Blame the digital age. Blame China. Blame Eastern Europe. Blame Russia. It may not be right but artists are competing in a global economy and with the rise of the digital medium, the payouts have plummeted. I have a friend who is very well established in the business and has been for 20+ years, and he says there is no way he could start out and duplicate his success in this time.

Not the same medium, but photography is the same way. 10-ish years ago you could make some pretty good money with Stock Photography. Nowendays, with everyone and their phone thinking they are a 'photographer', you're lucky to make a hundred bucks a quarter. My stuff on Getty gets me enough to buy a pizza and some film every other month.

Basically, Supply has gone up, Demand has either gone down or stayed relatively flat, so prices go down. Also with more stock footage out there, it is harder to get eyes on any one given piece of stock, decreasing the likelihood of someone even finding it let alone buying it.

I've used a number of stock photography sites for filler material for stuff (presentations, papers, sites) and it is dirt cheap for several thousand photos that are then royalty free for use once I've downloaded them. So, those sites can't be paying the photographers much, if at all, given how cheap the monthly fees or the bundle download fees are.

Blame the digital age. Blame China. Blame Eastern Europe. Blame Russia. It may not be right but artists are competing in a global economy and with the rise of the digital medium, the payouts have plummeted. I have a friend who is very well established in the business and has been for 20+ years, and he says there is no way he could start out and duplicate his success in this time.

Not the same medium, but photography is the same way. 10-ish years ago you could make some pretty good money with Stock Photography. Nowendays, with everyone and their phone thinking they are a 'photographer', you're lucky to make a hundred bucks a quarter. My stuff on Getty gets me enough to buy a pizza and some film every other month.

Oh absolutely. When my buddy broke into the field it was sort of the perfect storm. In the 90s computers and the internet were enabling communication and 'networking' at a quantum level never experienced. However the machines capable of producing the resolution for art were 10s of thousands of $ and connections were slow. So you could use the internet to get your name out there, but content still had to be traditional to deliver eye popping stuff.

Over the last 2 decades that clearly has changed and that's why he says he couldn't begin to afford to duplicate what he did 20-25 years ago. The low payouts have been a long time in the making though. He did his Magic stuff mostly for fun and name recognition, the money was never great, and now he says that stuff is practically done for free in his opinion.

What people can do digitally is a far lower skill entry point, than what he does traditionally. He does very very little commercial stuff anymore and mostly delivers high end commission work to wealthy nerds.

Either way, at least they are paying somethign. Will Wheaton recently recived an offer of "free exposure" from the Huffington Post. Now that's an even bigger outrage.

Oh god, don't get me started on the "Shoot my wedding for free! It'll look great in your portfolio! It'll get your name out there! It'll be good experience" crowd. While I've not shot weddings (thank god - I don't want that kind of pressure) it baffles me that people will spend thousands and thousands on ephemeral stuff like and pinch pennies on the photographer, the only thing that will last forever.

"Why are you charging 5 grand for photos? Uncle Phill has a very expensive camera like you! He'll do it for free!"

So, those sites can't be paying the photographers much, if at all, given how cheap the monthly fees or the bundle download fees are.

I think on a hundred dollar photo sale, I make about 20-ish? I'd have to go check my statements for the last few months, but that sounds about right - the photographers (at least through Getty) make about 20% of what the photo sells for.

Either way, at least they are paying somethign. Will Wheaton recently recived an offer of "free exposure" from the Huffington Post. Now that's an even bigger outrage.

Oh god, don't get me started on the "Shoot my wedding for free! It'll look great in your portfolio! It'll get your name out there! It'll be good experience" crowd. While I've not shot weddings (thank god - I don't want that kind of pressure) it baffles me that people will spend thousands and thousands on ephemeral stuff like and pinch pennies on the photographer, the only thing that will last forever.

"Why are you charging 5 grand for photos? Uncle Phill has a very expensive camera like you! He'll do it for free!"

So, those sites can't be paying the photographers much, if at all, given how cheap the monthly fees or the bundle download fees are.

I think on a hundred dollar photo sale, I make about 20-ish? I'd have to go check my statements for the last few months, but that sounds about right - the photographers (at least through Getty) make about 20% of what the photo sells for.

