The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Audiojungle and the debate over microstock
Old 9th November 2013
  #91
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
cough...
i know people that [used to] make VERY good money from your so-called "corporate" clients, for very benign placements such as crappy in-house videos.
These places have a LOT more money to spend than 12$...
Don't sell yourself short, or you'll short yourself out of a career
They used to. I think some here might be shocked to find what some of the top companies in the world are (or aren't) paying for B to B and web promo pieces.

The only way I know of to get around this trend is to establish a reputation with fees to match, and simply restrict oneself to clients that are willing to pay for *you*. And that also means limiting or removing one's exposure in lower cost markets (over time perhaps). It also means not everyone can succeed.

With all of this debate over libraries, I think composers and musicians have forgotten or ignored some basic business rules over the years. I heard this from a marketing expert (my paraphrase, not a quote):

Never discount your product. Ever. Once you do, your customers begin to expect that discount, and wait for it. Eventually they will only buy from you when there is a discount, or go somewhere else that sells for that lower price. Instead, offer something value-added that isn't directly tied to your product's value.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what this industry has done to itself over the past 30-40 years or so.

We aren't valuing our music as a product like a normal business would. We are valuing it like victims at the mercy of our captors, hoping that some knight in shining armor will come and set us free with huge royalties and world-wide mass sales of our $20 trinkets.

I do know it is a complicated industry, with no easy answers - no intent to offend here, but I think somethings need to be considered that have been ignored for years. The following may not be the most popular observation, and won't apply to everyone, but before replying, think a bit about this objectively, setting your own situation aside for a moment.:

From a business perspective, what you sell your music for to your direct client is what it is worth. The creative fee, license fee, or usage fee is the value of that piece of music.

Only the initial fee the client pays is the actual value of your work to that client. If we once sold a piece of music for $20,000 for a single license, it was worth $20,000. But if we now sell it for $100 assuming we can get 200 uses instead, that piece of music is now really only worth $100.

Ignore broadcast royalties in this regard - those are indirect income sources, and often become a red herring we cite in these discussions to make ourselves feel better about losing, or giving up the initial value of our work. But those aren't paid by your direct client, so they don't factor into it's value to that client. In fact one reason broadcast royalties are in jeopardy with the move to streaming content is because there is no direct connect between the broadcasters and content creators to maintain the perceived value. (Broadcast royalties are really just a tax of sorts on distribution, passed along through regulations rather than direct trade, and should be treated as such).

A painter might sell an original for $20,000, but sell prints for $50 each. But that is comparing original hand-painted art to a photo copy or lithograph. In the music world, there is no such difference to creatively or literally distinguish the original from the copy. Yet I think many of us have assumed the same model would apply, but it does not.

So what is your worth as an artist after you've sold your work for a few hundred, or less? We can say it's worth what we make from it at the end of the year, but that isn't a valid value assessment. While a $5 t-shirt may be worth $5000 or $50,000 a year to Walmart, it's still only a $5 t-shirt.

Just saying "this is the way it is, get over it", isn't a solution. If we composers and musicians want a better market with better fees and royalties, isn't it time we started acting like it with how we run our businesses, and treat our work?
Old 9th November 2013
  #92
Lives for gear
 
jazz4's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post
They used to. I think some here might be shocked to find what some of the top companies in the world are (or aren't) paying for B to B and web promo pieces.

The only way I know of to get around this trend is to establish a reputation with fees to match, and simply restrict oneself to clients that are willing to pay for *you*. And that also means limiting or removing one's exposure in lower cost markets (over time perhaps). It also means not everyone can succeed.

With all of this debate over libraries, I think composers and musicians have forgotten or ignored some basic business rules over the years. I heard this from a marketing expert (my paraphrase, not a quote):

Never discount your product. Ever. Once you do, your customers begin to expect that discount, and wait for it. Eventually they will only buy from you when there is a discount, or go somewhere else that sells for that lower price. Instead, offer something value-added that isn't directly tied to your product's value.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what this industry has done to itself over the past 30-40 years or so.

We aren't valuing our music as a product like a normal business would. We are valuing it like victims at the mercy of our captors, hoping that some knight in shining armor will come and set us free with huge royalties and world-wide mass sales of our $20 trinkets.

