Graphic Designers

[Matt Snyder]

Nikola, people -- like me -- who have done this thing many, many times are talking, and you don't seem to have budged on your position. What do you want to see happen in this conversation?

You're not going to get much argument from me that the payment for layout is greatly undervalued. But, being an indie publisher myself, I sympathize.

Given the state of the RPG industry as a whole, graphic design is NOT it's strong suit, generally speaking. I've done some layouts that I'm really proud of. I did some of 'em for peanuts. (shrug) My choice. What's your choice? Do it, then. Or not. I guess my position is that it's up to the individuals willing (or not) to do the work.

Publishers, it can't hurt to ask. In fact, I've got a fun idea for doing a layout here this year  . . . .

[Valamir]

As an indie publisher myself, I've found myself underpaying for services I know are worth more...sometimes I've had to actually tell people eager to do me a favor "no its ok, you can actually charge me more than that".

But one thing I insist on is paying up front, usually 1/2 now 1/2 on acceptance which does put a crimp in the old cash flow when the game isn't going to be released for some time.

So the solution I'm trying out for R&R is not quite profit sharing as Nikola proposes.  Rather I'd call it a contingency bonus.  It works like this.

I pay you $400 up front for a service I know is worth $800.  After my book generates enough revenue to pay for the printing costs, the next $400 are yours (plug in your own numbers here).  If necessary it can go to 3 tiers, but then it starts getting a little more difficult to track.

Its easier to track than a %age and once its paid, its done so you aren't tracking royalties for years and writing small checks constantly.  Its just one big followup payment made out of cash flow from the game and then its done.  But it does help the indie guy not pay way more up front than he can afford while helping get the contractor a little closer to fair value.

[greyorm]

Right now, I'm getting a serious "bear-pit" vibe from you regarding this question, Nikola. Instead of tearing apart the answers and declaring why anyone whose choice that doesn't agree with your proposal is invalid, why not try reading what was said instead of just batting (part of) it down.

For example, has anyone who has disagreed with your proposal said anything about "not working for free" or "not choosing less than industry price"? No, they haven't. Yet you are responding and writing as though they have (see below). You are making plenty of assumptions about folk's reasoning and choices, and plenty of unfair judgements right along with them. Politely, knock it off.

So, what I'm hearing here is that you'd all prefer to not make a game better because your already-reduced-for-friends up front fee is too high for people to pay?

No clue where you get this from, because no one in this thread has made anything resembling that claim. This is an assumption/judgement that is both unfounded and unfair.

Come on. If I ask for an amount of money that I normally get doing graphic design, no one here could afford me.

Again, no one here has made any sort of statement about having to get what they normally recieve doing graphic design. No one has said they will not do these things for free or even a ridiculously reduced price (and many of us do, in fact).

You're telling me that you'd rather guarantee that you get less than minimum wage to do that kind of thing than to throw your lot in with a game whose creator and vision you trust, and maybe make a non-embarrassing amount of money in the process?

For me, yep. Kids, house, wife, bills. Gambling, even "sure bet" gambling, is not an option when it comes to finances. Whatever the price happens to be (from "freely given" to "normal fee", and anything in between), I want to know what is coming in so I know how much is coming in. Not something I wait until the end of the month to find out ("Oh, good, now I can afford to pay my rent! Whew!").

But, as I said and which obviously bears repeating, nothing is stopping a creator from paying his hired help more if and when the game sells well, nor is anything stopping the hired help from choosing a ridiculously-low-to-free fee for their services.

It isn't about the money. It's about knowing about the money.

[jdagna]

Nkola, I think that if you want to work based on royalties, that's a perfectly valid decision.  There are merits to doing that, but there are also disadvantages and risks.  Nobody here is saying that you should change your ways or charge up front (I would save that for another thread), just that we're in positions where we feel it necessary or preferable to charge up front.  Successful people often thrive by being willing to do things that everyone else isn't so maybe it will work for you.

But it's a little unfair to criticize other people for making a different choice, especially when you're putting words into our mouths or making a worst-case scenario out of it.  Graphic designers can't be held personally or collectively responsible if we choose to "not make a game better."