Right, but if I'm paying $10/month for all the downloads I can want... then grabbing a few thousand photos... can't really net the photographers much money on a per download basis.

Yeah, like I said I'm unfamiliar on how shutterstock and the like works. I only imagine that they have enough subscriptions to spread the wealth around.

$100 for a full painting? I get more than that, working for private customers, doing character lineart commissions(well, 4 or more characters at least gets me to $100 or above).

So...in which book that I can pull off a Barnes & Noble shelf can I see these works of yours?

What is Barnes & Nobles?.... You can see it here, here, here and here

That is kind of why I find it hard to believe that pro artists would sell them selves so low when they easily could get a lot more from most customers.

So wait, now you're changing gears. Are we still talking about the "starving freelancer" that we're supposed to pity, or are we switching to the "well known industry leading pro"...

Not changing gears at all. I have said from the start that no experienced, pro artist would do full painting for those prices and that`s why this seems so unlikely to me. And from what I have seen, FFG is using well experienced and talented pro artists, so this guy`s accusations seem unlikely to be true.. Are there any FFG products with bad art that have been done by starving freelancers? I don`t know. If so, he might be right I guess...

This sounds very plausible to me. Free and underpaid work are the scourge of the art community and of making a living at it. It takes years to refine skills to the level of the work I see in EotE, for example. An established, older artist knows their worth. But many a newcomer does not.

Essentially there are factors at work here:

1. Newcomers who work for a pittance just to get themselves established. Unfortunately that stage seldom comes because, well, after a couple of years waiting for that to happen, they realize that they're competing with newcomers who work for a pittance just trying to get themselves established.
2. People don't realize that when you hire a skilled person you're not just paying them for their time right now, you're paying them for all the time they spent acquiring that skill. This always happens - you hire a plumber / programmer / whatever and then they charge you £50 for ten minutes fixing something and the customer is offended that they had to pay so much for something that took so little effort or time (they think). Well just because someone else can do something, doesn't mean it's easy.
3. This pernicious attitude that art is something that is "purer" if it's not sullied by money and that the true artist is motivated by love of the thing itself. Well shocking fact - enjoying your work or taking pride in it does not make the end product worth less. More the opposite to be honest.
4. People who devalue themselves because they are new. This isn't unique to artists. I met someone who was a programmer and was charging way below market rates for their work. I know because I employ programmers from time to time. I told them they must charge more and they said they didn't have a lot of experience. I told them that if they didn't care about themselves they should at least care about other people in the industry who were trying to make a living at this and weren't being subsidised by their family.
5. Simple lack of awareness that this is actually very skilled work and someone's profession. An artist is always being asked if they can 'just do a drawing' for free by someone or other. I'm not saying no-one should ever ask or be given artwork by a friend, but they need to be aware that they're asking for something of value. If someone asked me if I would give them three hours of my wages just because, I would want to know why. But of course they don't because they understand money has value and they understand that if I do three hours overtime at work that's effort for me. But artists get asked this so often it's not even funny. I think lots of people who will do work free for a friend sometimes, but it's artists who seem to be EXPECTED to for some reason.

As a wise person once remarked: "If you're good at something, never do it for free". Same goes for accepting minimum wage.

I ain't saying it's right, but the arts are difficult. I've known a few artists and a heck of a lot of musicians in my life. One of the artists went to work for Pixar at about 20, and then left to make her own films (I can't imagine she's actually making money that way). Everyone else has had to do their art on the side, many of them just as talented (and with more experience) as Pixar Friend. Why? My understanding is that it's mostly luck. Pixar Friend is very good, can draw quickly while making her point clear (she mostly did storyboards), and is great to work with (we eorked in a deli together). So she's what they were looking for, and probably happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Everyone else earned high praise for their work, and just enough renown that they were able to scrape along while working their day job. My dad won a songwriting award in Nashville, and provided some very nice cabinet work when Joe Montana was building his house. Then he died poor. Most everyone else has pushed their creative side to the back burner, because unless you're Amazing, being even Very Good probably isn't good enough. It can make for a very nice bonus from time to time, but that ain't regular.
I don't know how to fix it, but I don't think it starts by playing the Blame Game. If I were a studio that needed regular art, I would seriously look into hiring artists as actual employees. But I ain't a business owner or an accountant, and something tells me that wouldn't be feasible.

