Today online video platform RendrFX announced its official Business Beta launch with over 50 video templates from artists around the globe. RendrFX provides small-mid size businesses, brand managers, and agencies with a fast, easy, and affordable platform to create videos online for their marketing needs.
How it works for customers:
Customers browse “video designs” (Blender templates) and select the design to meet their needs.
They upload their own media to customize the template (images, logos, text, video clips, audio, etc.).
Once finished, they choose to create their video and it is quickly rendered by RendrFX.
How it works for artists:
Artists create an account and learn the RendrFX templating process.
You upload the template to RendrFX, where it is reviewed and feedback is given if needed.
Once approved, the template is released to the market and can be used by customers.
Artists receive 20% of video sale proceeds forevermore! No further action required.
View our Artists page to learn more about contributing.
Or check out all of the designs your peers have created already in our marketplace.
Ping us with any questions or send us an email at [email protected] for more info.
I am an artist myself and used to sell on existing market places and found that the my work was easily getting abused on a mass scale since the customer owned a copy my project files and had no problem abusing the license.
Our platform only delivers end videos to the customer, so it prevents this type of abuse regarding raw source files like .blend files or .obj files etc…
Great to see people investigating different uses for Blender.
@burnin, consider they aren’t simply ‘reselling files’, they need to generate video’s from blend files each time.
Anyone who’s had to run a render-farm knows all the corner cases you run into - when rendering anything at a large scale.
Keep in mind, as an artist you aren’t having to answer support emails when a customer has a problem with some template not displaying their unicode text properly, or loading the broken image file they provided.
As for the exact percentage, let the market sort this out, no need to be unpleasant about it.
So we don’t have to make the source code of an app that clearly builds on top of Blender if it’s only availaible behind a website? They don’t have to make their system GPL?
That’s correct, since they’re not distributing the software, they’re providing a service.
A studio that provides animations for you can also keep in-house software built on Blender without giving it away.
It’s similar to render-farms not having to release their internal tools.
I think that if you make something worthwhile, 20% of every sale can really add up. You don’t have to manage anything (website, customer support, marketing, etc.) so, you can just “set it and forget it” and start working on your next template. This could be a nice source for long-term passive income IF the work is something people are interested in. Some research into what’s trending in video graphics would definitely need to be done.
I think 20% is OK given that you only need to make one template and it can be re-sold many times, this actually seems in some ways more attractive than the 50-80% artist share you see on other types of marketplace… but it does seem low and the ‘optics’ of this number are very poor.
As a marketer by trade, but an artist by hobby, I recommend that you reconfigure the payment structure somehow to appeal more to artists. E.g. if you explain it this way:
If the artist gets 60% of the template/art cost that’s still only 20% of the (example) total. But it is easier to accept that way. As it is now, it feels as though you are taking 80% of someone’s creation, which belies the nature of your service.
My real recommendation: break out costs / fees to client such that the artist sees that they are giving you a 15% commission on their contribution to the value chain. This is a very palatable number.
It sounds like a nice service, I’m tempted to try it out.
And +1 to Kemmler, I think 20% is ok, but you should have to better explain it, actually if this becomes as succesful as the envato business, that 20% may represent more than the 50, or 80, or whatever percentage they offer.
Is not really about what you pay, it is more about how you explain that payment to the artist.
@Kemmler, @Julperado, @sliced3D, @Abian, @ideasman42, @matali, and @burnin - Thanks for all of the feedback and great dialogue. We really value your opinions and love the communication suggestions. We originally had structured the artist payout schedule to list 40% of the video price as the “Template price,” and 60% as the “Customization, rendering and infrastructure fees.” That said, given how convoluted Envato and other markets are with pricing and our founder’s frustrations as a template creator, we wanted to be 100% transparent and switched to more simple math at 20%. Given the feedback above, we might need to reconsider. Thanks again for the input.
Given some of the comments above, we wanted to draw a stark contrast with how we’re different from stock template sites like Envato’s Videohive. Consider a template on Envato which is supposed to sell at $17 with the following license: “Use, by you or one client, in a single end product which end users are not charged for. The total price includes the item price and a buyer fee.” This same template is supposed to sell for $51 for “Use, by you or one client, in a single end product which end users can be charged for. The total price includes the item price and a buyer fee.” Now let’s be honest…are end users coming back and paying an additional $17 or $51 every time they use that template? All you need to do is look at Fiverr and other sites to see that this doesn’t appear to be the case…it appears people are abusing this license or adjusting the template slightly slightly…either way profiting at the original artists’ expense.
READ THIS PERFECT CASE STUDY:
Our founder created this After Effects video project file and sold it on Envato a few years back. http://www.makewebvideo.com/en/make/promote-your-app-video. Now this site is ripping him off and reselling the video over and over. Has Mat earned a dime on these sales or was his permission requested? No way.
This is one of the core reasons we built RendrFX…your templates and motion graphics remain yours; we just give our users the ability to make videos from them. We are trying to build a sustainable environment where artists can earn recurring revenue and we attract customers of various paying verticals. We welcome continued conversations and are more than happy to contact any of you if you want to have a more in-depth one-on-one conversation.
I just discovered these guys a few months back and found their model really interesting. I know a couple of of folks attempted to create another template system a few years ago, but it didn’t take off. This might be a good way to make passive income in the long term.
What do other blender mograph artists think?
I yet to grasp how 20% in this case is to compare to some others like 50%-80%, in those artists-take-more-than-20%-commission case, aren’t they doing the same by putting up products and starting selling? what makes this model so attractive then? can anyone enlighten me with a TL;DR?
Indeed they don’t. However, there exists a GPL license variation called Affero GPL which addresses this “issue”.
Envato has addressed this loophole, the example you provided does not reflect the current licensing terms, which disallow “customization apps” for the “unlimited” license.
Pond5 lets you keep 50% and Envato lets you keep even less than that (as little as 25%) . Places that offer 80% probably don’t have a large amount of customers, either.
The real differentiator that I can see is that while those other sites sell templates for After Effects, RenderFX sells the final product in video form, hence one does not need someone proficient in After Effects to apply the template. Therefore, the potential audience is a bit different from ordinary stock footage sites.
Just an idea, you might want to consider allowing potential clients to try templates, using their own text/info/ by creating a thumbnail size preview without sign up (viewable in the browser only).
With so many sites and so many passwords I’m personally tired of signing up to try something only to find out that I’m not even interested in the service.
I yet to grasp how 20% in this case is to compare to some others like 50%-80%
I think it’s moved closer to 30% now. But the other thing that’s interesting is that video templates are single use and sold at a higher price. So it’s still 30%, but of say $80 instead of 50% of $5. Now of course it still depends on whether customers will pay that or see the value in the higher prices…
Just an idea, you might want to consider allowing potential clients to try templates, using their own text/info/ by creating a thumbnail size preview without sign up (viewable in the browser only).
I think it sort of does that already. Oh I see what you mean. Even just a still frame of the elements rendered out, but with the user’s text and image. That could be cool. Build the excitement factor for new artists.
By the way,@comeinandburn ,you have some pretty impressive sizzle reels. Was just checking out your stuff on vimeo