How you price your art is changing. How does what you do fit with what other people are doing?
This page looks at how artists price their art - in terms of responses to polls I've been running on this topic since 2009.
Below you can:
  • complete the current polls
  • review the results of previous polls
  • consider the trends and changes in the popular methods for pricing art between 2009 and 2016

How do you price your art in 2018?
​

Please complete these polls.
If you click 'view results' to the right of the 'Vote' button you can see how your action compares to others
POLL:  WHAT INFLUENCES HOW YOU PRICE YOUR ART?

Before you read on think about what approach you use to price your art and complete the poll
POLL: WHERE DO YOU EXHIBIT YOUR PRICES?

Based on a poll on a previous website
​

Previous Polls

In 2009, I conducted a poll about how artists priced their art on my blog (see chart).

What type of art they produced was of less important to what type of approach they used for pricing their drawings and paintings.

146 people took part in the poll - and this is what they said:
  • 21% price their art on per square inch or square cm basis
  • 20% have specific prices for specific sizes
  • 18% base prices on comparable art for sale where you live

What this says to me is that artists tried very hard to be consistent in their pricing - in relation to size and place where it is sold.
POLL (2009) How do you price your art
You can read more about the poll in Results of "How do you price your art?"
In 2013/14 I ran the poll again and got slightly different results ( see chart).

This time 151 people took part in the poll.

All three top options from 2009 had reduced in percentage terms
  • price per square inch had reduced from top place to second
  • specific prices for specific sizes had reduced from 2nd to third place
  • based on comparable art where I live had reduced from third to fourth place

The top option for pricing art in 2013/14 was a cost plus formula based on an understanding of how much art cost to make and how much mark-up was required to cover overheads and make a profit

It seems as if artists were getting better at understanding their input costs and overheads.

The Most Popular Approaches to Pricing Art
​

BASED ON COMPARABLE ART (exhibited | sold) WHERE I LIVE - INCREASING POPULARITY
  • ​2009: 18% 
  • 2014: 5% + 12% = 17% (exhibited | sold)
  • 2016: 12% + 11% = 23% (exhibited | sold)

The artist studies prices displayed in local galleries and other places where art is sold and finds a comparable artist in terms of media and/or subject matter and relates prices to these. 

This is an increasingly a popular option. Artists now seem to recognise that they MUST know what artwork sells for in their local area.  

​In 2014
  • 5% of people based their prices on art EXHIBITED where they live
  • while 12% based prices on art SOLD where they live

Pros 
  • it's a lot easier to check out prices where you live than the other end of the country
Cons
  • ignores the reputation of the artist and whether or not they have a following and whether or not they sell their work fast and hence there's an "auction effect" in the pricing
  • prices charged need to be the same everywhere - buyers do check
COST PLUS (WAGE RATE+MATERIALS COST+MARKUP) - INCREASED
  • 2009: 8%
  • 2014 17%
  • 2016: 16%

The artist determines an hourly rate for their work, adds in the cost of materials (and matting and framing if applicable) and then adds a flat rate or a percentage as a mark-up which covers marketing and other business expenses and/or a profit element.

This option became much more popular in 2014 perhaps because the recession has made artists look much more carefully at what their input costs were and what sort of markup they should be seeking

It's maintaining popularity over time - maybe as more artists have become more business-oriented?

Pros 
  • tells you what you need to charge to recover your expenses and make a profit
  • worth using 'backwards' as it were to see how much you're paying yourself as a wage for your work.
  • more 'business-like' i.e. uses the same principle as other businesses selling goods
Cons
  • complicated calculations
SPECIFIC PRICES FOR SPECIFIC SIZES - DECREASING
  • ​2009: 20%
  • 2014: 14%
  • 2016: 12%

A common approach when artists typically produce artwork in a specific set of sizes. A set price per size makes exhibition pricing more sensible

Still popular but gradually decreasing in popularity over time.

Pros
  • variation of price per square inch
  • easy to understand
  • avoids odd prices
Cons
  • bears no relation to whether art will sell at this price UNLESS research is undertaken first

It's sensible if artists work out which sizes sell best BEFORE determining the prices they want to set for different sizes.
This then helps an artist to decide how to allocate their time before different sized artwork. 

The more pieces you produce in the size and price range that has a good track record for sales, the more likely you are to achieve actual sales in reality.
PRICE PER SQUARE INCH/CM - DECREASING
  • ​2009: 21% 
  • 2014: 15%
  • 2016: 12%

A standard price per square inch or centimetre is determined by the artist and this is then applied to all artwork. 

This option is on the decline. Possibly because it doesn't achieve good business results. The standard price must have some foundation in fact to be work properly.

A number of artists commented that size was immaterial - and that in fact it was more difficult and took longer to produce quality artwork in small sizes!

