Whats the deal with artists these days charging so low for their

It's literally a minimal wage tier, I don't understand those people.

>>3124040
because its shit tier works and some porn crap of anime girls?
i never charge less for 80$ for a character, but then again i actually care about lineart and coloring.

>>3124040
Maybe you should have posted an example that isn't complete shit.

>>3124040
Shit or not, this guys is undercharging. I don't get why these people just don't get a shitty minimum wage job, they'll make more money.

File: 1504514142741.png (1MB, 1263x2473px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1263x2473px

>>3124053
Better?

>>3124099
thats even worse

File: 1459119374311.jpg (288KB, 700x997px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 700x997px

>>3124102
how about now

>>3124096
do you think anyone is making a living out of $30? obviously he only does it for pocket money.

>>3124107
Perfection.

>>3124040
Why does the sketch look so much more adept than the colored pieces. Those faces are such lazy garbage.

>>3124040
2 reasons.
1. People charge low so you have to charge low or people will just go to the cheaper buyer. Basic economics. And some people love in 3rd worst shitholes and can make a living on $2 a day, so you're shit out of luck there.

2. It's a hobby and they're just charging as a way to gate requests and make side cash rather than actually making a living off it. It's more for enjoyment and validation than making money.

>>3124123
Color requires theory and knowledge of shadow and light. Drawing can just be muscle memory.

>>3124040
shit skills -> less exposure -> less demand -> lower prices

it's pretty simple math

>>3124926
You forgot low intelligence. They think they need to curb their prices because of the "competition". And can't understand why they aren't able to make more money.

>>3124915
But what if I live in a third world country? costumers can still pay me in dollars via paypal right?

>>3124938
My point was peopl3 in 3rf world countries get paid low dollars but can actually live off that. But someone in a shit place like Cali would be making less than a homeless dude. So the 3rd world has the advantage

>>3124040
Because they're dumb. You should never draw anything under 100$ an hour. That means you'll get less commissions but that means you only get clients that can afford you, it weeds out all the shiteaters.

>>3124915
>>3124938
>>3124949
Yes, you can get paid via paypal with dollars. I live in a 3rd world shithole where minimum wage is literally $3.90 a day for 8 hour work.

I charge $35 for sketches, $90 for colored and $180 for detailed and still get commissioners.

The only tricky part is since it's paid work as a self employed person you gotta do your taxes, it's surprising the amount of freelancers I've met that have no idea how to manage their taxes.

>>3124040
>Whats the deal with artists these days charging so low for their works?
It's called supply and demand. Artists standing in a unified front to charge more isn't going to get these people more commissions. The more commissions they complete, the more popularity they gain and the more good word of mouth that flows the more they can raise prices in the future.

I literally have MILLIONS of pictures on my PC from THOUSANDS of artists and I can tell you right now most artists aren't going to stand out in this crowded field.

>Back then pic related would charge $50 for a sketch at the minimum.
And that shit was overpriced. I can complete a sketch in under an hour, why the fuck would I be charging $50 an hour as some unknown douche? That's fucking nuts unless I am super popular to warrant charging more for my precious time.

>Don't they know how to market themselves?
They do know, which is why they are doing this. They know the emergence of cheaper easier to use software like Clip Studio Paint, DAZ and Design Doll make it possible to complete work much faster. They know most the competition will be using these shortcuts and charging less. They know if they don't jump on board they will be left behind.

File: 1496471048562.jpg (35KB, 538x492px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 538x492px

>>3124099

>Cell Shaded

we dont think we're good enough for charging that much when really well known artists charge up to a 100 dollars for something that usually gets thousands and thousands of views in hours.

i'm not as bad as the OP but I already get almost zero commissions and id rather incentivize people coming to me over prices if I can.

>>3124977
Who gives a shit what the lowest entry level of freelance porn artists do to compete with each other? Meanwhile, in the real art industry, commission prices have gone UP not down, because of a whole wave of formerly competing artists who now comfortly make a living via Patreon, Gumroad and Kickstarter who no longer do commissions at all.

