time to raise the prices?

yes, you are right...dammit

yes, you are right...dammit

"The first 20 results contain the words "optimistic, inspiring, upbeat, UKELELE.."

AHHHHHHHHH!! Can we please stop writing ukulele tunes??!!!! Especially the ones with bells, xylophones or marimbas, and the word "happy"! People WILL buy something else, anything else, if we move away from the played out stuff.

Ah, that felt good. Sorry.

So, it looks like metadata is the key in my opinion, which was sort of a no-brainer, but the experiment on pricing didn't hurt. I still think how other people price has a effect psychologically on buyers when you're in a marketplace without fixed rates. Pricing way above the others can hurt your sales to some extent. There are so many issues with unfixed rates that drive prices down. If too many people are selling decent stuff for beans, the buyers start to expect beans and fair prices start looking overpriced. I hear media producers saying their clients expect them to include it in their fee. That being the case, they look for free or cheap to maximize their profit while not quoting a high price. If something is $50 and is better, but not dramatically better, than something that's $20, they're going with the $25 song, or they never even consider something that's over $25 and search by price range. It's lame, but true in many cases at this level because some media producers are catering to people who expect them to include music in their fee. If the standard bottom price was $50 in most places, that's what they would have to pay as the minimum and they would pay it.

As for the generic naming, I noticed that elsewhere as well. And yes, it seems to work because apparently the names are counted as keywords by the search engines in those places. I know most non-marketplaces (ie: traditional music libraries) do not count the titles as keywords, but I suspect the reason it's done on this site is exactly the reason Dirty SM said. It's mainly a video and photo site and titles on those are always descriptive versus creative. That's probably how their search engine was developed. Am I going to change titles? Probably not because all my music is PRO registered and I'd like the performance royalties if I can get them. The name on a cue sheet needs to match what's in my BMI catalog or I don't get paid. But since the reality of getting broadcast use from this place is pretty low, there's a possibility I'll consider it and just forget about performance royalties from licenses purchased here. I'm hoping loading the keywords properly will be just as good.

As for keywords and metadata, that's an issue I've had with "self-serve" sites like these. Your sales really come down to how well YOU handle search engine optimization and less on how good your music is. A metadata genius with so-so music might do better than a musical prodigy who doesn't handle metadata very well. And then you have people who play games and use high ranking keywords when they don't really describe the song just to be seen. Even if people pass over those because they don't actually relate, they got their music in front of people who were more honest or not good with keywords but might be way more talented. That hurts you.

If the marketplaces would handle metadata and categorization, the metadata game would be eliminated. But, most using the marketplace business model aren't going to do that. I suppose that's because their business models require huge volume to make up for low prices and no performance royalties since they aren't publishers and pride themselves on being "inexpensive". The more they have to do as far as processing the uploads go, the less music the site will be able to handle, which could mean lower sales for them. Look at Revostock. It's been shutdown for music uploads for the longest time now because they couldn't keep up with the submissions. It's the same with Rumbelfish, which handles Shutterstock, and Getty Music. Submissions can pend in limbo at Getty for over a year. In short, if you're going to sell on these budget sites, you're stuck doing your own metadata.

Anyway, back up to $39.95.

didnt know shutterstock audio division was rumblefish...

revostock reviews at about 2 months, and ive been with them for a year and a half.
i thought that was the rule. it's pretty ridiculous, 2 month cue, but i was under the impression that that was their standard always...

as for naming generically, i was pretty upset to find out generic names do better,
so in a moment of madness, one night i changed the names of almost all my full-lengths
to very very generic ones, like "happy inspiring rock track".

less than 24 hours later, i changed my mind, couldnt stand those names, so dull and cold...changed them back to my old
"creative" not very searchable ones. at least i feel good about their titles, the titles mean something to me... i waive the potential sales i couldve got :D

still not a single sale after 5 weeks ... time to do something else :D

yes, something else as in some new clips. it's not that easy having sales. and now with the addition of public domain stuff, it's harder. also, you can use 50 tags, the maximum allowed. every tag matters...

you´re right - thanks for the hints! :-)

419046 => gdpr

tell me when u fnd the solution, cuz i didnt.
almost 850 clips and just 15-25 views per day.
it's kinda ridiculous, from this standpoint.

however on a bright side, on ptrax i have about 4-6 times more views, but minimal sales....

less views on p5, but more sales, dont know how that is...

i wonder what will happen when the total number of clips here reaches 5 million or somth (now it's close to 1mil).
will views decrease 5 times? a new system will be invented i hope.