Art PACT: Paying freelancers in exposure

lynnfredricks said:

Then isn't it time to up your game, either strategically or technically?

The clip-art crowd likely cannot pay prices for good original art. The online PDF sites ("drivethru" etc) are jammed with cheap, cheap product. So judge those games accordingly, and promote good art games over others. Get online reviewers to review the total product - including art.

Click to expand...

I think you may be ascribing a great deal of power to [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]!

The problem, I guess, is persuading everbody (or at least the majority) of people to act that way. We can all start at home, of course (and I do); I guess organizations like Art PACT and things like the featurette I should have available soon will help with that outreach effort. And at the very least, we can discuss it in threads like this, which helps to inform people and keep the issue visible.

Morrus said:

I think you may be ascribing a great deal of power to [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]!

The problem, I guess, is persuading everbody (or at least the majority) of people to act that way. We can all start at home, of course (and I do); I guess organizations like Art PACT and things like the featurette I should have available soon will help with that outreach effort. And at the very least, we can discuss it in threads like this, which helps to inform people and keep the issue visible.

Click to expand...

Yeah! I'm completely powerless here, Except for my internet feed. and the lights are on...

lynnfredricks said:

I employ several full time artists (2D & 3D), translators and other creatives. Experienced professionals should be producing far better quality work than inexperienced people in any creative endeavor. That's why folks with greater experience tend to be at the top of their respective pay ranges. If you are good at what you do, you can find something better - but you also may have to make compromises.

Now a larger pool of talent, made available by easy access via the internet, can be a challenge. But then, someone who is closer to the business home base is better able to participate and assist in decision making processes which can be key to the success of the business.

In other words, cheap labor doesn't eliminate high paying creative jobs, but it can make them more competitive.

Click to expand...

In industries where someone with knowledge and a discerning eye/ear is making the decision, they are no doubt choosing to spend more money on the good stuff.


The damage is usually at the lower ends, where less discerning decision makers, having only had the choice of "pro artists" at "pro rates" now has the opportunity to cut corners.

By cutting corners, he's certainly happy that the Walmart Effect has kicked in and there's product in his preferred budget range. But the reality is, he's stopped paying good money to good artists, so those artists lose out on sales they would have had.

lynnfredricks said:

The clip-art crowd likely cannot pay prices for good original art. The online PDF sites ("drivethru" etc) are jammed with cheap, cheap product. So judge those games accordingly, and promote good art games over others. Get online reviewers to review the total product - including art. Review games yourself and judge the artwork. When I have reviewed games, I review the art too, though I will also give allowances if the art was typical for the time (such as the not great art of the early years of D&D). Clip art use isn't going to go away unless its demonized as cheap. I don't see any problem with "wow, Ive seen this image by X too many times" to bring down a review because of a lack of original artwork. Some people will say it does or doesn't matter. But it does matter because people will judge the whole product.

Click to expand...

I call BS on this.

I use a lot of stock art in my products because I publish primarily digitally, and original art for most digital-only products will eat away all of a small press publisher's production budget, along with months of income on that product to follow, by paying market art rates. I typically mix it with original art to put an individual stamp on the product, but if I find good stock art that fits the product, I'll use it. I also colour the stock line art that I use myself when possible to give it a look that will be unique to the Misfit Studios product. I've been doing this for 10 years.

EDIT: For example, I bought this stock art



And coloured it so it would become this (it's worth noting this product has received two 5/5 reviews @ OBS after being on sale for a few weeks, one of which mentions liking the cover and interior art, ALL of which is stock art):



I've yet to hear ONE complaint or bad review mentioning it in that decade. Not one. Plenty of good reviews on those same products, however.

Most gamers want good looking art that fits the product and aren't overly concerned about whether or not they've seen it before. They want the whole thing to come together as an appealing, usable product, and it's the rare person who will be dissatisfied because they've seen a piece of art used elsewhere unless it is used out of context -- 30 years of Palladium Books products shows that to be true.

What's more, "demonizing" stock art as "cheap" as a blanket statement is a ridiculous notion that attributes judgment to the product by merit of its corner of the market rather than the art itself. It's also funny because some of the better stock art is priced at the same (or even higher) prices than what I, as a small press publisher, can afford to pay for original art on some products. For example, Eric Lofgren licenses stock colour covers for $100 a pop through his website, which is higher than what many skilled artists working for small digital press companies will charge for quality work of the same size.

Is some stock art under-valued, overused, and just outright awful? Oh, god yes. Some of it is absolutely abysmal, and looks like it was drawn by a blind infant. Is some of it absolutely amazing, high-quality art? Oh, god yes.

