FA+
Shop
Free Market versus Union Pricing?
15 years ago
General
This is the beginning of my Journal.
So I just got done reading a journal...I won't tell whose, but I know that there are more than one of its kind, talking about setting price points for selling prints. They were actually degrading the people reading their journal that are the commissioning base of the entire furry culture.
I'm sure I'm going to be donning the choir robes for this statement but: if you degrade your fan base by telling them what you think is wrong with their lives, you are doing something wrong. If you are trying to start a furry artist union (I shiver at the thought) to combat people putting a low price on art prints over at another site (which by the way, there are plenty of other places that do the same thing--some might do it cheaper!).
Number one: If you insult your fan base you are doing me a favor because there are plenty of people that will turn around and find a commission from someone else. At least I would hope. Is this what happens in actuality? I don't know because furries are a fickle bunch, capable of taking mountains of abuse as long as it's not directed at them specifically. But here's the thing that gets me: I feel that when producing art for a niche community, they are the ones holding your way of life in their hands. Should one or two commissioners stop working, or decide that they're getting off the porn pony, the furry community will suffer for it. Why? Because there aren't a plethora of individuals willing to take up the commissioning slack. Maybe because of my small purview this is an inaccuracy. Obviously there are more people who want art made for them than there are people who make art, right?
Which brings me to the next thought: Who commissions someone for a picture of the artist's character? I know I've asked this before but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it reinforces when someone draws their own character, why would someone want a print of that? Prints typically are for images that are evocative, things that can be displayed with some sense of connection between the image and the owner.
Number two: I hesitate to say it twice because I can recall a time when everyone had those certified artist icons shitting up FA over some drama, but if a few bigger individuals got together (strype, kami, sketch, nitro, chalo, etc..) and told their fan base not to support artists that aren't part of a Furry Artist's Group (acro tee hee!) because these other people were driving down the price of goods across the industry, it could hold some serious implications. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the fact that most people at the upper echelon of furry art are making enough off of site subs to their various pornicopias, that they are content with getting whatever Bernal or onta or clubstripes doles out to them on the monthlies.
I do art as a release and to enjoy it. I could seriously care less if I even charged $5 for my work other than the fact that I feel that if I'm going to pull time away from my family and my own enjoyment, I should balance how much that's worth.
And I'll leave you with my only thought on inkbunny: I hope it impresses on the site admins here to get shit like the commission tabs working again, or get a paid coder or something because FA needs an overhaul. Shit, How old is it and we just got a search? LAME
Reflex
I'm sure I'm going to be donning the choir robes for this statement but: if you degrade your fan base by telling them what you think is wrong with their lives, you are doing something wrong. If you are trying to start a furry artist union (I shiver at the thought) to combat people putting a low price on art prints over at another site (which by the way, there are plenty of other places that do the same thing--some might do it cheaper!).
Number one: If you insult your fan base you are doing me a favor because there are plenty of people that will turn around and find a commission from someone else. At least I would hope. Is this what happens in actuality? I don't know because furries are a fickle bunch, capable of taking mountains of abuse as long as it's not directed at them specifically. But here's the thing that gets me: I feel that when producing art for a niche community, they are the ones holding your way of life in their hands. Should one or two commissioners stop working, or decide that they're getting off the porn pony, the furry community will suffer for it. Why? Because there aren't a plethora of individuals willing to take up the commissioning slack. Maybe because of my small purview this is an inaccuracy. Obviously there are more people who want art made for them than there are people who make art, right?
Which brings me to the next thought: Who commissions someone for a picture of the artist's character? I know I've asked this before but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it reinforces when someone draws their own character, why would someone want a print of that? Prints typically are for images that are evocative, things that can be displayed with some sense of connection between the image and the owner.
