Story Time: Payment for Art Test? Is this the norm?!
Story time. I've been looking to recently fill a per-hour paid texture artist position in my studio and after going through roughly 20 applicants, I find one really promising person on here. I look through this applicant's portfolio and we reply back and forth, and finally get through the details of employment. As I'm about to administer the art test to see his workflow, speed, and ultimately quality, he demands a payment after completing the art test.
I immediately declined him the position in my studio, that just sounds so pretentious. To all my fellow artists, as well as game studios, have you ever been paid or paid someone for an art test that someone applied to your studio for? In all of my years working in the game industry, I've never once been compensated after completing an art test, nor have I ever compensated an applicant applying for a position in my studio. It's never once been brought up in either scenario.
Is achieving the job and beating the other applicants out not enough of a reward?
Replies
It is the reverse situation although, I run a fairly successful art studio that has a consistent clientele. My current texture artist that works with me is about to relocate to South Korea and ultimately won't be able to work with me further, so I opened another the slot up in my studio for people to apply for. Maybe I'm being narrow-minded, and even a bit egotistical in thinking that my studio is prestigious (I am proud of what I've achieved over the past three years with my studio). I don't think of course it's better than other art studios, or other freelancers, but I work extremely hard to deliver a level of quality that shows in each and every client's game.
I feel that if you were to want to work with me and my studio, having consistent work, working on art you're passionate about, you being picked out of other applicants for the position is enough compensation and a reward. I am just boggled although, is this a new concept of compensating your applicants for an art test if they directly applied to your studio (not you reaching out to them to apply)? I remember talking to a friend a few years ago that was then-working at Redstorm Entertainment and was taking an art test on the side for Epic Games, he was not being compensated for the art test. I think people are getting it in their head that it's acceptable to ask for compensation for an art test when in reality, you getting the position over others should be more than enough compensation because you get the job and they don't. You get the resume update, the portfolio update, and the paychecks; they don't.
[Edit]
So I called a friend who worked at Insomniac Games and asked him if he was paid for an art test, here was his response (my voice wasn't record unfortunately...):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B1yh7iQS80-8xTCS1NUOh50X6Jt827J7/view?usp=sharing
You're saying they don't need to be compensated for their time because them getting the position over others should be compensation enough. When the applicant is taking the test, there's no guarantee that they will get the position...that's the point of the test.
You are asking someone to devote time and produce work for you, I think they should be compensated for that time. While that may not be industry norm, I think an artist has every right to ask to be paid for their time, and if i'm honest your attitude about it not being "acceptable" does come off as pretty arrogant.
Edit: You could poll 1000 people in the industry and probably find that the majority of them have never been paid for taking an art test. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be, nor does that mean you should scoff at someone asking to be paid.
While you're in your right as an employer to decline an applicant who asks for compensation for doing your art tests, just remember you're also turning down a candidate who may have potential to work wonders with you.
Going back to my Wal-Mart example, I hope this isn't seen as bragging, but I believe the incentives the company gave me to stick with them would end up being paid back in gold. I saw other people they hired, but the turnover rate was so crazy. It got to a point where the managers were coming to me and saying "oh shit, where's Jordan? This guy keeps putting in the extra work, we really can't just let him go.".
If we're going with a not 1-to-1 example, do you feel you should be compensated by your school for the final exams you take in collage? No, you feel compensated when you've earned the passing grade which later equates to a degree. In fact, you're actually paying your school for the time they take to teach you. In retrospect although, the same analogy applies when taking an art test for a studio you really want to work at. You getting the job over others should be a humble enough reward.
You can always replace athletes, but what if the guy you have loses interest and wants to switch teams? Some incentives for keeping him/her on board would mean other competitors aren't as willing to snatch them.
I'd also like to point out that for me personally the issue isn't as much about you not wanting to pay artists to take a test for you. Many studios do not pay artists to take tests. My problem is that instead of simply telling the applicant that you are unwilling or unable to pay them for taking the test and still giving them the opportunity to take it, your response was essentially, "The balls on this asshole, asking to be paid for his time!" and told him to get lost.
Edit: You're obviously going to do whatever you think is right for your studio but I'm curious what sort of response you thought you were going to get coming to a forum frequented by professional artists with a story about how flabbergasted you were that an artist had the gall to ask to be paid for their time.
I don't think I'd spend a week working with no guarantee of anything in return unless it was for a major studio like Naughty Dog or something. Employee-employer relationship is a mutual benefit that should operate on shared interest/mutual respect.
In any case, to avoid frustrations, probably best to discuss this up front with future prospective employees.
