MusicBoxStudios saidThe suspense is killing me!
Thank you Eric. So to be clear, your presence (which is appreciated) is to help us understand the licensing terms and prices as they’ve been written, but no changes will be made to the structure that has been laid out before us. (at least not now before the rollout) Correct?
Hey guys, I can’t promise anything either way. Whether it will affect the current plan, or be addressed at a later stage, we welcome your ongoing feedback and further discussion around the additional context I’ve laid out.
quick question: Can I add works from my 2 accounts? (one is not exclusive one exclusive)
Sure, go for it! Keep in mind:
- Authors can enter as many items as they wish.
- Multiple submissions from the same author must be different to one another.
- Authors can win multiple category prizes for different items.
Hey everyone, to pick up on a few more of your points:
On Audience Size:
The Broadcast license terms are for “intended total audience size”, meaning the total number of people the broadcast is expected to reach. So if a smaller broadcast is to be aired much more frequently or for a longer period of time, it may require a higher broadcast license tier.
As a basic example, a project planning to broadcast daily to 100,000 people over a month long period would exceed 1 million total audience size and need a higher license tier.
Again we understand that the PRO issue is tied to licensing and pricing for authors, and is important to address. While this is still being evaluated, we do not feel that simply increasing prices is an effective replacement or substitute solution.
We recognise that certain brands and advertisers may in some cases have bigger budgets to spend, however that does not mean they will choose to spend it here, or that they represent a significant portion of broadcast users. Higher pricing does not always mean better earnings. It’s very important to take measure of the competitive stock music landscape here, as we do in all our pricing decisions.
That being said, pricing is never set in stone. As an evolving marketplace we are continually and actively monitoring pricing, testing and optimising in target areas, and exploring new models to help bring greater value to the entire community.
ChrisPorterMusic saidi think Envato will probably gather up the top 100 or something they choose and then let us vote.
I have a question regarding voting.
There are already so many great tracks submitted for this contest so far and they’re going to just keep on coming. As much as I’d like to, it’s difficult to keep up on all of them. Come voting time, what is everyone’s strategy for trying to listen to as many submissions as possible? How have you all approached this in the past?What I’m going to do is try to listen to as many of them as I can as they are coming in, and taking notes on my favorites so I can narrow down the list to my ultimate top track when it’s time to vote.
Yes, we’ll round up all eligible tracks into a nice voting form and playlist . It certainly doesn’t hurt to pick out some of your favorites as they come along!
Hey everyone, thanks for carrying on the discussion over the weekend, there’s been many great points and it’s clear that you all are able to see both sides of this complex issue.
It seems that the conversation is centering around 4 main issues, on which I’d like to provide some additional context here:
PricingWe understand many of you have seen higher fees in your bespoke work or other custom or boutique licensing placements outside of AudioJungle. And when you compare those type of deals to the new pricing, it may understandably seem low. However if you take a look at the wider royalty-free stock music industry you’ll find that these new price points are quite competitive (less than some, yet more than others) in both usage and value.
As we’ve said, it’s always going to be a challenge to strike the right balance here. While there may be some users willing and able to pay a more premium price, there are many, many more who wouldn’t otherwise have access to affordable, quality music for their projects (or would simply go elsewhere to find it). Based on all of our market analysis both internally and externally, at this time we feel the current pricing model will be able to provide the best balance of value and accessibility for buyers in a way that maximizes potential earnings for the author community. As with all pricing initiatives we will be monitoring this closely.
PROsUnfortunately we don’t have any complete answers here, as it is still something we are researching and evaluating. To sum up the main points around this issue:
- We know that PRO allowance is very high on the list for AJ authors.
- Broadcast users aside, the average small website/business owner is likely to be directly on the hook for additional PRO fees.
- There is a significant demand for non-PRO affiliated music
Additionally, I want to emphasize that we view PROs as a separate issue to pricing, and are under no pretense that simply increasing top tier license prices will serve as a substitute here or make it go away.
Removing “commercial” useThis is something we’ve put a lot of research and discussion into, and defining commercial use is actually a much more complex and difficult issue than it may seem when you consider all of the direct and indirect ways money and commerce can flow around an end product. Ad monetization, freemium content, in-app purchases, subscriptions, free and paid versions, direct purchases, paid access, subscriptions, underwritten/sponsored products, free access by a commercial business, etc—all make for a very muddy definition and understanding of commercial use. We’ve seen with the current Extended License / Regular License split in this way that this is not the most effective means of capturing more premium uses with music.
