Self Publishing: What's An Artist Worth?

If you're like many other folks who have recently delved into the foray of self-publishing 5E products, you've probably quickly realised that art is expensive (actually, I dislike using that term - it's not expensive for what it is). Some people are lucky enough to have artistic talent which lets them illustrate their own products; others need to rely on the hard work of other contributors to help bring their words to life. This short article covers a few basic ways you can get your product illustrated. Welcome to a well-established community of small and self-publishers in the RPG industry!

If you're like many other folks who have recently delved into the foray of self-publishing 5E products, you've probably quickly realised that art is expensive (actually, I dislike using that term - it's not expensive for what it is). Some people are lucky enough to have artistic talent which lets them illustrate their own products; others need to rely on the hard work of other contributors to help bring their words to life. This short article covers a few basic ways you can get your product illustrated. Welcome to a well-established community of small and self-publishers in the RPG industry!

Are You A Writer Or A Publisher?
First things first, it's important that you start from the right perspective. If you're producing and selling products, and using artists to illustrate them (we'll leave out editors and layout/design people for now), you're not just a writer any more. You're a publisher. A small publisher, perhaps, but a publisher nonetheless. Being a publisher isn't the same thing as being a writer - it requires different skills; and as a publisher, albeit a small one, you have a new set of responsibilities. Publishing ain't always easy, but it can be rewarding.

If you just want to be a writer, that's a different thing. As a writer, you don't need to worry about art, someone else can edit your work, someone else does the layout, someone handles the marketing, someone handles the accounting. If writing is the thing you really want to do, consider instead approaching a publisher and writing for them. They'll do all the (non-written) hard work, and you'll get paid for your writing.

But if you're doing the whole shebang - using artists, selling the work, and so on - you're a publisher. You may prefer to think of yourself as a struggling writer, but you've taken a step beyond that; and as a small publisher you need to consider the hard work of others involved in bringing your words to life. You may be surprised to find that that can take as long or longer than your actual writing, and involve just as much hard work!

Don't Work For Exposure
Now, art isn't cheap. Or at least, it shouldn't be - it is possible to persuade artists to work for peanuts (or worse, for exposure) but doing so is exploiting them. A quick Google search will reveal hundreds of articles about how artists should not work for free or for exposure, and the reasons why, so I won't belabour the point here except to say that it is important. I even wrote a similar article (focused on writers, not artists) a while back.

That might mean you can't afford art, at least at first. That's totally OK. It's OK to not be able to afford something, and to work towards being able to afford it, and books with little or no art are just fine! However, there are other options which mean that you can actually afford art and pay your artists a fair amount. Every small publisher has gone through this - if you look at DTRPG, you'll see thousands of small publishers who have gone through that very thing. Don't panic; it's not a new problem. If you keep producing quality stuff, you'll be able to start slowly improving the production values of that material. "But I can't afford it" is not a great reason to exploit somebody; it's a great reason to hone your craft and reputation and work towards being able to afford it. In the meantime, starting with little or no art is just fine; if your writing is solid, you have a great starting point.

That said, in this day and age, there are some amazing resources which enable you to early circumvent these barriers. It's a pretty wonderful time for self-publishing!

Some Solutions
The most obvious one is Kickstarter. Let's say you need a thousand dollars to illustrate your short book (like I said, art is not cheap - I spent £20,000 of Kickstarter funds on art for my WOIN books). A Kickstarter campaign to raise that thousand dollars has a number of benefits. First, you find out in advance if folks want your book. Second, it has its own marketing value all of itself. Third, it means you can pay your artists a fair wage. Fourth, if you raise more than your thousand dollars, you start making profit before even putting the book on sale. Fifth, you can then sell the book.

That's a win-win situation. Your book ends up looking good, everybody gets paid fairly, you make money. It's hard to find a good reason not to do that, especially when your back-up plan is to ask artists to work for free. Work out what art you need, work out how much it costs, and there's your Kickstarter goal. When your book gets funded, your artists' fair pay is built-in to the model.

I would normally include Patreon as an option, but the logistics are a bit awkward there. Certainly it's very suited to lots of small items, but if you want to use DMs Guild (which I assume most folks reading this do) the exclusivity clause at DMs Guild makes it slightly tricky getting your product to your patrons. I'm hopeful that some loosening of the rules (or a much needed extra feature - comp copies for DMs Guild publishers) is in the future, as that would make for the ideal solution.