It can be related to freelance writing as well. This is also an "Art" area, as much as many visual artists may disagree.

Now if you have a standard work-a-day Job to write, you probably getting a bit better of a fair shake in the pay/hour. Even then, you are probably putting in extra hours 'Off the clock' that your not actually being paid for, so your per hour rate is probably actually less.

As a Freelance Writer, it becomes, like a visual artist, a bit more iffy on the actual rate of pay.

The Industry recomends you determine your Hourly rate of pay by determining how much you think (given your experience and schooling) you ought to be earning per year, Like say I though I could earn 25k in a year, and divide that by 1000 billable hours. In this case, It would end up being $25 an hour. Now 1000 hours is a Low amount to work in the year. The average person works about 10,000 hours in a Full time 40 hour a day job. That assumes 2 weeks a year off minimum.

SO what does that $25 an hour really mean? Well in free lance writing. Their is no clock. There is only your deadline. You are given a minimum, and sometimes a Maximum word count you need to meet by the entry deadline for the article. That $25 dollars may equate to anything from 0.6 cents a word to 0.20 cents a word. Depending on what your article requirements are and what actual Type of writing you are doing. Newspaper Feature article writing pays less than Magazine Feature writing. Columns pay the best, but then you are almost into a every workaday job. Art reviews pay the least, where book reviews pay pretty decent. Most Publishers in these areas pay by the word, or at best by the article.

But that article probably took you Longer than your 'Billable' hours to produce. So the longer it takes you in research, actual first draft to final draft and then editor requests of rewrites to complete the article and have it accepted, The lower that actual value of cents per word drops. The Publisher may deem that such an article shouldn't take more than 1-2 hours of writing. and pays you $50 for the article. But it actual took you, when you account for all time putting together the article, 6-7 hours of involved time to complete. You just went from $25 an hour billable to about $7 an hour actual.

This is the life of Freelance Anything. The faster you can complete a Quality job, the better your actual pay and the more time you have free to actually spend on other freelance pieces.

The reality is, though, in the freelance world, Few, very few, actual get Paid for actual hours spent compared to billable hour rate.

$100 for a full painting? I get more than that, working for private customers, doing character lineart commissions(well, 4 or more characters at least gets me to $100 or above).

So...in which book that I can pull off a Barnes & Noble shelf can I see these works of yours?

What is Barnes & Nobles?.... You can see it here, here, here and here

That is kind of why I find it hard to believe that pro artists would sell them selves so low when they easily could get a lot more from most customers.

So wait, now you're changing gears. Are we still talking about the "starving freelancer" that we're supposed to pity, or are we switching to the "well known industry leading pro"...

Not changing gears at all. I have said from the start that no experienced, pro artist would do full painting for those prices and that`s why this seems so unlikely to me. And from what I have seen, FFG is using well experienced and talented pro artists, so this guy`s accusations seem unlikely to be true.. Are there any FFG products with bad art that have been done by starving freelancers? I don`t know. If so, he might be right I guess...

Everybody and their brother that can drag a pencil over paper has a DA, FB page, and the like. That's kind of what I was getting at. If anything, you're proving the point that some talent and a DA account meaning you can draw on commission for $100 a pop.

And if you weren't changing gears, then you're kind of proving your own point there too. If no experienced "pro" artist will take a job for that little, then you're left with only a few options: 1) the blogger was wrong/exaggerating/cherry picking, 2) the experienced "pro" artists aren't taking those jobs, or 3) as many have said, freelancing art simply isn't a feasible full-time, quit-your-day-job venture for many people (similar to actors, singers, athletes, and so many other talent-based pursuits).

I really think, regardless of which of the 3 is the case, that the last point is really the core of the issue here. Regardless of how someone feels things ought to be, or how they used to be, the fact is...for 99% of people that can draw, there's not enough demand (and way too much competition)...which means that trying to live solely on money made by drawing is simply not feasible. Those that understand this make some side cash from it or do it for fun. Those that don't understand this are "starving artists"...or ranting bloggers...

Everybody and their brother that can drag a pencil over paper has a DA, FB page, and the like. That's kind of what I was getting at. If anything, you're proving the point that some talent and a DA account meaning you can draw on commission for $100 a pop.