And keep in mind that when you trash "stock art" that many of the industry's leading artist license some of their pieces as stock art because it's a nice source of additional revenue for them. It is not your place or mine to say their art becomes cheap and that they are doing themselves and other artists a disservice when they sell their work as stock art, and as a result their clients and the end consumers both seem happy with the outcome. These ladies and gents are COMMERCIAL artists, and that means serving the markets that will put money in their pocket.

Some of the artists I know who also sell licensed / stock art include Storn Cook, Jon Hodgson, Eric Lofgren, and Larry Elmore. Yes, Larry Elmore. Are you going to tell me their art is cheap and that these guys aren't still making good rates in the industry? Would you really try comparing these guys licensing their art via secondary publishing rights to being comparable to working for exposure or cheaply?

Artists who want to sell stock art aren't devaluing art overall, and they aren't undercutting original art. They are professionals selling a product that is in demand within an aspect of the industry that normally wouldn't be able to afford them, and strengthening their personal brand in the process. Like all jobs, being a commercial artist in this industry is an evolution requiring adaptation, and the growth in the digital press market means a smart commercial artist is looking for new ways to tap into that, and licensed / stock art is a great way to do so.

So, while it's unfortunate that you personally feel as you do, from your comment, I'll hold that up against the ten years of experience I personally have professionally using the resource you want to "demonize" as "cheap," along with having working relationships with several professional artists who make use of this sort of revenue source, that would indicate you are arriving at a conclusion that doesn't jive with what's actually happening, save perhaps in outlier instances such as "artists" who really have no talent jumping into the stock art field because there is no entry threshold to do so.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

So, while it's unfortunate that you personally feel as you do, from your comment, I'll hold that up against the ten years of experience I personally have professionally using the resource you want to "demonize" as "cheap," along with having working relationships with several professional artists who make use of this sort of revenue source, that would indicate you are arriving at a conclusion that doesn't jive with what's actually happening, save perhaps in outlier instances such as "artists" who really have no talent jumping into the stock art field because there is no entry threshold to do so.

Click to expand...

What jives with me is that my company licenses content to others, including stock art, and is very successful at it. We've licensed some content to RPG companies but most of our content licensing revenue comes from other sources.

I don't demonize stock art in general and do not draw the conclusions you apparently think I draw.

I do demonize the overuse of specific stock art images or using particularly cheap looking stock art. If someone can tell its stock art because they've seen it again and again, they won't love you for it. But if you are modifying the art significantly, then there's a better chance they won't know. What's important is that the art looks fresh and professional. If it looks fresh then, well, its fresh. You clearly made an effort to freshen that zombie.

Don't fool yourself that your customers are going to tell you every little thing that is wrong (or right) with your product. Often customers just do not give a crap to comment - they just don't buy again from you. Id also conjecture that art is something that many say ISN'T important to them, but ultimately does form a part of their opinion of the product - at pre-sales or post-sales. I see this quite often in the software industry.
[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] only recourse really is reviewing and encouraging reviews of a complete product, including the art. If the art is tired and overused and Ive seen it several times before, Id knock it down some points, because the art is a part of the presentation of the product.

lynnfredricks said:

What jives with me is that my company licenses content to others, including stock art, and is very successful at it. We've licensed some content to RPG companies but most of our content licensing revenue comes from other sources.

I don't demonize stock art in general and do not draw the conclusions you apparently think I draw.

I do demonize the overuse of specific stock art images or using particularly cheap looking stock art. If someone can tell its stock art because they've seen it again and again, they won't love you for it. But if you are modifying the art significantly, then there's a better chance they won't know. What's important is that the art looks fresh and professional. If it looks fresh then, well, its fresh. You clearly made an effort to freshen that zombie.

Don't fool yourself that your customers are going to tell you every little thing that is wrong (or right) with your product. Often customers just do not give a crap to comment - they just don't buy again from you. Id also conjecture that art is something that many say ISN'T important to them, but ultimately does form a part of their opinion of the product - at pre-sales or post-sales. I see this quite often in the software industry.
[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] only recourse really is reviewing and encouraging reviews of a complete product, including the art. If the art is tired and overused and Ive seen it several times before, Id knock it down some points, because the art is a part of the presentation of the product.

Click to expand...

I guess then where my disconnect with your point is coming is that the stock art aspect of your point doesn't necessarily have much to do with your conclusion.

Cheap, poor art is cheap, poor art. Whether it is stock art or original art, overused or unrecognized, the quality will be what customers care about -- attributing this to stock art instead of just art, period, doesn't jive with how we can see art affects sales in the market.

I've used several images that end up being used in a lot of other products, and when I see them appear on a cover for someone else's product and that they are poorly utilized and look horrible, I admit to groaning a bit inside because my instinct is to think "great, how will that reflect on how I've used it?" Once that initial instinct passes, though, I put it entirely out of my mind because, as sales and reviews indicate, their use of it doesn't affect my sales in any measurable manner.

