FA+
Shop
So, This Guy Wants to Hire Artists...
15 years ago
A lot of artists are upset at a gentleman who wrote a rather brief article giving advice to businessmen looking to hire an artist to work on a project. The article summarizes how to save money by avoiding the mainstream high-profile professional names and browsing social art sites like Deviant Art for very talented people willing to work for less. Artists are prone to emotional responses. I could quip that this sort of backlash is something you have to watch out for when you take a business attitude into a very unprofessional environment like a hobby artists' social network. But nevertheless, there's nothing unethical about a person trying to find someone who will work for less. You can find the article in question here http://kaitol.com/how-to-hire-an-artist/ after scrolling past updates and added commentary by the author.
No artist is forced to say yes to a contract. No artist should be upset that another artist may be willing to say yes.
We always owe it to ourselves to find the best value for our dollar and that's no different for someone running a business. When we shop for art supplies, we'll buy a cheaper book if it serves our needs. We feel no obligation to purchase more expensive products if we don't have to. Many artists happily lap up software at severely discounted student prices or even steal art software outright so they can have more money to put into electronic gadgets, games, fur suits, concerts, weekends with friends and whatnot. I'm not making a statement on the morality of software theft here, but I'm demonstrating the drive to save money in a way an artist who severely disagrees with this article may relate to. And if you're stealing Adobe CS5 because you can't afford it, maybe, as an artist, you should be reducing your rates for the sake of even getting any employment.
I see banners on FA advertising $5 sketches. I know a person fresh out of a prestigious art school taking $15 sketch commissions to avoid having their car repossessed. I can't tell someone like that not to take a $500 project out of a sense of "pride" because an experienced mainstream professional illustrator would make $3000 on the same amount of work. Someone scouring Deviant Art for relatively inexpensive work applicable to his project is offering a market to people who may greatly benefit from these opportunities. They may not have mainstream exposure. Their portfolio may be sitting under hundreds of other portfolios in large studios around the country, unused, unneeded, sitting idle. They may have not had the courage to even pitch themselves to the mainstream and they're just sitting around working a job they hate. Along comes a decent opportunity that contacts THEM, telling THEM that their art is at least marketable for something and it could just the jolt they need to get the courage to strike out on their own and get serious. And if the artist feels it's not a good contract, they can say "no". Enough "nos" and the person looking may change his tune. But as long as he finds one "yes" per project, he has no obligation to raise his offer. It's solely between him and the individual artist.
Artists who are upset at this guy are implying that commercial art should have a natural intrinsic value based on a mainstream average, and it's unethical to approach non-mainstream artists in the hopes of saving money. I can't help but disagree with this.
Imagine yourself doing very well, making lots of money, and you really want a laptop to help you be productive on the go. Are you going to buy the laptop from the guy who wants $1,000? Or are you going to buy the same laptop from a guy who only wants $700, whatever his reasons are? Both sellers have needs, but the latter offer is more value for your dollar.
And the bottom line is, if you ARE getting $5000 contracts, you can ignore this guy. If you're making $3000 a month doing commission work off of DA, you can ignore this guy. If you don't care to make any money on your hobby, you can ignore this guy. What's the problem? If you really want money and you aren't getting ANY contracts, and this guy approaches you, at least someone's seeing some value in your work.
No artist is forced to say yes to a contract. No artist should be upset that another artist may be willing to say yes.
We always owe it to ourselves to find the best value for our dollar and that's no different for someone running a business. When we shop for art supplies, we'll buy a cheaper book if it serves our needs. We feel no obligation to purchase more expensive products if we don't have to. Many artists happily lap up software at severely discounted student prices or even steal art software outright so they can have more money to put into electronic gadgets, games, fur suits, concerts, weekends with friends and whatnot. I'm not making a statement on the morality of software theft here, but I'm demonstrating the drive to save money in a way an artist who severely disagrees with this article may relate to. And if you're stealing Adobe CS5 because you can't afford it, maybe, as an artist, you should be reducing your rates for the sake of even getting any employment.
I see banners on FA advertising $5 sketches. I know a person fresh out of a prestigious art school taking $15 sketch commissions to avoid having their car repossessed. I can't tell someone like that not to take a $500 project out of a sense of "pride" because an experienced mainstream professional illustrator would make $3000 on the same amount of work. Someone scouring Deviant Art for relatively inexpensive work applicable to his project is offering a market to people who may greatly benefit from these opportunities. They may not have mainstream exposure. Their portfolio may be sitting under hundreds of other portfolios in large studios around the country, unused, unneeded, sitting idle. They may have not had the courage to even pitch themselves to the mainstream and they're just sitting around working a job they hate. Along comes a decent opportunity that contacts THEM, telling THEM that their art is at least marketable for something and it could just the jolt they need to get the courage to strike out on their own and get serious. And if the artist feels it's not a good contract, they can say "no". Enough "nos" and the person looking may change his tune. But as long as he finds one "yes" per project, he has no obligation to raise his offer. It's solely between him and the individual artist.
Artists who are upset at this guy are implying that commercial art should have a natural intrinsic value based on a mainstream average, and it's unethical to approach non-mainstream artists in the hopes of saving money. I can't help but disagree with this.
Imagine yourself doing very well, making lots of money, and you really want a laptop to help you be productive on the go. Are you going to buy the laptop from the guy who wants $1,000? Or are you going to buy the same laptop from a guy who only wants $700, whatever his reasons are? Both sellers have needs, but the latter offer is more value for your dollar.
And the bottom line is, if you ARE getting $5000 contracts, you can ignore this guy. If you're making $3000 a month doing commission work off of DA, you can ignore this guy. If you don't care to make any money on your hobby, you can ignore this guy. What's the problem? If you really want money and you aren't getting ANY contracts, and this guy approaches you, at least someone's seeing some value in your work.
because if you where you would realize that who reads the credits doesn't matter. its the fact that when you try to get work elsewhere you can point at your name in the credits and say "see here? Proof that I'm awesome ^_^"
Read more carefully please, I prefer not having to restate myself. =,=
But Fisk is correct in that the backlash is quite unwarranted. But it is expected. And it was avoidable.
Whilst I am happy to take whatever I can get, I am wanting to branch out into other arenas and if someone offered me any kinda of money for my services, I'd probably go for it, simply for the exposure. A little now might mean a lot later!
Wardy
Artists and the people who are upset in general, ONLY see a guy telling artists that they're being "ripped off" or not getting paid in full. It's as if everyone who was getting upset never took an Economics 101 class in high school.
I started auto deleting journals with these links in them.
I'd be happy if someone took interest in my art, but I -do- have standards of pricing.