What other options are there? The other obvious solution is stock art. There are stock art locations where you can buy art rights inexpensively, or even free public domain art. Those artists make their money by selling the same art to lots of people, rather than doing custom work just for you. There's the big places like Shutterstock, and there is tons of stock art available on DriveThruRPG. WotC has released some art to be used as stock art on DMs Guild (for free!) In fact, there are hundreds of places you can get stock art. Here's a quick list:
Now, there are places you can get art done for next to nothing. I personally feel that doing so is unfair. Some artists may well be willing to work for peanuts because (a) they don't know better and think that's the only way to get started as an artist or (b) they don't need the money as they have a full time job and are just doing it for fun. The former, unfortunately, have their viewpoint reinforced by all those publishers who keep telling them that that is true, when it isn't; the latter undermine the former because they make it look like art is, indeed, a cheap commodity. For that reason, even if you don't need the money, if you're an artist I hope that you still charge a fair price for your art, because not doing so harms those that do need the money.

Can you get art for dirt cheap, or free? Sure. Should you? The desire to get your awesome words out there and looking pretty is understandable and the temptation to do what you need to do to get that done right now is hard to resist, especially if you have no money to spend. I've been there! I asked Claudio Pozas, an artist I've known for 16 years, who started small and worked his way up:
Why not just offer US$5 and use whatever artist takes the bait? There are several reasons for that:

1) You'll get the art you paid for: probably rushed, from a starting, naive artist who is hurting his career more than helping.​
2) There's the ethical quandary of offering a payment that is unlikely to support the worker you're hiring. It's a matter of responsibility, when you have the power in the professional relationship (in this case, the job offer).​
3) for the publisher really scraping for money, there are several good artists out there that offer stock illustration. Sure, the art won't be uniquely yours, but it's better than to cheat an artist out of a living wage.​


OK, so now you're asking what a fair rate for art is? That depends on a number of things - colour, black-and-white, size, complexity, and so on. The range does, of course, vary - I'm not saying that beginning artists can charge as much as those who have spent years forging their reputation. A well-known artist may charge ten times or more than a new one; that's OK, as long as the new one is still charging a fair amount.

The average rates I tend to see from artists are in the region of $30 for a quarter page piece, $100 for a full page piece, maybe double that if it's full-colour. For a well-known artist, you may have to pay much more than that, but for the average freelancer, that's about the average. I asked Claudio Pozas again:
"Fair" depends on a lot of things: the artist's experience, the publisher's size, and the product's reach. At the very least, an artist -- like any other person -- should make a living wage out of his work. In the US, the minimum wage is US$7 (roughly) an hour, and there's talk of increasing that to US$15 (a minimum "living" wage).

If an artist is expected to spend two days on an illustration (between sketching, composition, rendering, and handling alterations), that's about 16 hours of work. That artist, at the very least, should be paid US$240 for his time.​
Granted, the artist won't probably work for 8 hours per day, that can be spread out over more days, as the freelancer has to deal with his own workflow, his paperwork, and have time to hone his skills.​
The bottom line is that each publisher should be prepared to contribute to an artist's living wage, so we can end the all-too-real image of the "starving artist". I can see a small, quarter-page illustration that could theoretically be finished (sketch + composition + rendering + alteration) over the course of 8 hours (again, putting together the hours actually spent on the image over several days), and the publisher offering US$120 for it.​
BTW, those numbers I gave you can be adjusted for, as you said, non-work-for-hire, etc. A b/w quarter-page illustration that an artist can do in 3 hours can start at US$30, easily.​

Now, Claudio is an established artist with a solid, reliable, professional reputation. $120 for a quarter page item isn't necessarily what a brand new artist can command, but they can definitely command more than just "exposure".

What about cartography? Dyson Logos offered this information when I asked: "As a cartographer, I charge $250 for a full page map, $175 for a half-page. This is for "work for hire", my rates are lower if we are dealing with licensed material instead (where I keep copyright and provide non-exclusive use licensing)."

You'll notice that Claudio says that an artist should be paid a living wage for work. Now, there is a problem there; I know it well! You, the publisher are not making a living wage, so why should the artist? It's a good question. It's also not the right question. If your business model doesn't allow you to pay a fair wage for art, the answer isn't "exploit an artist", it's "revise your business model; it doesn't work". Don't pass the pain onto those who depend on you - it is, sadly, yours to bear. There are solutions; they take work or patience, but I've outlined several above (start smaller; use Kickstarter; etc.) It may be that you just can't have the art yet. Don't worry - you can, with time, get yourself to a place where you can have it all! Think of it like hiring a builder or other craftsman to work for you (though those types of people long, long ago realised the value of their labour - you won't get them doing it for a fiver!)