I do know it is a complicated industry, with no easy answers - no intent to offend here, but I think somethings need to be considered that have been ignored for years. The following may not be the most popular observation, and won't apply to everyone, but before replying, think a bit about this objectively, setting your own situation aside for a moment.:

From a business perspective, what you sell your music for to your direct client is what it is worth. The creative fee, license fee, or usage fee is the value of that piece of music.

Only the initial fee the client pays is the actual value of your work to that client. If we once sold a piece of music for $20,000 for a single license, it was worth $20,000. But if we now sell it for $100 assuming we can get 200 uses instead, that piece of music is now really only worth $100.

Ignore broadcast royalties in this regard - those are indirect income sources, and often become a red herring we cite in these discussions to make ourselves feel better about losing, or giving up the initial value of our work. But those aren't paid by your direct client, so they don't factor into it's value to that client. In fact one reason broadcast royalties are in jeopardy with the move to streaming content is because there is no direct connect between the broadcasters and content creators to maintain the perceived value. (Broadcast royalties are really just a tax of sorts on distribution, passed along through regulations rather than direct trade, and should be treated as such).

A painter might sell an original for $20,000, but sell prints for $50 each. But that is comparing original hand-painted art to a photo copy or lithograph. In the music world, there is no such difference to creatively or literally distinguish the original from the copy. Yet I think many of us have assumed the same model would apply, but it does not.

So what is your worth as an artist after you've sold your work for a few hundred, or less? We can say it's worth what we make from it at the end of the year, but that isn't a valid value assessment. While a $5 t-shirt may be worth $5000 or $50,000 a year to Walmart, it's still only a $5 t-shirt.

Just saying "this is the way it is, get over it", isn't a solution. If we composers and musicians want a better market with better fees and royalties, isn't it time we started acting like it with how we run our businesses, and treat our work?
Great post, bud. I agree with you.
Old 9th November 2013
  #93
Gear Maniac
 
Cruciform's Avatar
 

Ditto with Jazz, kdm. I agree completely. I'm still relatively new to the industry but I've figured out I don't want to be in the peanut section. When I was a complete noob I put a bunch of stuff in RF libraries before realising that was a treadmill game.

Way, way back not long after I left high school I did a small business course and something the instructor taught has always stuck with me. One can make 10 items and sell them for $10 each, or make one item and sell it for $100. Same sales but one requires 10x the work. I know that's simplistic but that's been a guiding principle for me ever since. Just took a while to figure out the same can apply to media music.
Old 9th November 2013
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruciform View Post
Ditto with Jazz, kdm. I agree completely. I'm still relatively new to the industry but I've figured out I don't want to be in the peanut section. When I was a complete noob I put a bunch of stuff in RF libraries before realising that was a treadmill game.

Way, way back not long after I left high school I did a small business course and something the instructor taught has always stuck with me. One can make 10 items and sell them for $10 each, or make one item and sell it for $100. Same sales but one requires 10x the work. I know that's simplistic but that's been a guiding principle for me ever since. Just took a while to figure out the same can apply to media music.
That's a great way to do business. I think that's the business model Diesel Jeans took.

It doesn't always mean the same amount of work however. It might mean more work but shifting those 10 things can be 10x as hard as shifting one.
Old 9th November 2013
  #95
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
I agree with kdm and the rest of you - but somehow, when opening the box and looking inside for the solution, things just don't come out neat and tidy.

There are TOO MANY "would-be-composers" in the world for an old school "charge more" paradigm to work. Most aren't going to go away, and when confronted with bankruptcy, they will take whatever means possible to survive - ie: the #1 favorite solution - lower price until you give it away, and when that doesn't work, pay to have someone use it.

What that leaves is an un-sustainable paradigm with a mess that positive thinking and neat slogans won't fix. When the abused are used up, there are 5X's the amount to take their place. And when those hopeful's are used up, there are 10X's their amount to take their place. It's not going away. The system is broken. It's been in the PROCESS of being broken for several decades, and the internet is the crowning force that will break it for good.

How will we survive? That's the real question that needs answering. Looking to the past is a good observation, but following the past will lead to failure in today's climate. Zero doubt on that AFAIC. But the solution?

