Got approached by a gallery last year that wanted me to cover the cost of shipping both ways, the opening catering, and a "marketing fee" before they'd hang my work. Told them I'd pass. Never sat right with me.
What's the worst "you pay us" pitch you've gotten? I'm trying to figure out where the line is between normal and predatory.
Oh wow, shipping both ways AND catering AND a marketing fee? That's wild. I had one last year where a "gallery" wanted me to pay a $200 submission fee just to be considered, then if they accepted my work I'd have to cover framing and shipping both ways. No mention of commission split or anything. I passed too.
The one that really got me was a place that wanted me to pay for the wine and cheese at my own opening. Like, I'm already bringing the paintings, and now I'm catering too? Hard no.
From what I can tell from other artists I know, the normal model is they take a commission (40-60% usually) and you cover getting the work there and back. Anything where they're asking you to pay upfront fees or cover their overhead before a single piece sells... that's the line. If they're making money off you before they've sold anything of yours, that's not a gallery partnership, that's you being the customer.
Glad you walked away from that one. 😐
The submission fee is a new one on me. That's shameless. So they're charging you for the privilege of maybe letting you pay them more later.
Wine and cheese at your own opening is a special kind of insult though. That's not a gallery, that's a party you're underwriting so they can look like a gallery.
That's not a line, that's just them wanting you to fund their business. Shipping both ways and the opening catering especially, those are basic costs of running a space. If they can't cover those, they're not a gallery, they're a room with a wall.
I've had a few over the years that wanted me to pay for the materials and framing myself (which, fine, I do that anyway), but then also cover the opening wine and the invigilator's hourly. That's where I start to feel it's less about the work and more about who they can get to subsidise their month.
The ones that sit right are the ones who say "we'll take 40/50% and cover everything else." Then we're partners. Anything where you're paying to be there and they still take commission, that's not partnership.
The invigilator's hourly is a good one. That's the detail that tells you everything. They thought about it, calculated it, put it on your side of the ledger. That's not naivety, that's a business model.
I've had it where they wanted a percentage of the first sale to cover the framing. Framing I'd already paid for. So they wanted a cut of something they put nothing into, and the framing was the excuse. I said no and the conversation ended fast, which told me everything I needed to know about how much they believed in the work.
The line is simple for me now. If they're asking you to absorb costs that are literally the cost of having a door and a light switch, they're not a gallery. They're a landlord with good lighting and opinions.
That's exactly it. Framing you'd already paid for. So they went looking for something to take a cut of and landed on thin air.
I've started telling younger sculptors this: if they're padding their side of the ledger with imaginary costs before the work even hangs, they're not a gallery. They're a landlord with bad lighting.
Yeah, the invigilator's hourly is what got me too. Not the biggest number on the list but it's the one that tells you they went through it line by line moving costs off their books. That's not a partnership, that's a vendor arrangement.