Don't drift - paddle!

There is some interesting discussion out there in blogworld about the “new” route to success in this business, part of which concerns the apparent shift away from the requirement that an art licensing artist has well developed drawing skills. Not very many years ago there was zero chance for success without those skills, but the continuing refinement of design software has opened up the field to some of those who did not spend their childhood sleeping with crayons under their pillow. This is not to say that the design standards are necessarily lower, or that average work will get you licensed - actually quite the contrary - but there are more ways to get there. It is now possible to express artistic talent through software, and like any sea change this has its share of detractors, and some are declaring it invalid.

Go read this interesting take on it from the UK’s Blue Strawberry here, and then come back…

Not too sure about their Real Artist conclusion but I love the idea of “product drift” in design software, though I would be inclined to call it a user access shift but let’s just run with the first tag.  Drift concepts have application in a variety of disciplines, one of the more familiar is language study (linguistic drift), where it relates to how a language can retain a basic format but exhibit certain significant variations, or drift, in various geographic areas. You writers should be familiar with that. Probably more applicable for us is the enormous category of “concept drift” which is the domain of mathematicians, computer scientists, statisticians, and other areas of study we really don’t want to fully understand. It deals with the inevitable effects of a dynamic datastream on a predicted target variable – in short what you thought you knew (the target outcome) actually changes as you collect new data, therefore the model you are using to predict that outcome needs to adapt constantly to reflect the new information and accurately predict a new outcome. (I know you theoretical math people are choking on that, but it’s the best I can manage in one sentence… and hey, we’re talking art licensing here…)

Machines and software find this almost impossible to do, because it requires them to “learn”, however our brain should be able to accomplish the task – if only we will let it. If you have been in this business for a while, don’t give up your advantage by struggling against the drift. This is a product driven business, and it is not so much about how you get there as where you end up - best to save the art snobbery for the galleries. If you need to change your way of thinking and working (your model) to get that product on the market (your target outcome) then you should take a deep breath and adapt. You can consider it a difficult time or an exciting time for Art Licensing – the choice is yours to make.

Cha, Cha, Cha, Changes...

When you are licensing art for products you will, sooner or later, be faced with the situation where a manufacturer requests, or requires, that changes be made to your design before going into production. These can be as simple as moving some text or a border, or they can be complex, like a total colorway change, a character redo or more. How you handle the request may be more important than you think – it can kill a project and even make or break your future with that licensee.

A good license agreement will have language that specifies what can happen, and who can do it. This is from our standard contract:

Any alterations or modifications of Artist's original artwork for Licensed Product(s) deemed necessary by Licensee shall be performed personally by Artist unless Artist explicitly consents, in advance and in writing, to modifications performed by Licensee.

Pretty simple and straightforward, it allows for control of the situation while leaving the door open for the licensee to make the changes – which is often the most efficient route. We very rarely see any objection to this clause except in a last minute rush situation. Below are a couple of paragraphs taken from agreements that we have seen (and rejected…):

[Manufacturer] shall have the right to make changes or alterations to the Design Art, including but not limited to changes or alterations in shape, color, shading, form, size, and positioning of the Design Art, which may result in derivative works of the Design Art (hereinafter the “Derivative Works”). Changes to the Design Art may be made by [Mfr] in [Mfr]’s sole discretion.  [Mfr] does not require approval from Artist for changes made to the Design Art. 

 Licensor hereby grants to Licensee a license to use the Design in the preparation of the work in the following respects (the “License”):

a) Modify the Design

b) Reproduce the Design

c) Sell the Design

d) Incorporate the Design into other products created by Licensee

The first one is bad enough but the second is a complete mess – none of the clauses A to D are acceptable for a variety of reasons that go far beyond design changes.

The point here is twofold: think about what changes you might be willing to accept long before you are confronted with them (if for no other reason than to get comfortable with the idea), and make sure that you will have some input regarding those changes through the language in your agreement. Ninety nine percent of the time all of this can be effortless because you put everyone on the same page from the get-go.

Defend yourself!

My friend Ketra is one of the more astute people I know, she has one of those nimble minds that can quickly hone in on the realities of a situation. She is also unencumbered by years of experience in the “old” licensing world - which gives her a fresh perspective, something that is difficult to achieve for those of us limited by our hard-earned certainties.

She used the phrase “a property that is defensible in the market” in conversation a while back, and it keeps popping up in my head. It’s a little twist on one of the commandments of investing – that the company you are considering is able to maintain a defensible market position – but it nicely highlights what is happening in our business right now. I have harped aplenty about the changes wrought by technology and the influx of new artists, but when I think about it in terms of maintaining a defensible position, I come to this conclusion:

It is no longer possible for the majority of artists in this business to gain a competitive advantage in the market, and without that they are simply another one of many with essentially the same offering.

When that happens, in any discipline, the perceived value drops away and your customers are no longer willing to pay a significant price for your services. You need to look no further than logo services or website design for examples – either can be had for 99.00 now. It’s not that there won’t always be a need for another Santa or snowman or stylized flower – certainly for the immediate future that will be true. But will it be worth your time to compete with 500 other artists to supply it? Actually, is it now?

But we don’t have to worry about the competition because we all have a unique product!

But do you really? From Julie Rains of Wisebread:
“The harsh truth is that your customers may not understand, need or even value the differences between your company’s solutions and those of your competitors. Cheaper versions that fulfill similar functions are preferable.”

When your product is a commodity, customers tend to choose solely on the basis of price or even on how much they can get for free. However - if you can bring a rare and truly unique set of skills and designs to the market and can show them something they haven’t seen before, or they can’t get from anyone else, then you can stake out your turf and charge admission – and that's a whole lot more fun.

