Disclaimer: this is not a post directed at hydrospanner, the "you" is a generic "you". I apologise if that is not self-evident.

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.

^ and this kids, is why the world is going to hell, the climate is ******, people starve and wars happen. Some people actually believe this is the way it must be, like religious fanatics. Most scientists, but rarely economists for some reason, understand that their models are just that ... models, a simplified representation of an ultimately infinitely more complex reality.

No I'm not accusing you of being a fanatic hydrospanner, you present how many think it is, how it must be - in many ways how it is, some places. Luckily it doesn't have to be that way, nor is that way a prerequisite for freedom, democracy, wealth, equality etc.

Prices and the market can be regulated (no no no, I'm not talking communism, if you think so, go back to school and educate yourself), it is many places in the world, like Norway for instance (but it's surely regulated in the US too, in some ways). The result of this: Prosperity. And then unhappiness and problems no one ever thought could be problems, as being prosperous and having such a high standard of living results in boredom, which then reveals other existential issues not directly related to survival. And the things swing towards the right and we are more or less where we were 100 years ago, just waiting for another genocide...

Luckily the market or economy isn't God or a force of nature - the idea of "market forces" is funny, if not ridiculous. Of course, I'm as ideologically impaired as any other (also I'm not an economist, but I am a social scientist - just like economists are, they're not a part of the natural sciences, keep that in mind), so be sure to disagree and try and persuade me why the market "force" rules, are axiomatic, and factual and not up for discussion. Yes. Please, Remove agency from our list of possible actions, we can only consume and consume... nothing can be changed, the market rules everything.

So. Rant over.

I just think it plainly sucks that FFG underpays it's artists like that, it's unethical and betrays poor business values (unless exploitation is a good business value).

I would just like to note some specifics to the opening wording of the article that started this:

Companies like Fantasy Flight Games ask artists to do a fully painted illustration and sign away nearly all rights to that piece for just $100.

The emphasis is my own here but the point is, they ask the artists.. as in, for all we know, this is just their opening offer and rarely the resulting contract. There is no indication on how forcefully they hold this position or how many artists end up actually providing their work at this asking level. It really could go either way. A company starting with an extremely low offer to see if they can get lucky is by no means surprising at all. The real question is, how receptive are they to a reasonable counter offer? And perhaps this is only their starting offer when opening negotiations with a new artist with whom they've never worked with before and if the first works go well subsequent work will have a much higher starting point.

The opening line of the article is a very open statement with no real context or proof behind it, nor specifics to what is being said. It is leaving a lot of holes and gaps for people to fill in and the natural inclination is to just broadly apply it to all cases when that may not actually be accurate. It is meant to be provocative and put the reader in a mindset that suits the rest of the article, and it is quite effective at that. And the points in the article are no less valid even if FFG actually does pay artists a fair wage in 99% of situations but tends to open negotiations at a lowball figure. Artists put a lot of time and effort into their work and deserve to be paid accordingly. But we shouldn't jump to accusing FFG of being unfair to their artists based on such a singular open ended statement and with no real indication of it's validity, not to say that it hasn't happened ever but it could have happened once, ever for a very small piece of art (such as the dice roll icons) and not the masterpieces the article goes on to describe the level of effort for.. just to take the other side of the scale.

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".

I think you are misrepresenting the argument hydrospanner is making; which is more or less Econ 101 supply and demand. What (s)he is seeming to argue (and hydro, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the market is flooded with supply which in turn reduced the demand (lowering the price point). You make a valid point that an in demand artist has some power in negotiation, but that negotiation power hinges on the artist being in high-demand. When FFG has artists knocking down their door to get work featured in a book, then they can pay lower rates.

Is that bad business or exploitive? I'd say it's not.

It's certainly a good business strategy for FFG. They have a budget and it makes all the sense in the world to try to get the best product for the lowest price.

It's less good for freelancing artists, but it's not as though FFG is dragging artists in kicking and screaming. An artist can always turn the job down if it doesn't pay enough.

It's also worth considering that FFG isn't paying hourly rates, but per piece. If it takes Noah 15 hours to complete an acceptable piece of art, that's not FFG's problem; it's Noah's. If a competing artist can do the same level of work as Noah, quicker and for a third of the price, why would FFG hire Noah?

I'm also really curious to know what the deal is for the $100 piece. Is it something for a brand new unknown artist or is that what they are paying people who have been doing work for FFG for years? Is it a full page spread or is it a tiny background piece?

For business and legal reasons I would not expect FFG to comment on this topic. Ultimately we see one side of this without much evidence to back up a claim. Should we continue to argue and get bent out of shape at each other over an article that may or may not be true, or get on with discussing some space opera?

