information was all laid out for everyone to see before making the choice to sign up.
Sorry I didnt mean for my post to come across as “excessively angry or offensive”. I just wanted to express how disheartening it is to see most of the money you make go to the site with no real returns, or explanation of where that money is going.
I agree that none of joined the site under false pretenses – when I first joined the site I thought it was amazing that people actually wanted my music, and was absolutely happy to give my music away for nothing at all, if people wanted it. Now I’ve joined other sites, and I’ve started to see that my music is worth more than that.
Thats interesting what you said about audiojungle having to support itself on it own – I didnt know that – thought it would be the entire envato sites supporting each other – that makes more sense now if you are trying to build the site up with just the audiojungle sales – I can understand more now why its harder to make a profit
One point to finish on aswell – all the other stock music sites that I have music on don’t sell as many tracks each month as audiojungle – they did in the start, but audiojungle somehow maintains a steady flow of sales each month no matter what – thats something thats really cool, and shows that its going to be a big site in the near future.
Sorry again if my post was excessively angry or offensive
Sorry again if my post was excessively angry or offensive
Woah!! Woah! Take it easy man!!! I can’t even find the words to speak, I’m so offended!!
But seriously though – I too have had my concerns about the commission rate and I think it could be a little bit more competetive, but, as I have mentioned before in the past (at least, I think I have..), there are other aspects to the service that Envato provide, beyond just the immediate financial benefits.
I am also extremely appreciative of the fact that you (Joel) are always around on the boards to answer our many questions.
Placing music that you have created online for sale, can be a substantial investment of time, energy, and, although indirectly, money. So, from the authors’ perspectives I can understand why many would really want to have access to such information; keeping the business they are working with as transparent as possible.
I hope I’ve explained myself well, I’m really tired this morning.
@musicformedia: No, your post wasn’t angry or offensive! I was referring to some fairly hostile posts I’ve seen (some with language some readers may find offensive). Your post was civil and the thinking behind it was sound, it was just that the factual assumptions supporting the thinking weren’t accurate. That’s not your fault.
We’re doing the best we can and the service is getting better all the time, and sales are growing. I am proud of the site, the team behind it, the community driving it, and the way it is growing and improving as both its site manager and a fellow musician. I hope you guys will stick with us and enjoy the ride.
Ah right lol, was wondering
Yea, I know that this comes up a lot, and I’m sure you’re sick of answering it at this stage. Thanks for clearing it up anyway.
Anyhoo, back on track – new license types coming soon- woo!
I am glad to get the chance to sell my music through internet and I am glad that it works here on audiojungle. I have tried a lot of music portals before. this is the first website after mp3.com in the years 1999 – 2002 that works for my music – here I found buyers for my songs, loops and sounds again. you can get 50% or more of your sales – but if the music don’t find a buyer you have nothing.
I see a website like audiojungle as a part of marketing for myself and my music, too. here I get new listeners and hopefully new fans and buyers and projects …
sorry for my english but it’s not my main language. I come from austria (a small country in europe)
I hope the most will understand what I am writing …
I’m not sure if I’d like to release my tracks under a reselling license – someone could buy it for another stock site and take away all my revenue. Revostock do 3 license types, which I quite like:
1. Corporate, Non-Profit, Trade Shows, Web*, Not-For-Broadcast Re-Production to 5,000 copies. Project and Student Films. 2. Includes Standard License plus local/cable broadcast up to 300 miles and reproduction from 5,000 to 50,000. 3. Unlimited Reproduction.
I’m definitely up for something like the first 2. Maybe 3 being optional for the composer.
Yeah – i think the composer should have full control on what licences and such they want to offer.