Pros
  • very easy to price artwork (if you keep frames or any other additional costs consistent)
  • very easy to keep prices consistent across sizes
  • useful approach as a check on a price derived using any other method
Cons
  • tends to underprice small works and overprice large artwork - unless you vary the base price at either end of the size range
  • prices often need rounding to create more sensible sounding prices
  • rather like providing a quote for painting a room!
  • standard prices set per inch need to vary to reflect different levels of experience and marketability
The Artist's Guide to Selling Work  
by Annabelle Ruston

Rated an average of 4.2 out of 5 stars based on 12 customer reviews
Breaks the basics of selling artwork down into readable 'chunks'. Includes a chapter about setting prices for original artwork.

Least Popular Options for Pricing Art
​

The options with the fewest votes might be deemed least popular. But are they?
PERCENTAGE INCREASE EACH YEAR - UNPOPULAR
  • ​2009: 2.7%
  • 2014: 0%
  • 2016: 0%

This approach is often used by an emerging artist who wants to grow sales income over time. The emphasis is always on relating to prices charged in previous years rather than what the market will bear or is currently paying for comparable work or input costs.

Pros
  • typically used more by people who set standards prices for standard sizes - it makes inflation uplifts easy
Cons
  • least popular option - but that might be because if was seen as a refinement of one of the others which formed the basic approach.

In 2014, nobody was using this method. Given the recession post 2008 this is hardly surprising given that inflation in a number of countries was running at a low level.
BASED ON COMPARABLE ART ON THE INTERNET - DECREASING / UNPOPULAR?
  • 2009: 9%
  • 2014: 2% + 9% = 11%
  • 2016: 0% + 4% = 4%

The artist looks at what else is available on the Internet and picks an artist or group of artists, notes the prices asked (or achieved at auction) and then adjusts accordingly. 

Pros
  • everybody can see what prices are being asked - if made available
Cons
  • what artwork is priced at and what artwork sells for are two different things
  • online marketing conflates global markets - it's the same price in every country and every region - irrespective of local price differences
  • pricing gets copied for similar sized artwork irrespective of the varying talents of the artists producing it - this makes for some very silly prives

More astute artists search for information about the price asked which actually achieves a sale. In 2014
  • 2% of people based prices on comparable art POSTED on the internet
  • while 9% of people chose to base their prices on comparable art SOLD on the Internet - on the basis that a price asked is not necessarily a sale made

Alternative approaches
​

The two options in the middle of the pack are based on gut feel - and some research.
NO. OF HOURS SPENT ON THE ARTWORK - unclear trend
  • ​2009: 6.2%
  • 2014: 11%
  • 2016: 9%

The price is determined by a calculated hourly rate based on the notion that materials costs are incidental and the crucial cost driver is the number of hours required to complete the work.

Pros
  • In theory it seems to have a rationale - but should the price of artwork really depend on how long it takes to paint?
Cons
  • Can produce very high prices
  • It bears no relation whatsoever to whether or not the market will pay the price.
  • It seems to contradict sound business practice i.e. more astute artists realise that time has an opportunity cost and work out ways to speed up their art-making while not losing quality e.g. simple things like gessoing 20 boards of a standard size in one go. Or even better get your studio assistant (spouse, partner or responsible child) to do it for you - for love!
  • difficult to rationalise = few supporters 
  • unclear that this approach generates sales

Artists did confess to feeling guilty for charging high prices - and getting sales - for artwork which didn't take long to do. To which my response is to ask how long have you spent working at your art so that you can work quickly and with skill?
PLUCKED FROM THE AIR - unclear trend
  • 2009: 10%
  • 2014: 8%
  • 2016: 14%

This is the "it feels like a $500 painting to me" approach.  It's often used by those who want to avoid doing any research to check out the current state of the marketplace.

However I've used this one from time to time and my guess is most people probably have at one time or another. 

Pros
  • can work if you look at a lot of art and a lot of prices - and get a feel for the market and the art. In effect it's what dealers do!
Cons
  • no obvious rationale other than a gut feel 
  • provides no consistent basis for pricing artwork

I recommend that if you want to use this approach that you:
  • look at a lot of art
  • learn how other artists price their art 
  • learn how prices vary between different marketplaces, galleries and other places for selling art. 

What I do is go and see exhibitions and collect exhibition catalogues! I make notes about what work sells and what the price thresholds for sales of different sizes of work seem to be. The best time to do this is just before an exhibition finishes as it provides a snapshot of how the market is working. 

Other options identified

Artists participating in the survey also identified other ways of pricing art. 

These included:
  • Gallery guides on/decides pricing policy for an artist's work
  • If the artist likes a piece a lot then it has to have a high enough price which would make a sale worthwhile!