This is one guy out of a million plus people who commission artists.
THOUGH I will admit, I was a designer for a T-shirt sponsor list (Only the sponsor list, not the initial artwork) and I REALLY see why 'professionals' charge and arm and a leg. By the 6th email back, the lady ordering from me changed something that had been in there since the FIRST DRAFT of the damn thing (Spelling of a sponsor's name, I spelled it how it was originally given to me by her) I started off quoting her $25 for the initial layout, but upped it to $50 because of 'revisions'. I was ready to slap sense into her by the time it was done.
This is turning into quite a debate isnt it!
No one in their right mind would, you would blatantly charge more to BMW!
If an artist doesnt know what their work is being used for, they cannot make an accurate decision of what to charge.
... yah. Totally not coming out the bad guy there.
That is probably the way that things should work, but in the business world it is not so simple. A house should only cost whatever it takes to construct plus a certain percentage to make a profit, however it all depends on location, supply and demand, among other factors. Likewise for art commissioning, so it is not unreasonable for an artist to want to get it on the same deal and know his market.
I mostly agree with your sentiment, and of course an unknown artist wouldn't be paid as much as a professional mainstream artist, but I just wanted to give my two cents on that specific aspect.
It didn't advance their career at all.
I just want to add the following: I've worked for two years as a security guard at Germany's biggest unemployment center. I've dealt daily with people living at their barest minimum, and yes, they -were- sometimes forced to take a below-average earning job to survive (or else get their unemployment check cancelled. Just to come back later to apply for social money because their job wouldn't provide enough) . And yes, there are more than enough companies here aware of that fact that are more than willing to exploit this circumstance. (I keep using 'exploit' as a word, but honestly, they -do- exploit people).
Sure, it's completely unrelated by now, but...well, your point of view still remains rather. How to say this. Theoretical. In a perfect world with a perfectly working capitalistic market, it works. In an emotionally driven world where everyone perceives 'fairness' on other standards it's as much of a discussion as coke vs Pepsi.
I, for my part, will stop commenting here now. Take it as a win for your side, or just that I don't seem to be able to bring the point across I want to tell, as I really agree with 99% of the stuff you said (English doesn't make it easier for me). reply if you want, but don't feel forced to.
okay. Yes. Pretentious from me, but did you actually read what I said?
They can NOT refuse work. It's a "Work there or don't get any money from us either." situation. They are not willing to work for their wage. There are whole industries here that thrive on the fact that unemployed people have to take a referred job or else get completely taken off their money. That IS being forced. Just look for someone from Germany with more patience than me to dig you up the ten thousands of lawsuit PER YEAR filled here against this tactic if you don't believe me.
Throwing emotions at a practical physical problem never solves it.
Would you sleep better at night, if the guy hiring cheap artists, said so in a polite way? I think so.
You're upset because of the way he worded it, his brutally honest truthfulness is what you people are getting upset over. You may not understand it now, but I sincerely hope you do in the future. I hope you understand how when you are running a business and trying to make a living for yourself. Minimizing costs and maximizing profits is your goal. And getting all upset and angry because a guy is admitting to doing so, is folly in itself.
Try to form a coherent argument against him, WITHOUT using an emotional response.
Second...please don't generalize. I honestly don't put myself with 'those people' (whoever they are). I've worked years for sub-minimum wage, knowing that my company would lose its contract as soon as somone would come up with an offer that cost 5cents less per hour to pay for. I -know- how the business world works.
Basically all I'm trying to say is "Fine, exploit people, but don't tell them to their face.". Because that is just as much a part of running a business as the financial part.
And sure it's possible to act with minimal emotions, I'm doing it right now. Look at the situation from a logical standpoint.
-The one hand is exploiting them by using a plain lie. Keeping someone missinformed about the actual worth of their work is an exploit of the facts. No, this has nothing to do with min/maxing your economical gain, this is the willful employment of half-truths for your own gain. It is true that it is the worker should keep himself informed and be aware of this, but often it's not really possible.
-The second exploit is in the masses. Be it artists, student workers, illegal mexican immigrants, it always works the same: "Do it for this price, or there are ten others that will do it for this money or less". Basically the simple mass of people eager to get their hands on work is sabotaging itself to keep prices low. And that's what is basically exploitet. You use the mass of people against itself.
And before you say something, this is a logical view. I'm not bawwwwing at being a poor artist, I'm trying to simply state facts.
Let me break this down.
"-The one hand is exploiting them by using a plain lie. Keeping someone misinformed about the actual worth of their work is an exploit of the facts. "
Who is to determine, the actual precise value of their own work? The artist.
Who is to determine how they should work for someone when looking for a job? The artist.
And who is to say what someones talent is worth, do you know what supply and demand is? It applies here, you can't call a GUESS of someones value or quality of work as a "FACT" it doesn't work like that. Because all of that is subject to opinions and that gets you no where.
You are still speaking from a standpoint of morality here, you see an injustice done because the guy is lying to people, so he can get his work done for a cheaper price. The artists here, are just as much at fault, I reiterate once more, the artists are JUST as guilty as the guy. If they see this guy making lowball offers for commissions, whos job is it to decline such a ridiculously small amount of money? The artist. But then, as you hopefully see, this argument begins to come full circle, with THE ARTIST able to guesstimate his own value.
I can't go up to an artist and say "Your art is worth this much to me."
.. well, I could, but they could just say, "Okay you ignorant priss, don't commission me then."
I agree, treat them like a human. That said, they also have a job and a life.
I really agreed with many of his points. And the ones I didn't agree with, well, is pretty much how it works in real life. Take care of yourself, no one else is going to do it for you.
Though I'm happy if people ask to use something from me even if pay isn't involved. Like this little thing of clouds I made once, it got used for a poster for a band in Australia.
I don't know them. I'll never meet them. I didn't make anything off the deal. But I still felt good, because someone thought it was worth using. It was just an exercise in vector-style clouds-and-sky backgrounds, like the old World War II "JOIN THE USAAC" posters. Nothing special. And it got used. That was awesome. <3
"Professional work requires a professional rate of pay. Like so many other things in life, you get what you pay for!
Illustrators and artists just starting out in the business will work for less than the established artists. However, hiring a newcomer carries with it risks and you do not get the kudos of a name associated with your artwork. Big name illustrators and artists have a fan base and attract their own following."
Also those comments about "that's ripping off young undiscovered tallent" i mean the girl who designed the nike logo got $35, and for doing just some freelance work she was happy with it and wasn't ripped off, even though the logo is now worth a lot more!