Number two: I hesitate to say it twice because I can recall a time when everyone had those certified artist icons shitting up FA over some drama, but if a few bigger individuals got together (strype, kami, sketch, nitro, chalo, etc..) and told their fan base not to support artists that aren't part of a Furry Artist's Group (acro tee hee!) because these other people were driving down the price of goods across the industry, it could hold some serious implications. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the fact that most people at the upper echelon of furry art are making enough off of site subs to their various pornicopias, that they are content with getting whatever Bernal or onta or clubstripes doles out to them on the monthlies.
I do art as a release and to enjoy it. I could seriously care less if I even charged $5 for my work other than the fact that I feel that if I'm going to pull time away from my family and my own enjoyment, I should balance how much that's worth.
And I'll leave you with my only thought on inkbunny: I hope it impresses on the site admins here to get shit like the commission tabs working again, or get a paid coder or something because FA needs an overhaul. Shit, How old is it and we just got a search? LAME
Reflex
Because it's true. /:T it's a bit silly to complain about paying 5-6 bucks when people are paying 100's of dollars for single character commissions as if they are being shanked in their oh so poor kidneys. I think that portion of the journal is getting blown out of proportion here is all I'm saying.
As for your journal, there are plenty of folks who will commission/buy print works of people's own characters. Look to Max or gNAW or Eric Schwartz or even Fred Perry or any furry iconic character you can see a thumbnail of and recognize the characters from. When people have a personal interest in your creations, trust me, they will ask for it. If you didn't believe this to be true, why you work on making your characters likable or interesting to the public and not just keep it to yourself? We all do it.
I don't.. remember that exactly but I do remember saying that if you draw porn, that shouldn't be what makes you a viable artist or not. A lot of people have a slanted view on porn and see it as degradable as far as an art form. Or that it isn't one at all which results in a lot of art snobbery. The issue that was going around was that artists were trying to take a stand and trying to push people into not defaulting to porn to get interest but to infact drop porn and become 'true artists' and just produce awesome totally clean art work and not cater to the lowest denominator.
It was a mess.
But I figured I'd drop my two cents in cause this is how finger pointing gets started. XD
I agree entirely that we (as artists) should charge what we feel is due us. This subject comes up repeatedly. It may come up in tighter niche or fetish circles more often because of the reduced interested parties that we charge what the economy can afford, but pro artists don't get paid much more than what these "lowballers" are charging. There are comic artists in the field now (and inkers and letterers, etc) that cannot afford to live alone and work on two books a month, 16 hour days just to get a decent wage.
I feel that the entire thing comes down to whose name is attached to the artwork. A well-known artist could produce art at a lower quality than my own but the fandom caters to that individual rather than me because they are a "bigger name" and I put a price tag on my work that I feel is appropriate to my skill level and the time I put into the work, but ultimately if there's a $50 commission open for you and one open for someone who doesn't have the same amount of credibility, you'll win out 9 out of 10 and get the work because of who you are (and not trying to point fingers, you is used in the general sense). So telling dickbutt to increase the price of his prints that assumably there is vastly less demand for doesn't make any sense at all to me.
Iconic IPs aside, I would like to think all artists go out of there way to create a connection between their creation and the viewer. It's what makes art what it is. But that is on an entirely grander scale than I considered. So I'll concede that to you, certainly.
I certainly don't think that a lack or abundance of porn is going to determine the level of artistry or talent a person has, but I can say that sex sells, and that will never change. Not to get philosophical or anything, but realistically, the rise in popularity of the Internet has produced a level of desensitization that allows things like FA and IB to pander to pornography in art. It doesn't change the concepts of community, but it does give everyone a voice and a disapproving eye.
I apologize if my name dropping would imply I have anything against anyone; I don't. I simply don't see the point in aggravating over something that we have little control over. But that's the hypocrite in me, speaking out on the futility of change when I am powerless to maintain it myself.
A lot of what's not taken into consideration on prices in the fandom is what all is included with said prices. I may be charging 50 bucks and someone else may be charging 50 bucks but what is it that I'm charging 50 bucks for?? To some folks, 50 could mean one character no background, no color. When to someone else that means the whole package. Multiple characters, background, full color. So it's more what would be worth more to the individual in terms of the provided service than what is being charged.