Well, I think you pretty much answered your own question right there. Applying for a job at Epic games is quite different from applying for a role within a small art asset house structure focusing on handpainted Unity assets. It's a totally fair field to corner - it's just not at all comparable to the scope, prestige, and salary that a studio like Epic can offer. I mean, they make over $300 million a month these days.
Also, for someone currently working at a studio it may be down right illegal to get paid for working on an art test to apply somewhere else, simply because this may cause a breach of a contractual non-compete. Whereas a freelancer wouldn't have such ties, and likely has the (very healthy) habit of always getting paid for any minute of work done.
So yeah I too would side with the guy who asked for compensation, I think it's completely fair. If anything that tells you that this person knows the value of his/her time, and probably has a good understanding of what it means to freelance for a living. This person is also probably poking/testing you that way, to see your reaction - and that too is a completely fair approach.
Quite honestly, it should remain the standard to not be compensated. AAA studios can opt into compensating applicants whom complete art tests; however, I simply cannot. The money I earn comes directly and solely from clients who hire me, so if twenty-to-twenty five individuals apply and have the required skills enough to warrant an art test, I simply cannot afford to compensate all twenty five of them. Additionally, and as pior pointed out, you could be infringing in a non-compete by being compensated for an art test while already working for a game studio.
It's just not a financially wise decision for smaller studios. I've also worked with two extremely talented texture artists in the past who I have great professional relationships with, neither expected to be compensated because it's simply and pragmatically speaking not the norm and never should be. I stand by my points nonetheless that us artists, whether we be an applicant or future employer, should remain humble and not expect compensation.
Thank you all for your replies, this has been a thought provoking topic.
Conceited...
While providing compensation for an art test is on you since it is your studio, its the way you dismissed a promising applicant simply for asking about payment for his time, that speaks of a lack of professionalism and humility on your part.
You could have told him of why you're unable to pay because of all the reasons you've conjured up above, though the root cause at the very beginning of your post seems to be your quick thinking that the artist is conceited and pretentious and how dare he ask for payment, so quite an impulsive move on your part.
Personally I feel that artists should be compensated for an art test if the potential employer is able to.
If not, the very least is that they are made aware of reason for lack of payment and any test submission sent is duly returned to the artist with them maintaining full rights so they can use it for their portfolios.
You'll need to value their time as much as they'd value working for you.
And getting the job isn't a reward, you're giving him a job where he's working for you and you're profiting from his work.
The compensation you're providing is an amount agreed upon for the work done.
Maybe giving your employee a bonus while on the job counts as a reward for doing exemplary work.
tl;dr: If you want the best talent, you will probably have to pay for it one way or another (paid art test, higher salary, extra vacation time etc) and if your portfolio isn't mind blowing and you don't have a lot of actual experience you are probably gonna have to eat some shit and make some sacrifices to get a job. it's always better to be the buyer and not the seller.
long version:
If you are an unemployed jr artist you have zero leverage in a situation like this, so asking to be paid for an art test is pretty laughable, I'm not saying it's not right to expect to get compensated for your time but that's just how the world works. the studio you are applying to has all the leverage in that you have no job, no prior experience and probably no other concrete options. just the fact that you are the one applying to them and not having them be the ones approaching you should tell you that. hence unpaid art tests.
Now lets say you are an artist working at a baller studio like naughty dog or sony santa monica. You have a TON of leverage on the job market: your resume and portfolio are probably super impressive, you are working on top tier projects in the industry, and have a decently high salary and it's probably going to be super hard to woo you away from that position. so in a situation where another studio is actively trying to poach you, you have all the leverage. You can ask for an insane salary, extra vacation time, signing bonus etc and probably wouldn't even consider spending time to do an art test at that point in your career. your portfolio and experience would speak for themselves and having a take it or leave it stance would most likely be your best bargaining strategy.
at the start of my career I had to do unpaid art tests and it was just part of the job hunt process. Nowdays most studios just bring me in for an interview and chat and then send over an offer if they are interested, I haven't been asked to do an art test in about 8 years. my leverage point has reached a certain level relevant to the pond I'm swimming in (montreal job market).
Would I expect not to do an art test for a joint like Naughty Dog or Sony SM? Fuck no! I know my portfolio isn't up to snuff to be an easy sell at studios like that. And I'm cool with that because it's currently not in my career goals to get a job there. If it was, some extra effort would be required and I hope I'm self aware enough to know that and act accordingly. If I really wanted to work on god of war I wouldn't mind doing an art test, unpaid or paid, because my goal would be more important than some short term cash motivation.
Art tests are usually to clear up any unanswered questions left by a portfolio, I know some studios test everyone on principle while others only test applicants they need to see hit the quality bar due to a lack of experience with the art style or actual game art production experience.