....

And if you weren't changing gears, then you're kind of proving your own point there too. ..

What is my point again? I`m not exactly sure what you think we are disagreeing on. I`m confused now...

I said I didn`t believe FFG used cheap labour, concidering the standards of their products and the quality of the art in them. I`m also saying that the artists I have seen them use have been of the experienced professional variety, so when I get paid a decent amount for my ok art, I`m sure they wouldn`t get payed less for their great art, in fact, I am sure they wouldn`t say yes to that when they could get more elsewhere. I think the blogger was wrong in hanging out FFG, that`s all, I haven`t said a word about poor, starving artists.

Btw. I`m not just some guy with a DA account, I have a registered business as a freelance illustrator and pay taxes for artwork I sell, private and the few commercial ones I have done. I also have another job and I am nowhere close to the artists FFG use for their books. I agree that the blogger could be wrong, that`s why I asked FFG to debunk it.

So what are we disagreeing on? I`m right there with you on point 1 and 2 partially on 3 too. Peace.

Why wouldn't they pay that little if talented artists actually agree to those prices?

That`s my point, I don`t think that talented, experienced artists like the ones we see tn the Star Wars lines actually would, so it doesn`t seem likely at all and not fair to namedrop FFG just as a random example without any proof or real sources.

Why wouldn`t they? Aren`t there laws that say what you are allowed to pay someone for a job? I know minimum wages in the USA are very low compared to other modern, first world countries, but still, not THAT low(?).

FFG is within their right to buy up any already produced art of course (if they don`t commission it as I would think they do) from any willing artist of course, but buying the commercial rights usually costs a little extra too. Oh well, this is likely not even true, I mean look at the great art in the books, that`s not cheap art and newbie artists!

It can be related to freelance writing as well. This is also an "Art" area, as much as many visual artists may disagree.

Nope, I don`t disagree at all! It is absolutely related to writing! Writers are artists too. I see writing and illustration as crafts too.

You seem to have changed your tone (if indeed your position has not changed, though it seems as though it has) from the time you made the first post to the present (a change which is best encapsulated by your edit to your opening post).

In the beginning of the thread most of the discussion was to the effect of "if FFG is doing this, shame on them". Basically, taking the blogger at face value and making an appeal to sympathy. Now your tone seems less aligned with the blogger and more against him, taking the role of a skeptic.

Obviously, I can't claim to know what you were thinking outside of what you actually posted, but that's pretty much how your posts here have struck me, showing that transition through the course of the thread.

Still, that being said, if your position is essentially, "Blogger says FFG pays this. I don't believe him. Prove him wrong.", an email to FFG would have been the way to get it resolved as opposed to a post here.

Also on that note, the point that many here have made still stands: If that is what they are paying, and they're paying that for the art we see in the SWRPG books, then they're doing a great job of capitalizing on a bear market for art, and bluntly, good for them. That's smart business.

I just don't see a situation like this as one where you post to create a discussion, then as it happens, you boil it back down to a simply yes or no question. The very act of posting a discussion thread (and linking to such an opinionated piece) heavily implies that you were looking for a discussion of the practice itself, not simply a yes or no as to the veracity of the claim.

Again, that could have simply been a misunderstanding/misinterpretation on my part, but if so...why'd you continue the discussion when it went that way instead of clarifying right away?

Oh!

Also, please don't take my "anyone with a DA account" comment in a disparaging light (not that you did, but going back over it, I could see how it might be taken that way).

I simply meant that the technical "barriers to entry" into the art market are lower than ever thanks to the advent of the internet, and as such, competition is through the roof, simply because buyers have easy access to so many more artists of a talent level appropriate to their needs, even without resorting to their network of contacts...and so many of them aren't trying to make a living off of it that they're dictating pricing far more (by dint of sheer numbers) than the few who are.

Though many creative types have responded to the situation with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the simple fact of the matter is that art is simply no longer a pursuit that can keep anyone but the truly elite gainfully employed as their only job, and the scope of "truly elite" is narrowing daily. I would think that a decade from now, art has been fiscally devalued to the point that these artists (like the blogger you referenced) who are so upset will have by then separated fiscal value from artistic value in their minds, and in general, the idea that a reasonably talented artist should be able to make a good living from drawing alone will be regarded in much the same way as the idea of a VCR salesman or shoe repairman having enough business to stay afloat doing only that.