No doubt that sex sells, but a lot of the hindrance is brought on by comparing the view of porn from the industry and the downfalls of a few against the success of many. That once chance that you won't succeed because of what you've drawn is what frightens artists and causes them take down their works and deny the existence of their older works. In some cases it is a sad truth. But for others it's no so much a big a deal. But the over all opinion seems to be if you've dabbled, you are screwed.
I can't hold it against those entrepreneurial individuals who go to cons to set up booths and position their lives around the con season and live hoping that they'll get enough commissions throughout the colder months to sustain. Art as a living is a tough life. So to tell someone that they should charge a certain price might destroy their way of life. I am acutely aware of that and certainly can't condone it.
While I haven't ever looked at the commissioning prices of anyone else, I set mine based on arbitrary guesswork. I work everyday in a highly technical field that requires specific knowledge and I know what my peers get paid to do the same job I do per hour (I'm salaried) but I can say the same of artwork. It is technical (or can be) and requires specific knowledge so without a doubt, if you can't do it, and I can, it immediately creates a supply/demand situation. But as Gunmouth said, let that be the deciding factor.
I never disagreed with that concept. But my views on it aren't from the same set of experiences.
To tell someone they shouldn't undersell themselves isn't telling them to sell at a price that will destroy their means of making money. If someone can get by selling work for 10 bucks and they see that someone is getting by by selling for 20 that doesn't mean that should they start using the same service the first person should go "oh I'm not as popular, so I should sell for even less because no one's going to pay for my work like they pay for X's."
But that can be a double-edged sword certainly. Because you believe that you should place the price based on the value, one might value the piece less. I know there are a few pieces I've sold that I've actually given discounts on because I felt like I didn't provide the best I could. It's impossible to determine the value of something as arbitrary as lines on paper. It goes back to the connection between the piece and the viewer. Which then reinforces the need for evocative art. That doesn't mean it has to be high art or whatever, it just has to spark a connection to create value. I know there are people who are connected to their own characters and feel like those characters are extensions of themselves. So when they get a porn piece done, it's because that's what they want to use to evoke that part of their psyche that they relate with on a purely emotional level. So realistically, the artist sets a price, but it is the consumer's decision to say whether they want to go with that artist's vision for the price that they set. In a roundabout way, the consumer sets the value of the piece as a concept and finds someone to fulfill that concept.
Now, I've had specific commissions and I've had "just draw my character in your style." commissions too, but each of the participants wants something, the transaction doesn't occur in a vacuum. The outside experiences and circumstances affect the price as well. You've seen the "need to pay bills and my rat had a lobotomy last week! Taking new commissions immediately!", and these prices can easily be lowered to entice so that the individual gets what they need survive.
To the point though: I can sympathize, but I can't empathize.
A lot of the misinterpretation comes from the readers missing what goes on behind the scenes. The reader does not see commissioners that say, "You're charging THAT much for your work? It's not worth that much... I could go over here to (insert artist name)'s page, and get that for a BETTER price." That kind of statement is highly unnecessary (like I said, supply and demand speaks for itself), and rather ill-mannered... After hearing it enough, one gets sick and tired of it, and oftentimes jaded. Some have even left the fandom because of it.
My stance is that one should work at whatever makes them feel comfortable. If one is severely overworking himself for peanuts, and that qualifies as comfort... so be it... but I'd be surprised if that person did not that himself later for charging more.
Is it then ill-mannered to return in kind the bad behavior, for some, it certainly is understandable. I did re-read the journal, and having this tidbit of info does give me a peek into the frustration. I suppose I should be thankful for having never had a bad experience like that, but as I've mentioned previously, I don't depend on commissions for income--so having said that, I have the luxury in situations of that nature to disregard negativity and the commission that comes with it. However, of those few that have commissioned me, I can say without a doubt that as a customer-orient business is concerned, if you want the cash you have to drop your pride or your price at some point.
I can see that we agree about the nature of the artist's prerogative. So it's much easier to say that we can leave it at that.