To be honest, I have to agree with him. A lot of the complaining I've seen has been people bitching about artists daring to actually charge money for their work and if said "fans" hate the business models so badly then they should come up with a better model. The producers will only do that when they're convinced that their current model is a failure or they can make more money off a different one. Yes, Sage, we know all about the RIAA, MPAA, ACTA and the like but they don't represent the producers themselves and it is in fact a small (though very vocal) minority of producers in those industries who care about piracy.

Moving on to actual business models themselves, as far as furry art goes I really think the Las Lindas model is the best where it's basically group commissions. They get paid per page and can use the donations to gauge what the fans want to see: more money presumably means it's more popular. In addition, it doesn't matter if the comics are redistributed because they lose no money at all from it. As long as they get enough donations, they get paid, the fans get their comic and the people that don't want to or are unable to pay don't have to. If no one wants to pay then they don't get their comic. It's win-win for everyone. The only problem with this is that, like with commissions, it requires the artist to be honest and not simply take the money and not produce anything for it but if the entire furry art industry were based off this model then the unreliable assholes would have their reputations stained by word of mouth and they would get far less than a dedicated artist.

I must agree with Lance. Las Lindas has perhaps the best IP (*gags*) business model I've ever seen.

As we all know, business is based on supply and demand. The producers of intangible products (such as music and illustrations) have for a long time now just been putting the supply out there and letting the demand come to it. This works well for scarce goods (supermarkets and the like), but when your consumers can just make copies of your product -- infinite copies -- without paying a dime, it begins to fall apart. So, Las Lindas simply does the sensible thing: having the customers demonstrate demand for the product first, then producing it. The producer doesn't waste money because the consumer already paid for the product, and obviously one can't copy something that hasn't been made yet. (Interestingly, this business model should work well for intangible goods, but constant starting and stopping of production would render it nigh-useless for tangible goods -- the opposite of the standard situation.)

The more you think about the Las Lindas business model, the more you see the brilliance in its simplicity.

The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There) - http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml

As Wolfblade as pointed out to me multiple times, comparing the music and/or record industries (yes there is a difference) to the furry art community is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. But I feel that discussions of business models within ANY creative industry should be considered by ALL creative industries, as they can provide inspiration for a new business model.

Sage: I sentcha a note with my response to the Techdirt article since... well, there really wasn't much to respond to that wouldn't be me taking this off-topic. Just me pointing out "here's where this doesn't apply here." If anyone else can draw something productive and useful from the article awesome, but I wasn't able to myself, so I didn't want to clutter up this thread with my response to it.

I'm interested in this Las Lindas though. I honestly have no idea what that is referring to (links plz?), but it sounds interesting. So people donate, then once a certain price point is reached, the next portion of art is produced? What happens if donations fall short of the point needed for them to produce the next part?

I would assume they would be refunded. This seems like a viable business model for someone using art as extra/disposable income, where they can keep the proceeds unused and set aside in case they need to be refunded, but doesn't seem as viable for an artist trying to generate funds for their day to day expenses.

>>59

We make our donations policies very clear before people donate so that they know exactly what they will get.

When people donate towards a bonus page their donation is held indefinitely. There is no point at which the counters reset until a page is paid for.

There have been two times in memory that we've offered refunds. The first being when we changed one bonus comic and started over on it. The second is when we shut down several for a number of reasons. We did offer refunds (we know who donates) but IIRC the donators opted to shift their numbers into different options.

You are right about one thing though. It is not a viable model for creating regular income. However the money that we get from donations is enough to keep our artist (who is the only one that gets any money) afloat. There is never a shortage of demand for the bonus options we offer as Sage can attest to.

>>60

>It is not a viable model for creating regular income.

I actually disagree with that. The model is an exceptionally good idea in relation to the furry community, but I think it requires that the artist(s) behind it produce input in a more timely fashion in order to placate the donors. (I'm not ripping on Chalo here; I know that he has other commitments - as well as his health issues - to deal with.)

*nods* If it's clearly specified as donations (which it totally is, Freehaven pointed me to the site, I think it's a brilliant system, really), then yeah, I actually think this could be viable for an artist who is able to remain consistently on top of the workflow.

It's actually one of the best models I've seen.

>>63

You could actually take the idea to a new level by having tiered donations. If, as an artist, you know you can knock out a few quick sketches per day, you can make donations cheaper for those sketches, and charge more (with a longer lead time) for full-color images. Of course, then you have to determine what you want to draw: the characters of the donors, or requests featuring your characters.

Really, the model is sound and has plenty of room for expansion and experimentation if an artist is willing to really follow through with it.

We're planning on doing something like that with BB. Just Chalo needs to finish the rest of his current obligations before we decide on anything concrete.

Since I know this is one of your sticking points in our conversations, Wolfblade, I figure you might be interested in this link:

Ten Good Reasons To Buy - http://techdirt.com/articles/20100125/1631147893.shtml

To make the most money and popularity,...


Make every character you draw barely indistinguishable from each other with very clean and bold coloring and linework.