Like the guy said on the article "they know how much flash games can earn so they expect a decent percentage" those guys are now like "heyyy that's not fair if someone will do the same work for 1 tenth of my price .... that's outrageous" . And the guy making that money will still be perfectly happy :)
dunno why i wrote that much ... :P but felt nice
In the end, what you say is absolutely right. I know in the writing I have done, I could make more. I could get a larger piece of the pie, maybe start my own site, print my own books, whatever, but in the end, I set my own price,and I am free to say no, or charge more, or even not charge at all, as many artists opt to do when they share their are for all to see on FA or Deviant Art.
That this business advice might encourage more people to look to up-and-coming non-professional artists to spread their money around, even if a little more frugally, does two things in my mind. First, it creates a situation where new artists are encouraged to learn their trade because it CAN be profitable, even without having a big name for yourself already. And from a development standpoint, it increases the likelihood that new art and material will become available faster and at a lower cost to the consumer, be it art, video, or game oriented.
When a new idea or label becomes successful, the artists who are often responsible for producing the images and content that made this enterprise a success are usually -not- forgotten. New content or episodes are demanded,and with the increase in this demand and the value of the brand, that artist, who was given an initial opportunity to take a risk on their work being purchased for a more menial value, stands to make good on their talent in the long run.
Yeah, there's shady businessmen out there who would take advantage of any artist they found who did not know better, and this person may very well be one of those people, but ultimately, it's up to the artist to decide what work they take, and this, as with any market, is both a buyer and seller beware situation. Know your rights. Know your value. Know what you are contributing to. You as an artist are still completely free to decide how you want to use your talents, who you want to sell them to,and what you seek to gain in the transaction. Not every gain is monetary.
As for payment on completion, that can be a bit iffy, though i wouldn't see a problem with negotiating a down payment or deposit to give the artist some clear incentive, even if its something like 5% of their total pay. After all, if its a big project, its likely to be taking up a lot, if not all of the artists time, they need something to live off while they're doing all this work, if you were on the payroll, you wouldn't be working 3 years on a game without getting paid til the end.
I mean, it's a contract, a job. Not some friendly request from a buddy.
They got all rights to set a timeline. They're paying for it, and want it done. If you cannot do it in the given timespan, don't even accept. It's not a pal asking you "hey, could you draw me this when you got some free time?" There's a level of professionalism needed here.
Same goes for payment-after-work, what's wrong with that? It's how business goes all around the work. Why would someone pay you if you haven't done anything yet? Artist wants the cash, Person wants the art. He could easily look for another artist, while the artist might not have the same chances of getting the money, especially if it's on such a scale as described.
I kind of don't see why they make such a ruckus, he's essentially explaining how the vast majority of people hire artists for their games and other projects.
Art-snipers like this guy are providing a service to the artistic community.
They seek out new talent, unexplored talent, and they expose it to the world (at a cheap price, which attracts companies alot quicker).
People's careers have been launched by guys like this.
Sure, he's pretentious, but he could make someone on this very journal the next Andy Warhol.
You can use this experience as a resume-builder. One art-sniper refers you to another art-sniper who refers you to another art-sniper...soon you're talking to Human Resources at Square Enix or Disney or Capcom about full-time employment.
Why are people so upset at him?
I think that "you'll get more exposure!!!111111" is the most petty excuse to work for such a meager amount of money.
"Do you have prior experience" is a very big question on there.
And the more exposure thing is always there for ANY art piece you do. :3 And it's not about meager amounts of money...because the people being asked to do the picture don't expect the 30% increase for being famous. Or the regular salary of a professional.
Hobbyists should ALWAYS expect to make just a LITTLE money. If they wanted to make alot, they'd go into it as a full time job.
Disney does not hire solely for experience, the hire only if you are good at what you do, and if you've been to school.
And there are different types of exposure. Some exposure is even bad. If your name is on something that causes a lot of negative controversy, well, that might not be the best thing to reference on a resume.
Also, this guy doesn't credit the artists on his games anyway so this is irrelevant anyway~
Also anyone who makes money for art is a professional. (They make money for their art) All professionals are hobbyists but not all hobbyists are professionals.
The professional has an actual job, employment, taxes, etc. You know, the stuff that comes with a job.
A hobbyist, on the other hand, can make 50 bucks here, 20 bucks there, but never has the benefits or drawbacks of doing it as a steady job.
That's the difference. Professional means it is your profession, your employment. It means there is a paycheck, a W-2 or a W-4, reporting things to the IRS, etc.
Art is no different from writing a book, repairing cars, or programming robots. A professional may start out as a hobbyist, but once that paycheck, or those fifteen million dollar payments from an auction house roll in, they are no longer a hobbyist, even if they continue to do it as a hobby.
Once you commit to art as a job (taxes, employment, the works), you are no longer in the minor leagues.
And I think you read the article wrong alot, cause you've resorted to calling people ignorant and basically being as big a jerk as the guy in the article is, seeking to refute every statement with a basis in business and art-as-a-job as opposed to art-as-a-gift.
And you're wrong about a professional artist needing a paycheck to be considered professional. Because even if you are self employed you still need to pay taxes. If you have a paypal and make over a certain amount, even if you are your own boss, you still need to be filing taxes for your income. There is a such thing as a "business paypal account" checks are an option, but not necessary. I mean yeah, if you go and mow a lawn for $5 you are not a professional lawn mower, but if you take large sums of money on a regular basis for something you are good at, you are a professional in that sense.
The problem with FA and DA artists is they have rather high expectations of how much money people here have. I myself am living off disability benefits, so most prices I see listed are way beyond anything I can afford. And for a hobby market of people looking to fill a professional portfolio, that's rather unfortunate.
I agree that artists should get paid for doing something for somebody else, but they have to weigh how much they think their time is worth (which should also take into account the complexity of what they might be asked to do) and also how much money the other person might actually be able to afford, because if they ask for an amount the other end might have trouble paying, they might end up not getting paid for their work which seems to happen often in the hobby market.
I personally say a flat rate of pay is kinda nasty, especially given that this is FA and not all "fursonas" are created equal, some are very complex, some are incredibly simple. And I don't think any artist should be offended if I haggled for a lower quote because I feel my character is simpler than others. It shows I'm interested and trying to convey what I want for what I can afford.
Personally, I'm fed up with seeing "$10 sketch" and "Iron chef" commissions spamming my watchlist, as 99.9% of the time I'll just ignore them, I've yet to see anything come from these schemes that actually made me stop and think "that was a good piece". Which makes me think an artist's best work is not when they're making money, but when they're expressing themselves and doing something they want, and usually for free.