Even before the rise of Patreon, commission prices above a certain level were never at any risk of dropping because people will always pay for skill and quality and skilled artists happen to get snatched up by big studios sooner or later, which also takes them out of the commission game.

File: larry bird shh.jpg (142KB, 770x1000px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 770x1000px

reminder that undercharging for work will just get you weasily fucks like some of the assholes in this thread who will try to backseat art you the whole time and ask for a billion edits and then hit you with a chargeback when it's finished.

remember you want commissioners to be people who actually like your work, not someone who's shopping around for the cheapest artists they can find. i also strongly suggest only taking commission from people who have some record of social interaction/standing online they would be unlikely to try and just ghost from in an attempt to slide out of actually paying you for your work, or at the very least they're someone who seems to genuinely interact with and enjoy your art through likes and retweets/blogs/shares whatever.

>>3124040
>>3124099
>>3124926

I think it's probably a matter of being NEET and living with your parents. There is no way you can justify working for 3-5$ per hour if you actually have a life and have to pay bills.

File: doit.jpg (42KB, 400x293px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 400x293px

>>3124040
MFW dis is clever marketing....

>>3124040
OP is shilling. He's creating value by saying his work used to be priced at $ fitty now it's at $ dirty tirdy. Try this shit on /ACO/ they'll gobble it up.,

>>3124040
>30 bucks
jesus christ.. i am so sad for these people. whats the point of learning to draw if you just make minimum wage? you are choosing to be bottom tier for the bottom tier clients. pathetic.

File: download_1.png (4KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x225px

>Charging $50 for a comic page with 6-7 characters and full color
>I'm not even that bad, been drawing for 5 years and other boards always praise my art
>After so much posting on /ic/ I have internalized that my art is worthless and I'm afraid to ask for more

>>3124040
Value is completely relative, besides SupplyxDemand

I know /ic/ is a brainlet board full of monkeys who want illustrate for money but you niggers should know the basics of economy ffs

>>3126189
are you me

>>3126189
>other people say your art is good and pay you for it
>listens to a bunch of people who aren't his customers

As long as you make things that your buyers want and they are willing to pay for it then who cares what other people say? You have your market and you have people who like the art you make. Give them what they want and try throwing out a few different things at different prices to get a feel for what your consumers want and are willing to pay.

That's the important thint to focus on. You have your market, give them what they want and do it well and you will make them and yourself happy. People who aren't your audience saying it is shit should not even bother you. I don't care if you draw a single line. If your fans pay for those lines and you like doing it? Then be the best line drawer you can be. Fuck it.

>>3126187
But they literally are bottom tier skill wise. Their qualification as artist is the equivalent of a highschool dropout flipping burgers for minimum wage. What about their art makes you think they deserve the pay that qualified, skilled labor gets?

some combination of a lack of confidence, poor business skills & the belief that by massively undercutting any kind of sustainable wage they'll be inundated with enough shitty 15 dollar commissions to compensate for the difference. the reality is that you simply cannot charge this low without a tradeoff in quality or time and if you work for sub-fast food wages, your clientele will treat you like a fast food worker.

>>3124040
Value=Quality/Cost

At this quality, I wouldn't pay a single penny, but YMMV. What's it to you if this is worth it for him or not? Maybe he can pump these out in 10 minutes.

>>3125014
>waving dick around like he got me good
>just repeated what I said in different words
Good job there. Thanks for pointing out that higher skilled and more popular artists with solid reputations can charge more. If you're a fucking nobody it doesn't matter how skilled you are because you have no fucking track record. You could just take the $150-200+ and run which HAS happened plenty of times. Or you could take the $200 and make me wait 8 fucking months for a completed piece.

No one is going to pay for "quality" work without assurances that the artist is going to produce it in a timely fashion. A bunch of cheap commissions gives you a huge base of satisfied customers who will then pay more in the future because they are satisfied and KNOW they underpaid you at first.

