Many people in the art business try to create alliances that "protect" themselves from what they consider to be "unfair" competition.  This practice, on the surface, seems to make sense, but over the long run ends up hurting the marketing efforts of those who engage in it.  Let me explain with a story . . .

Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Laguna Beach and naturally spent some time "gallery hopping."

In visiting with the gallery folk, I had a chance to visit with "Vincent"  (The names in this story have been changed).  We discussed several topics, but the thing that struck me the most was his belligerence and aggravation with artists who advertise in magazines, directly promoting their works (i.e. -  not promoting through a gallery).  We began to discuss a particular magazine, let's call it "AM" for "art magazine".  AM has a habit of only accepting advertisements from retail art galleries with a physical location.  As I talked with Vincent, the subject of AM's advertising policy came up...their policy appears to be one of NOT accepting ads from individual artists or online-only galleries.  Vincent wholeheartedly supports this policy.

"Of course I advertise with AM.  They protect me from artists who advertise directly!" Vincent excitedly explains.

"Why should I support a magazine that doesn't protect me?" Vincent continues, proudly explaining how he recently quit advertising in a different art magazine that DOES accept advertisements from individual artists.  (a big mistake in my opinion as I have, in the past, gained clients who spent six figures apiece on art from the second magazine).

"Why is it the magazine's job to 'protect' Vincent", I wondered...but didn't say.  The magazine should be concerned with maximizing their own revenue.

Vincent's view is common in the art business.  In my experience, most art galleries take a "limited market" view.  In other words, they view the "market" of art collectors as a fixed pie. 

This is obviously how Vincent looks at things, In his mind, the more art collectors that someone else gains, the less art collectors that he has. 

On the surface, this would seem reasonable. But, surprisingly, the truth is that overall sales for everyone usually increase when you increase advertising into a marketplace. Instead of creating more but smaller pieces of the same-size pie, additional advertising and selling (as could be provided by individual artists or online galleries) usually creates a larger pie.

Michael Masterson, successful marketer, multi-millionaire and publisher of Early to Rise puts it this way:

----


----

Vincent and AM think they are helping each other.  But in fact, they are hurting each other....tremendously.  Vincent (and several other art galleries), by insisting that AM "protect" him from competition is drastically hurting the magazine's advertising revenue.  For example, I alone have tried to book several double-page spreads in AM and have been refused (for reasons they have not ever clearly provided).  Had the magazine accepted my advertising, they would have by now received over $25,000 in ad revenue from me alone*(in less than one year....not to mention the lifetime value of what I would have spent).  Now just multiply that $25,000/year figure by the number of other people who cannot advertise in their magazine: individual artists, online galleries, private art dealers.  The magazine would do much better to forgoe Vincent's ads, if necessary, to tap into a much larger pool of advertisers.

But more importantly, the magazine is missing a chance to "make the pie bigger." (Ironically, they state in every issue how much they want to support the art market and how their goal is to make collectors aware of more artists.....and yet they reject ads that would do exactly what they claim is their goal!) 

What they either can't see or don't care about is that the more art that is advertised in the magazine, the more that collectors will want to read it.  The more collectors that read the magazine, the more effective Vincent's (and other art galleries) ads will be.  The more effective Vincent's ads are, the more sales he will make.  Why can't Vincent and AM see this?

Therefore, in the end, by "protecting" Vincent, the magazine is ultimately hurting his long-term sales...and their own.

This is simply poor thinking and poor marketing. 

Unfortunately, it is pervasive and hurts the most important people in the art market - the artists and the collectors.

Sincerely,

Clint Watson
Software Craftsman and Art Fanatic

PS:  If you are a magazine or art gallery, and wish to present a cohesive, logical arguement for Vincent and AM's position, I will happily post it for my readers.  Angry rants and raves that are of no substance and not logical will be ignored...unless, of course, they are worth posting simply for chuckles and grins.

PPS:  If you choose to present an argument, be sure it truly makes sense (not the old "overhead" routine - increasing the overall market as I outlined here would help increase sales, thus helping the "overhead" sitution) - remember that I was in the gallery business (including being part-owner of a major national retail gallery) for 16 years, so I do understand the market from the gallery's point of view and am not some idealist who doesn't "understand" what a gallery goes through.