So in the end, if people want to move on from the hobby market, they really should be filling their portfolio with the best pieces that shows what they enjoy making. A portfolio of 100s of crap sketches just to try and prove you can make money is not going to impress me. If I was hiring for an artist position I'd want to see thier best work and thier most favourite work to see thier personality and style. And also ask them about how they managed to do this pieces on a deadline and what they feel their strengths and weaknesses are. If I needed concept art done, I'd needed it within reasonable time and for someone to listen to what I say and expect to be flexible. I may see what you're drawing and change my mind because it doesn'[t feel right, but that's what I expect, you're a part of my visualisation process. I want to see my ideas and know if they're right, wrong and have something to give to other departments. SO evolutionary pieces are great ways of showing that, how a picture changes as it progresses.
And when you do want to charge money, remember that different people have different levels of income.
They attract people they don't normally talk to by doing so.
They often get exposed to drawing things they normally don't draw.
And sometimes, if it's good, the commissioner will refer other people to the artist.
In the long run, that builds up the number of friends and number of references an artist has, should they try to go truly professional.
That said, art as a paid-hobby and art as a true profession are two entirely different monsters, and watching people try to straddle that is just hilarious. x3 Though I have a friend who pulls it off quite nicely (being both a professional artist and taking commissions from regular people simultaneously).
At the beginning, it was only 2-3 persons on my list, nothing big. Now it's gone up to 6-9 people, and my box is constantly full with artwork that looks pretty much one like the other (only changing colors or minor parts of a basic pre-made design), or really hastily-sketched pieces that look less like done with love, than done with a urge for quick bucks. And $10 isn't exactly cheap for a simple sketch/doodle.
and the "keep them in the dark" as like jeevestheroo mention is implying deception
And it's true.
Designer pants cost more because they're designer.
Someone just starting out in art cannot expect to make as much as Andy Warhol just because they're equally skilled. They have to build a list of references first, and being cheaper attracts commissioners faster.
Also, finding not-famous people and commissioning them = a service to the art community, because it often stirs the pot. It brings the newer, the less famous people to prominence. And then the less famous people become famous. And then they can charge more.
Like when a company that manufactures generic stuff becomes a namebrand company.
So yeah, it is capitalism. And it is all good business sense. But it is far from fair to the artist, and I wouldn't say I'd want that sort of contracting behavior to be encouraged in any industry (I'd say that at any higher echelon of the industry and it would garner a union's attention, but since it is all on the independent level, it will always be under the radar.)
Either way, the guy knows how to make money. And he does state that he gives bonuses to artists for games that did well. But that could have been mentioned in his original article. Sort of a "Hey, and if all goes well, share the love a little, and still make money!".
Either way, it is a life choice. I don't really think you could say there is a "right" answer to it. The value of art is subjective, as well as the value of effort and results. I'd just hope that others would respect the value of talent, and how it must be nurtured. By the same token, it must be pruned to grow.
And it is as a whole a sound guide on business practices. I just don't feel personally that it should be done that way. I don't feel that personal gains are worth that much. But that is again a life decision. And probably one that will leave me ill suited to be a business owner if I ever end up in that position and don't change my mind. Time will tell.
I'd hope that one has limits, though, and if not, then I hope they are happy and satisfied with committing those actions. As long as they are acting with conviction and not carelessness. And that goes for both sides. But that is probably too much to hope for in either case... Either way, it becomes more a moral question. And that is a relative decision. Such is life, as it is, and as it will be. And life can't really be quantified in fairness, can it? But we try to anyway. Because we want to hold onto it, even if it doesn't really exist as we perceive it. And even if others perceive it differently.
But now this is more a question of philosophy and the value of relativity and subjectivity in life, correct?
And if fair is relative, then I can disagree with your terms and definition of fairness. Period.
That's what makes life interesting, right?
That isn't really fair is it?
The businessman shouldn't have to explain that he works for some big company just so you can jack up the price of the art because hes rich. If you're charging him fairly for the same item as you'd charge joe blow on the street, I don't see a problem. If he negotiates the price too low, tell him where to stuff it.
That and the nature of a value of a car (merchandise) versus the nature of art production values (service) is a bit mismatched for an analogy. One has a definite value, the other has a subjective value.
In your second set of comments, you are assuming that the person being negotiated with is knowledgeable of the value of the work.
I am more arguing that the article seems to encourage finding artists who are either too desperate or naive to know any better.
Overall... Meh. I can understand people wanting to get work done for as cheaply as possible, that's part of the reason I'm kept hopping with commissions (I undercharge and I know it!), but I can see how that could quickly be abused.
I myself don't have to pay for materials, so I accept payment at the end, just like someone buying a car doesn't buy it until it's built. :3
I think I prefer my policy, just because it ensures everyone is personally out the least amount of money if anything does go wrong.
The idea I go by: When you meet someone "behind the desk", they will smile to you and be your friend just to get you to like their service and pay them. But when you meet someone where they do something for free, they'll likely smile to you honestly when they do. Something I learned from being around Open Source projects (sorry if that's a bit off topic, just felt it reflects the idea behind this).
And "I know a person fresh out of a prestigious art school taking $15 sketch commissions to avoid having their car repossessed. ", you're not considering the different audiences here, plus what is the purpose of said artwork (drawing a bunny dude for a furry commissioner and drawing a bunny dude for a company's mascot are two different ordeals).
To use your analogy, a car mechanic should charge the exact money on working on a family car as working on a jeep which is going to be on a Rally Championship.
And no one's being forced into a contract. No one's being lied to about what they're offering or when they're going to get paid. And if the wage he's offering is insulting don't take it. Simple. Easy. What's the problem?
vs
"Keep them in the dark:
This relates back to what I talked about earlier. If an artist knows how much their artwork will increase the value of the game they will then feel they deserve that amount of money. This is not how a market economy works, you hire whoever is able to do the best job for the lowest amount of money, anything else is a loss of money on your end."
Lie? Not directly. But telling them the truth? Far from it.
And that is the only point I do not agree with on this article for gods sake.
The advice he is giving is really common sense. You don't show your entire hand in a negotiation, or you're just giving them free money.
(Yeah, I'm cheap but when you can barely afford food you have to be. xD)
Here's the link:http://news.deviantart.com/article/125498/
I was very peeved after I read it, too.
The problem isn't that there are people like this seeking artists who are underselling themselves so they can get good work cheap. It's reasonable and generally moral for customers to look for the best price. The problem is actually being created by the artists doing the $5 commissions. They are the ones at fault. And they don't realize it.