>>3124040
>>3124099
Post someone actually good and not porn with these prices.

>>3126280
There is always a risk involved with freelance commissions, but that goes both ways. Artists have just as high of a risk of running into a scummy client who will charge back the money after delivery. People who paid you 10$ for a drawing will maybe pay you 15-20$ next time if they were satisfied, but they'll never come to you for quality work that exceeds the amount of pocket change. You are not a quality artist no matter how reliable you deliver, they never commissioned you because they liked your work, they commissioned you because you're a 10$ artist.

>>3124040
if i were him i definitely wouldn't have including an ugly neckbeardy self portrait seeing as joy is a girls name he could have profited off the ambiguity

anyway they charge that much because that's what they are worth, do you think in the past people were paying more for lewd etchings?

>>3124096
>Shit or not, this guys is undercharging. I don't get why these people just don't get a shitty minimum wage job, they'll make more money.


Why dont you go to the drawthreads and say the same thing, those guys are giving away their work for free

>malfag finally learns there are porn artists on /aco/ making more money than him
Well be prepared for a bunch of threads shitting on nonames from /aco/.

It's NSFW art, so the prices being that low isn't shocking me at all...

>>3126295
Or they could put that $10-20 toward your Patreon in the future. Get a bunch of super satisfied customers and suddenly you're banking $2000+ a month without breaking a sweat. All because they want a chance to have a voice on your poll or "win" a free commission by being in the higher tiers.

I don't know about you but I would rather get my money from Patreon than to dick around taking risks I will be ripped off by some random douches by taking individual commissions for life. Charge backs are less likely when little money is at play but even if someone does charge back $10 and it only took you an hour to produce that's a LOT less damaging than losing 6-8+ hours of time on some $150-200 piece.

>>3126295
If people work min wages jobs and are willing to throw money at you for art I think that says plenty.

You are making rash generalizations of how everyone thinks despite not knowing at all; and if an artist can raise their prices then they know they'll get sales still so even if the person who once paid 10 dollars is no longer interested, it won't matter because others are.

Having a population of fans who appreciate your work as a whole is a lot more important than prices.

>>3126319
They are not required to do make anything, are you retarded?

>>3126324
>It's NSFW art, so the prices being that low isn't shocking me at all...
I don't get why everyone is saying that, the fact that it is porn is why they can sell it at all, it's bumping their prices up not down

>>3126388
The real reason it is priced so low is because there are more talented artists out there doing porn commissions.
Some low skill artist may take 3 hours to draw something that looks worse than what a higher skill artist draws in the same amount of time. Do they both deserve, let's say, 50 dollars for their time? You could say that they do, but if you were someone who wants a commission, you'd choose the higher skilled artist every time.
They price their drawings lower to remain competitive in a "market" full of people who are much more skilled than them.

>>3126396
The entire debate around this issue is pretty much wahhh capitalism isn't fair!!!

it's retarded, ive seen people actually endorse what amounts to cartels to keep prices high artificially

>>3126403
Wait, who exactly in this thread are you saying is complaining about capitalism?

>>3126410
Anyone bitching about people setting their prices in ways they disagree with, it's not any different than a business having to adjust because another business went lower than them.

>>3126412
Ok I get you. Whether they think the prices are too high OR too low, right?

>>3126410
Not capitalism, just complaining about competitive markets. People bitching about "fair pricing", when these artists know full well what the dollar value of their work is, regardless of time spent.

It's an extreme example, but someone like Yoji Shinkawa can create amazing works of art in less than 15 minutes, effortlessly. Then you have some novice on 4chan who takes 3 hours to draw a crude sex scene. Does the artist who spent more time working deserve more money? No. Your art is basically a product. People pay for a finished product, not your labor. They don't care how long you took to make something if it looks like shit. If you make mediocre art, you get paid a mediocre amount.
If anyone in this thread advocated these people to charge almost 100 dollars for these, they are crazy. No one will buy them, and the artists know this.

