Comments on: Pricing for Art Consultants :: Deep Thought Thursday

By: Adrian

Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:18:08 +0000

As a collector used to the legal world of property litigation and arbitration in my professional life, the soup of commission arrangements in the art world bizarrely makes no clear division between buyer and seller. Consultants and auction houses in particular have a foot in both camps. Also, if I want to get a piece authenticated it has to go to some foundation that has a direct interest in the decision it’s asked to make. This confusion of interests would never be tolerated across much of the business world. It’s not surprising police forces across the world are chasing illegal pieces and collectors and museums are put at risk. Is anyone at all making any effort to police this boiling mess of commissions? Or are the big boys and girls being left to business as usual? It’s a wild west.

]]>

By: Carmen Romine

Fri, 22 Jan 2021 23:49:23 +0000

Great conversation! I’m just starting to work as a full time artist. I had my first meeting with a local art consultant this week. I used to be a Gallery Director and I learned that consultants/designers earned a commission and/or discount rate of 10-20% working with galleries and obtaining work from them. I’ve been researching this a lot today to determine a rate from my studio… What makes this confusing is that it seems many art consultants work differently whether or not they earn a commission through the art portion. I’d like to work directly with consultants, especially if it means I’m earning more for my art… but what is standard? Because honestly, when artists earn more, they can make more art. That’s why I really respect galleries that at least do a 60/40 split for the artist. I agree that taking a cut from both sides seems unethical if the cut taken from the artist is still 50%. And how closely should it be compared to an interior designer… because if so, it seems that it would be more of a designer discount than wholesale. The art consultant was open about her 10% commission from a local gallery and left it up to me but had asked if my net was half. I’d like to stay away from saying what I need to make from a piece and keeping a standard retail pricing with a commission/discount rate. So I offered her 25% which is more than galleries, and I’m even open to 30%. I don’t think she was happy about it and said she’d probably have to bill her clients more to cover herself. My justification is that a gallery earns 50% because of overhead, audience, exhibitions, and promoting you as an artist via social media. But the biggest reason; audience. I think what art consultants do is amazing too, especially creating a steady flow of commission projects to artists. Especially for public projects. But my experience working with galleries for commissions was also 70/30. If an artist should always maintain pricing consistency from their studio, I think discounts to consultants is fine but 50/50 seems unfair. What are your thoughts on different rates of available work vs. commission projects for art consultants?

]]>

By: Rachel Manley

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:23:06 +0000

Glad to hear that you do your best to give information to the artist…Not surprised to hear that people go behind the scenes to make a deal (unfortunately).
Regarding the rotating art or leasing programs, I’ve never seen an artist “loan” art to these. But, rather, the art is usually purchased and added to a collection of art from variety of artists. Sometimes there is a theme involved…for example, women in new roles. However, sometimes it’s just a mix.
There may be other business models but I’m only familiar with the programs where the “art administrator/consultant” owns the art and then actually leases it out to a company with an agreement to install it, maintain it, rotate the exhibit, etc. for X amount of time. It’s the same type of agreement that large corporations use to lease copy machines, maintenance included as part of the package. The corporation always has an option to actually by the art (usually at a reduced rate). But, in this case they are not buying from the artist but the program administrator. Leasing programs provide certain advantages when it comes to corporate accounting, taxes, liability, etc. I do think that these type of programs come in and out of style with the corporate powers that be because sometimes they prefer the tax/accounting advantages of simply owning good art.
I am curious to know what other artists and Alyson Stanfield think of this type of program. Would you want your work sold/displayed this way? Does anyone have experience selling art this way? What are the positives and negatives for the artist in your opinion?