Out in the corporate world, when corporation A who has a lot of money to its name would like to eliminate competition from corporation B who makes a better product but doesn't have much money in the bank... they can resort to an anti-competitive practice called 'dumping'. Corporation A sells its product ultra cheap for a fraction of the cost of making it, and intentionally loses money on every sale. Corporation A suffers heavily while doing this, but corporation B suffers even more because it has no way to compete even with a superior product because their competition is ridiculously cheap to buy. Both corporations lose a lot of money, but the whole idea is that corporation B will run out of money and go out of business first. After which corporation A raises prices to higher than original levels now that there is no competition left.
Dumping is illegal. It's a method that companies have found to game capitalism, and it has to be policed by government to keep them from doing it. It's a scotched earth sort of tactic that corrupts what capitalism is all about and harms the industry and country as a whole, and if government did nothing about it, industries would collapse under their own greed.
These hobby artists who are underselling themselves are unwittingly doing exactly the same thing as dumping. They're not doing it purposefully or with any ill intent. In their case, they're selling their product 'below cost' because they're in it as a hobby and either don't care about the money or think they aren't worth the money. But the effect is exactly the same. It ruins the artists who are doing this as their profession and means of paying rent.
This effect tends to destroy furry art as an industry and force artists who are pursuing it as a profession to give up and seek other employment. Then all you are left with is cheap hobbiests drawing furry art. Nobody can make enough money from it to pursue it seriously, and so the quality of furry artwork in general suffers as the strong artists have to leave and move to other fields to support themselves... or starve.
Additionally, dumping requires more than simply having a low price tag. If all you're doing is offering $5 commissions, then your effect on the market isn't going to be all that significant. If you're offering $5 commissions, advertising those commissions everywhere you can, denouncing other artists or spreading false rumors about them...you get the idea. I also doubt any of the artists doing $5 commissions are planning on hiking up the price well past production value once they've eliminated their 'competition', which is a defining step of dumping. If they DO raise their prices, it seems more likely the low fee did what they were hoping they would do: Net them exposure. Effective dumping requires the intent to drive your competition's business into the ground; if that's not there (as I doubt it is in the furry art world), then it's not dumping, it's just marketing, which is a perfectly reasonable business practice.
The claim I am making is that what's happening is producing the same sort of effect as dumping... in so far as tending to drive professional furry artists out of business because they can't compete with artists who aren't actually trying to make a living from their work and are basically charging only a token fee for their services. The difference in commission prices being charged can be staggering enough that the better artist will lose the sale despite their greater quality.
I'm not saying that furrydom is in danger of dying or something. But this effect is definitely occurring and has been occurring for quite some time now. I have seen it in operation first hand as a dealer for years. It is more than a little harmful to any furry artist actually trying to make a living doing this.
Artist even get bashed over it on a regular basis. "Such and such other artist is nearly as good as you, and they're only charging $5 for commissions. How dare you charge $50!!! That's insulting! What's wrong with you?!" Well, lets see.. that other artist spends 5 hours making the picture, and seems satisfied earning only $1 an hour for their effort. Because they have another job to actually support themselves or are still living at home with their parents or what have you... and they're just doing this for fun.
A free market assumes that the players involved are actually trying to compete and make a living from their efforts. In this case, there are parties involved who are completely uninterested in such. And their presence has similar effects to those caused by companies who purposefully undermine the market with anticompetitive practices... despite the lack of intent or immortality in their actions.
No furry artist has a right to make art and get paid for it, just like nobody has a right to be a football player and get paid for it.
If someone can't pay his/her bills from selling art, then they should either lower prices, improve quality or find a new profession.
Because my comment actually didn't condemn the guy at all, and in fact, I barely mentioned him other than to say he's not immoral for seeking the best prices.
My comment spoke mostly of the corruption-like effects hobby artists who severely undercharge for their work have on furry artwork as an industry, and how it tends to break down the capitalism model.
It does a lot to keep furry art from becoming a viable profession for a lot of people. Artists seeking to make a living from their talent generally need to look elsewhere. Even if they're very good at it and very professional. Indeed, the better they are, the better off they are plying their trade somewhere else because furry artwork as an industry has been so undermined compared to other fields of art.
If you want steak, but can only afford Ramen, it's your choice whether you starve. That isn't going to effect whether someone else is going to buy steak or not.
My commissions are shit cheap and still no one buys. Plus I haven't been paid for contract work I've done almost 6 months ago. I've made more money as a furry artist than a professional BY FAR and I am STILL fighting to keep my apartment and keep food in my stomach.
And any real businessman will tell you that this in itself is not good business practice.
Why? Well, ethics aside, it really will only work a few times...until people figure out what it is you're doing, and then the word gets out and you'll be lucky if you can find anybody to hire at all. You make your own reputation, in business as well as anywhere else, and if you screw people, you suffer for it. By writing this journal, all he really did here was beat himself to the punch.
This is the aspect that worshipers of Ayn Rand like yourself seem to be completely oblivious of. Doesn't Objectivism emphasize personal responsibility? Well, it's certainly in an artist's best interest to not be taken advantage of, as you surely know, so he made his bed, and now he has to sleep in it.
There's no deception here.
And don't call me a "worshiper". You have no idea what you're talking about.
Those that gripe about this need to keep in mind the price you sell your artwork for is DIRECTLY related to the quality of your product, and maybe mom told them they're really good, but that's really all they have anything to compare it too. Some of us have sat through half an hour critiques and had our artwork dragged through the dirt, then told to pick it back up, dust it off and bring them back something presentable, lolz.
My point simply is... Take what you can get folks, times are hard for EVERYONE. If you're not getting anything for your commissions, then you need to lower your prices to actually accrue a fan base first, get some actual examples of your contracted artwork out there, and then see if you can get bites at your normal price. Even the people on here are looking for the cheapest artist for the style they're looking for, so don't be upset if you get overlooked for a lesser artist because of your prices.
Until you're as awesome as Fisk here, or Spearfrost, or Faint, you're not going to be able to sell your artwork for almost anything you want and expect to get a really good turn out from it.
Nice ad-hombrenim, bro. The next time you drive on your state upkept roads past your municipal water treatment facility on the way to withdraw your hard earned cash from the FDIC insured account, remember all those privileges granted by the Bill of Rights are just guidelines and suggestions, I suppose. ;)
"It leads to a false sense of security that only makes it so much worse when you realize no one but the people closest to you actually give a shit."
Which is why man invented 'law'.
"Thats why the one who last a long time tend to make friends quickly, and try to make their friends in the highest places possible."
And why those above -them- created nepotism and exploitation laws. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
THAT'S ad hominem.