Short of outliers, a typical customer might (at most) think "sheesh, this art again? Blech" and move on to judge the overall content as a whole. But, short of something else souring their experience, the core market won't walk away from a product or publisher that otherwise suits their needs over cheap or overused stock art. The fact that some publishers use original art from artists with styles that are known for being judged poorly (or outright hated by large sections of the core fans) and still make respectable or good sales with the products would seem to confirm this. For example, I think the worst art comments I've received on my products were regarding original pieces, but that product continues to sell quite well.

I think that sometimes as publishers and creative talents we often feel the need to interject our own subjective perspectives into our market the wrong way, attributing our opinions to a typical customer through our own biases, and this would be one such instance. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying art isn't important for a good product or that it doesn't make a difference to the customer. What I'm saying is that I think you're not properly taking into account the customer's primary goal of buying something they can use in their game in a practical fashion, and just how much they are willing to forgive things like bad art -- regardless of its source -- in pursuit of that primary goal. Because, to be frank, I see more than a few popular products that sell well wherein the art is absolutely amateurish and horrid to look at, be it stock art or not, but the customers keep voting for it with their dollars.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

I guess then where my disconnect with your point is coming is that the stock art aspect of your point doesn't necessarily have much to do with your conclusion.

Click to expand...

Well, my conclusion is that reviewing the whole product is all that can be done. Im not condoning [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] making it a one man mission to wipe out the use of clip art, but to acknowledge that bad art is bad art.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

Cheap, poor art is cheap, poor art. Whether it is stock art or original art, overused or unrecognized, the quality will be what customers care about -- attributing this to stock art instead of just art, period, doesn't jive with how we can see art affects sales in the market.

Click to expand...

Yes. And you often get it in products when the decision maker doesn't get the value of art as a part of selling the product.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

I've used several images that end up being used in a lot of other products, and when I see them appear on a cover for someone else's product and that they are poorly utilized and look horrible, I admit to groaning a bit inside because my instinct is to think "great, how will that reflect on how I've used it?" Once that initial instinct passes, though, I put it entirely out of my mind because, as sales and reviews indicate, their use of it doesn't affect my sales in any measurable manner.

Short of outliers, a typical customer might (at most) think "sheesh, this art again? Blech" and move on to judge the overall content as a whole. But, short of something else souring their experience, the core market won't walk away from a product or publisher that otherwise suits their needs over cheap or overused stock art. The fact that some publishers use original art from artists with styles that are known for being judged poorly (or outright hated by large sections of the core fans) and still make respectable or good sales with the products would seem to confirm this. For example, I think the worst art comments I've received on my products were regarding original pieces, but that product continues to sell quite well.

Click to expand...

I think that's possible but I think its more complicated than that. In the case you referenced with Palladium for example, you have fans of those their work who will overlook it, because its never been great (with the exception of some covers) and they've acclimated to 30 years of crap. Those customers are, relatively speaking, easy sells. Selling to the same person again and again is far, far easier than acquiring new customers.

If Palladium started escalating the quality of their art, like Paizo and Wizards has, they may start getting new customers.

Digital is a new frontier we keep needing to figure out, step by step. You can get a feel of what the art direction is about, but not like you can by picking up a book. On the other hand, you have many people who just use it on a tablet or laptop and never bother to go print.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

I think that sometimes as publishers and creative talents we often feel the need to interject our own subjective perspectives into our market the wrong way, attributing our opinions to a typical customer through our own biases, and this would be one such instance. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying art isn't important for a good product or that it doesn't make a difference to the customer. What I'm saying is that I think you're not properly taking into account the customer's primary goal of buying something they can use in their game in a practical fashion, and just how much they are willing to forgive things like bad art -- regardless of its source -- in pursuit of that primary goal. Because, to be frank, I see more than a few popular products that sell well wherein the art is absolutely amateurish and horrid to look at, be it stock art or not, but the customers keep voting for it with their dollars.

Click to expand...

Oh, the primary goal is to get a product they feel enhances their game, and (in my experience) most people will say art is not important because of that goal. I don't dispute that at all. But it can make a difference - esp when you factor in other things like price.

But lets say you have two Traveller supplements ( a system that's never really lent itself to its art) on a Mars colony, and one has had significant art direction and the other has not, and both are $12.00, both come from good companies. Which one is more likely going to be purchased, if customers aren't strongly aligned with either one (like a 30 year investment in Palladium products)?