You can do other things to make things fairer for artists, and maybe save some money. Consider letting them keep the rights to the art. When I publish, I no longer use work-for-hire art except for very occasional specific pieces which really need to be (and I pay more for them). Work-for-hire means you, the publisher, owns the copyright to the art. Instead, consider letting the artist keep the copyright (don't do that instead of paying them - do it as well as paying them, but you may be able to negotiate a lower rate). The artist can go on to make money by selling prints and the like; even WotC lets its cartographers do that these days. Hey, head over to my friend Claudio Pozas' art store and buy a print of this gorgeous cover he did for To Slay A Dragon. The odds are you don't really need it to be work-for-hire. If for some reason it does need to be work-for-hire, you can still give the artist permission to sell prints themself.


tsad.jpg

[FONT=&quot]SaveSave[/FONT]
 

Halivar

First Post
You could use the same argument for those people generating the DM's Guild content that requires the art, i.e. "By publishing gaming material for cheap, you are hurting SERIOUS writers. You should demand full price for your material or not produce it at all!" Looking at it that way, the original argument amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
To be fair to Morrus, he also thinks freelance writers should also demand fair pay in this thread: What's a Freelance RPG Writer Worth.

Morrus said:
  • If you're doing work for somebody, and you're not being paid, you are being exploited. (Doing work for somebody is different to doing work with somebody). Volunteer work obviously falls outside this category, but volunteer work should clearly be volunteer work, not work paid in "exposure" (see below).
  • Never work for the promise of "exposure", or for "experience". You should work for money. This is a common tactic, and is often puffed up with nice language, but it is exploitation and you should look out for it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


delericho

Legend
Saying that artists who provide content for free are undermining their profession is a little harsh.

If you'll permit me an anecdote from another field...

Back when I was learning to play the bagpipes, the topic of playing at weddings (and how much to charge) was raised. At which point the suggestion was that if you wanted to play for free, then that was fine (though you'd probably only really do that for friends and family - why would you give up your time in that way for a stranger?); and if you were going to charge for your time/skills then that was also fine.

But... if you were going to charge for the service then you should charge the going rate for doing so (currently £120ish for a wedding). For two reasons: firstly, if you didn't think you were good enough to charge that full rate, it meant you weren't good enough to charge at all. Secondly, by offering to play for a lower rate you were undercutting the market and forcing prices across the board down - and while you might be doing it as a hobby/labour of love/whatever, there are other people for whom it represented an important part of their income, and by driving their pay down you'd be harming them.

IOW: I don't think people providing content for free are "undermining their profession", though they should probably be selective in who they do such work for, but I do agree that fair rates of payment (for paid work) are worth supporting.
 

dave2008

Legend
You could use the same argument for those people generating the DM's Guild content that requires the art, i.e. "By publishing gaming material for cheap, you are hurting SERIOUS writers. You should demand full price for your material or not produce it at all!" Looking at it that way, the original argument amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Essentially, it comes down to supply and demand. Should people produce art for $5? Probably not. But if that $5 is the difference between eating dinner or going to bed hungry? Hand me a pencil! Although that example is extreme, it demonstrates a point. Not all art is created equal and the market will end up paying what it is worth based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people trying to make a living as artists, and that depresses the market.

Like I told my college roommate who declared he was a true artist and would never become an art teacher...It would be great if we could all make a living from our hobby. What does he do now? Art teacher...

My only point was to show a different point of view that is valid. I've done that. So I'm good. Thanks for the discussion and I hope you see that there is more than one way to look at a situation.
 

Will Doyle

Explorer
IOW: I don't think people providing content for free are "undermining their profession", though they should probably be selective in who they do such work for, but I do agree that fair rates of payment (for paid work) are worth supporting.

Yes, you're right. I guess that's my stance too.

Another anecdote. My fiancee is a freelance artist, generally taking commissions from small businesses (she's probably why I spoke up in the first place). She charges professional rates. Clients often approach her for work that is underpaid, or ask her to work for exposure. She soon learned to turn down such clients, and rarely undercuts her daily rate.

Last year she got chatting to a woman in our local town who was struggling to set up her own business. My fiancee offered to help out by providing a logo for her letterheads. In return, she agreed to be paid in cake. That woman has since got her business off the ground, and recently came back to my fiancee with a proper, paid commission. Now, you could argue that this woman a) shouldn't have tried to set up a business without funding to pay for letterheads, or b) paying artists in cake sets a precedent for other small businesses to pay in cake too.