I don't know. I'm just trying to hang on..... If you guys figure it out, I'd be grateful if you shared.
Old 9th November 2013
  #96
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
There are TOO MANY "would-be-composers" in the world for an old school "charge more" paradigm to work. Most aren't going to go away, and when confronted with bankruptcy, they will take whatever means possible to survive - ie: the #1 favorite solution - lower price until you give it away, and when that doesn't work, pay to have someone use it.
What are "would-be-composers"?
Old 10th November 2013
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
What are "would-be-composers"?
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I interpret it more as "would-be-professional-composers", and I think for the purposes of this discussion he defined it pretty well in the piece of text you just quoted.

Anyone willing to work for peanuts for clients who have somehow found proper money for every other aspect of their production probably qualifies in my book.
Old 10th November 2013
  #98
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vocalnick View Post
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I interpret it more as "would-be-professional-composers", and I think for the purposes of this discussion he defined it pretty well in the piece of text you just quoted.

Anyone willing to work for peanuts for clients who have somehow found proper money for every other aspect of their production probably qualifies in my book.
Yes. If you listen to many of the clips on these RF sites, you get the feeling that many if not most of the "composers" use loops and stock patches, and put very little creative effort into their writing. Not all of course, but a huge percentage sounds like stock loops, with virtually no composer input other than stringing things together. Something that anyone with the most remedial musical training could accomplish with only minimal effort.

IMO a "real" composer in 2013 diligently studies orchestration, is a production guru and constantly upping their game, and knows how to write anything from a string quartet, to electronica, to bluegrass, to S. African jazz to a legit 90 piece orchestra. A person who strives for a unique voice and artistic integrity over the quick fix of a stock Logic loop for a blues song or a over-used stylus loop for an urban soundscape. (Both of which i've been guilty of doing.... , but it's not what I strive for under normal conditions....) Becoming a composer is a life long journey. Very, very few arrive in their 20's. Most (not all) of the notable composers were still maturing in their craft late in their years.

That's my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.... $.02

PS - this is not to disparage or dis younger or inexperienced writers. wE all start somewhere. Those who grow their craft and strive for excellence and a unique voice and do not accept compromise are the ones who will aspire to greatness and the ones who will write virtually every day. Someone who got a computer program for their Birthday or Christmas and popped out a couple of tunes while on vacation and decided licensing tunes is for them, or perhaps becoming a TV composer is not the same thing.
Old 10th November 2013
  #99
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
That's my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.... $.02
I don't have the budget to pay you $.02, but if you let me use it for free you'll gain valuable experience and get a great credit for your CV.
Old 10th November 2013
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Yes. If you listen to many of the clips on these RF sites, you get the feeling that many if not most of the "composers" use loops and stock patches, and put very little creative effort into their writing. Not all of course, but a huge percentage sounds like stock loops, with virtually no composer input other than stringing things together. Something that anyone with the most remedial musical training could accomplish with only minimal effort.

IMO a "real" composer in 2013 diligently studies orchestration, is a production guru and constantly upping their game, and knows how to write anything from a string quartet, to electronica, to bluegrass, to S. African jazz to a legit 90 piece orchestra. A person who strives for a unique voice and artistic integrity over the quick fix of a stock Logic loop for a blues song or a over-used stylus loop for an urban soundscape. (Both of which i've been guilty of doing.... , but it's not what I strive for under normal conditions....) Becoming a composer is a life long journey. Very, very few arrive in their 20's. Most (not all) of the notable composers were still maturing in their craft late in their years.

That's my perspective. Take it for what it's worth.... $.02

PS - this is not to disparage or dis younger or inexperienced writers. wE all start somewhere. Those who grow their craft and strive for excellence and a unique voice and do not accept compromise are the ones who will aspire to greatness and the ones who will write virtually every day. Someone who got a computer program for their Birthday or Christmas and popped out a couple of tunes while on vacation and decided licensing tunes is for them, or perhaps becoming a TV composer is not the same thing.
I think professional composers forget that some people that make music have day jobs and are not trying to become professional musicians. Some people just want to be creative, crank out a ton of music, get it licensed, and relax.

Being a professional composer is not the goal for those people. That is why I laugh at the debate about "would-be-composers" making it hard for professional composers. Free music of a low quality does not compete with competitively priced music of a high quality. Besides, quality is subjective.
Old 10th November 2013
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
I think professional composers forget that some people that make music have day jobs and are not trying to become professional musicians. Some people just want to be creative, crank out a ton of music, get it licensed....
This is where your view on this whole thing becomes confusing. I think of amateurs engaging music as an artistic expression... writing music for the joy and experience itself. The goal of "get it licensed" is when the role of amateur ends and the person is now firmly into the early stages of professional (hence the term semi-pro).

