Pricing per square inch

[Lon Haverly]

I have heard that some artists price per square inch. What do you think of this approach? I think it might work for me, but I am new to the oil painting market. I have gotten good response this way.

[Mike McCarty]

I think it invites undo scrutiny. I would rather get $100 an inch for painting backgrounds than for painting teeth. Somebody will acuse you of padding the background.

[Marta Prime]

Lon,
I recommend studying the pricing methods of the artists on this web site. You don't necessarily have to charge the same amount, just look at the way they have the pricing structured. Some are quite detailed, some are very simple. The majority are similar. Find a method that seems to work for you, then personalize it to fit your needs. But, per square INCH? Whew!

[Michele Rushworth]

I've heard people recommend pricing by the square inch but personally I'd rather paint a large full-length-figure portrait than a small full-length portrait any day, even for the same fee. The smaller it is the harder it is to get it right! A difference of a sixteenth of an inch has a big effect on a likeness if a face is only four inches high.

I think that's why most people on this site set their prices mainly based on the composition and complexity (head-and shoulders, three quarter figure, etc). I think sizes are often listed mostly as a guideline, once the composition has been decided on.

[Lon Haverly]

My thought is that you recommend certain sizes for the various subjects. A 3/4 would have to be 22" x 28", a full figure 30" x 50", etc. An infant face in a 9" x 12" works well this way, too. I never like to work too small. Landscape backgrounds have to be a bit larger, too. If you charge per tooth or finger, it is a little bizzare. I never cared whether the subject smiled or not. I kind of like the idea. Some portraits are harder than others anyway. It balances out.

I have some investigating to do on this issue.

[Rochelle Brown]

It would be interesting to see if it works, what clients think of it and how involved the compositions are.

[Lon Haverly]

Well, let's put it this way - people aren't flocking to get one done yet. We will see!

[Chris Saper]

Hi Lon,

I think that pricing by the square inch is reasonable, especially to the extent that the painting's size relects the amount of time you need to complete it. In this case, it also gives you some basis upon which to calculate price for odd sizes, too.

If you are starting oils, you probably won't know the relative time you need until you've done 100 or so, particulalry if they are a departure from the sweeping vignette style you often use in your charcoal/pastel work.

There seems to be a "standard" that oils run about 1 1/2 times the price of works on paper. Actually I doubt there's any real basis for that, and I do know of artist's who charge the same, regardless of the medium.

What I particularly shake my head at is the practice of discounts for multiple subjects...and I do it myself. The rationale is that it promotes multiple subject purchases (it probably does), the problem is that it ofter takes CONSIDERABLY more time to do, than the same number of separate paintings.

Chris

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Lon,

After a long, hard trip around the block on how to price, I will tell you my thoughts. I used to price by the size, (i.e., 20x24, this price, 30x36, that price...), but found that people were always trying to fit as much as possible into the "size," i.e., "....if I make little Bobby 1/2 size and have him sitting holding his knees, we could squeeze his whole body into a 20x24....," ridiculous. The watershed came when I quoted a price for three children and gave an approximate size. The finished painting came in slightly smaller, and more of a square format than the original approximation. The client, a lawyer, figured out the price per square inch and wanted to deduct almost $600 from my price. It became a take it or leave it deal, so I took it. I immediately revised my pricing schedule.

This is what works for me, and it works beautifully. I price by body parts. Head and shoulders, head and hands, three quarters, full body. No discounts for more than one person. I like to work life size. Separate price schedules for adult (corporate) and children.

Intricate background? No extra cost. Teeth? No extra cost. Pets? No extra cost. Fancy dresses? No extra cost.

If someone says they want a head and shoulders to be 11x14, I tell them that the price is the same for an 11x14 as it is for a 20x24. (They invariably go for the 20x24 life sized portrait, my preferred size. )

As more of the body is painted, more background is required for a comfortable "space" behind the subject. I take that into consideration in my price schedule. I don't like the idea of charging extras for chairs, or desks or flowers in a portrait. Price the painting so it includes all that stuff. I can price out the cost for a portrait with four people and two dogs in about 30 seconds.

Keep it simple. I have worked a lot with corporate commissions, and they want to know what it will cost. They want a simple schedule, they want the bottom line, no surprises, no complications. You start talking price per inch, and you are into a lot of discussion.

I just say, "My prices start at $6500 for a head and shoulders and I work life size."
In and out. They are interested or they are not.

Hope this helps.

Peggy

[Mike McCarty]

Peggy, could you explain the concept of seperate pricing for corp., children etc. How do you explain that to the clients?