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.

Sorry, but an item or service is worth exactly what someone will pay for it. There's no getting around that very basic granule of truth.

People work for different amounts for any number of different reasons, all factored into the greater context of "the market". Someone works for less because they're breaking into the field and feel the need to buy a few jobs to establish a body of work. Someone does the same job for more because they have a lot already on their backlog, but hey, if they'll pay... Someone else does the job for less because they're not doing this to put food on the table...just taking a paid gig here and there to fund their next set of art supplies.

No matter how much you may try to rearrange things, or provide personal anecdotes, of cast the situation in a different light, a successful economic operation is conducted by minimizing costs while maximizing profit. If you find that you're more profitable by paying employees more, resulting in happier employees (and you have the performance/profitability data to back it up, again, of course, measured in monetary value at the end of the day, just like I've been saying), then you're not paying for the same services rendered. Sure, their job description might be the same as another company where they'd be minus $6/hr, but if you're getting better returns, then you're not paying $6 more for the same thing, you're paying $6 more for all of the advantages you just claimed to get for that money. Nothing in that anecdote goes against what I'm saying, and in fact, it further proves the point.

This isn't me saying "all art is worth $100", that's oversimplifying what I'm saying until it's just generalized enough for you to try to dispute it. Each individual transaction is different, and sometime one party or the other will evaluate the situation 'incorrectly', but at the end of the day, once services are rendered and cash changes hands, for that situation, that was the price the market determined for that transaction. This is just as plain as saying that water will flow along the path of least resistance, so by definition, if you come across a stream, that stream is tracing the path of least resistance. It's not really up for dispute, because the very nature of the situation is stipulated by the condition. It's not really a matter for debate, and no amount of trying to qualify an argument against it will make it any less true.

Dear hydrospanner,

someone else put up the $100 price for a "fairly" priced book, with polemic intent I believe. I just pointed out that, even if our economy based value on accumulated labour cost plus a fixed added value profit margin, the price of a book wouldn't rise by 100% but merely by 5%.

tl;dr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29

I think you are misrepresenting the argument hydrospanner is making; which is more or less Econ 101 supply and demand. What (s)he is seeming to argue (and hydro, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the market is flooded with supply which in turn reduced the demand (lowering the price point). You make a valid point that an in demand artist has some power in negotiation, but that negotiation power hinges on the artist being in high-demand. When FFG has artists knocking down their door to get work featured in a book, then they can pay lower rates.

Nailed it.

Along with that, it's worth noting as well that the price something is sold for is, objectively, what it was worth in that transaction. Esau sells his birthright for a snack (or a drink of water, or something...I forget my Exodus), was it worth more? Absolutely, but not to Esau at that moment, which was the only seller that mattered and the only time that mattered. TY beanie babies in 1996 selling for hundreds of dollars. Is a bunch of plastic beads in a bag of chenille worth that? Absolutely not. But back then with the craze and demand, it was what you could get for the right ones, so by definition, that's what they were worth.

In this case, there's the added condition of "make a decent living". Who says that artists deserve to make a decent living on their art? If it's not the people paying for it, then it doesn't much matter. I might be really good at doing cartwheels while wearing a suit of armor...unless someone's willing to pay me a comfortable living to do that, it isn't a skill I should expect to be able to quit my day job to pursue. I won't get into the far muddier issue of society's obligation to art and culture, but any attempt to impose those views on the facts and figures is subjective at best.

Dear hydrospanner,

someone else put up the $100 price for a "fairly" priced book, with polemic intent I believe. I just pointed out that, even if our economy based value on accumulated labour cost plus a fixed added value profit margin, the price of a book wouldn't rise by 100% but merely by 5%.

I totally get that, and it *is* a valid point in that sense...however, the point I was making is that it would make as much sense for FFG to double their payout for delivered product from the artists as it would make for any of us end consumers to double what we pay out for their delivered product.

No doubt some of us still totally would pay a $120 price tag, but I'd feel safe betting that it'd be far less than the amount that buy it at $60. And I'd feel even safer betting that those who would have paid the $120 didn't go on to pay that extra $60 to FFG just because of how much they felt it was worth.

Not disagreeing at all with your rationale, just using the same model to illustrate another point.

Sorry, but an item or service is worth exactly what someone will pay for it. There's no getting around that very basic granule of truth.