No, man invented 'law' to protect himself from injustice, from tyrants, and from criminal elements. Not so he could feel good when his parents and the school system failed to teach him the world doesn't give a shit about him personally, only cares for how hard he's willing to work.
No, robber barrens and monopolies of the past are why those things came to be. No one cares about favoritism unless they're the ones not getting it, or they come to the realization that they don't need it.
My bad. :)
"There have been several times I’ve been working on a game with an artist only to have him/her walk out on me halfway through"- This is what happenes when you hire people without any experience with commissions and is one of the reasons it's a wise move to hire a pro... or at least an online (cheap) artist with a good rep at the very least. :]
"Paying after guarantees safety for both parties." No. Just... no. The amount of money i've lost by people who decided to just take the artwork and run *facepalm*. I agree that the method of payment used SHOULD be something that is safe for both the parties, and as someone who is both a client and a commissioner, I understand his worries. however.. waiting until the end, and then paying LESS than what was agreed upon is not the greatest, or safest way to go about things. But hey, he is only 16 and lacking in experience himself, maybe I can use him as a cheap coder, and then refuse to pay him if it doesn't meet my highend proffessional expectations, despite me KNOWING that he probably isn't at a proffessional level yet himself?? Hmm.... yes, that sounds like a perfectly ethical way to do business. :]
Back on topic (sorta) There is currently a bit of a project happeneing to work as a bit of a middle-man for artists and clients, the money is held by a thrid party and kept safe until ALL artwork is completed. If the art isn't completed they don't get the money- There is hope yet! xD
and lol "Take what you can get folks, times are hard for EVERYONE." I'm not griping on the person who said that, but didn't Tony Abbot say the exact same thing about Aborigonal Australians? :3
Never forget price isn't just set by quality, but other constraints such as time.
$300 is absolutely fine with me as a price, as is $5. :)
Art is generally a want rather than a need. People dont need music, film, paintings, but they do want them.
So when people have cash, you have to make them spend it on you rather than on a holiday, a party, a night out, a book, a film etc.
Being average and pricing yourself high wont achieve that.
Personally, I dont know how some of the high-level artists manage to stay in business with their prices, especially during such a bad economy o.o;
As artists living in a capitalistic society, we face unique difficulties in making a living from our work since much of the modern world sees art as "icing" - that is to say that it's very nice to have but not necessary to existing. Because we don't make a consumable product, and people who aren't artists have no real concept of how much effort, time and -in many cases- emotional investment goes into making a single piece, we're subject to the whim of of our patrons.
Do I think this man's opinions merit emotional backlash? Nah, he doesn't deserve that much of our energy. I DO think, however, that ALL freelance artist should read his blog he so helpfully put up on the world wide web and learn what red flags to look for when being offered what could be a much more lucrative contract by a commercial entity.
The concept of, "you should know what the value of your labor is," is what I find flawed for exactly the business practices this guy laid out. I can say that my time, effort, emotional investment and quality of work is worth $500 but because the benefit of what I produce is not as tangible as other products in our day to day lives, that person can say, "Nah, I think it's only worth $200 and If you won't give it to me for that then I'll find someone who will."
Of course, it's not only with in someone's right to try and get something cheaper, it is a model that many businesses run on. Our task then is to learn the earmarks of some one trying to cut corners at your expense. You said it well yourself,"If you're smart enough to ask the economic expectations of what you're working on, and they refuse to answer, you can take that cue to decline the work." I think we should actually learn from this on how to to make a living in a capitalism driven society. Ask questions. If they don't want to give you answers, take that cue and leave. Artist often (not always- I'm just making a generalization here) are not really well connected to the rest of the business world. Rather than get angry, we need to take this information and better ourselves with it by coming to understand system and how to work in and with it.
And if the guy wants to find someone who'll do what you do for $200, that's his right. You have no right to a $500 transaction. When/if he fails to find what he needs, he may come back for your price.
And this effort to find artists underselling the mainstream market has obviously not affected those who are still making rates comparable to the mainstream market, or the fact that the mainstream market still exists with its median pay for professional art.
A lot of artists to me, have this idea that they are somehow entitled to a income from their chosen profession. Once they understand that they actually aren't, they will handle things life throws at them so much better.
People picked art because they love it, not understanding fully that its a horrible profession that pays badly and has 100 people applying for each job.
The ones who make it are those with good business sense who realise they have to start up their own business rather than looking for other people to give work to them.
So, I reject your moral compass.
There is nothing wrong with trying to do as well for yourself as possible in life to be honest, within well defined moral standards ( no stealing etc) .
Artists who charge great deals of money in order to satisfy their wants instead of their needs fall under this. Artists who use the income from their art for living costs and, maybe, even to help make their art better don't. Artists that do commissions for money are like the shops we buy our groceries from, do the stores spend that money on unneeded things or do they spend it on needed things? You will find it is the latter: Employees are needed to keep the store in business, stock is also needed. Maintenance to keep the stores in working order is also needed.
You said yourself "to want more of this thing and do anything to gain it"
Asking for more money for a service is not greed. Stealing money is greed. You need to get off your high horse and realise life isn't fair, we weren't all born equal with the same talent. If someone wants to pay me more money than you because i'm better than you, learn to deal with it. Crying to me asking me to lower my prices isn't the answer.
Why should I be punished because of your inadequacies?
I lived for several years off no money at all and was happy. So long as I had my internet connection and WoW, haha.
Agreed. Well said.
If he suggests looking to DA for cheap art, he might want to also caution people about that much.
Wikipedia is your friend.
Do not use your own personal definition to back up your claim. This is called a straw man argument and is not smart.
I'm rather supportive of the Capitalist ideal for the most part because, as a result, encourages competition and, as a result, the development of more efficient and better products.
I generally apply that to art where, as an artist, I feel the need to be competitive by pushing my own boundaries and offering more interesting, edgy and desirable work.
So, let's say, the artist does decide that his art is worth more than the customer was intending to pay. Would the customer deny payment for the work, then? If the artist had to agree to payment after the work was complete, this would leave the customer in control since the customer would still have the money, thereby rendering the artist powerless in determining what their piece is worth. If the artist figures that the work should be worth about so-and-so much, and the customer disagrees, what's the artist to do?
I mean, I'm not the only one that sees that, right?
This argument doesn't seem to be very sensible, and doesn't to seem to have very much consideration of the lesser-known artist's point of view.
Alright, hypothetical situation here. Say, an artist on FA who works off of commissions and doesn't draw dicks for a living, but instead lives off of creating clean to somewhat mature artwork. I know, crazy, right? No dicks? How absurd.