Finish them with speed in mind over quality, and tout each drawing as something special and unique so everyone feels like they got something rare.

Studying artists like artdecade, onta, LatinVixen's fursuits and of course Meesh are, in my opinion, some of the best examples of how to sell artwork like you're selling dope.



It seems like everyone is overthinking this.

It's more like selling cocaine than anything, really.

>>68

>>Finish them with speed in mind over quality, and tout each drawing as something special and unique so everyone feels like they got something rare.

To hear you say it, it seems you think that artists are more concerned with money over quality. Send me one link to an artist who thinks this way and i can send you links to at least three other artists who don't.

>>Make every character you draw barely indistinguishable from each other with very clean and bold coloring and linework.

>>Studying artists like artdecade, onta, LatinVixen's fursuits and of course Meesh are, in my opinion, some of the best examples of how to sell artwork like you're selling dope.

I think each piece of art should be unique, just as each artist should be unique and have a unique style to go along with there work. I really would rather not see ten different artists rendering of the same thing, that would get boring quickly.

>>It's more like selling cocaine than anything, really.

If by that you mean that it's like 'users' who can't get there fill of art go through withdrawal like syptoms, then you would have a point. But it's not, so you don't.

Guess it be time to bust out of anonymously trolling and get me a trip-code. Blah. BLAH!

In a lot of ways I do agree with Wolfblade. In the sense that much like an artist's work, an artist's business model should be handled as if you were giving critique. Like art, someone simply saying "it sucks. Change it" doesn't really give anything to work off of. And like critique, some artists really don't like it in the first place.

As someone who works in webcomics moreso than I work in furry art, I've seen a lot of various business models. And really I have found that there is ultimately no one-size-fits-all program that is guaranteed to work with every artist. Moreso, I have found that the diverse range of models, some ranging from incredibly exclusive to all inclusive, is as much a benefit as it is a negative aspect.

Using myself as an example, I personally opt for donation incentives where I can then offer whatever content publicly. This is mainly because in my mind, moreso than the pirating and people who would just download and dash, I find there are a good number of people who -would- like to donate but situations exist that they simply don't have the means. However, the biggest drawback to my setup is its an incredibly optimistic system and there is no guarantee that at some point it will fall through. It lacks the stability that other plans have. And moreso, it doesn't really give a backup plan if things go wrong. Once locked in, the artist pretty much has to try to get the stuff they owed done before the money donated runs out and if anything awry happens...it can often end up really tight situations. I've seen a lot of artists (myself included) who after a windfall, get hit with some really nasty left curve which puts them back to square one. However since most people who donated think you walked away with a thousand bucks, they think you are doing golden. It gets triple-bad if you have a backlog of stuff owed. (I so guilty of this)

Another issue is that while many consumers and artists don't like to think on it...many artists in some level are competing with eachother. It's a situation where the artist has to supply enough goodies to entice the peeps with the money to give the moneys to them. And while the furry fandom in particular is more giving with money, you can't throw a stone without finding some artist who is trying to offer content because of a situation where they need money.

The other big business model, at least when it comes to webcomics, is the subscription section. Usually this either means bonus content, bonus comics, or some preview into certain things. Of all the models, I think Drowtales probably has the most interractive and enticing of those where there is a higher amount of subscriber/artist interraction and activity other than just "give me money to see content". I tend to be neutral to these models because it has often been my experience that when they are set up, a lot of people label the artist with an instant "Greedy" label. And I always feel odd about a section on the site that says "cool kids only because this is where the good stuff is" Triply so if the subscriber section is only adult stuff. To me, that seems to say that the person is saying porn is the only thing worth paying for. Odds are if I ever do attempt some sort of subscription model, it would be a setup where after a certain amount of time, the content would be released onsite normally.

Anyways. My train of thought just de-railed so I'm gonna bail until I catch it again. I'm sure I'll have other inane things to prattle about. But geeky artist needs tea badly.

>>72

Welcome to the land of the tripfags, Mab. X3

>Another issue is that while many consumers and artists don't like to think on it...many artists in some level are competing with eachother.

Addendum to your point: artists aren't just competing for money, they're also competing for attention (a natural scarcity). Artists who are more connected to their audience and produce quality works are going to get more attention than those who aren't truly connected and/or produce low-quality work.

>>73
That's fairly true. In a lot of the online art things, be it webcomics or just artwork, having a name in the situation is often the most powerful thing you can have. Even if that name is associated with the person being the biggest buttface the internet has ever seen.

I have seen a lot of insanely talented people, people who's art completely devastates anything I could ever draw...get absolutely no notice. It's one of those strange things.

I find the issue of networking and social circles to be a very uncomfortable subject with a lot of artists because many of them get shellshocked with accusations of being in an clique or it implies they are elitists. Which is sad in some ways because it is often an accusation that has been built up by other people who will simply assume that so-and-so artist who hangs about with these other artists are too good to hang out with them.