There are ways to manage and mitigate this 'granule of truth' as you call it. It happens in many markets and this is, in part, what Jegergryte is bringing up. Specifically regulation of a market. This happens in many markets and one which comes to mind most readily is the medical market in Canada (where I live), here there are regulation in place that state exactly what a doctor can charge for specific services and determine the price of specific prescription medications. While evidenced by the cost of these same medications and services in the neighboring US would clearly show people are /willing/ to pay more for these products and services Canadian agencies have determined that people shouldn't need to. In the opposite regard we have the concept of Minimum wage, which is more applicable to the general subject at hand. In this case, people are inclined to pay below a certain amount for a given service but again a governing body has stepped in to say that it isn't fair to those providing that service and as such there is a certain set minimum that must be met.

These specific cases go contrary to the concept of products or services are worth exactly what people are willing to pay for them. I suppose one could argue that minimum wage isn't exactly a case of this as people are obviously willing to pay minimum wage as they do it, but if they were not forced to do so they wouldn't be. Regardless to this, the former certainly shows the stated 'fact' is not as immutable as is indicated. It is indeed a basic principle of economics and the general concept of supply vs demand, but it is not a clear, present and unchangeable fact. It is merely a factor in the overall picture. There are a number of other factors that come into play as well.

I get where you're coming from, but as a point of reconciliation in both cases (in reverse order):

As far as minimum wage is concerned, while the minimum wage may seem like a fixed bottom price, independent of any other market forces, it's really simply cutting off the bottom of the pay scale curve. I'm definitely a proponent of some sort of minimum wage legislation (personally, I'd support a two-tier system, in which employers would have to qualify their positions into one of two classes, the first of which would be a job intended as a job that could support someone, and would have a minimum wage equal to the cost of living in that area, plus provisions for a basic benefits package and some sort of retirement savings assistance, and the second class would be for temp/part-time/seasonal, or other "auxiliary" type jobs not meant to be the main source of financial support alone, with a much lower minimum wage and no provision for extra benefits beyond measures like insurance in the event of workplace injury).

Regardless of all that, the effect is to make an employer's price more all-or-nothing. Basically, if they can't justify the price of adding an employee at minimum wage, they won't take on another employee at all. They're not going to approach this with the rationale of "We need to hire X people, and we only want to pay them Y amount...but the government says we've got to pay them Z amount, so we'll do that." Rather, it's more along the lines of, "We're looking to hire. Because we need to pay each employee Z amount, we're only going to create W amount of positions as opposed to the X amount we'd really like." In this case, the government is the voice of the seller (in this case, the worker selling their labor to an employer) and telling employers "we won't work for less than this, so either pay us this or don't hire us at all".

To the healthcare point, while regulation cuts the curve at the bottom for minimum wage, it cuts the curve off the top for healthcare. This is because when it comes to continued life (and by extension, the quality of that life due to health), there's effectively infinite demand. Regardless of the cost of a life-saving procedure or medicine, that price is less than the price of dying. This, naturally, leaves those responsible for pricing in the medical field to name their price, and in an alternate world where corporations ruled the earth, I believe healthcare companies would sit atop the heap for that very reason. What various government regs do is basically issue an ultimatum to these healthcare providers, essentially telling them the price that the citizenry is willing to pay. In Canada's case, if the government set their regulations low enough on price caps, you'd surely start to see more and more providers stop doing business in Canada and moving to greener pastures. In a flip of the min. wage situation, the government, again the voice of the people, is speaking here for the citizenry and telling healthcare providers "we won't pay more than this, so either sell it to us for this, or don't sell it to us at all".

So in these types of regulation, there's not necessarily a flaunting of the economic principles, but rather a flattening of what would be an otherwise smooth curve, at one end or the other.

I propose following certificate, to be awarded to comitted publishers:

ARTIST FRIENDLY

The Guild of American Visual Artists approves this publication and certifies that all artists contributing to it have been payed fairly and duly by the publishing body. And, no illustrators were harmed in the making of this book.

Then you raise the price by the extra cost and a wee increased profit margin.

Or, you can have your local book store try and compel you to charity: "I see you're buying the new EotE Splat. Don't you think the artists in this book should be able to make a living from their work? Maybe you would like to contribute. A little donation of only..."

Who gets to define 'fair'? To the artists in places like eastern Europe and China, they're perfectly content taking the money they are earning. It seems to me this is more about first world entitlement than what is 'fair'. Bottom line is the world economy is opening and integrating and if you're in an industry where you're product can be moved electronically, you have to compete with Asia, eastern Europe and Africa now, that's the reality across industry world wide. There are a lot of people that have been living sheltered lives in closed socialist societies in the first world that are just going to have to buckle up and learn to compete with the third world on their pay scale, there is no option B.

Well, there is always protectionism, isn't it.

To the artists in places like eastern Europe and China, they're perfectly content taking the money they are earning.