All in all, we feel that not specifically distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial use in this way will make our licensing much clearer to understand, and more accessible for general buyers. Additionally, this will reduce the barrier of entry for commercial projects just starting out, who may not be making any money yet, such as a brand new app developer or a YouTube partner making $0.02 a week on their first few videos. We feel there is more value in enabling the individual or small business just starting out a commercial venture, and that this more inclusive approach will result in a wider audience and more overall sales for authors, thereby benefiting the entire community in both directions.
However, this is not to say we have overlooked commercial use entirely, but instead we’re choosing to focus on more specific and music-related “commercial” uses (e.g. Mass Reproduction), using more easily defined and understandable mediums. In the case of a new app developer for instance, the Mass Reproduction license in this way covers the bigger (and therefore most likely commercial) uses here, without getting bogged down in commercial definitions.
We do also recognize that there are potentially other specific commercial uses that could be covered with additional tiers, however we feel that focusing on these 3 more major tiers with the more inclusive base license here is the best approach for this major update, and any additional tiers will be best considered for a future stage.
Broadcast use in the base licenseAgain competitive market analysis of stock music licensing sites – looking at where most buyers base their decisions – also supports having some limited broadcast usage available in the base license. As a number of you have pointed out, while it’s easy to focus on the major brand campaigns, there are many more smaller broadcast uses and local business ads that may not otherwise have the budget or access to affordable, quality music for their productions.
An audience size of 1 million is not as large as it may seem, typically only covering local uses and smaller market areas such as a small to medium sized city in most cases. Larger cities and metropolitan regions will typically fall in the next higher broadcast tier, and national broadcast campaigns (which were previously accessible for $18 under the RL) will now be a much more competitively valued top tier use.
Please feel free to continue the discussion here and we’ll do our best to address specific points and questions that come up throughout the week.
IngeniousArtist saidya i also wanted to know the available formats we can submit the works.. please explain or make things clear?
quick question, can submissions be made with psd? Like what i mean to say is that it will all be done with vector shape tool and layer styles and stuff, will it be a problem?
Hey shrikant, see loungekat’s response here, at the bottom of page 1 on this thread.
I’d also recommend reading through the submission requirements knowledgebase article, as well as having a closer look through the example items we listed in the announcement and at the other items in the Game Assets category to see what types of items we’re looking for.
Hope that helps!
I have question… And I needs your answer so I can go to bed… I’ve uploaded game background as side scrolling theme. My previous game background and game assets with same method are fine. But now I got problem with it. I’ve to debate it with reviewer and still in review right now… A note from reviewer, it has to be seamlessly repeating background for side scrolling theme. In my opinion, making seamlessly repeating background in one page is okay, but it’s too short in repeating. In my case, I’ve made 3 samples background. And yes it’s not seamlessly repeating when I export it to flat PNG. But I’ve included the main file as separating background sheet. And it has seamlessly repeating like the ground or fence background. I’ve reuploaded it again with separated PNG in layers now. Usually buyer asked the separated PNG background in layers though the vector files are layered. Why this should be a problem? Please give me the best solutions so I won’t get the problem in future. Thank you.
Hey kemotaku, I sent you a message via your profile
EricSchwartz saidIf I submitted to the marketplace in early August, but I made changes and resubmitted in the interval from 25 August to 7 October, my item will be leads to approval or me need remove my item from the market and re-submit?
See that’s what I was thinking as well BladeEmpireRecords.. Submitted for review, or submitted for the contest?
Eligibility is based on the date your item is submitted to the marketplace. If you are soft rejected and resubmit, we go by the date of the final submission that leads to approval.So as long as you submit your item to the marketplace by the end date of the contest, you’re good to go! We usually wait a week or so after it closes to make sure all files have been processed through the queue.
Sorry MaxPov, the contest is for new items only. We are referring to the initial submission/approval date here, updates do not qualify.
Please do not delete your items and re-upload either as they will be rejected, the marketplaces do not allow authors to re-upload previously deleted items.
The good news is that there’s still plenty of time to compose another!
EricSchwartz saidOkay, thank you for clarifying. I really like trailers that start off simple or mysterious and then swell into something with a little more flourish, so that’s what I’m going for with mine. Looking forward to hearing everyone’s work!
ChrisPorterMusic saidYes, the trailer music does not necessarily have to be epic (that is simply more common), but it should be composed for trailers in that it has a nice dramatic arc and structure to it that works well for this type of cinematic production. In other words, a simple underscore is not likely to stand out. All of the trailer music for this contest will be judged together, by the community.
I’m really excited about this contest and I started working on a composition today. However, most of the examples for the type of trailer music that is needed is very epic in nature. Is it okay to write a more cinematic yet sentimental or adventurous style of trailer and still be qualified for the contest?
That sounds like a great plan!