Sorry, but a lot of this is fallacious.
I do not advocate people posting 1:1 print quality reproductions,
never even mentioned it, using that to counter my original argument
doesn't make sense.
People shouldn't post 1:1 print reproductions, you're right, but some
people do.
The people who are downloading the material, either 1:1 reproduction,
or a readable screen display copy only that has water marked, it will
be whichever is more easily accessible, will either be downloading it
because they chanced across it (whether "furry" or not), or they enjoy
the work.
If a person would not pay for something in the first place, for
whatever reason, then it's not a lost sale, I'm not here to argue the
ratio of new people who havent heard of your work or those who didnt
buy anything in the first place vs old customer's stopping paying for
things.
I do think you're complaining, as these are your problems and you need
to find a suitable solution to them instead of making the same
mistakes over, like you said, some dick will always post superscans.
There are a few problems here, Marshall McLuhan was ahead of his time
in his thinking as a media theorist, I suggest you look into his
works, as they will help you.
I never had even heard of Second Ed before, and it appears they do $5
U.S. shipping to international locations, which is ludicrously low,
here in Australia we are used to $40 shipping for the most light
weight orders of anything from the U.S., (and $12 for domestic
internal shipping..) (for example, a particular roll of film here
costs over $20, and another $20 to get developed, this roll of film
costs $4 in the U.S., but getting orders shipped start at $40
shipping, thus need to bulk order with others to make it worth while).
I've only ever seen one of your comics, so I'm not sure what is the
format, but perhap you can post parts of them or a low res format on
your own website just as Second Ed receives them or something? You can
undercut scanners before they have a chance to post anything, if you
make it available directly on your site, people will go there to get
it, and you will have much more control over promotion.
I think you also should look into creating an attractive package (As
in physical package), and give your works a more professional
presentation.
And I know you may not want to hear this part.. but perhaps you can
save the hand drawn work for special editions, or at least produce
extra works completely digitally, using something like painter that
can be shipped to Second Ed for physical reproduction and sale.
It's not easy, but I think market research and better marketing is in
order, if what youre doing now isn't work too well, then continuing to
do exactly the same thing isn't going to work.
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "Take a wild, friggin guess"
<a_change_of_plans_at_...> wrote:
>
> My biggest complaint about the "online picture trading" is this: I
> have no problem with folks swapping/showing off the artwork I have
> scanned in. True, there is often a light watermark on the image
> (less intrusive on newer pictures) to let people know where the site
> is located. But then, rather than use those, some moron feels
> compelled to scan the pictures in at 300 dpi and post the entire
> collection (comics included) online in .rar or .zip files (which get
> pretty fucking big).
>
> True, some folks would argue "That's not a loss because those
> people weren't going to buy them anyway". If that's the case, then
> they do not deserve to see them. At least, not in 3500 X 2500 pixel
> size. I don't know about how people are being raised these days, but
> I was always taught that if you can't afford it, you either save up
> for it, or you don't get it. Simple as that. The only freebies that
> should be given out in life are the food samples by vendors at the
> supermarket.
>
> If I wanted free advertising, that would be better attained by
> people passing around the LOWER RESOLUTION WATERMARKED VERSIONS,
> which, of course, would list the site address on them. Passing out
> hi-rez scans to one's online buddies, sans watermarked address,
> doesn't do dick for advertising, yet too many pirates use this sort
> of logic these days.
>
> Yes, this sort of behavior does cause a loss in sales. I have
> paperwork to back that up. After all, why should someone spend money
> to buy prints/folios/comics (which, of course, COST money to
> produce), when they could just get them for free? "They weren't
> going to buy them anyway"? If that's the case, then why do they ask
> for the entire collection, and save all the pictures to their
> harddrives? I dunno about you, man, but if I have no intention of
> buying something, there's no way I'd download every possible image or
> file related to it. Makes no sense.
>
> Yes, it does cost me money to produce these things. Just printing
> one Skunkworks folio costs a little over eleven dollars. They
> wholesale to Second Ed for $17.50. Not much profit there, is there?
> And that's not even taking into account the cost of supplies (pens
> are four bucks EACH, pencils are a dollar EACH, and inking pens and
> drawing paper are negligible. Care to guess how many colors I go
> through in a single picture? Or how long I often spend on one
> picture, let alone an entire folio? Yeah, it breaks down to
> something like 17 cents per hour as my pay. Not a lot of incentive,
> especially when there are so many folks who think it's completely
> okay and within their rights to just take what they want without
> having to pay for it. Obviously, the concept of capitalism is lost
> on these feeble-minded individuals.
>
> So, the best I've been able to do thus far is offer the work on
> specialty paper. I don't do digital; I've never been a fan of it,
> and don't really intend on using that format in the immediate
> future. If people complain because they feel I should "keep up with
> the times" and that no one "buys anything on paper these days", so be
> it. But that doesn't mean they have the right (as they so often
> profess to say they have) to scan and/or download illegally-obtained
> copies of my work. They are NOT doing me any favors by doing so.
>
> This is a large part of why there is less work from me these days.
> I don't have to contend with piracy in the mainstream genre. People
> see a picture they like, they pay for it. I used to make a decent
> amount of money in the furry genre before image boards became big,
> but with the proliferation of online image theft, it's caused an
> immediately noticeable decline in sales. So, do I keep investing
> time and money in the genre, hoping I won't get robbed blind, or do I
> spend most of my time on mainstream art, where I can generate a good,
> solid income free of piracy, and produce furry art as a hobby, as
> something I enjoy but only get to do once "work" has been taken care
> of?
>
> I find it especially amusing when folks clamor for "moar artz" and
> raise hell when I take too long to produce new material, yet they
> never have the intention of buying it. They just wait until someone
> gets ahold of it and scans it online for all to share. There will
> likely be someone who would say I'm complaining about the situation,
> and perhaps I am. But if the fandom itself is incapable of taking
> responsibility for its actions and shedding the undesireable leeches
> from its ranks, then the artists will have to do so. And that
> includes things like paysites, pre-orders and copy-proof media.
> Folks complain about these things, yet fail to realize they brought
> it upon themselves by their actions, or by allowing and encouraging
> the illicit actions of others.
>
> And that's my two fucking cents on that.
>
> --JMH
>
Received on Thu Oct 02 2008 - 20:09:05 CDT