But at the end of the day, it's all about leverage. Thats just how the world works. Why do you think instagram influencers with 100k-1m+ followers now have brands approaching them begging to pay $5k-20k for a post? Because the influencers have the audience and attention, and all the leverage. Some horribly undersell themselves and don't charge enough, others try to overcharge and brands turn them down. But they have all built their own platforms so they can dictate their own prices. whether anyone is going to pay that price is another story. It's the exact same for artists: focus on getting so fucking good that people are lining up to give you jobs and money, its the simplest thing you can do.
To artists:
guys, this is why i keep saying having a dope portfolio and a large artstation following or gumroad subscriber list to promote your own products to is the most important thing artists can be doing these days. Because if a situation like this comes up and you feel offended for not being paid to do an art test you can say fuck it and not do it, and have the financial freedom and leverage to turn down opportunities you don't like. You don't have to sit around and pout about not getting paid from something that is out of your control because you are the one calling the shots, having studios approach you begging you to come work for them and can pick and choose opportunities that appeal to you at your own leisure. I know of a few artists that could probably walk away from their day jobs if they don't get a decent raise or the project goes to hell and would be 100% financially stable.
to studios:
There is a reason places like ND, blizzard, Epic etc have people falling all over themselves to do art tests or whatever it takes to get in the door. Their reputation and projects are pretty much the best in the industry. They have a proven track record and cache to demand that of people applying. They have a huge amount of leverage so they make the rules in most cases. Brand is another form of leverage. why do people pay $300k for a car that cost $60k to make? Because its a fucking Ferrari.
A smaller art house or outsourcing studio that no one has heard of is going to have a harder time in general sourcing strong talent, paid or unpaid art tests are irrelevant. they just don't have the brand awareness and repertoire yet to get the best people. So focusing on building brand and getting projects people would love to be on is going to be the thing that gives them more leverage.
I'm not going to get into the argument of living in a perfect world where everyone is compensated for their time and ability, obviously that would be ideal and awesome, but it's just not how business or the world currently works. Deploy a little self awareness and figure out where you land on the leverage spectrum and if you don't like what you discover, work to improve the odds in your favor. That could be improving your portfolio, could be expanding your network, could be having enough cash in the bank to have "fuck you" money to turn down jobs you don't really want or to quit your job if you hate it, all of those things are 100% in your control. Focus on what you CAN control, rather than debating and complaining about things you CAN'T and shit gets real simple, real fast.
So in a sense I feel like in this particular case the subject is pretty much a non-issue, and an art test (especially unpaid) is almost irrelevant here. Might as well just trust the portfolio of the artist, hire him/her for a small paid job that can be done over a couple days/weeks, and see how it goes from there.
That way no one ends up being frustrated and everyone is satisfied even if the collaboration doesn't work out for whatever reason since both parties get compensated : the artist gets paid for the time spent and the client gets the usage rights to an asset that may range from okay-ish to great quality-wise. Win-win.
As a matter of fact I would say that the smaller the structure the more fair it is for the applicant to ask for a paid compensation - because smaller structures don't have the same potential for stable income as bigger studios, therefore it's all the more justified to ask for paiement. I'd even go as far as saying that in this case the artist should require half of the paiement upfront, simply because the context is very, very similar to that of a one-to-one contract between two individuals.
It's also a very good way to test if the person/studio on the other side of the deal has a good understanding of contracts, invoices, setting up wire payments, and so on.
(And yeah totally agreed on the part about online presence and passive income.)
1000% agreed. I have worked for small studios in the past and there is always rocky roads when it comes to finances, which is a part of a reason I try to avoid it and focused on bigger AAA studios for most of my career.
good suggestion on the try each other out for a few days paid and if its not working, part ways. hire fast fire fast. also, I cant blame the person running the studio for thinking like a CEO instead of an artist.
however....fronting like you are bigger/more important than you actually are only over inflates the ego and hurts you in the long run. It's like when I see a game art student working on a mod and their linkedin title has them listed as "lead artist/art director" or "creative director".
I don't really fault the OP for creating this thread and I am not really even hating on them, it is actually a great opportunity for everyone to share ideas and perspective. From a starting a small business standpoint I get not having the free capital to burn, and I also get the artists pov of wanting to be compensated for their time and skills. I think the main thing rubbing me the wrong way was instead of just being humble and asking "hey are paid art tests a thing in this industry?!" rather than, "pffff this artist has the balls to ask to get paid for the opportunity to work at my awesome studio, i never got paid in the past so they shouldn't either".
my long ass rant mainly came from the fact that I get the impression the OP is wasting time stewing on the fact someone would ask to be paid to do an art test, which seems a bit arrogant with the whole "it's an opportunity to work for MY studio" and seems to be overvaluing where they are at as a business in terms of prestige, and the implication of the artist probably being butthurt about being shot down about being paid. You get 2 people wasting time being focused on the exact things they can't control vs what they can. which makes it lose-lose. Piors win-win option is a lot better.