]]>

By: Jim Coursey

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:30:34 +0000

You bring up some great points, Rachel! I think you forgot to mention that some artists may not want to sell their work in any manner. I don’t think being an artist necessarily means that you’re required to be a professional in any capacity. Art has been an industry for centuries now, but not all art has to be part of the industry, if you ask me.
To be honest, how much information we give the artist about the client (and vice versa) is really a delicate issue. We’ve had cases of clients (or interior designers) that we’ve worked with go behind our backs and buy pieces directly from the artists after we’ve found and proposed art for the space. Usually artists get quite upset when they find out about this as they know it hurts our business and, in turn, can hurt their business. That sort of thing is pretty rare, especially since the prices we give clients aren’t any higher than what the artists charge retail anyway. On the other end, we have to be careful about the details we give the artist about a project sometimes, as some artists are quite eager to get their work chosen and can sometimes try to bypass us and go straight to the client to sell them on their work. Artists can be really persistent and clients tend to not want to be pestered by someone pushing their art. We do provide as much information as possible, usually, such as the nature of the client, the type of building or space the piece is being proposed for, photos of the location, etc. To avoid potential problems, we usually try to avoid giving information like our contacts at the client and the other artists we have on proposal for a project. Of course, once a client has decided on an artist we disclose a lot more information to both parties and we often have artists get really involved with the project and installation of their work.
We don’t typically offer rotating art options for clients as part of our business plan just yet, but as our business grows that might become an option for us. Naturally, how successful such an idea would be would depend on how willing the artists would be to loan out their work.

]]>

By: Rachel Manley

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:39:11 +0000

Ooooh….this is an excellent discussion! Just stumbled across it! Thank you for talking about this so transparently and honestly. I think that both Jim and Sari make excellent and valid points.
This discussion makes it so clear that the art industry is not a new developing industry. It is an old and highly sophisticated industry with lots of market segments! Lots of different types of clients. Hence, lots of different types of artists. There is nothing wrong with that. It is just up to each artist to decide what kind of segment they want to target: collectors of unique masterpieces, mass market print collectors, somewhere in between?
The key is to understand the type of artist that you are. You decide that! Not someone else. You decide that by the choices you make: where do you sell your art (online or a gallery?), what type of art do you sell (style, price, etc.), why do you sell art (do want to be famous/rich or get a moderate, consistent income now?), how do you sell your art (facebook and twitter may not be the answer), and to whom do you sell it (where do you want your art to ultimately hang? on a living room wall or a museum?). It’s the basics of marketing.
I don’t have a problem with Jim’s business model as long as he is being very clear with the artist about the type of client that he is dealing with on a particular project. In other words, I hope that when dealing original art you inform the artist about where the piece will hang and the ultimate sale price to the client. I hope that the artist can maintain some sort of control over what type of clients he/she wants to target and the price.
I am also curious, Jim, does your group do any “leasing” programs (rotating art) for big corporate clients? I have always understood that this is good way for companies to feature original art without having to own it and they get fresh art periodically (the artist gets lots of exposure). If you do offer this, could you explain how this business model would work for the client and the artist?
Final thought:
There is no wrong choice because “the people” need choices!

]]>

By: Jim Coursey

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:31:45 +0000

In reply to Sari Grove.

Oh, I didn’t want to give the impression that we’re *only* in the business of selling things like open edition prints. In fact, those sorts of jobs are a minority for us and we see it as somewhat of a disappointment that they don’t have the budget to allow us to look for original works or, especially, commissioned pieces that allow the artists themselves to create art with a space or particular presentation in mind. More often, inexpensive prints are reserved for individual offices while we try to get original works into conference rooms, reception areas and especially lobbies. Better that an artist’s original creation is somewhere where it can be appreciated by a larger number of people than stuck behind some executive’s desk, no?

]]>

By: Sari Grove

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:07:06 +0000

The truth is that your business model really relies on volume…Fine Art galleries are a one by one kind of beast…The one by one business model serves its slaves well insofar as a one third to dealer cut is quite handsome when the painting sells for $100,000.00- that sale, earning $33 grand to gallery, pays for a $3 grand a month rental space for a year…So Leo Castelli is still in business…
Art Consultants work with the corporate who like volume because they are also into volume…Mass production, industrial revolution stuff…Volume has slim margins…Which is why after a one third to two thirds split your model is still short…because you are not really in the fine art market, you are just in the market… Giclees, limited edition prints, mass produced kitsch licensing on various products- that is not really the art market that we are talking about here- that again, is just the market & you are subject to its whims & I am sorry for that, for you…Yes, I can see why you have to “add-on” expenses to the client, becaus your clients are tough & savvy at business & your margins are too low…
For the record, no, not everyone gets to own a Ferrari…I pity those who cannot afford a Ferrari, but that is life…I do not think it is my job as an artist to provide Ferraris to those who cannot pay for them…
Corporations should be encouraged to buy solid original art as a good investment & be forced to shy away from short term buys that are cheaper but have no longevity nor really any future viability…It is our & your job to teach them that…
Better to have bare wall space & one great work in the lobby for all to see, than a hundred printed copies for each cubicle…But that is my bias…

