Many of my clients have been and will continue to be women, people of color and gay men. Overarching all, including straight men (and women), is the stereotype of the flighty artist. No matter the size and scale of any project, the prevailing bias is is that the creative business is not “serious” in the way it goes about doing what it does. Were that I was out of touch and that this bias, in 2019, did not exist. Sadly, oh so sadly, it does. I experience it through my clients almost daily.
Not only is it not enough to act professionally, creative business owners have to move far past professional to even get credibility that is mostly assumed for other professions. Would you ever talk to your doctor, lawyer, accountant the way some clients speak to you and your team? Of course not.
There is noone to blame here and I am not really commenting on the behavior that is rampant in creative business, by clients, even employees and colleagues. What I am advocating is to call it what it is when it happens — that subtle wrenching of power or effort to marginalize — and then do something about it. Bring the bias to the light. Examples abound, but I will point to three areas: money, design and “I made you, you owe me.”
Money. If you are getting flustered when money conversations start happening, then know that most of the conversation is about power much more than money. When I ask you how much, you have to tell me how much YOU are worth as much as the thing you will be producing. Many times you get to relate your worth to the thing, but you still have to justify THAT value (why 15% and not 10%?). Here is the point: you are NOT a) a jerk, b) non-responsive, c) stupid, d) not professional, or e) flighty by asserting your expertise. If a client asks what you cost before you can establish that they are willing to pay for what “it” will cost, there is no point to answering the question. By the way, it is never a question of afford, it is a question of willing. Clients all have the wherewithal to engage you (and if they do not, why exactly are you talking?), it is whether they choose to spend it with you is the real question. This is where power comes in. If you answer the question of what you cost before establishing they are willing to pay for what “it” costs because one of the above reasons are running through your head, you have subtly, insidiously, yet demonstrably ceded your expertise to the client who is not, in fact, the expert. Please stop doing that as it serves no-one, least of all your client. Production budget first, the cost of your creative business second.
Next, design. Ideas are ephemeral, options today bordering on limitless. If you believe in blue, there can be a wonderful argument to be made for red. Who cares? You believe in blue, have sold blue, value blue and are willing to stake your reputation on blue. It ends there — your clients, colleagues and employees alike get to believe in blue or they do not. Again, here is where the power thing comes in. “I will not pay for the blue couch, I want a red couch”. The idea is that the impact on your design of a change from blue to red is up to the client when it is not. You and only you get to decide the significance of the change and it is almost always irrational, meaning two designers might come to exactly the opposite conclusion — “Meh, the red couch, no big deal” vs. “OMG, the red couch kills everything.” You can then see the slippery slope to design marginalization, if not oblivion. See above about asserting your expertise. Standing in the position of saying the red couch is thermonuclear (or not) to your design is EXACTLY what you get paid for. If you give up the position, so too your intrinsic value. Again, please stop doing that as it not only serves no-one, but undermines the fabric of the very industry you so dearly love.
Last, the “I made you” zombie. Most creative businesses have had patrons, those that helped you get to where you wanted to go as an artist. Sometimes these are amazing relationships where the purity of the work remains and you are fairly paid each time. What I am talking about is where it slips into an expectation of “you owe me” because of the past. Here is the point, if you sucked, there would never be a next time. The reason there is a next time is because your work was brilliant for what the client needed. End of story. Will you be better the next time? Sure — if you are not promising to improve on today tomorrow, you should quit. A big break is valuable, but, once proven you belong on the stage, you need not keep paying for the break. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle because you are that good. See above statement about expertise (applies here more than anywhere else). If someone has market power, they deserve to be paid for that power — i.e., an interior designer getting a trade discount from a production partner they buy a ton from, a wedding planner getting a discount on rentals she might purchase for many of her events. Even for these players though, there has to be an explicit understanding that there will be a future purchase, else no discount/preferential treatment. Still though, I see artists giving over their power to patrons who no longer are, compromising themselves and everyone around them daily. Please stop.
For the most part, bias can be exposed if only artists can demonstrate how the bias jeopardizes the power of the art, the ability to say, “Here, I created this for you” and to say it purely, with integrity and not a shred of doubt that it yours and yours alone to say. I have said it thousands of times — if your clients could see what you see, do what you do, they would. They cannot so they choose to come to your world to receive its largess. No sense making your world look like theirs, especially today, when it never did and never will.