Would it make a difference ALSO if both products were $1.99? Absolutely, because you've dropped the price to the point of a spontaneous buy - you can buy both without giving it much thought. Pricing has a huge influence when it reaches the spontaneous buy point.

lynnfredricks said:

I think that's possible but I think its more complicated than that. In the case you referenced with Palladium for example, you have fans of those their work who will overlook it, because its never been great (with the exception of some covers) and they've acclimated to 30 years of crap. Those customers are, relatively speaking, easy sells. Selling to the same person again and again is far, far easier than acquiring new customers.

If Palladium started escalating the quality of their art, like Paizo and Wizards has, they may start getting new customers.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more in terms of recycling art time and again across various products. With Palladium, it isn't even a matter of the same pieces showing up across several different publishers -- it's the same company using the same art, so the chance of a negative reaction is enhanced because of the market focus, yet people keep buying because art, although a marketing factor, is not key to a typical gamer's buying decisions.

Oh, the primary goal is to get a product they feel enhances their game, and (in my experience) most people will say art is not important because of that goal. I don't dispute that at all. But it can make a difference - esp when you factor in other things like price.

Click to expand...

I agree it's important in the last regard, but that's also a largely lost battle. You'll always have that crowd who breaks down price by page count anyway.

But lets say you have two Traveller supplements ( a system that's never really lent itself to its art) on a Mars colony, and one has had significant art direction and the other has not, and both are $12.00, both come from good companies. Which one is more likely going to be purchased, if customers aren't strongly aligned with either one (like a 30 year investment in Palladium products)?

Would it make a difference ALSO if both products were $1.99? Absolutely, because you've dropped the price to the point of a spontaneous buy - you can buy both without giving it much thought. Pricing has a huge influence when it reaches the spontaneous buy point.

Click to expand...

In your example, I honestly wouldn't worry about the art direction in either product, all things being equal. As the market sees time and again, even a little bit of good marketing can still get the one with poor AD to outstrip the one with better art.

But, like I said, I'm not entirely disagreeing wit you about the need to push for higher quality art, be it stock art or otherwise. That is a problem that exists on sites like OBS that goes beyond just art, though. The lack of any minimum threshold for entering the market seeks a large number of people who really aren't qualified or capable of putting out product (that is, art, written content, whatever) but still do so alongside product from the industry's leaders. It's always going to be a problem.

I feel much of my point regarding this is unfairly ending up on lynnfredricks's shoulders, so I'll also address it to Janx directly:

Janx said:

By cutting corners, he's certainly happy that the Walmart Effect has kicked in and there's product in his preferred budget range. But the reality is, he's stopped paying good money to good artists, so those artists lose out on sales they would have had.

Click to expand...

A big part of your mistake is assuming this constitutes "cutting corners." It's actually not.

It's an evolution of the industry, and one that is becoming increasingly necessary the farther a publisher is from the industry's top tier. As time goes on, artists, writers, etc. continue to increase their rates to match the perception of the value their art has to them versus their investment in it, yet the amount of returns publishers are seeing from the market continue to go down. So, in a market where costs are being pushed upward and profits shrinking, something has to change out of necessity. This is where stock art and art licensing becomes a viable, legitimate business decision for both publishers AND artists.

The idea that artists who sell stock / licensed art are undercutting their peers (or worse) is a myth. They are commercial artists acting from a commercial mind set, as professionals who realize there is a growing demand they can make money from. This is why you'll see the amount of stock art in the market continuing to grow.

Let's take an artist who sells a unique art piece for $50 to a publisher for sole publishing rights. The piece takes him 3 hours to do. That artist's ability to commercialize that work and time is restricted to that $50 return. Now take another piece that same artist takes 3 hours to do that would normally cost a publisher $50, but this time the artist sells it as stock art for $25. He has an unlimited potential for commercializing that 3 hours of his time, and only needs to sell 3 copies of the art to surpass his earning potential for an original work.

From the perspective of a commercial artist looking to make money from their work, it makes sense to sell stock / licensed art so long as your quality is able to make you competitive in the market. For those who aren't able to compete because of the quality of their output, that's commercial Darwinism at work and the unfortunate reality that not everyone who displays talent is going to be able to make money from it competatively.

Steve Conan Trustrum said:

I feel much of my point regarding this is unfairly ending up on lynnfredricks's shoulders, so I'll also address it to Janx directly:
A big part of your mistake is assuming this constitutes "cutting corners." It's actually not.

Click to expand...

Let's not call it MY mistake. And simply a point you'd like to counter.

I'm not talking about an artist selling stock art instead of singularly. So you've missed a big point I was making.

I'm talking about the influx of NEW artists willing to sell below standard rate or for free/exposure.

They're the ones (like Sony making a special, cheaper TV for Walmart, causing the TV industry to cut rates dramatically) who are potentially hurting the professional artist industry by forcing a drop of the expected price range.