If you are afraid of taking a risk in business then it's more than likely destined to fail. the artist is risking a lot by working with a small, financially unstable company (not having millions of float in the bank) and the company might be risking capital hiring on an unproven artist but you should already have a good sense of their skillset from their portfolio and interview anyways.
final note: I'll be the first to jump on the remote/distributed studio model, its 2018, having a huge room of artists sitting there with headphones on for 99% of their time at work isn't actually all that valuable. I'm also a big supporter of smaller studios being a co-op where salary and bonus structure means successful projects can be life changing for all team members.
For that uncommon situation where you don't, or you have a hard time choosing between two people and want them to fight it out, invest into your decision and pay them for their time, hiring someone is an important decision and you should be willing to put some money into it.
don't send out art tests to 25 applicants that you won't pay for, you are just wasting their time and yours by having to look through it all.
Also if someone was willing to do an unpaid art test for example a small indie studio that was not a student or right out of school that should almost be a warning sign to you as the employer.
You want effort and passion from the people applying to your studio? Then treat them with respect. Not only the recruiter has a lot on his/her plate. The time these people are spending with your interview process they are not spending persuing another chance.
This is not directed to the OG, but to me personally the typical process is already quite disrespectfull by starting an interview process with a test like bigger studios do. They arleady have the portfolio in front of them. Stop using the artest as a frist move to make the selection for you. Choose the people you really want to interview. Give them a chance to meet you before you ask them to waste a week of their life for a 'chance to work for you'. Maybe you don't gell anyhow - and the HR is no replacement for that. You can read in the job posting and on the company's page all the info you get from that talk, so it is meaningless. But like Pixelmaster says, its all about leverage, so applicants will be treated as numbers unless they are well established and that is not going to change soon...
Rejecting job candidates for petty differences of opinion is burning bridges. When there is disagreement, you've got to take the higher ground and do what is necessary to keep bridges intact. Maybe you have to take a small loss, and then reconsider your approach forward to avoid losses like that in the future.
Every person you meet is a potential multiplier to your future potential. Every enemy you make is a divisor. There isn't a single good reason for two people at any time, anywhere, to not be friends. It just doesn't benefit anyone. Maybe a person is conceited. Maybe they are objectively a jerk. Doesn't matter, they still bring something to the table. A leader finds the way to bring out the good, and temper the bad. Even if you deem it best for your business to avoid a certain person, it's still better if that person believes they are in good standing with you. Mutual respect. If you are offended and don't know how to respond, you smile and excuse yourself until you have time to consider the other persons perspective, and formulate a response that will leave everyone in a better position. It takes discipline, restraint, effort, etc., but the only other option is trouble.
When every person on the earth is your friend, you have conquered the world.
Art tests are more than showing that you have sheer skill, your portfolio is suppose to tell me that. It's about workflow which affects speed, attention to detail which shows me they're not cutting corners, as well as to see how they work up to a point they need to do an art critique. As the art director in my studio, and most contracts I work on, I have a certain standard I want to deliver and I need the texture artist working with me to be at that standard. So, we schedule art critiques and I give him or her constructive criticism. They take down a few notes and make the necessary changes, and I pay them by the hour for their time.
At the end of the day the 'reward' of beating others comes nowhere near to make up for the time lost. I didn't care about how many others I've beaten to get my current job working on a major project. I am not doing it for my ego, I am doing it because I enjoy the work AND it pays for the roof over my head as well as the food on my table. Knowing others 'failed' against me means nothing to me as on the next interview I can still be the one who doesn't get the job, while I was putting time and effort into a test&process that got me nothing in return.
If your main purpose is to test the artists speed, then I would suggest giving out a 3 hour task, might not be enough time for the artist to finish, but you are able to see how far the artist gets and how he prioritize, and you would only have to pay for 3 hours of work
Worst case they turn out to be a good liar, and you let them go asap.
If you find 5 candidates and need to pick which one to hire, give them a test to do in 1 ~ 3 hours, and whoever pulls ahead in either accuracy or completion gets the job.
You don't have to pay it for, but you're also not burdening the artist with their time otherwise spent on job hunting.
It may be that the freelancer you spoke to was making a decision between doing the test or paid work. I do think it is a bit different for freelancers as contracts are shorter meaning potentially you have to do more art tests. If the artist has multiple opportunities they can afford to request an art test be paid. It shows there is high demand for that artist so they can afford to risk losing an opportunity.