Art PACT: Paying freelancers in exposure

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

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.

No, I'm quite comfortable calling it your mistake.

Because you mistakenly think that new artists (or any creative talent or most jobs, for that matter) selling their services at reduced rates to gain market penetration is anything new.

Start by selling cheap, develop your brand, increase price once you have the market's attention is not exactly a new economic model. It's one of the foundations of just about any competitive market.

 

[lynnfredricks]

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.

That's something I think is particular to the tabletop RPG market - quite interesting if you think about it. All reviews will have a page count, and when a font and margins are particularly large and noted, it implies volume = value. Maybe we are conditioned to this by the low page counts of early modules.

But then, take into account the actual volume of material for the size. You have small sized printed books (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, ICONS, etc) - the actual font size can be smaller than a large format book, but they cannot be proportionately smaller without impacting readability.

It probably makes better sense, if you are measuring by volume to measure by word count.

 

[lynnfredricks]

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.

Artists are in the same boat as other creatives, and always have been - same with writers and musicians. If you are well known, you can usually pull in a fair salary or get some life sustaining commissions. If you aren't, then you are lucky if you can bag a full time position someplace, or have a couple of regular clients that keep you from spending most of your time searching for new gigs.

Not only do you have to compete with the younger / hungrier, you also have to compete against talent in countries where pennies stretch much, much further.

That's just how it is, fair or unfair. Associations of any kind can be quite helpful for making some resources available (like contract templates), but I wouldn't set your expectations beyond that.

 

[Morrus]

Artists are in the same boat as other creatives, and always have been - same with writers and musicians.

Art (which I refer to in its broadest sense) has always been a gamble. It's a risky, unreliable choice of living with a small chance of returning enormous dividends. For every Tom Hanks there are 10,000 actors waiting tables; for every Dan Brown, there are 1,000,000 hopeful novelists; for every Justin Bieber there are 5,000,000 people scrawling by in bands hoping to make it big. Art (in the narrow sense) shares that fate. It's the curse of independent creators selling luxury services. And with increasingly low barriers to entry, the competition is fiercer than ever. Being a creative type is *hard*!

 

[Sunseeker]

It is unfortunately far more widespread than most people think. When you employer says "We don't think you're quite right for us, but we're willing to help you learn." that is "working for exposure". And it happens a LOT, in highly regarded and generally professional industries too.

The idea that you will do work for free on the off chance that you will recieve some intangible benefit at some unforseen time down the road is bullocks. Doesn't matter if you're an artist, a writer or a lawyer.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

That's something I think is particular to the tabletop RPG market - quite interesting if you think about it. All reviews will have a page count, and when a font and margins are particularly large and noted, it implies volume = value. Maybe we are conditioned to this by the low page counts of early modules.

But then, take into account the actual volume of material for the size. You have small sized printed books (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, ICONS, etc) - the actual font size can be smaller than a large format book, but they cannot be proportionately smaller without impacting readability.

It probably makes better sense, if you are measuring by volume to measure by word count.

I imagine it's due to the fact that a RPG book, as opposed to a novel or the like, is interactive. It's like someone saying "that was a good video game -- lots of fun -- but it only lasted four hours, so I had to give it a negative review overall."

 

[lynnfredricks]

I imagine it's due to the fact that a RPG book, as opposed to a novel or the like, is interactive. It's like someone saying "that was a good video game -- lots of fun -- but it only lasted four hours, so I had to give it a negative review overall."

That's possible when actual play testing happens. But then you do find reviewers (over on rpg.net for example) who are reviewing without a full play through to the end - there is just the assumption of length of volume = length of play.

 

[lynnfredricks]

Art (in the narrow sense) shares that fate. It's the curse of independent creators selling luxury services. And with increasingly low barriers to entry, the competition is fiercer than ever. Being a creative type is *hard*!

I agree - it is important to be competitive.

One thing regarding those new to the market is to make sure you have a good demo reel or portfolio. Even if you do not have a lot of paying gigs yet, if your portfolio is packed full of "just good enough" assignments from art school, you don't get it. If you want to be competitive, then you produce, produce, produce. Also, pursue the money where it is, to sustain yourself. If you aren't making it in RPGs, make it someplace else, and do your own RPG projects on the side.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

That's possible when actual play testing happens. But then you do find reviewers (over on rpg.net for example) who are reviewing without a full play through to the end - there is just the assumption of length of volume = length of play.

Well, and I hate to say it, but I think there's also an above normal sense of entitlement in this market because of the incomparable degree to which customers may interact with the people putting out product for them. I've seen arguments made more than once, in all seriousness, about how if there's not a lot of money to be had in the industry, and if the people making games do it because they enjoy it, then games should be priced at their production cost.

 

[Janx]

No, I'm quite comfortable calling it your mistake.

Because you mistakenly think that new artists (or any creative talent or most jobs, for that matter) selling their services at reduced rates to gain market penetration is anything new.

Start by selling cheap, develop your brand, increase price once you have the market's attention is not exactly a new economic model. It's one of the foundations of just about any competitive market.

If you weren't injured by it, I hardly think it qualifies by the rudeness of calling it a mistake. Don't be rude. Imagine that's in red ink and adjust your tone because YOU guys dredged up my name from a comment 3 pages back as if it was the most important argument to make.

I am quite aware that new artists have always tried to undercut old artists. What's happened in the last decade or so (in music for instance) is that the barrier to entry has lowered such that anybody can be a bedroom guitar wanker and then put out a CD or put together a dad band and play for free to beat out the regular gigging band at the watering hole.

things have changed a bit more than the usual. Globalization, technology etc have all enabled that.

It's good for the businesses, but not actually good for the creators. If the full-time creators can't sustain a full time living like they used to, the market will cease to have full time creators available when a business actually needs that level of quality.

I doubt full time creators will actually become extinct, but the number of them that can be supported will be reduced.

I'm not entirely keen on keeping the wagon wheel makers in business for the sake of them earning a living wage, but I'm also not keen on a more valid industry (making art) being diminished because newbies can swarm in and give it away and businesses are happy with the cheaper work.