]]>

By: Jim Coursey

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:46:20 +0000

I really wish you could edit comments!
Some things I forgot to address: as I said above, I’m still new to this business so, Sari, you might very well be correct that things used to be different. However, I have inventory cards for pieces we sold twenty or more years ago that reflect a 50/50 split as a standard. Also, when talking with artists, we almost *never* tell them what the split should be. If an artist wants to loan art to us to put on consignment (sometimes we approach artists to ask if they’re interested; sometimes artists find us and show us their work), the amount of the split is nearly always given to us by the artist. Most artists give us the 50/50 number themselves while others ask for 60/40 or 70/30. However, I think it’s a little unreasonable to expect an art consultant to represent the artist only and not make any money from the client. That would, effectively, make us an art gallery (which we are, too) that does a whole heck of a lot of extra work, with a lot more extra expenses, yet with no additional source of income to make up for it.

]]>

By: Jim Coursey

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:32:26 +0000

Thank you, Alyson. Just to be clear: while my firm has been in business since 1974, I’m fairly new to the field so I can’t say with any certainty whether or not our business practices are representative of the art consulting business as a whole. I was simply intrigued by the conversation and hoped to shed a little light on the issue from admittedly limited perspective on the industry.
Sari, you bring up valid points that, if we pursued them, would lead to a very interesting discussion about the nature of art and its relationship with commerce and capitalism. The truth of the matter, though, is that our clients, as a rule, have eyes bigger than their wallets. When given a budget under $100,000 to provide artwork for several floors of offices, reception areas, conference rooms and lobbies, working with things like open edition giclees on paper becomes a necessity. Should people not be allowed to have art if they cannot afford the original works? Should music only be available if you purchase the original master tapes yourself for several thousand dollars? Without getting into my personal feelings on the subject, it seems quite clear to me that “the people” have decided that they would rather purchase inexpensive copies of original works of art so that they might be able to enjoy them to some degree rather than be deprived of art entirely. You sell your artwork for money; is that not also damaging to the concept of “art for art’s sake”? My take is that the art consultation business is, perhaps as you pointed out, no less ethical than the “art industry” as a whole.

]]>

By: Sari Grove

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:02:45 +0000

I think the numbers speak to the truth of the market, even if the people aren’t… Historically an art agent, art gallery, art consultant whatever the name for the salesperson, would not even breathe to ask more than one third on the commission of a sale of a work of art… The number was carved in stone & anything more was considered an affront to the artist, an insult to think that the selling was worth more than that to the work of art itself…
If the numbers were in fact, 5K retail ask, artist cut 2.5K, collector pays 4K, dealer pockets 1.5K:
then in fact what we are seeing is the numbers trying to correct an imbalance- for that split is closer to the two-third split to the artist, one third split to the dealer, which was traditional…(well, $2400 to the artist is around a 60% split, still low, but closer)…
So the market itself is trying to correct itself back to what was a fair split…around 66% artist to 33% dealer…(2/3 to 1/3)…
The other services that the art consultant is charging for usually were included in his or her 33% cut- the talking, visiting, installing-that was their job… Framing is not a profit maker either, since that should not pay a profit to anybody except the framer-charge should be materials only to collector… Taking the work to the framer is part of the job the consultant gets the one third split for…
Another note: Fine Art is not a volume business…If you think you are in “Fine Art” but are doing a volume business, then what you are in more closely is “Craft”, which doesn’t mind multiples… Large quantities of prints or formulaic churned out repeats of similar subject or colouration to match walls is not fine art… Calling oneself an art consultant but working with volume business is really an ethical oxymoron…
Grain of salt: Times have been tough this past decade for all… Wars & all… Both artists & art consultants have done dubious things… Like Hillary repeated once ‘ what happened in Vegas, stay in Vegas’ – might be applicable to all that has transpired…& possibly forgiven later…

]]>