Once someone starts to create music with the goal of getting it licensed they are closer to drbill's "would-be-composers" and not behaving like amateurs. It might sound like amateur music, but they are still engaged in the marketplace and don't deserve a pass for acting like fools (see video quote at 2:05).

Old 10th November 2013
  #102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
... I have no desire to perfect my craft...
Old 10th November 2013
  #103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
The royalties >>> advice from professionals. Oh wait, I am a professional. Step your game up, guys. I am here to stay. I will be making music forever.
To be honest I'm not getting the impression that anybody is particularly threatened or worries by you. I'm certainly not - I'm pretty secure in my little niche, being paid pretty well, and there is really no practical way for you to compete with me.

It's more a case that this forum is meant to be a place to discuss the craft and the business of music for picture, and the impression I get from you posts is that you don't seem to have much respect of either of those aspects.

Perhaps that's off-base, I don't know. I'm just going by your words, as you haven't seen fit to share any of your music.
Old 10th November 2013
  #104
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
IMO a "real" composer in 2013 diligently studies orchestration, is a production guru and constantly upping their game, and knows how to write anything from a string quartet, to electronica, to bluegrass, to S. African jazz to a legit 90 piece orchestra. A person who strives for a unique voice and artistic integrity over the quick fix of a stock Logic loop for a blues song or a over-used stylus loop for an urban soundscape.
+1 This sums it up well.

To add my own paraphrase of what I consider a "real" composer in this modern era (in addition to the above):

To me, a "real" composer...

- Can write and develop memorable and creative melodic themes and variations, beyond 2, 4 or 8 bar pattern-based writing.

- Can write effectively and creatively without relying on repetitive rhythmic, structural, or harmonic "anchors", as I call them. This could be a "beat" or "groove"; single key center; ostinato or riff, etc. It's much easier to simply add layers, riffs or semi-random ideas on top of a consistent repetitive foundation, than to have every element and instrument available for any purpose within the piece *and* have a specific goal for the development of that piece, and every instrument in it.

- Can take the listener on a journey with these ideas, developing and evolving over the course of a piece (in overly simplified terms), both emotionally and instrumentally.

- Above all, as drBill described, can communicate through music in a wide range of emotions and styles, using all of the above, all at the same time.

To take it all a step further, to me, what separates great modern composers from average composers is the ability to do all of the above, *and* move fluidly between key centers, rhythmic concepts, and instrumental arrangements of these ideas easily. For example, it's easy to sit in Em, vamp a few tension chords (even with a reasonable semblance of voice leading), over a pounding rhythm section, somewhat randomly placed horn swells, blasts, runs and hits, and "sound" epically impressive, but take very little compositional skill.

Not to take away from pop music styles, but true composing and songwriting are vastly different skills.

And lastly, saying one can "write music" appropriately covers a wide range of abilities and styles. But the term "composing" should (ideally at least) be used a bit more selectively.
Old 11th November 2013
  #105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
Of course I have. I negotiated each and every contract with assistance from my attorney. How about you?
Funny, since most of the microstock and non-exclusive libraries have a "take it or leave it" policy when it comes to there contracts. There is no negotiations. You either take what they are offering or you don't get music in their catalog.

I'm not saying you didn't, but I have a hard time believing you at this point.
Old 11th November 2013
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

Strange to spend money on an attorney to go over a contract where you get $12 per track.

That's like 30 seconds of an attorney's time.
Old 11th November 2013
  #107
How many people here actually know what the production budgets are for various types of TV shows? Anyone? I've been shopping a TV show lately so I have found out a lot of eye opening information in the last few years researching and now pitching the show from the perspective of the Executive Producer and networks...

Anyone care to take a stab at what the production budget (average) is for a Reality Show? A scripted TV Show?

Also anyone care to take a guess as to how much revenue a hit TV show makes each year? A moderately successful TV show each year?

I think when you put into perspective how much a TV production company gets to make each episode, and then look at how much people are willing to give their music to that episode for, a lot of people here will rethink the "$12 per use in perpetuity" type of business model for their own music.
Old 11th November 2013
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber View Post
Strange to spend money on an attorney to go over a contract where you get $12 per track.