>>3126421
Correct. It's the decision of the seller to set their prices and decide what's best for them, not consumers. If it fails, the problem is on the seller and no one else.

File: vampire.jpg (222KB, 1216x898px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1216x898px

>>3124040

>fat disgusting neckbeard
>pathetic porn art
>the art quality is pure shit

you're surprised they are charging dirt cheap and still struggling?

if you aren't as good as Rapoza, Daarken etc. don't even bother trying to make money seriously. If you don't have the talent to git that gud, then piss off, honestly.

>>3126423
>>3126424

Thanks for explaining. I agree with all of your points and feel as you do on the issue.

>>3126326
Not one of the popular patreon artists ever did 10$ commissions. You don't need to work for the lowest of the low to build a fucking fanbase. In fact, wasting your time on such low tier commissions will get you far less views and likes than if you just did fanart or personal work and uploaded that regularly.

>>3126426
Well, Daarken isn't even remotely close to being as good as Dave Rapoza and considering you view him as some kind of milestone, you must be way worse, so why are you still trying instead of following your own advice?

>>3126430

I am following my own advice. Gitting gud instead of posting stupid threads worrying about what low-tier shit artists do.

And yes, Daarken isn't as good as Rapoza, but he's still good enough to consistently get work with top tier companies and make a comfortable living. That's fairly impressive.

Believe me, anyone starting to approach any of these guys in skill will have darted out of /ic/ and 4chan long ago.

>>3126431
>Believe me, anyone starting to approach any of these guys in skill will have darted out of /ic/ and 4chan long ago.

You have a very weird idea of what professional artists are like. You think the moment you get good you drop all your bad habits and start living on top of a mountain without internet connection or something?

>>3126426
>>3126430
>>3126431
i've actually been thinking about taking darkeen's mentorship

>>3126423
now i'm no economics expert but i'm pretty sure that when buying a commission from an artist you are quite literally paying them for their labor
you dipshit
you ignoramous
you absolutely stupid mother fucker

>>3126428
this more or less
fanart gets eyes on your work, personal art is the litmus for seeing who's sticking around cause they like your output for it's own sake (as opposed to just being a fan of what you drew fanart of)

as long as you can do this at a consistent quality level at a relatively consistent rate you can build a decent enough following over a few years without having to scrape the bottom of the price barrel in some desperate attempt to be "competitive". remember, you want commissioners who actually like your work, not randos price shopping for the cheapest deal in town.

>>3126428
A lot of them just did shit for free. A $10 commission is the equivalent of that. Take the ones you like and you get $10 out of something you'd of released for free anyway except with the added bonus of building a loyal fanbase who thinks you're a cool guy for giving people stuff for cheap.

>>3126446
>now i'm no economics expert but i'm pretty sure that when buying a commission from an artist you are quite literally paying them for their labor
Not that guy but no, you aren't. Artists are deciding on rates BASED on their labor and what they want to make per hour. If someone is obscenely slow they aren't going to get the rate they want. I know a few artists who claim to spend 18-20 hours on pieces that faster artists can bust out in a couple of hours. I'm not going to pay them $300+ just because they are slow when I can get it for $100-150 elsewhere.

>>3126466
without the labor of the artist the product does not exist. you pay the artist to create the art. you are paying them for their labor, especially since in any case where it is not contractually stated otherwise when creating a personal commission the artist retains the copyright to the image they have produced whether or not the commissioner or even the artist themselves are aware of it. at least as far as US copyright goes. it gets grayer if you're using corporate IP, but if it's the commissioner's OC they are implied to have given you permission to use it by paying you and unless they have explicitly asked for the ownership of the image produced it defaults to the artist who created it.

check any artist who actually has legal writing in their commission forms, bet you 9 times outta 10 they have it worded so that they retain ownership of the work they produce and merely give the commissioner license to use it however they please as long as it's only for personal use (aka you can't use it to make money aka use it in advertisements, logos or other business shit etc etc)

>>3126446
>now i'm no economics expert but i'm pretty sure that when buying a commission from an artist you are quite literally paying them for their labor
No you aren't. The commissioner doesn't care if it takes you 10 hours or 2 hours if the result is the same quality. Should a commissioner be obligated to pay someone who is slow 5x the cost for the same product? No. You are punishing your client based off of your own inadequacies. You base your prices on factors that INCLUDE time spent, but are still market competitive. Skill, time spent, marketability, reputation, popularity, size of consumer base. All of these things /influence/ how much you can charge for a piece of work. Remember that it is the consumer who decides what your art is worth. If you spend 4 days polishing a turd, no one is obligated to buy it from you simply because you put in your time and effort. You can SAY that your art is worth 100$, but if no one is buying it, it's actually worth 0$.
The artists who draw anime porn for 20$ are doing so because they get the maximum amount of benefit doing so. If they charge higher? Less people want to buy. If they charge lower? The effort is not worth the money gained. Take into consideration that it might be better to draw 3 pieces at 20$ each than 1 at 60$ since having multiple patrons increases the likelihood of you finding more work in the future, and also adds more to your reputation and popularity (which means you can charge more later)
There are many, many, factors that come into play when charging for your art. Sperging out over how many hours you wasted polishing a turd makes you sound bitter.
>you dipshit
>you ignoramous
>you absolutely stupid mother fucker
So you are just a bitter artist who is upset that his art isn't as valuable as he wishes it were.

>>3126446
>im no economics expert
yeah, i can tell.
service != labor, as the other posts have said, you are paying for the service which in this case is a product, labor/time doesnt have any worthy value, marx can fuck off too for saying it does

>>3126475
none of this post addresses "labor", it just addresses a product.

If you had the skill to spit out a Ruan Jia-tier piece in a day, would that be worth less than if you had to spend a week on it? Ofcourse not. It would be worth more.

>>3126481
>So you are just a bitter artist who is upset that his art isn't as valuable as he wishes it were.
no i just earnestly think you're stupid lol
the experience aka time someone has put in to be able to produce a work quickly is still part of the labor you're paying for. more experienced artists cost more because they've put in more time. building a following/brand/reputation etc is still time put into their work. everything returns to the work (aka labor) that the artist has put in.

now i never said every garbo tier artist has a right to being commissioned just because they spent a lot of time on a specific piece, i merely think you're stupid for believing that when commissioning an artist you are paying for anything beyond the work (aka labor) of the artist (or materials should they be required for a piece of course)
tl;dr i'm busting your chops over semantics

>>3126484
service != product
there is no product in a digital commission unless there is legal writing to clarify what is actually being exchanged. most online commissions are just paying an artist to use their time to draw an image that the artist then allows the commissioner to use. it's like buying a game on steam, you don't actually own it in any meaningful sense, you merely have permission to play the game.

>>3126503
If labor mattered show the same picture to a commissioner and tell them that if it took 10 hours to draw they owe you 100 dollars and if it took 15 minutes to draw they owe you 50 cents.

>b-but all those other things you said are part of time spent.
Originally we were talking about the time spent on a SINGLE commission, not the accumulative time spent drawing over your entire life.
Now you're just redefining what you originally claimed to backpedal.
>there is no product in a digital commission unless there is legal writing to clarify what is actually being exchanged
This is some jew level shit, anon.

>>3126466
>A $10 commission is the equivalent of that. Take the ones you like and you get $10 out of something you'd of released for free anyway

If you are only getting 10$ commissions, then there is a huge underlying problem with your art that you should be addressing first instead of trying to make a living off of your art just yet. No halfway competent artist works for those ridiculously low prices and quite frankly, no one would even think of asking them because they know only the bottom of the barrel shitters accept those commissions.

>>3126503
You're right, you're actually only paying for the product. Any "service" or "labor" is covered in the artist's decided price already.

I'm curious why you think these things wont exist though without a contract? The concept of service, product, etc all come way before written law. If what you said was the case there would be no such thing as having DMCA rights of your art when it's online because there's no legal writing that directly clarifies it.

Also word of mouth and written can count as legal writing in the first place.

>>3126506
call a horse whatever you want, it's still a horse
you can keep calling a commission a product but what you're actually paying for is the artist's labor
>Originally we were talking about the time spent on a SINGLE commission
i don't think i've talked about that at all, check my posts, i've only talked about the vague concept of labor vs product as far as i can tell. (please note the post where i called you (or someone) a buncha toothlessly mean names for comedic effect is my first post in case you think i'm someone else who's been posting before that one)

also that's basic copyright law used in it's purest form to protect the creator of a work from being taken advantage of. a personal commission is just that, for personal use, the artist retaining the copyright to the image is the only thing stopping a commissioner from exploiting an artists work to make money (keep in mind that it also works the other way, protecting the commissioner as well because the artist doesn't have permission to profit off said commissioner's character, they only had implied permission allowing them to draw it related to what they were paid for. and of course if it involves an IP that neither of the parties involved have the rights to then blah blah blah you get the fuckin deal)

>>3126513
>If what you said was the case there would be no such thing as having DMCA rights of your art when it's online because there's no legal writing that directly clarifies it.
the creator of a work is the copyright holder of said work by default UNLESS there is contractual writing to the otherwise

as to the first part, i still feel that "product" is the wrong term seeing as unless you're paying for a physical copy of the work you're very literally just paying an artist to create a thing so that you may look at a copy of it. you may own the rights to things that are contained in the piece, but the piece as a whole belongs to the artist you paid to create it unless the two parties agree otherwise.

>>3126537
You are paying for a physical copy, it's data.
I think you're conflating rights with the concept of a product when they're not the same things. You can buy a CD or DVD and not own rights to the content in it but it's still yours, and is considered a product.
You seem to be using labor in it's colloquial form rather than the more rigid economics contexts, yes, it's labor that they are drawing it but the labor itself doesn't have any value standalone in the eco context, when used colloquially it's more like labor used for the sake of service.

>>3126512
Way to misread what I said. It's shit you were going to do anyway for free. You just happened to get a commission to do the same idea. It's not that someone can "only" get $10, it's that the price doesn't fucking matter at the end of the day because it was just something to practice and build reputation.

>>3126189
holy shit, how long does it take you to complete a page like that? theres freelancer pricing guides, you need to think about how much your time's worth

>>3124040
he should be charging less

Im not going to pay $30 for that shitty artwork.

His time isn't worth more than minimum wage

>>3126446
>you are quite literally paying them for their labor

Value of labor=Time x (Quality/Availbility)

Quality of his work is low, availability of this material is high, so the value of his labor is low no matter how much time he put into it.

Minimum wage does not apply in this argument because freelance artists are self employed.

>>3126825
>Minimum wage does not apply in this argument
Literally, "what is opportunity cost?"

>>3124040
If you're a fat neckbeard why in the world would you try to make a picture of yourself looking snarky and cool, Jesus.

>>3126189
Even if people here tell you that your work is awful you still need to charge appropriately. If you think your work has no value others will think that as well.

>>3127548
>Literally, "what is opportunity cost?"

Literally, opportunity cost =/= minimum wage.

You don't know how fast he's able to shit these out. You don't know what other jobs he has which this work does not interfere with. You can't measure the amount of self-satisfaction he gets from doing this. There are a bunch of different factors that are unique to him.

If you're one of those people crying about how hobbyists are ruining the your business because your skill level is not high enough to pull yourself above them, that's your problem, not the hobbyists.

Who cares. His art is pedestrian, he's not very good. So he doesn't charge a lot. Of you are really good you can charge more. The simple fact is that he can't charge more or no one would buy. It's not that he is being dumb or not marketing himself.

Why are snobs on /ic/ acting like they're the greatest in the world? Everyone knows anons on /ic/ can't draw. That's why Loomis is spammed everywhere.

>>3125014
>>Donating to patron.

Why would I freely give away money for an artist being alive. Half of them never deliver.