Posts by RamazanYuksel

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

I agree on reviewers not giving a single hint why items getting rejected. It would take couple of seconds to type it down. They’ve rejected most of my items that i put so much time to create. If they’ve explain what was wrong with them in a matter of seconds. I would make twice of income as i do now.

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

I think are into something. Maybe an algorithm deleting every item that haven’t sold 5 times/year. After 10 years it should have come up to 50 sales or more. In that way AJ would always have fresh music. I don’t know where to set the bar for deleting but maybe your idea is a way for AJ to stay as big as they are in a very long time. On the other hand AJ is very big now and there’s a reason for that and I think they do what they think is best for the company but I liked your idea.
Thanks. I hope they also be more tolerant against submissions.
23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

I also like the idea of old non selling items being deleted. It would clean up the search engine.

Yes, instead of “approved non selling items” AJ can approve most of the high quality tracks that is being rejected now.

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says


One of my items that got hard rejected : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNOtfa2mMNY&list=UUan7vlt21pYWlTieC4yLs1g
Really I don’t understand why this was rejected. In my opinion this track is great…

Automail said production quality which i don’t think that is the reason.

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

Important Note : Before you read it, know that i’m implying that AJ rejects items based on differences to popular items. Not by actual production quality as they say in the automail.

My suggestion is why not de-activate all the items with 0 sales after a year they’ve been uploaded? And give the artists options to bring them back as a new item with only one click or delete it forever. If we get rid off most of the items with 0 sales after a year, customers would easly find the items they look for and there would be no point of being very strict on hard rejecting every new item caused by the fear of not having a sale.

I’m talking about flexibility for everyone. The reviewers, artists and customers. You may not realize now but AJ is rejecting items that already sells well on other sites. Just look further into future, new ideas will always take place. Why wait? why not think earlier? It just hurts everyone very badly. Let artists to represent themselves, let hard rejected items to prove themselves withing a year. Hard rejecting is shaping the market in a bad way.

The market is changing fast, look at the most selling items every 3 months. They are always changing. So why reject anything that is not gonna sell right now but it might in a couple of months. I believe AJ has only focused to deliver items what costumers demand earlier. This kind of reaction will not lead the industry.

One of my items that got hard rejected : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNOtfa2mMNY&list=UUan7vlt21pYWlTieC4yLs1g

Stop being afraid of that this track will not have a sale. Let him prove himself. This track might be well fitting customers demand in the future. The demand always changes, remember.

If AJ keeps shaping the market by approving only certain type of tracks. When the collective demand suddenly changes someday, AJ will not keep it up. So, be open minded and allow different type of tracks.

Sorry for my bad english.

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

the more I read about this the more I feel that, as a practical matter, this “change” actually changes nothing here. currently the vast majority of purchases are the standard license and because of how flexible the new standard license is, that will continue or even worsen as extended sales dry up. broadcast should certainly NOT be included in the standard license…heck you have a new category called “broadcast”! it should only be in that category and higher!

I have extensively reviewed and even joined other RF sites and I can honestly say the Envato sites are better in most ways. so why do Envato also feel they must be the cheapest too? companies with a budget for a project do not care if the license for a piece of music is $18 or $318…either one is negligible in the overall project. so pricing broadcast use higher would not deter someone from choosing Envato especially given the high quality music and variety here that is unmatched. plus, I am sure there are companies with a budget that don’t consider Envato because $18 seems ridiculously low and there must be a catch!

of course, for those companies who do understand what a great resource Envato is, they will still always pick the cheapest option when purchasing, right? and when the standard allows broadcast to one million? with no follow up or enforcement? of course almost everyone will choose $18 and as I said at the beginning…nothing changes here.

i agree

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says


One other thing I would like to mention (I believe someone else posted about it as well, but feel it is important enough to bring up again and go more in depth) is that I don’t think broadcast should be a part of the first tier at all.

I love the idea of including the previous benefits as you move up the ladder of course, I just think there is too much being offered right off the bat which defeats the purpose of the other licenses.

The whole idea behind the broadcast license was to distinguish that type of use from the “regular license” use because of the value and benefit the customer receives from broadcast. The reason there has been such an uproar on the marketplaces was because buyers only needed a regular license for broadcast use.

I understand everyone is happy for the moment because they are seeing 4 licenses, but I think once everyone understands the fine print we will see the mood turn quickly.

If broadcast use with an audience size of up to 1,000,000 is added to the very first license, the other broadcast license is more of a visual pleasantry to appease authors at glance value.

It’s like authors said “We want a broadcasting license, we want fair compensation!” – and Envato said “Alright guys, here is what we’re going to do. We’re going to remove your extended license, then we’re going to add more benefits like broadcasting rights with a large audience reach to the first license, and then, we’re going to re-name it and call it a ‘Music Standard License’ instead of a ‘Regular License’. We are then going to make some other licenses that no one will really need, because most of the needs have already been granted in the first license. Sound good everyone?” What has been done, is literally the exact opposite of what has been asked for.

Our extended license income will now be removed, and as more benefits have been added to the first license, the majority of buyers will only need that new “Music Standard License”. In essence, there is actually a pretty good argument to be made that this move will cause a loss of income for authors.

I am doing my best to stay as constructive as possible, but this move seems too calculated in the buyers interest – which is why I’m being somewhat more vocal than usual.

I don’t believe I have lost perspective on how important the buyer is. I also do believe in balance and offering incentives to attract more buyers. I understand that the trade-off for us is volume. Higher volumes at lower prices. That’s the deal here and I get all of that.

I am genuinely concerned however that a destabilizing and unbalanced model is being created here. Having had more time now to look over all the details, I implore you Envato to revisit your position on allowing broadcast use within the first tier, and the pricing points on the last two tiers.

It may be argued “let see how it all goes first, and then we can tweak it”, but not creating a mess in the first place is much easier than having to clean one up. Price points can be tested and tweaked easily, and as much as I don’t like the last two price points, I think those are even secondary to allowing broadcasting in the first tier.

Please, don’t launch with broadcasting in the first tier.

+1,000,000!!!

+2,000,000!!!!

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

Top 2 tier prices are extremly low,it needs to be at least doubled.

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

Great track,i liked it :)

23 posts
  • 2 Years of Membership
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 1
  • Turkey
RamazanYuksel
says

Good luck everyone,i wish everyone would win but apperantly i’m gonna be the only one :) hehe

http://audiojungle.net/item/inside-the-matrix/7700611
by
by
by
by
by
by