That's like 30 seconds of an attorney's time.
Which is one of the reasons why I am finding him hard to believe at this point. And add to it most (technically all of the ones I've seen or heard about) of these places do not negotiate. Most are an automated web-interface system for submitting music and approval of that music.
Old 11th November 2013
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Which is one of the reasons why I am finding him hard to believe at this point. And add to it most (technically all of the ones I've seen or heard about) of these places do not negotiate. Most are an automated web-interface system for submitting music and approval of that music.
Yeah, it's kind of like calling up to reserve a table at Burger King. I'm not buying it.
Old 11th November 2013
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber View Post
Yeah, it's kind of like calling up to reserve a table at Burger King. I'm not buying it.
Well, yes. But at the same time there might be a smaller one we don't know about that, because they are small, does most of their dealings in person. And so he negotiated with them.

Also his lawyer could be a relative or a family friend too. His lawyer could be a divorce, family or estate attorney that doesn't know anything about the entertainment industry. He could be using Legal Shield and thinks it's sufficient! There are so many variables it's hard to know how credible the story really is. It's not like he said, "I negotiate all of my contracts with my lawyer at MS&K..." or more realistically, "my lawyer at MS&K negotiates all of my contracts for me". Which when putting a lawyer on retainer, is how it usually works.

Anyway... we are going off on a tangent here. Tangent police! Let's get back to the subject at hand.
Old 11th November 2013
  #111
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
How many people here actually know what the production budgets are for various types of TV shows? Anyone? I've been shopping a TV show lately so I have found out a lot of eye opening information in the last few years researching and now pitching the show from the perspective of the Executive Producer and networks...

Anyone care to take a stab at what the production budget (average) is for a Reality Show? A scripted TV Show?

Also anyone care to take a guess as to how much revenue a hit TV show makes each year? A moderately successful TV show each year?

I think when you put into perspective how much a TV production company gets to make each episode, and then look at how much people are willing to give their music to that episode for, a lot of people here will rethink the "$12 per use in perpetuity" type of business model for their own music.
The top network shows pull in anywhere from 2-7M per half hour, but they also don't use library music within the show... That I'm aware of, anyway. These top shows get bloated with talent costs, so an American Idol type has a budget of 2M per episode, but you've got people like Jennifer Lopez making 20M per season. Gotta cut costs somewhere and the unknown music guys are easy to pick on. This goes for any show that becomes a hit. Once it's pulling in serious ad money, the talent can negotiate huge contracts. The talent, you can't do without... the music, well you can get that anywhere

There's this complete over-saturation in the library biz, RF or not, that bothers me a bit. There used to be a shelf-life to music, but now we crank out unbelievable amounts of music and release things faster than anyone could ever digest it. We've created musical ADD. I think the proliferation of RF libraries and their race to the bottom is just a matter of supply far exceeding demand, catering to an undiscerning audience. I'm not noticing any decrease in sales due to RF libraries- it's a different kind of client. Europe, however, seems to be dead set on going the AudioNetwork route. At least their fees are... not $12.
Old 12th November 2013
  #112
I actually have a friend that works on American Idol. Their production budget (not including judges' salaries) is $900k per episode ($36mil per season roughly). The show makes between $500mil to $800mil every season in ad revenue. The show has made over $7bil since it started. It has blown the other two highest grossing TV shows of all time out of the water. They are The Simpson with $over 2bil and Seinfeld with just under $2bil in total revenue. This is why the judges, starting with Simon Cowell, started asking for astronomical salaries and the show has been able to pay it without a problem.

For scripted TV shows, the average production budget per episode is $1mil to $3mil per episode. Most cost around $2mil per episode (so $40mil to $50mil per season). Sarah Silverman had a show on Comedy Central with a Budget of $1.1mil per episode. Her ratings sucked, so the network cut the budget to $800k per episode. She walked away from the show at that point saying, "nobody can make a decent TV show with less than $1mil per episode." Crazy huh? Most scripted TV shows bring in between $50mil to $300mil in ad revenue every season.

for Reality Shows the "starting" average budget is $250k per episode. It does vary a little bit based on network. Some networks (like ABC, CBS, FOX) pay more, others (Food, History, HGTV, etc) pay less (as low as $50k for documentary type reality shows). But the average ends up being around $250k. Shows like the Jersey Shore and the Kardashians cost well over $2mil per episode. The salaries alone for the main characters in those shows total around $1 to $2mil! Revenue-wise, they bring in between $30mil to $300mil every year in revenue. Which means the profit margins are HIGHER on reality shows.