On the flipside, more and more these days there is a lot less dividers between the content maker and the content buyer. The best example I can think of is the divide between newspaper comics and online comics. In newspaper comics...you don't really read the comic and think "I could email this artist and tell them they did a good job". There is often almost what feels like a wall between you and the person behind the pen. A very distant feel, like they are unnaproachable. Webcomics though, depending on the type, contact with the artist is often just a click away. (Unless it is me who is the worst ever when it comes to emails. Bwhargh) But there are usually forums the artist may go to, a journal the artist may write, or in furry-cases, FA to randomly throw stuff at and get interraction. Which does have it downsides obviously, because well...artists and humans are prone to making irrational dumb decisions and actions as much as anyone else. Yet there is sometimes this thing where when you do them, and the spotlight is around you, you are gonna get backlashed a lot more. Because it is the internet. And everyone has an opinion on it and a click from telling it to you.

But yeah. Reputation for good or bad can be a pretty powerful thing. In regards to a business model...I find one either has to treat what they do as a business: and as such keep it relatively impersonal and professional. Or one has to become the sociable angle which has peeps not only like what you do, but like you so they want to help out more often.

In the interest of expanding this discussion abit, how well do you think that a system similiar to the Las Lindas model would work for say, a paysite or something like that?

>>84
At first glance, the LL model looks ideal. I mean, its people donate an amount, bonus content gets put up for everyone to see. I myself have done that particular setup a few times. Not to the structured extent that LL has done granted.

The Las Lindas model has one major drawback to it in that it relies heavily on the artist being able to keep up with the art promised in a timeframe that doesn't outlast the money given. Chalosan is a wonderful peep...but last I checked he currently has about *checks* 11 bonus pages, alost half a bust chart, and possibly two other things he has promised to owe. That's a ton of work he's buried himself under.

And it has been my experience that after the initial money-wave, most donations tends to screech to a grinding halt afterwards which means that the artist needs to try to hustle to get stuff done so they can repeat the process before existing money dries out. And it goes without saying people are less and less likely to want to offer money if an artist is already sitting ontop a pile of owed promises.

If I recall right, I think a comic called Goblins has something similar where there is a bonus comic that the amount of pages and what happens is decided on the donation amount. Also if I recall right, I think palcomix does a pay-per-page setup. I'm not sure of the latter's success, but I know the TemptsFate section on the Goblins comic always does well.

However it all relies very heavily on the artist being able to resist overshooting themselves and finding the balance between an amount they can live off of, an amount people will pay, and an amount of work they can realistically do with the money they get.

>>84

I think it might be somewhat adaptable for a paysite, but not entirely. After all, if you try to make a paysite with the system hiding behind the paywall, it becomes that much harder to sell the system. And I can't see a way of making the system the actual paywall, though if someone else has any ideas, feel free to share.

The system works better if the content is free to view/share, much like Las Lindas' content is.

>>85

Something I would suggest in terms of workload balance would be to accept a certain amount of pay-requests within a given time period - preferably tied to what the artist feels is their optimum output during the day - and once that amount is reached, they stop accepting donations until the promised content is delivered.

Or something like that. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

>>87
I can...though it does have it's own problems. Don't get me wrong, I love being an artist...but I know more than most that artists are flighty by nature. What may be a tolerable workload one week can turn into a barely grinding by workload in a month. Or what normally would take weeks gets done in days. Then there is stuff like random acts of terrible godly wrath where the car breaks or the artist gets sick or life just kicks someone in the balls. In theory there is that mystical magical device called a buffer...but generally the type of peeps who can pull those off steadily tend to have a lot more structured business models to begin with.

I think that is ultimately one of the biggest problems with trying to work out an ultimate business solution. Artists in general tend to be very diverse in their mindsets so one business model would be spectacular for some while it would completely crush another.

I think that is one of the nicer advantages to some paysites in that you often have several different artists in the group so while it may take one artist a bit more time to do one thing, there is still a content-flow taking place.

I personally think there is always going to be a place for the paysite and exclusive content providing models. If only for that they provide a counter setup to other business models thus making things more diverse.

>>94

>one business model would be spectacular for some while it would completely crush another

Which is one of the points I've tried to make in my arguments, and it holds true for artists of any kind: there is no "magic bullet" business model, in the sense that there's a singular business model that's going to work for everyone. This is why I've asked artists to try considering alternative business models, as opposed to staying locked into a single model or having a one-track mind.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3376848

touchmybadger is trying something unique: you can "rent" her for a month - essentially, if you've got the money, then for one whole month, she'll draw a new commission for you each and every day.

I can't say whether or not this is a good idea, but it's definitely an interesting one.

>>127
Soulkat and I did that once with Avencri. We paid him some money, got into Moon Edit, and for about an hour he'd sketch whatever we wanted. That actually sounds dirty for some reason... >__>

He's real good at doing quick sketches. I'm not sure how great it'd be to do that for a month but I dont see why it wouldnt be worth trying.

>>127

Yeah, she totally isn't going to get overworked by this arrangement.

I assume February would be a cheaper month to rent her?

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1283036/