Commission shows - "expected minimum" to be re-accepted - Forum

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if it's normal for a commission show to have an expected minimum to ever consider an artist for re-acceptance.

Here's the reason behind my query, a few years ago, when we were new to fine art shows we were accepted into a show with a $300 booth fee plus a 10% commission. It was our first show over $2500 in sales and we were really excited. We've never gotten into that show again, we've now been wait listed for 3 years in a row. Recently when talking to an artist friend he told us if we hadn't sold at least $3000 we would never be allowed back in. Since we did that show we've seen our sales continue to grow and certainly feel we could do more if we were ever accepted again, but now we're wondering if we should even bother to apply again, we've wasted $75 on application fees since then just to be wait listed for the last 3 years.

Is this common? I don't feel it's ethical, nowhere in the paperwork / rules for the show do they state this.

If I contacted the director, do you think they would admit that is their policy? If I explained we had been really new to shows and since then have achieved higher sales levels as we've added new designs and broadened do you think they might consider us again? Or do we just quit wasting our application fee and find other shows, further away to participate in?

It's not just about the money. The better shows are juried and maybe you didn't pass the jury the following year. Oklahoma City is a good example of it. There is a three year jury and a minimal booth fee (either $75 or $150 though I don't remember) but 20% commission. I think if you do $3500 in sales you automatically get back in for the second year and then the same for the third year. There are central sales booths so they handle all the money and you get a check a few weeks later.

Then there are the shows that artists cheat and understate their sales, and shows that artists cheat and overstate their sales to make sure they get back in again.

$300 plus 10% is kind of high for the big dollar sellers. It appears that the big money makers support the artists who don't do well. It makes me wonder how they jury. I think it's worth a phone call with questions about how they jury and what the money cut off is for reinvite back.

Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100

Replies

Larry Berman June 25, 2011 at 11:08pm

It's not just about the money. The better shows are juried and maybe you didn't pass the jury the following year. Oklahoma City is a good example of it. There is a three year jury and a minimal booth fee (either $75 or $150 though I don't remember) but 20% commission. I think if you do $3500 in sales you automatically get back in for the second year and then the same for the third year. There are central sales booths so they handle all the money and you get a check a few weeks later.

Then there are the shows that artists cheat and understate their sales, and shows that artists cheat and overstate their sales to make sure they get back in again.

$300 plus 10% is kind of high for the big dollar sellers. It appears that the big money makers support the artists who don't do well. It makes me wonder how they jury. I think it's worth a phone call with questions about how they jury and what the money cut off is for reinvite back.

Larry Berman
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
- Ruth Finkenbiner > Larry Berman June 25, 2011 at 11:50pm
  
  Thanks Larry. We were trying to decide if asking questions of the director would get us "black listed" forever, but we're so tired of wasting our jury fee. Given that we switched from taking our own photos to professional photos and we have increased the complexity of our pieces, we're frustrated over continually being waitlisted, especially when we have been accepted into other shows that are even harder to get into.
  
  We're also the type for whom cheating doesn't happen, starting out it never occurred to us to under or over report our sales, just didn't make sense from an ethical perspective.
  - Ruth Finkenbiner > Ruth Finkenbiner June 29, 2011 at 12:36am
    
    BTW, contacted the show director, response from the show director, "no there is no expected minimum but if you're sales are low and you are in a competitive category you're jury score may not be enough to override that portion of the evaluation process". So, my interpretation, this is a show that when we were "newbies" we should have never applied for, we should have waited until we were better established. Wish we had known then what we know now, 4 years later. So frustrating.

This reply was deleted.