I think the reality is that many cottage industries rely on a bit of charity to get off the ground, and during that phase they can only offer what they have, or promise something for the future. If they carry on paying cake when they're turning a profit, that's a different story.
 

More artist = more talent = better art = better sales = higher demand = more artist.

I think this gets to the underlying assumption that prosfilaes is coming from. With talk of an "established industry" and "where is the money coming from?", prosfilaes is working from an assumption that the industry is a zero-sum game. For that to be true, there has to be an unchanging number of customers with unchanging budgets. I disagree with both of those. Both can and do change (hopefully upwards!).

So if, like me, you disagree with the zero-sum premise, then the rest of the argument is unconvincing.

*IF* the industry is a zero-sum game, then there is some mathematical truth to the point prosfilaes is trying to make. However, if better products can lead to more sales overall and more revenue in the industry (as we believe), then the math isn't convincing in the least.
 

Acr0ssTh3P0nd

First Post
Yes, you're right. I guess that's my stance too.

Another anecdote. My fiancee is a freelance artist, generally taking commissions from small businesses (she's probably why I spoke up in the first place). She charges professional rates. Clients often approach her for work that is underpaid, or ask her to work for exposure. She soon learned to turn down such clients, and rarely undercuts her daily rate.

Last year she got chatting to a woman in our local town who was struggling to set up her own business. My fiancee offered to help out by providing a logo for her letterheads. In return, she agreed to be paid in cake. That woman has since got her business off the ground, and recently came back to my fiancee with a proper, paid commission. Now, you could argue that this woman a) shouldn't have tried to set up a business without funding to pay for letterheads, or b) paying artists in cake sets a precedent for other small businesses to pay in cake too.

I think the reality is that many cottage industries rely on a bit of charity to get off the ground, and during that phase they can only offer what they have, or promise something for the future. If they carry on paying cake when they're turning a profit, that's a different story.


I think another difference here is that your fiancee herself came forward first with the offer to help, rather than her being asked to do a job that drastically underpaid. If an artist offers their services for a lower cost, then that's their decision to lower the monetary value of their work. They have seen a cause that intrigues them and decides that the money isn't the main point. And that's cool! The artist is still receiving the money that they decided they need to do the work, and they most likely won't be making it a regular thing.
 

dave2008

Legend
I think this gets to the underlying assumption that prosfilaes is coming from. With talk of an "established industry" and "where is the money coming from?", prosfilaes is working from an assumption that the industry is a zero-sum game. For that to be true, there has to be an unchanging number of customers with unchanging budgets. I disagree with both of those. Both can and do change (hopefully upwards!).

So if, like me, you disagree with the zero-sum premise, then the rest of the argument is unconvincing.

*IF* the industry is a zero-sum game, then there is some mathematical truth to the point prosfilaes is trying to make. However, if better products can lead to more sales overall and more revenue in the industry (as we believe), then the math isn't convincing in the least.

You got it; however, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
And that is why we ended up with unions. Of course, certain lawmakers are legislating unions out of existence in the U.S., but that is topic not appropriate to this forum.

I'm why you ended up with unions? That's very flattering.
 

prosfilaes

Adventurer
*IF* the industry is a zero-sum game, then there is some mathematical truth to the point prosfilaes is trying to make. However, if better products can lead to more sales overall and more revenue in the industry (as we believe), then the math isn't convincing in the least.

You're quibbling with the details, and using that as a justification to ignore everything. At what rate do you think better artwork will allow the RPG industry to grow? Is it really the lack of pretty artwork (as opposed to roleplaying content) that's holding back most small RPG companies? The history of the RPG industry says to me that as quality has grown, as many minor third-party companies are turning out work that puts to shame early 80s TSR work, it hasn't meant that the industry has grown. It's just raised the bar on what's considered acceptable.

One of the things that annoys me about this is: I saw a Kickstarter that offered as an add-on an original musical theme for your campaign. I talked to my brother-in-law, a skilled composer who never managed to break into business and who went back to his day job as a sysadmin, and he said the prices charged were pretty reasonable. In my upcoming Kickstarter, if I go to him and ask for him to do that for my Kickstarter, is it really my job to second-guess the price he asks? I feel it pretty paternalistic, when someone puts out a tile and names their price, to act like it's outrageous that someone pays their price.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top