Wouldn't it be more fair to suggest that game publishers plan an appropriate budget for graphic design?  Just like they do for printing and artwork?  You could say that the publisher has chosen to not make his game better by entering into a project that they were poorly-equipped or unprepared for.  That would put the responsibility for product quality where it belongs - on the publisher.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

But it's a little unfair to criticize other people for making a different choice, especially when you're putting words into our mouths or making a worst-case scenario out of it.  Graphic designers can't be held personally or collectively responsible if we choose to "not make a game better."

Well, OK, lemme rephrase less hysterically.

I think it behooves us all to develop the kind of relationships on the Forge where we can charge royalties. I've been working to find people whose work I trust, who I trust as people, and who, because we see each other around the Forge all the time, would have to hide their faces in shame if they were to reneg on a contract.

I don't talk with people whose books I don't think will fly, or I don't think will see print, or I think are jerks.

Wouldn't it be more fair to suggest that game publishers plan an appropriate budget for graphic design?

Sure, hey, right on. What I'm trying to do here is make sure that the illustrators, designers, and others get their due on what is, after all, a cooperative creation.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I pay you $400 up front for a service I know is worth $800.  After my book generates enough revenue to pay for the printing costs, the next $400 are yours (plug in your own numbers here).  If necessary it can go to 3 tiers, but then it starts getting a little more difficult to track.

Its easier to track than a %age and once its paid, its done so you aren't tracking royalties for years and writing small checks constantly.  Its just one big followup payment made out of cash flow from the game and then its done.  But it does help the indie guy not pay way more up front than he can afford while helping get the contractor a little closer to fair value.

Ralph, this is a great idea. Easier than what I proposed, fair, upfront, and easily auditable.

Does that mean that the first $400 you, the designer, basically don't see? (That's not a rhetorical question. I'm just making sure I understand.)

[Valamir]

Right.  To put some additional numbers to it, lets say that I print 1000 copies at $4.00/book and sell them for $30 MSRP.

That means I have $4000 in cost sunk into the print run.  If I sell all of the copies through distribution and pocket $12 per book myself, then after 334 copies sold I'll have paid for the print cost.  The next 34 copies sold would generate $400 which would all go to the artist.  Then anything beyond that is profit to me (not including other expenses, of course).

If you wind up in an arrangement like this with multiple parties you'd want to set the payout standards in advance....probably some form of split on a quarterly basis or the like.

[Keith Senkowski]

I think Ralph is pretty much saying this, but here is my idea.

Let's say the service is worth $1,000 (nice round number).  I as publisher can afford to pay $400 dollars up front.  So we set up a contract like this:

Upon Contract Signing: 20%
Upon Completion: 20%
Upon Sales Goal X: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Y: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Z: 20%

That way, if it is a hit the service provider gets what he is worth, but if it doesn't reach said goals both sides are happy.  Service provider at least gets a portion of his full worth and the bank isn't broken for the publisher.

Keith

[Paul Czege]

Hey Keith,

I think Ralph is pretty much saying this
.
.
.
Upon Contract Signing: 20%
Upon Completion: 20%
Upon Sales Goal X: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Y: 20%
Upon Sales Goal Z: 20%

That's slightly different. Ralph's scheme isn't based on unit sales, but on how many dollers he pockets across the sales he makes. He pockets more on direct sales than to distribution via a consolidator.

Paul

[Valamir]

Either way works and has its pros and cons.

Unit sales are slightly easier to track (and much easier to retroactively reconstruct).

Revenue makes sure that the publisher isn't paying out before break even and makes sure the artist isn't waiting for a unit target if the publisher already broke even.

But Unit Sales are hard, indisputable and measurable.  Revenue is based on how the publisher chooses to sell the game.  So the con side of basing on revenue is that the artist is at the whim of the publisher to set sales prices.  If sales on Indie Press Revolution / Lulu / RPGMall are slow and the publisher cuts the price in half to spur some sales volume...that impacts the artist's repayment schedule.

Someone you have a good relationship with it probably doesn't matter, but for formal, arms length, contract type arrangements...Unit Sales is likely the more concrete way to go.