Well, say this artist is living in a hard place financial-wise, and is having a hard time finding decent work. Is that the artists fault? Probably not, all it takes is someone to say they'll work for less, or for someone to have a better resumé. Considering all the factors, the artist is barely making by thanks to the few commissions he is being offered.
This artist doesn't agree with drawing prons for a living, he just doesn't want to. Is this his fault that he prefers not to? (I suppose it's as much your fault for not agreeing with a certain type of food you have to ingest, or a certain TV show you don't like watching.) Due to this preference, he's finding a hard time appealing to the audiences to which his skill range of work is addressed.
So say a month is going by for him, and he's receiving very few commission offers from people. Should he be forced to draw things he doesn't want to? Say, porn for example? Even if he really has an issue with it?
Do you honestly think that he's going to charge more for his work because he feels it's worth more?
The answer is no, he's going to charge less because he wants the customer to feel lucky to have commissioned him, and will then hopefully spread the word of these commission offers to other people.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Great Depression? This type of "business" attitude you agree with does very little good except to yourself. Your arguments are biased.
You know what, there's this great book you should read. It's called The Grapes of Wrath. And since you're probably not going to read it, or even understand the point of it if you would read it, I'll go ahead and tell you the main reason the book was written.
This book was written to emphasize the fact that this type of capitalism is in fact ripping someone off. It's not good "business", it's being a prick and knowing that you can take advantage of someone because you can get a good deal elsewhere, and having them feel that they have to take a lower pay to appease your interests of not paying a hefty sum for skilled labor; because they know that if they argue against it,
This bullshit about the artist controlling how much is being paid is exactly what it is: bullshit.
tl;dr: Read the damn comment. I say this since you obviously don't completely read over most of the longer comments made in this journal so far.
Also, before you provide some poor rebuttal about some specific part of this comment, keep in mind I'm not referring to all of the artists who are drawing for a living. I'm not referring to artists who happen to be successful creating clean artwork. I'm referring to an average to above-average artist.
I also notice how all the people who have a problem with an artist agreeing to sell his work cheap break out the hypothetical situations and analogies.
you don't need to do that.
Ask yourself this question instead. I offer you to work for $15, you agree to work for $15. Can you then claim i've taken advantage of you despite you AGREEING to my terms?
If you answer yes, then you're being emotional.
If you answer no, then you are being rational.
In this case rationality is correct.
What this article is stating, and what Fisk seems to agree with, is more along the lines of this:
I offer for you to work, and that I will pay you later based upon your own estimate of the work that you've done, you choose to agree with this. After you've finished this work, you offer $15 for the piece because you don't want to be rude and seem like you're overcharging. Seeing how that's a deal and I don't have to bargain further, I agree.
So I took advantage of your insecurities and nabbed a deal.
Go me, I'm such a businessman.
:V
Also, thank you for telling me what I "don't need to do", I'm going to go out and be a better person because of you.
Everyone who is fine with it, has a business like attitude based on rationality.
Personally I would not agree to the deal the artist agreed to. I would demand payment based on time worked on project. The guy can see my previous work and between the two can work on a payment.
Much as people do when working in a job.
We all agree, the artist was naive. I however don't have a problem with doings deals with naive people.
Though, that is quite the businessman-like attitude, is it not?
You are so clever and efficient, getting those low prices for yourself. Oh how I aspire to be like you.
Reality, my friend, is not like that at all.
Don't try and give me your moral viewpoint as fact, because it doesn't work that way.
You seem to have this idea in your head that artists have enough money to just roll with whatever you offer them for their commissions.
Reality, my friend, is not like that at all. :V
NOBODY is holding a gun to an artists head and demanding full colour art for $10. Nobody.
Stop being emotional and putting words in my mouth, Jeez.
Suppose this artist isn't happy with most offers on commissions? And these commissions are what the artist needs to make a living, should he just keep denying these offers?
I wonder if you see the fallacies in your argument, instead, you jump to extremes and conclude ridiculous things.
But hey, you can pull the "la la la not listening" routine you're eventually going to end up at, anyway. :V
It hurts the pride when they're basically saying 'Your not worth as much as you charge' all the time, but thats the difference between 'Starving artists' and 'successful artists' =/
If everyone thought the way you do, people would be paying $100 for a rough sketch on line paper from someone who claims they're an artist because artists need to survive you know!!!
Give me a break.
If nobody will pay you for your work, then you need to start looking for a different job and stop pretending that art is for you!
It's called real life and sometimes real life sucks!
However for anyone with an inkling of foresight you can see where this leads, ie the top business heads having 90% of the countries income and everyone else wallowing around in the dirt working for cheap because the only people with money to buy anything anymore are the only ones willing to buy, thus they control the demand and they set the only price you can work for.
Again, efficient for the few yes, but it makes you a terrible greedy person with absolutely no compassion.
Sorry if some of us don't think a CEO needs their 3rd yacht more than I need next months rent.
As a rough guess I would say 99.9% of people wanting to hire artists do not own a yacht.
Do not impose your own personal moral compass on other people please. It is purely speculative opinion and should not be treated as fact like you do.
I'll impose my own opinion as much as I want because it IS a fact. If you really think that the cost of running a business is going up at the same % rate as the average CEO's check you're sorely mistaken and blissfully ignorant.
If 20 artists go for the same job, that drives down the fee as you're generally going to hire the one who will work for the least and provide a good enough service doing it.
The reason art is not a good career choice right now is there are so many damn artists. If they had been smarter and took a science degree or math etc they would be finding work easier and getting paid more.
Let's start with the corporate side of things. These companies are cheap, and guys like this creep are only going to make things worse for everyone. Yes, DA, FA and all of those other sites are great places to find artists, one would be stupid not to look there...if they aren't corporate entities that know next to nothing about artists that is.
Now for the artist, its always great to get commissions, even better if its going to help advance the artist's career. The big part about this deals specifically with how the client interacts with the artist. Here's the part that makes the difference. An artist usually has a pre-determined price when it comes to their art, and unless a group specifies their intent, the artist isn't going to think otherwise. It is at this point where everything changes.
Artists HAVE to be away of who they are selling their services to. This guy is setting quite the dangerous precedence, and I'm not afraid to point that out. I'm going to use an example here, one that I learned first hand. As before, most artists have set rates for their works, you see it on almost everyone's pages. I have a friend who also does work on a pro level, and those rates differ greatly from her standard rates. For the most part, here's a break down on how rates should function.
¤ Private works: base rate. These are for people that are purchasing art on a personal level.