Perfectly content? I'm not sure why you would assert that.

To the artists in places like eastern Europe and China, they're perfectly content taking the money they are earning.

Perfectly content? I'm not sure why you would assert that.

Because they're taking an getting the jobs.

Except every country in the world is negotiating free trade treaties and breaking down trade barriers. The WTO makes the idea of protectionism a thing of the past. Everyone agrees it would be nice for artists to continue to prosper in 1st world countries at 1st world pay scales and thinks these pay outs aren't fair, but I bet everyone here is happy with paying what they do for a pair of jeans, or the fact the price of a decent car has stayed below $20k for decades, or that faster computers get cheaper and cheaper, that's all done on the backs of the third world. Bottom line is people in the developing world can draw and paint well too, and $1 there goes a hell of alot farther than in NYC or London, it's the simple truth of it.

Who gets to define 'fair'? To the artists in places like eastern Europe and China, they're perfectly content taking the money they are earning...

So that`s why so many eastern europeans come to Norway to work their asses of for 6 months at the time, any chance they get. Got it.

And I guess China isn`t breaking any international human rights laws when it comes to work ethics and use of labour misconducts either. Happy with what they are paid.

Good to know.

... Sorry! That sarcasm gave me a bad aftertaste. Waaay too poisonous. Yes, I`m a little bit ashamed now.

Sorry, 2P51! **** move, not cool.

International trade needs regulations and laws too, not everyone is all for 100% free trade and an open self-regulating market.

Child labour and work exploitation in all its form isn`t cool.....

There isn't anyone anti free trade running any governments that matter, that's for sure. I'm not a colossal fan of elements of it, but at the end of the day I can not like and deny a rain cloud all I want, I still get wet.

There isn't anyone anti free trade running any governments that matter, that's for sure. I'm not a colossal fan of elements of it, but at the end of the day I can not like and deny a rain cloud all I want, I still get wet.

Why have laws if **** happens anyway?....

There are lots of governments that matter that are pro some degree of regulated trade!

I would say most countries are pro laws of conduct and regulations.

Don't tell me, tell your government. Bottom line is you'll probably notice just like here in the US politicians on every side in one way or another are in some corporations hip pockets. Everyone preaches human rights and then everyone rushes out and does business with China and the Middle East and Russia will nilly.

Bottom line is you'll probably notice just like here in the US politicians on every side in one way or another are in some corporations hip pockets.

That`s actually a very american thing(as far as first world, modern countries go).. Lobbying is illegal over here. Political advertisement is a no no here too.

Edit: I love America, really do! I just don`t think american politics has much to do with politics

Bottom line is you'll probably notice just like here in the US politicians on every side in one way or another are in some corporations hip pockets.

It exists, but not remotely at the same level. The US is off the chart compared to most everybody else in the 1st world.

Bottom line(s):

The article is interesting but doesn't necessarily present the actual, objective truth of the matter.

Although only 10% approaches a level of quality, there are so many freelance artists available that's not a commodity that's lacking, if you look at it from a numbers standpoint only. Saddle that with different peoples' differing standards on what their own work and time is worth to them, and a company can offer a low amount for commissions and get takers. Hurting the industry? Underhanded? Maybe, maybe not. Short of being an industry-renown master, you have a case of 'well, if you won't take the work, somebody else will', unfortunate or not. Not a black/white issue by any means.

Politics is a crapshoot and a complex issue and let's stop talking about it because this is about a game with laser swords in space. The villains have world death lasers, people.

Now let's all let it die before this community gets another locked thread. It's been a good few weeks, guys -- let's leave it that way.

From personal experience, FFG pay average to better-than-average rates to their freelancer writers (having contributed to FFG publications from 2009 to 2012), at least by industry standards. I have no reason to assume they do different for artists. RPG writing is one of the lowest-paying creative writing fields I know of - averaging about $0.03 per word (this is regarded in many parts of the industry as being the minimum reasonable, but a few companies try to pay less, as little as $0.005 a word. It's not great, but the the industry as a whole has low pay rates across the board. Nobody makes much money from RPGs.

RPG publishing has very, very, narrow margins. That retail price you see? About half of that goes to the distributors. Full-colour hardback books have higher printing costs than the black & white softcovers that used to be the industry standard, and print runs are never huge unless you're doing a D&D corebook (because you end up with stock sat in warehouses that's cost you money but isn't making you money in return - and few RPG publishers are big enough to manage that). Few publishers can afford more than a handful of full-time writing and developing staff; most of the writers on any given book are freelancers, often doing it as a hobby in their spare time.

This article gives a decent idea of the costs involved in the RPG industry. It's not pretty.