Envato isn’t going to do anything about it, because they like bundles Remember their last bundle was $1000 value for $30. For Envato, the cheaper the better because it beats out any other competitor marketplace – this is why Envato dominates and get’s incredible growth – so why would they change the formula?
Thanks for the heads up!
Good to hear! I was thinking there should be a watermark on PSD Themes on TF – I feel like we expose our work too much, and it’s usually at high quality compression too, which makes it possible to lift elements off.
Also some tend to repost single PSD pages on the web, or use them for preview purposes in other stock items, so without a watermark we can’t tell if they have a licence or not. At least when we see an unwatermarked version we can assume it originated from a legitimate purchase.
PSD Theme sales could be better, and a watermark would improve sales.
6 figure sales well done Kriesi!
Enjoyed this, congrats Parallelus!
What’s curious about this new update is that the buyer and author fee could have only been known to Envato – if it didn’t effect us authors it could have remained internal knowledge. But now the idea of an author and buyer fee has been made public and even reflects on our earnings pages so it seems like something that’s going to be important later. It also appears that the author fee is about moving from the concept of Envato sells our work, to we pay Envato to sell our work.. but the whole thing hinges on the authors work, they’re the assets, we only sell here for cheap prices because of the returns the platform provides, and Envato only draws in the buyers because authors agree to it. So it’s interesting to see how this will change the game
We are just speculating why they have done this but it’s possibly for tax reasons and it’s possibly for the cart system which is coming soon
That’s also speculation though, but anything is possible when things change from using words like commission to using words like fees – that’s the point I guess. This way buyers and authors pay Envato a fee to use their service, instead of saying Envato gets commission from selling our items.
Envato are doing it this way so that they pay less tax and gain more money. If they state that the buyer is in-fact paying us 80 and envato 20 this means that they can disregard 80% of income, if they do not do this, it means they have to pay tax on 100% of the money instead of just 20%.
So instead of there turnover being $25mil a year, it now comes down to just $7mil a year, which means they do not pay as much tax.
Hmm but either way when they receive payment, it still reflects the full amount (turnover) on their books – and then they’re paying us authors as commission.. they would only pay tax on the net-profit after author payment.
Your theory would only make sense if authors were holding the money in their bank accounts. I think the idea is a move from the concept that Envato sells our work and we get commission, to we pay Envato to use their service to sell our work, and so do buyers when they make a purchase. But with two different fees, they’ll have more control since changes in fees can always easily be justified but changing the item price and commission rate is more difficult.
Note:The term “trickery” is not meant to imply you’re doing something underhanded. It just seems to fit in this case because you’re moving the money around but it all comes out the same in the end. I can’t think of any other way to describe it. Maybe shenanigans?
Well this way Envato has more control.. author commission has now become author fee. And there is now a secondary fee on the buyers end. So when we move from calling things commission to calling things fees, that means fees can go up or down. And then Envato could increase or decrease the buyer fee if they wanted to. So before we were paying Envato their share as commission, and now it appears buyers and authors pay Envato a fee – subtle difference but has implementations I guess for the future if fees ever change.