¤ Design work: Now you're up a level. What you are working on now is developing the art for a company. At this stage, you are designing the look for what the company is looking for. You are not working on a finished product here, and do not accept payment just for the design that they choose, you're being paid for all of the design work that you're putting into said project. Now you may not be a part of said project after your initial design has been chosen, but make sure that you are getting paid for all that you've done.
¤ Commercial works: You're producing the art for a company, and its most likely for the representation of said company. This can vary greatly depending on the company as it could range anywhere from a single person operation to a large corporation. Find out this information and gauge your pricing accordingly.
¤ Published works: Here's a fun one. Depending on how the published item sells, this could be a long paying item. Unless you've completely sold off your rights on this, you should be paid for each time the work is printed. Now this isn't per each copy(don't misinterpret what I'm saying here), I'm saying for each run of the publication.
Now back to the part that I'm going to bring up of significant legal importance. Lets say that you've been duped by a company because of the "advise" given by the aforementioned individual, you can take action against your client. It comes down to fraud and misrepresentation. This is tricky water that you'll be treading at this point, but it possible to move forward with said actions if you have been taken advantage of. Companies that are trying to make big bucks by cheating you of your pay can come back to haunt them, especially if they don't know what it takes to properly procure the works that they themselves have commissioned.
When it comes down to it, doling out a few bucks and telling an artist that their payment is the 'recognition' that will come with their works, doesn't cut it, and it doesn't get you the money that you are owed. Remember that if you're commissioned for art that goes into a commercial endeavor, they have to notify you that this is what you are being paid for. On a turn side, if you sign off for said commercial pursuit and then later decide that you don't want your works used for said endeavor, you may be in for an uphill battle yourself.
It really comes down to being cautious on your end. Don't do it for the credit, that really only goes so far, if it goes anywhere at all. Make sure that you're getting paid for what your work is worth.
I mean, I don't think it's bad that he makes much more than the artists he works with. But this guy is giving ~5% and less of the profits to the people that work for him. If he at least gave 10-20% that would seem a lot better, I feel the payment should reflect the quality of work that is done as well as the time and effort. Now if the artists who worked for him KNEW FULL WELL how much this guy would make off of their artwork, along with how their pay compares, I would have 0 qualms whatsoever. Whether he lied directly or not, he is being manipulative and deceptive. I beleive that even in business, you should treat others how you would wish to be treated.
It's none of the artists business how much someone else is making from their business. It's simply up to the artist to say yes or no to an offer of work in exchange for money.
If you agree to the terms, then realise afterwards you sold yourself cheap, tough luck.
Likewise if I agree to pay you money then realise I could have paid someone else less, it's tough on me soon as the deal is done.
Works both ways.
Those of us who own businesses want to pay our people top dollar. We hired them because we love them and their work. We want people to see their work and think of our companies. The problem is that if we have to pay everybody top dollar before we can afford to, we would never pay them anything because we would never form our companies to hire them.
It's refreshing to see a buoy of actual thought in a sea of internet rage.
Real life is really going to kick them up the arse soon...
I've seen very few actual facts argued on the side of the artist here.
What I can't stand are people who say that others either being cheap or expensive is hurting their personal profit.
That's the real selfish attitude. "I can't make money so i'm going to piss and moan at those who do". :)
When i try and buy something, if it's too expensive i say no and move on. Too many people harass artists into lowering their prices because they find the price 'obscene' or 'greedy' (in truth its just too expensive for them).
Greed is a relative term, what's greedy for one person isnt for another.
Personally, if there are people out there offering alternatives at a lower price, I think it's great. It means that an artist has to work hard on their craft, instead of simply resting on their laurels and waiting for profits to come, to the point where their work becomes stale and mediocre. It also means that artists need to put more dedication to communicating with people, treating their customers well, and reaching out to people.
Before, people lived in an era where one had to PULL people to their direction through advertisements, marketing campaigns etc.. Now that people are more finicky, and now that the mass market is dying (meaning that there are now a million micromarkets, each stiving for the best in THEIR field), artists owe it to themselves to PUSH for their success, to reach out, to make brilliant stuff.
So, as an artist, I would rather work hard making stuff that's worthy of one's dollar in the first place, high price or low, than whine about not getting anything when I haven't DONE ANYTHING.
Most end up in graphic design doing website and adverts for local papers for several years, mindnumbing and repetitive.
It's not really just artists anymore either, tons of companies are doing it. It's one of those things that will only go so far until finally collapsing on itself when no one can afford to live anymore.
10 years ago everyone was taking courses in sociology, art, media, leisure and tourism etc, not enough were taking sciences and math.
Which is why those areas pay lots and the arts pays very little.
A company wanting a logo that they can use for websites, promotional material, and to put on their 50,000$ signs all over the country, should be willing to pay the going commercial rate for the product. I for example am a writer. If a friend wants a story with his character doing something and is willing to pay 50$ or so, that's cool. I still own the work and can do something else with it if I like. But if Bantam came to me and asked me to write a full novel that they'd dictate the characters and the plot, and they'd have full ownership and could print as many copies of the book as they liked for the same 50$, I'd tell them to pound sand up something sensitive.
You cannot get professional results from people you don't pay well enough to be professionals, be it artists, writers, engineers, airplane pilots, or doctors. If people aren't paid enough to live at one thing then they have to spend their time doing something else in order to survive. And considering these companies spend fortunes on what has the art upon it, I don't think it's out of line for the artist to demand a fair wage for what's going to go on it. The key word here is Commercial with all the rights and all the reprint and usage and ownership handed to the company. Since they'll spend tons of money putting that little logo on napkins, the company can afford to pay the artist a professional amount for the professional art.
But if they insist on cheap labor, it's their own fault they get a crappy result. GIGO after all.
People need to just accept that whenever you start out doing something, it's going to be rough.
Yeah as a starting artist you may get cheated out of the real worth of your work -but you're supposed to learn from that. You learn how to do professional commissions and projects. You learn what to charge and how to set deadlines. You learn what questions to ask and answer.
But in the beginning: feelings get hurt, egos are bruised, and work is cheap.
Frankly getting lot's of cheap professional work is a good way to build a portfolio and a resume.
In any case, I agree with your response to the article.
The article itself wasn't that bad. It's just business.
I'm getting sick of the haughty artist attitude I'm seeing 'round lately. A lot of people demanding a whole lot when what they really need is to wake up, and smell the coffee. People who are begging for money so's they aren't kicked out of a house they couldn't afford in the first place cause they don't have a job.
It's like The Chairman said: That's life!
For example: Websites that host contests where a task is outlined and multiple artists submit work, one is chosen and only that person gets paid.
This is mostly a concern for graphic designers.