So let me ask people this, if any of you are budgeting a show and you know you are going to need music... and you get $250k to work with... how much are would you estimate you should put aside for music? 1% would be $2500. Now consider this, selling 2min cues for $12 a piece, doing wall to wall music for a 30min reality show (22min total runtime) would cost $132, or .053% of the total show budget. In essence, nothing.

So, giving music to a TV show for free or for little money, composers are basically helping to give the network and TV production companies $50mil to $300mil per show per year. If someone is going to do that, they might as well save themselves the trouble of buying equipment and writing music and just send the networks and prod companies checks for $1000's out of their own checking account with a note attached saying "you're welcome". Because in essence, that is what they are doing. LOL
Old 12th November 2013
  #113
kdm
Lives for gear
Great info Derek. Most of AJ's extended licenses are more than $12 (not that it matters especially without the no-PRO restriction), that's still $50-100/track that could, end up less than 0.1% of a show's budget (however unlikely it may be for most cuts there). I would take these composers less time and energy to just run a few grand through the shredder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica
There's this complete over-saturation in the library biz, RF or not, that bothers me a bit. There used to be a shelf-life to music, but now we crank out unbelievable amounts of music and release things faster than anyone could ever digest it. We've created musical ADD. I think the proliferation of RF libraries and their race to the bottom is just a matter of supply far exceeding demand, catering to an undiscerning audience.
Yep. This is something I've been warning about for several years now. It is, and always has been inevitable by virtue of the model itself. As a general rule bulk/mass sales simply can't maintain reasonable per-product prices in a market with fast increasing supply without the demand to match or exceed it. There HAS to be some consistent, inherent value to music (or limitations on the licensing concept), or all music will lose value over time - this is a basic economic principle that I alluded to earlier in this thread. Eventually it will impact most everyone's bottom line, no matter how exclusive the library or placement (evidence is in how AJ seems to be breaking out of the low end market and getting more significant placements, at least on the regional level). There may be a few exceptions, but they will be rather unique exceptions, driven mostly by the marketability of the content creators themselves rather than the music alone.
Old 12th November 2013
  #114
Interesting stuff here
Old 12th November 2013
  #115
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdm View Post
... bulk/mass sales simply can't maintain reasonable per-product prices in a market with fast increasing supply without the demand to match or exceed it.
Speaking of commodification and race to the bottom, I just chanced across the website of Audiojungle's parent company, Envato. They seem to be the digital Walmart of all things 'creative', with royalty free microstock of everything from Wordpress themes (Themeforest) to 3D models and Javascript widgets. All at prices starting at $1. Their full collection is at Envato Marketplaces

They've just started a freelancer exchange site called Microlancing, presumably named because the fess are so small.

As Etch-A-Sketch suggested, run the other way, and fast.
Old 16th November 2013
  #116
Here for the gear
 

interesting read.
Old 17th November 2013
  #117
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

gee.. that was one long ADVERTISEMENT....
Old 17th November 2013
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

I'm honestly not trying to stir up the pot here, but I couldn't ignore this.

I actually had a look on Audiojungle today because I was asked if I could find some music for a youtube video for someone. They wanted a few bands.

I went through the rock section and sorted the order by sales. Now, whilst the music is very mediocre (no worse than some of the stuff on Audiosparx to be fair and some libraries with older content) I came across one person, who based on the sales must have made around $78,000 on just 3 tracks before Audiojungle took their cut. Whether this is the 70% or the lower exclusive amount based on a sliding scale of amount of sales. That's $23,400 after a worst case scenario 70% for 3 very mediocre tracks and if I was to judge based on my own output, very little time investment involved (3 days at the most). If I'm getting how the payments work, please let me know.

These were tracks that I couldn't imagine any exclusive library taking on. So it's not like these people are missing out on a chance to get big creative fees or licensing fees they would get if their tracks were with a big library.
Old 18th November 2013
  #119
There's always a shining star on top of a money pyramid. No surprise here.... the question is do you believe that your hard-work and dedication to promoting sales on AudioJungle will raise you to the top of the pyramid?
Old 18th November 2013
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

Do people promote their work on Audiojungle? I don't know much about it to be honest.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump