So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

For discussions, announcements, non-technical questions and anything else comics-related or otherwise that doesn't fit in any of the other categories.
User avatar
Mo
Cartoon Villain (GTC)
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:55 am
Location: On the shoulder of a giant
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Mo »

Interesting thread...

On a related note, I have been looking into the job market for the last two years, and find it immensely frustrating that pretty much all artworker jobs and even most graphic designer jobs ever advertised in this area are paid £5-10k less annually than my current boring office job. :( (Except for some senior roles, which are impossible to get when you don't have a huge amount of industry experience.)
It's ridiculous. My current job, in my opinion, does not require much skill (except an average dose of intelligence and IT knowledge) or any talent whatsoever... it just doesn't seem right. If I ever tried to make any kind of a living with art (which I won't), it would always have to be as a freelancer because the wages are so damn horrible.

The skill of producing artwork is very much undervalued. Unless for when it comes to certain modern abstract artists who think putting a brush stroke of squirrel shit on canvas is genius and try to sell it for £5000. :shifty:

User avatar
Terotrous
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 6:23 pm
Location: Canada, eh?
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Terotrous »

It's really just supply and demand. There are loads of people who would love to work in the art industry, but few jobs for them. So even if the jobs pay badly there will be tons of applicants.


The video game industry is exactly the same. The hours are terrible and so is the pay. That's why I'm sticking to my current boring programming job as well.
What Lies Beyond - A Psychological Fantasy Novel
Image
Stuff that updates sometimes:
ImageImage
I also did phbites.comicgenesis.com and hntrac.comicgenesis.com way back when.

User avatar
McDuffies
Bob was here (Moderator)
Bob was here (Moderator)
Posts: 29957
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by McDuffies »

IVstudios wrote: The best personal example of this I can think of was a time I was watching some animated thing-or-other (I think it was The Secret Of Kells) and my father asked me how I could enjoy watching such a poorly drawn show. I responded by saying that I enjoyed it because even though the drawing style was simplistic, it had some really amazing animation, to which he replied "what's the difference?" At which point I tried to explain to him the difference between how the characters were drawn and how they moved on screen and such and he just couldn't wrap his head around how the two were separate things. In his mind, cartoons were cartoons and he had never given a moments thought to what went into making them. He just thought it was worthless because the characters didn't look like they came from a Norman Rockwell painting.
I agree on Kells, simple drawing (which is a virtue in my gook), gorgeous animation.
We all have things that we think of like that, probably without realizing it. That we judge their worth without having any real understanding of what goes into it, just what we get out of it. Nascar comes to mind for me. I can't really wrap my head around why anyone would give a crap about that. It's just driving around in a circle, amiright? But in reality it's a very dangerous, physically and mentally taxing activity that takes a huge amount of skill and precision. (I still can't fathom why anyone would pay to watch it, though.)
Dunno, I always wondered why Nascar gets so little respect... then again I learned of Nascar as american version of Formula 1, which is treated in pretty different way. Not that I find it interesting, it just does seem like stressful and dangerous thing. I think lots of us were exposed to it first through news of Senna death or those shock videos of cars crashing, so obviously it's not naive.
I also blame professional "TV cartoonists" like Bruce Blitz who sell how to books/dvds and make appearances on TV shows (mostly for kids but sometimes morning talk shows) and show how "easy" it is to draw a cartoon in a couple of minutes - not mentioning that it takes years of practice to be even as mediocre as some of them are.
Except in Bruce Blitz's case he probably didn't take long cause his cartoons are awful anyway.
It's ridiculous. My current job, in my opinion, does not require much skill (except an average dose of intelligence and IT knowledge) or any talent whatsoever... it just doesn't seem right. If I ever tried to make any kind of a living with art (which I won't), it would always have to be as a freelancer because the wages are so damn horrible.
What's the job if you don't mind me asking?

Anyways I do get respect for drawing irl. I think people are rather fascnated by someone drawing comics.

User avatar
Jops
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 1951
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Zzyzx Rd.
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Jops »

IVstudios wrote: Actual discussion I've had with a client:
Client: We like the layout, but we want the kid to look happy instead of sad.
Me: Really? Because it's a picture of a sick kid. Why would a sick kid be happy?
Client: The sad kid looks depressing. We don't want our customers to associate [product] with being sad.
Me: But it's a picture of what happens when you don't use [product].
Client: Well, the bosses want him to look happy.
Me: Alright then. *Dies a little inside*
That's actually marketing, not just the boss' whim.
A sad face in an ad, even if it has every reason to be so, tend to drive people off. A smiling face, even if out of place, does the opposite.
It's a subtle thing with its own rules that often clash with both common sense and creativity, but (unfortunately, i may add) they often work.

The problem with the marketing people is that they often don't know when they're crossing the line. Especially when they're not creative themselves and can't fully appreciate good artwork and design. All they know what makes an impact on people and try to squeeze every single bit of it, even at cost of ruining the art part, ultimately doing more harm than good.
Jops

Image Image

User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by IVstudios »

That may be true broadly, but I've seen tons of adds where there are unhappy people in them when the lack of [product] is making them unhappy.

If it's just a splash ad type thing where you have one big image intended to draw in the viewer I get your logic. But this wasn't a gum ad, it was an instructional flyer about how to care for a child with a specific medical condition who's whole message was "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T FEED THAT TO YOUR KID IT WILL MAKE THEM VERY SICK!"

So I think the smily kid was a bit out of place.

User avatar
Jops
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 1951
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Zzyzx Rd.
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Jops »

IVstudios wrote:So I think the smily kid was a bit out of place.
I definitely agree with that.

Well, i did mention of people applying the rules of marketing out of a reasonable context, with the result of doing more harm than good. That boss guy is a perfect example.
Jops

Image Image

User avatar
Phact0rri
The Establishment (Moderator)
The Establishment (Moderator)
Posts: 5772
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:04 pm
Location: ????
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Phact0rri »

Jops wrote: All they know what makes an impact on people and try to squeeze every single bit of it, even at cost of ruining the art part, ultimately doing more harm than good.
This is my life.
Image
<KittyKatBlack> You look deranged. But I mean that in the nicest way possible. ^_^;

User avatar
peterabnny
Regular Poster
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:40 am
Location: Tintoonati, OH
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by peterabnny »

RobboAKAscooby wrote:
I'm finding that us cartoonists get the least respect for our effort and time put in. I'm guessing it's because cartooning is (in most cases) about simplification of form so our art looks "easy" to those who don't know better - I've even encountered people who think there's no difference between their mis-proportioned scribbling and actual decent cartoons.
I can get behind that. Our art is probably the one kind of art form that is considered most disposable and mass-produced, so I guess it would figure that any individual pieces (strips, pin-ups, etc.) should come on the cheap in a lot of people's minds. Trouble is, unlike other professions - doctors, carpenters, fire fighters, etc. - there isn't any average pay scale for artists, is there? I mean, outside graphic designers, maybe.

Then, of course, there are those artists who have such outstanding talent that they can just put out stuff with very little effort and still command the prices of those who put hours into a piece. It's like someone's either being greedy or not greedy enough. There's a girl I know who's like that. Whereas I have to do everything in pencil first before going back over it in ink and it takes six to eight hours to do one B&W cartoon, she can just set pen to paper and come up with a well-drawn finished product in just a few minutes - and she hasn't had any more formal training in art than I have (less of it, in fact)! With her, it's just pure talent! Then there are the digital toonsmiths, who do everything on the computer. What materials are covered in their price?

I dunno. All I do know is that I could spend days on something and not be able to give it away for free. You do feel it sometimes, but hey - I don't begrudge the bloke who can earn a little scratch from his drawings. I just wish I knew how it felt.
"I've come to accept a lot of what's wrong with this world, and there's not much I can do about it." - Johnny "Rotten" Lydon

Image
Old school comic. New school flavor. Updated monthly.
http://www.crittersonline.org

User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by IVstudios »

peterabnny wrote:
RobboAKAscooby wrote:
I'm finding that us cartoonists get the least respect for our effort and time put in. I'm guessing it's because cartooning is (in most cases) about simplification of form so our art looks "easy" to those who don't know better - I've even encountered people who think there's no difference between their mis-proportioned scribbling and actual decent cartoons.
I can get behind that. Our art is probably the one kind of art form that is considered most disposable and mass-produced, so I guess it would figure that any individual pieces (strips, pin-ups, etc.) should come on the cheap in a lot of people's minds. Trouble is, unlike other professions - doctors, carpenters, fire fighters, etc. - there isn't any average pay scale for artists, is there? I mean, outside graphic designers, maybe.
There is definitely a standard pay scale for pretty much every kind of commissionable art (yes, time for me to pimp the Pricing and Ethical Guidelines Handbook again). Cartoons, comics, spot illustration, etc. all have constantly changing industry standards, just like any other industry. I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the standard business practices if you plan to do any serious selling of your art.

Getting people to actually go along with it is another story. Like pretty much this whole thread has been talking about, the average person has no idea what those standards are and will look at you like your crazy if you tell them an Illustration can go for anywhere from $300 to $2,500 depending on it's size and usage.

That stuff only really applies to professional illustrators doing illustrations for widely distributed newspapers and magazines, and don't really apply to us smalltimers doing stuff for our mom's friend to put in her school newsletter. But the standards do exist and are good to be familiar with, if just to have a point of reference.

User avatar
Mo
Cartoon Villain (GTC)
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:55 am
Location: On the shoulder of a giant
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Mo »

McDuffies wrote:
It's ridiculous. My current job, in my opinion, does not require much skill (except an average dose of intelligence and IT knowledge) or any talent whatsoever... it just doesn't seem right. If I ever tried to make any kind of a living with art (which I won't), it would always have to be as a freelancer because the wages are so damn horrible.
What's the job if you don't mind me asking?
Sorry didn't see this until now. My job is just a regular office management job. Although the job title is "customer service manager", most days I really just feel like a glorified secretary and girl for everything. :shifty: But I am lucky because it's a German company, so the salary is slightly better than average for this type of job I guess.

But it is SO BORING.

User avatar
McDuffies
Bob was here (Moderator)
Bob was here (Moderator)
Posts: 29957
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by McDuffies »

IVstudios wrote:That may be true broadly, but I've seen tons of adds where there are unhappy people in them when the lack of [product] is making them unhappy.

If it's just a splash ad type thing where you have one big image intended to draw in the viewer I get your logic. But this wasn't a gum ad, it was an instructional flyer about how to care for a child with a specific medical condition who's whole message was "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T FEED THAT TO YOUR KID IT WILL MAKE THEM VERY SICK!"

So I think the smily kid was a bit out of place.
grr. Every single experience I had with marketing people suggest that they never don't know what they're doing, they're just stumbling in the dark in vague hope that what worked once will work every single time, supported by some theoretical strategies based on pop psychology that don't really work half of the time - which they get away with only because it's hard to do a realistic work evaluation for that kind of job and/or because their job is these days glorified to the point where people are convinced that anyone who has 'marketing expert' or something like that printed on his card can do no wrong. I can't begin to describe what kind of amateurs are working in that field.
That stuff only really applies to professional illustrators doing illustrations for widely distributed newspapers and magazines, and don't really apply to us smalltimers doing stuff for our mom's friend to put in her school newsletter. But the standards do exist and are good to be familiar with, if just to have a point of reference.
They're also apparently worth 40$. :(

User avatar
peterabnny
Regular Poster
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:40 am
Location: Tintoonati, OH
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by peterabnny »

McDuffies wrote:
IVstudios wrote:That may be true broadly, but I've seen tons of adds where there are unhappy people in them when the lack of [product] is making them unhappy.

If it's just a splash ad type thing where you have one big image intended to draw in the viewer I get your logic. But this wasn't a gum ad, it was an instructional flyer about how to care for a child with a specific medical condition who's whole message was "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T FEED THAT TO YOUR KID IT WILL MAKE THEM VERY SICK!"

So I think the smily kid was a bit out of place.
grr. Every single experience I had with marketing people suggest that they never don't know what they're doing, they're just stumbling in the dark in vague hope that what worked once will work every single time, supported by some theoretical strategies based on pop psychology that don't really work half of the time - which they get away with only because it's hard to do a realistic work evaluation for that kind of job and/or because their job is these days glorified to the point where people are convinced that anyone who has 'marketing expert' or something like that printed on his card can do no wrong. I can't begin to describe what kind of amateurs are working in that field.
They're either amateurs or professional liars.
McDuffies wrote:
IVstudios wrote:That stuff only really applies to professional illustrators doing illustrations for widely distributed newspapers and magazines, and don't really apply to us smalltimers doing stuff for our mom's friend to put in her school newsletter. But the standards do exist and are good to be familiar with, if just to have a point of reference.
They're also apparently worth 40$. :(
True...true...
"I've come to accept a lot of what's wrong with this world, and there's not much I can do about it." - Johnny "Rotten" Lydon

Image
Old school comic. New school flavor. Updated monthly.
http://www.crittersonline.org

User avatar
Yeahduff
Resident Stoic (Moderator)
Posts: 9158
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: I jumped into your grave and died.
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Yeahduff »

If you're doing art right it should look as if it just exists. Well, mostly. Time and labor are important considerations but someone who spews brilliance at will should get paid more than the tireless, well-trained, hardworker who makes kind of OK stuff.
Image
I won't be the stars in your dark night.

User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by IVstudios »

I think that's more prone to happen naturally anyway since when potential employers look at a portfolio how good the stuff looks is immediately apparent while how much time was spent on it is not.

Though reliability is generally more valuable than actual quality in the GD field. If a marketing pice needs to go out on friday an employer is going to take a mediocre guy who gets his work done on time over a flaky guy who produces amazing stuff.

User avatar
Yeahduff
Resident Stoic (Moderator)
Posts: 9158
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: I jumped into your grave and died.
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by Yeahduff »

That's true, especially since the client often doesn't know quality when seen anyway.
Image
I won't be the stars in your dark night.

User avatar
robotthepirate
Regular Poster
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by robotthepirate »

peterabnny wrote:They're either amateurs or professional liars.
That's a job? Does it pay well?

Whenever people get a new job or are premoted they're never really sure what it is they're supposed to do. Even when I was moved to work on a different ward in the hospital (the one next door) I wasn't sure what I was doing because even though the job is the same, every one does things diffenently. But when you're working with other people or have people over you to tell you what to do you quickly pick up the role. But higher up in the job you go or the more obscure your job role is the less people there are who understand your job and can explain it to you until you end up as the chief of the entire company and you're just left to make it up as best you can.

So if I were hired as a marketing expert I'd think like this: I know they think they know less about marketing that I do. I know they expect someone who's a expert to be confident about what they say. So if I'm confident they'll think I'm an expert and trust what I say.
Officially I know nothing about marketing, but I wouldn't mind having a go at winging it.

Here's my favourite example of what people can blag if you put them under pressure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5evS-ApSNQ
Image Image Image Image

User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by IVstudios »

peterabnny wrote:
McDuffies wrote:
IVstudios wrote:That may be true broadly, but I've seen tons of adds where there are unhappy people in them when the lack of [product] is making them unhappy.

If it's just a splash ad type thing where you have one big image intended to draw in the viewer I get your logic. But this wasn't a gum ad, it was an instructional flyer about how to care for a child with a specific medical condition who's whole message was "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T FEED THAT TO YOUR KID IT WILL MAKE THEM VERY SICK!"

So I think the smily kid was a bit out of place.
grr. Every single experience I had with marketing people suggest that they never don't know what they're doing, they're just stumbling in the dark in vague hope that what worked once will work every single time, supported by some theoretical strategies based on pop psychology that don't really work half of the time - which they get away with only because it's hard to do a realistic work evaluation for that kind of job and/or because their job is these days glorified to the point where people are convinced that anyone who has 'marketing expert' or something like that printed on his card can do no wrong. I can't begin to describe what kind of amateurs are working in that field.
They're either amateurs or professional liars.
I suppose I ought to clarify that though I usually find marketing people frustrating to work with, 9 times out of 10 their suggestions improve the overall piece (my previous complaint notwithstanding), or are at least necessarily from a legal standpoint. They're the guys who know all the ins and outs of the contracts they have with sponsors and know who's logos have to go where and be how big.

I can tell you there are people who have a knack for marketing (myself being very much NOT one of those people). Finding customers is hard and usually involves less coming up with one brilliant idea and more just keep trying things until you find what works.

As an example, one of the most famous marketing blunders of all time was New Coke. I mean, what were those people thinking? How could those idiots not see that people wouldn't buy their crappy product? Except that in every taste test they did before the release the customers all raved about how great the new flavor was, and then those same people turned around and refused to buy it.

Marketing people may seem crazy, but it's largely because they're trying to sell to humans. And humans are crazy.

User avatar
McDuffies
Bob was here (Moderator)
Bob was here (Moderator)
Posts: 29957
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by McDuffies »

IVstudios wrote: I suppose I ought to clarify that though I usually find marketing people frustrating to work with, 9 times out of 10 their suggestions improve the overall piece (my previous complaint notwithstanding), or are at least necessarily from a legal standpoint. They're the guys who know all the ins and outs of the contracts they have with sponsors and know who's logos have to go where and be how big.

I can tell you there are people who have a knack for marketing (myself being very much NOT one of those people). Finding customers is hard and usually involves less coming up with one brilliant idea and more just keep trying things until you find what works.

As an example, one of the most famous marketing blunders of all time was New Coke. I mean, what were those people thinking? How could those idiots not see that people wouldn't buy their crappy product? Except that in every taste test they did before the release the customers all raved about how great the new flavor was, and then those same people turned around and refused to buy it.

Marketing people may seem crazy, but it's largely because they're trying to sell to humans. And humans are crazy.
I dunno... it's good if your experiences have been positive, but I've only grown more frustrated.
It's not like there are always big blunders like New Coke, it's that most of the time, their work is completely irrelevant. It's only through enormous amounts of money, repetition,. repetition, repetition, and of course, spinning of information, that some of these turn into successes.

You said it yourself: enormous amounts of tries and false starts before they step on one idea that work. This all may even sound not so bad until you realise that companies spend as much money (or less) on marketing as they do on actually making their product. So basically, enormous amounts of money thrown to people whose success rate equals randomly opening a dictionary. To me, a successful marketeer should have a success rate that is required in any other field; Would you settle down for a musician who makes one good song out of ten? People are crazy, but there are still musicians, directors, producers, writers etc etc, who figure out their craziness enough to be constantly successful. But there are different rules for marketing, not because it's a profession where results are somehow more unpredictable, but because curently it's The Profession.

There's also information spinning. We have here an add campaign which is in media touted as very successful, but it's hard to find a person who isn't irritated by it. Response to this is: "Well, it's successful because people are noticing it." So - what you're saying is, between choosing whether to make Gunnerkrieg Court or Electric Retard, you choose the later, and you honestly believe that success of those two is equal? What's more you expect us to believe that you could have made the former if you wanted? The idea that shock advertising works is dubious, oportunistic, and proven by singing out one successful case out of 50. The "no publicity is bad publicity" mindset is responsible for tons of crap being shoveled into our heads every day, more than anything else. In marketing, success is not thought to be correlated to quality, which amkes as excuse for most of them not to strive for quality at all.

I can name a lot of examples where mistakes that only marketing experts with their undeserved confidence could make (the only reason I'm not is, I don't wanna leave personal accounts that could affect other people on internet), which are then justified with one of stock rationalizations: "It will work in long term", "it actually worked, except that you don't notice it", "it should have worked"... or in Coke's case, "It's people's fault, not ours". Never mind investing the fate of the company into opinions of notoriously unreliable test groups (provided that story is not yet another spin).

Well actually I do have to say that there are different stories too, and in fact even marketing has people with more golden ideas than bad ones. It's just that it's a line of work where it's shamelessly easy to bullshit, where you get away with everything, where you can get paid well to do work that is mostly irrelevant, and where you're in position to preach and teach lessons to people who are way more qualified in the subject than you are.

User avatar
IVstudios
Cartoon Hero
Posts: 3660
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:52 am
Location: My little office
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by IVstudios »

McDuffies wrote: To me, a successful marketeer should have a success rate that is required in any other field; Would you settle down for a musician who makes one good song out of ten? People are crazy, but there are still musicians, directors, producers, writers etc etc, who figure out their craziness enough to be constantly successful. But there are different rules for marketing, not because it's a profession where results are somehow more unpredictable, but because curently it's The Profession.
How many songs off most albums get regular play on the radio? Maybe 1 out of ten, if that? Yeah an individual might like an individual album but most people like one or two songs off your average album and ignore the rest. How many awesome indie bands are there that never get popular because most people aren't interested? How many hugely successful musicians release albums that flop because the fans hated it? The music industry is just as much hit or miss as the advertising industry. And the same goes for writing and movies (JK Rowling wrote a lot of crap before she came up with Harry Potter. And George Lucas. Do I even need to explain George Lucas?)

Plus the music industry has the benefit of music sticking around for decades once it's been made. Even an album that flops on it's release has the potential to get noticed and develop an audience years after the fact. If an ad campaign fails its over and gone and on to the next one.
McDuffies wrote: I can name a lot of examples where mistakes that only marketing experts with their undeserved confidence could make (the only reason I'm not is, I don't wanna leave personal accounts that could affect other people on internet), which are then justified with one of stock rationalizations: "It will work in long term", "it actually worked, except that you don't notice it", "it should have worked"... or in Coke's case, "It's people's fault, not ours". Never mind investing the fate of the company into opinions of notoriously unreliable test groups (provided that story is not yet another spin).
I'm sure there's a certain amount of spin to it, but do you really think the company went "Well, everyone in the test groups thinks the new flavor is horrible, but we're gonna invest a few million dollars in it anyway because, ya know, what the hell?" (The story behind New Coke is actually fairly interesting. They were trying to make a flavor that was lighter and sweeter, to compete with diet pepsi which was surging in popularity at the time.



Yes I like to watch programs about the history of food, what of it? :shifty: )

User avatar
McDuffies
Bob was here (Moderator)
Bob was here (Moderator)
Posts: 29957
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

Post by McDuffies »

IVstudios wrote: How many songs off most albums get regular play on the radio? Maybe 1 out of ten, if that? Yeah an individual might like an individual album but most people like one or two songs off your average album and ignore the rest. How many awesome indie bands are there that never get popular because most people aren't interested? How many hugely successful musicians release albums that flop because the fans hated it? The music industry is just as much hit or miss as the advertising industry.
Except that in music industry you don't get paid for misses. That's about the gist of what I'm complaining about: in marketing, you can be a hack who rarely ever gets anything right.
Bad songs do benefit from overplay, but that's pretty much marketing too.
And the same goes for writing and movies (JK Rowling wrote a lot of crap before she came up with Harry Potter.
So author has to go through a period of learning before she can write good. Except that she's not being paid big money while she's learning so that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
And George Lucas. Do I even need to explain George Lucas?)
Lucas is a notable exception, because there's a very few people who can so consistently string failures and live by on few hits. Of course most of those failures brought money (and some even bankrupted him) so we're back to square one: in every area but marketing, failure to bring people means no money, and you luck out if those few things that aren't failures are as wildly successful as Star Wars were.
I'm sure there's a certain amount of spin to it, but do you really think the company went "Well, everyone in the test groups thinks the new flavor is horrible, but we're gonna invest a few million dollars in it anyway because, ya know, what the hell?"
Yes, I do think that what happened is exactly what you described in your intentionally exagerated scenario.
Series of bad decisions: did noone try that coke out before test audience? What was development department doing? There must be like five department for that. Why did it replace the signature product instead of being added as "lite" version? Why was signature product discontinued? And so on and so on, bunch of blunders which all surely have some rationalization in marketing theory, but problem is not that people are unpredictable, problem is that theory is stupid. Test audience must have been only the last in the line of mistakes, but if you wanna be apologuetic, you're gonna focus on that one and make it the most important one.
New Coke of course isn't indicative example either. For one, it's a case where blunder was highly publicised so someone actually bare consequences for it.

Post Reply