Think Like A Brand

Most artists in this business would agree that their goal is to someday be a “brand”. So have you spent any time picturing what that would look like? Visualization is a powerful tool for helping to achieve your goals – so lean back and think about it…if you were a brand, you would….

Define the essence of your brand. Successful brands are perceived by their customers as the best or even the “only”. But this is a lot more than just product awareness, it is an almost automatic recognition of what they are, or in your case what you do. Can you define that for your brand? No? Then most certainly your customers can’t either.

Know your category cold. How much data do you think Coke and Pepsi have on soft drink consumption? How much do the Radisson people know about business travelers? How much do you know about art licensing? About your customers?

Protect your territory. Do you think the people at Lee are Tweeting their followers at Levis about a great new distribution channel they found? Of course not. You may have noticed that the big names in this business almost never reveal client names or share specific opportunities. If you want to be a professional you need to act like one.

Nurture your followers. Brand followers believe that “their” brand exists for the benefit of the customer, and successful brands work hard at never giving them any reason to doubt that. Brand loyalty, and how to keep it, is primary in everything they do. If your client wants it tomorrow, send it tonight. If they ask for an alternative sketch, send them two. Happily.

Be consistent, and consistently excellent. A tall order for sure, but a basic building block of a successful brand. Whether you walk into a Starbucks in Seattle, Minneapolis or Miami, you know the experience will be the same – and it will be almost perfect. The same goes for a McDonalds, or an Apple store, or a Nordstrom…this is what makes them who they are.

Innovate. Constantly. Everyone expects the best from the best. Brands have a laser-like focus on making their product better and keeping it the best on the market. Followers look to their brands for the next big thing, and if you can’t provide it they will soon look elsewhere.

Believe in your product. The people at Tom’s of Maine know they have the best personal products on the market, at Method they know they have the best soap, at Ben and Jerry’s they know they make the best ice cream. If you know you are putting out the best art available for that product then your clients will too.

If not, well, go back to Starbucks and learn how they do it….

Call me when you have something

There has been a bit of a brouhaha bubbling on Linked In over a posting by a UK-based wanna-be licensee. Seems he claimed to have a hot new product, POD (print on demand) decorated audio speakers, and that they were a featured product at the last Pulse products show. Apparently no one can verify that. He claims to have an exclusive license for the product for the UK and Europe (like to see that…) but when you look at the website it appears they import little speakers, like dozens of others do, and it has every indication of being a start-up operation.  Of course there are hundreds of these already available on Zazzle.

So why do we care? There are over 140 responses to this fishing expedition and it’s still growing, however some of them are starting to smell a rat and have begun to question the legitimacy of the request.  Unfortunately this is another example of one of the downsides of our technological revolution – that anybody can jump into art licensing, qualified or not – but remember it is now true on EITHER side of the fence. We are approached all the time at the shows and off the web by people with great plans who are interested in licensing some art, even if they don’t quite know what that means yet. Of course ya never know, so we will always talk to them, gather some information and then do the research, but 9 times out of 10 that’s where it ends. We have a long standing rule at our company – we don’t work with start ups. No website, no history – sorry, no contract. It may sound a bit arbitrary but the fact remains that with start up companies you rarely get paid.

Yes, everybody has to start somewhere, and yes, every rule is made to be broken, but consider my advice before jumping in and you will save yourself a lot of grief:

No history, no website, no product yet – no thanks.

Mine and mine alone...

Kind of interesting that in the last three days we have had two clients inform us (pretty much how it went, not much room to “discuss”…) as we executed contracts that they are no longer willing to print the artist’s name as part of the copyright notice on their products. Both are doing it to protect their art sources – meaning “we don’t want our competitors raiding our licensed talent”. They are both national leaders in their categories, so yes, we are going along with it. About all I can say is…really? Is designer poaching that big of a problem out there?

We have seen variations of this “protection” previously, occasionally agreements have been executed stating that the artist will not do any work for a direct competitor during the term of a license agreement (sometimes even naming the  competitor) but this is new twist.  Flag companies and some of the smaller fabric companies have long wanted exclusive artists, and in fact one of the biggest suppliers recently announced they will only work with artists who are exclusive to them from this point forward.

  

I can’t wrap my head around whether all this is part of something larger that’s brewing, and what that would mean, or just a few loosely connected coincidences. On the retail side it’s no news that design exclusivity is all the rage but I don’t see how that filters backwards…yet.

Any similar experiences out there?

Hey - what if...

Interesting review today by Matthew May of the Derek Sivers book Anything You Want: 40 Lessons For a New Kind of Entreprenuer. You can read it here. It’s a little book with a big message, one that breaks out of the usual step by step, follow your biz plan type of advice. 

One of my favorite highlights from May:

Switch if it's not a hit

 If everyone is shouting for more—"I need this! I'd be happy to pay you for this!"—you're probably on to something, and you should do it. If it's anything less, don't pursue it. Don't waste your time banging on locked doors and fighting uphill battles. Innovate until you get the massive response. "Success comes from persistently improving and inventing, not from persistently promoting what's not working."

Read that several times, and then highlight (it’ll wash off your screen) the sentence “Innovate until you get the massive response”.

This is pretty much what it's all about now in art licensing. Treat your portfolio as an idea book, not your finished product. We call them the start of the conversation – we love it when a client studies a design and muses “what if…” or “how could we…”. I can’t tell you how many sketches are made in the margins as we discuss alternatives, then finished up and fired off to them afterwards. Its fun, its fast and the idea may or may not work – but that’s OK because we’ve got a million more…