The internet (through sites like DA) has truly eliminated the false scarcity of artistic talent, and really allowed many, many talented artists to receive the recognition they deserve. The tradeoff is that, with that many talents getting attention, no one talent stands out so much that they can command the financial recognition they might have twenty years ago. I'd have to imagine that times are getting harder even for that top 1% of artists that make their living doing nothing but. Maybe not down to the $100 a pop level...but maybe that's not as much of an exaggeration as we might think.

You seem to have changed your tone (if indeed your position has not changed, though it seems as though it has) from the time you made the first post to the present (a change which is best encapsulated by your edit to your opening post).

In the beginning of the thread most of the discussion was to the effect of "if FFG is doing this, shame on them". Basically, taking the blogger at face value and making an appeal to sympathy. Now your tone seems less aligned with the blogger and more against him, taking the role of a skeptic.

I was a skeptic from the start. I actually thought what the blogger said was false and wanted FFG to debunk it and set things straight right away.

It occured to me later that "I don`t believe this" is also used to express shock in the english language, maybe even more often so than what it actually means, that you don`t believe it...

Oh well, better phrasing next time.

I am all for supporting artists and getting paid enough for hard work, but in this case I thought what the blogger said about FFG didn`t seem likely when looking at the high standards of art and general quality I have seen in their products. You get what you pay for!

Edit: And yes, I could have sent FFG an email, but I thought many other ffg fans might have seen this blog entry too. Better to get it out in the open and discuss it.

And even if I don`t believe it, I have been proven wrong before, even if I didn`t want to.

This is just sad... but any and all argument I have would probably be labelled "socialist" as it involves ethics, regulation, unions and social awareness, basically thoughts beyond self-interest and money-grabbing. but we all know I'm a commie bastard (being Norwegian and all...) so I'll drop that part of it... maybe...

Also: regional and national differences apply, illustrators in the US are probably worse off than illustrators in Norway, at least if you just look at plain numbers without context. I mean, they're probably worse off anyway, period.

What's quite scary is the apologetic arguments designed to maintain the status quo that I see sprinkled about this thread.

I'm not saying the guy in the blog is right - I have no way of knowing - but no smoke without fire, and whether he's using extreme examples or not, something is obviously wrong with the picture when it comes to paying artists for their work, be it illustration, music and otherwise. It is quite obvious that the creatively skilled are underpaid and that creative professions are unappreciated, professionally and economically.

People defending FFG's policy of poor compensation are rationalizing, probably because they love the product. That's sh*tty.

If you love the company and its work, you should be demanding they do better, and not blaming the situation on forces beyond the companies' control.

The author of the Medium article has a point and we can all likely see it if we're being honest with ourselves. I've been in his shoes before and it is the worst. Just because that's a normal situation doesn't make it right.

EDIT: And thanks to the OP for bringing this up. It's an important topic.

There would be no need to pay $100 per book.

Let's say a 400 page publication has an illustration on every other page, and the artists would be paid an extra $100 for each one. That's $20,000. At a conservative guess of selling 10,000 copies: $2 per book.

Edit: That's less than 1/8,000 of the male US population aged 15 to 50. The initial release ticket sales for The Phantom Menace are estimated to have been more than 80,000,000.

People defending FFG's policy of poor compensation are rationalizing, probably because they love the product. That's sh*tty.

If you love the company and its work, you should be demanding they do better, and not blaming the situation on forces beyond the companies' control.

The author of the Medium article has a point and we can all likely see it if we're being honest with ourselves. I've been in his shoes before and it is the worst. Just because that's a normal situation doesn't make it right.

EDIT: And thanks to the OP for bringing this up. It's an important topic.

I completely disagree.

The market is the ultimate decider of monetary value.

Who gets to make the decision that drawing is something that, objectively, a person should be able to make a decent living doing?

While it may sound harsh, we may simply be living in a time where art is so accessible that producing it isn't something that merits compensation that one can live comfortably on. We're already there with other forms of art, like singing, why should drawing or painting be exempt from the same forces.

For that matter, I do technical drawing for a living. To be clear, it's more of a skill than a talent, but my experience certainly allows me to be more effective at that job than a walk-on. If I were to quit my job and freelance only, I'd make money, but not nearly enough to live on, so I just have to accept the fact that freelancing technical drawing work is simply not a feasible way to make a living. In the realm of artistic drawing, there's the added caveat that there is not nearly as much of a 'demand' for the work as there is for technical drawing, so there aren't as many opportunities to be "hired on", and thus the competition is higher and because of that the prices are lower.

I'm not saying art is worthless, only that it's worth in strictly monetary terms is just as subject to the whims of the market as any other product or service.

There would be no need to pay $100 per book.

Let's say a 400 page publication has an illustration on every other page, and the artists would be paid an extra $100 for each one. That's $20,000. At a conservative guess of selling 10,000 copies: $2 per book.

Edit: That's less than 1/8,000 of the male US population aged 15 to 50. The initial release ticket sales for The Phantom Menace are estimated to have been more than 80,000,000.

Good thing they sell it outside the USA then...

Every other page?

The market is the ultimate decider of monetary value.

You're creating false absolutes.

The market doesn't "define" anything. The market gives you fluctuating "standards", but not "definitions". Competition occurs through the negotiations *around* standards. So if you're in high demand, you don't simply work with the "market-decided value" of your service or product: you set price or compensation at a rate or level relative to the standard, but not necessarily always at it.

You're essentially advocating for cut-rate service because that's what's expected. But that's NOT the same as a market definition. We're not talking about barrels of oil, here. FFG can choose to pay their service providers whatever they want -- they're not hide-bound to a "definition".

You don't seem to understand economics.

No matter how much you may not like it, the facts are the facts, and the market forces do indeed determine pricing. The very nature of compensation for products and services rendered pretty specifically and obviously create a system where pricing is equal exactly to a product or service's worth at that particular intersection of market forces. There's really no disputing that. It's objective fact.

What you don't seem to consider in your "high-demand" hypothetical is that you're changing one of the variables (demand) and not expecting any change in the results as determined by the market based on those variables. All art is not created equal. If a particular artist's art is in high demand, for any reason, the price for that art will obviously increase. What you need to examine at that point, though, is why in your hypothetical that demand has spiked in that case, and more importantly, you need to realize that high demand for one specific thing isn't the same as high demand in that entire sector.

Again, I'm not arguing my side of this one, or presenting an opinion. I'm just stating facts, and those facts aren't really up for discussion. The market sets the price. For everything.

There would be no need to pay $100 per book.

Let's say a 400 page publication has an illustration on every other page, and the artists would be paid an extra $100 for each one. That's $20,000. At a conservative guess of selling 10,000 copies: $2 per book.

Edit: That's less than 1/8,000 of the male US population aged 15 to 50. The initial release ticket sales for The Phantom Menace are estimated to have been more than 80,000,000.

So did you pay MSRP for your rulebook?

I think MSRP on a core rulebook is $60, right?

So did you go to the store, drop $60 and leave with your copy of the book, or did you insist that they take $120 for it and not a penny less?

If you didn't your argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on, since you paid the market value for what you were buying (as well you should, you've got mouths to feed and bills to pay just like anyone else). Why would you hold FFG to a standard of paying double the going rate for a product when you don't hold yourself to that same standard? (After all, they also have mouths to feed and bills to pay).

You don't seem to understand economics.

No matter how much you may not like it, the facts are the facts, and the market forces do indeed determine pricing.

Classic misdirection. I'd say the same about you. I do actually own a business, and a successful one at that.

Market standards are broken all the time. It's why people make different amounts of money for doing the same job. This happens all the time. It's why I pay my employees $6 more per hour than my nearest competitors -- and why we're consistently more profitable over the longer term. Because we retain our employees; because they're happier; because they work harder when they know they're appreciated. Your argument (and it *is* an argument) that service pricing is outside of the client's control is absurd. If FFG wanted to double their standard rates, they could do it and nobody would bat an eyelash. Nobody would write articles about how they were spitting in the face of some immutable standard.

Your "facts" are just "behaviours" presented as the former. There is nothing immutable about them.