The original title for this post was “Your AI Can Art Looks Like Shit” and I will tell you, with absolute sincerity, that it really does. The same point was made by writers Jessica Boak and Ray Bailey in one of their recent newsletters, so it felt pertinent to give this topic a fresher angle. I’ll reiterate their point though: it really does look like shit. Your customers most probably think that too. What does it say about the beer you sell when you’ve demonstrated you’re willing to put next to zero effort into how it's presented?
On reflection, I felt that it might be more productive to take a more pragmatic approach. Instead of wagging a finger, it’s better I offer an explanation, and potentially even a solution to the encroachment of generative AI (or to call it what it really is, scrapeware) within the creative sector. Put simply: it’s fucking us, hard.
Every time you see a beer brand or hospitality business use a scrapeware generated image to advertise what they’re selling, that’s a photographer or illustrator who's lost work, or potentially even had their work used without permission or renumeration. There are a lot of reasons not to use scrapeware, and I won’t go into detail here as that’s been exhaustively covered elsewhere, but I will say: there is no such thing as an ethical use of generative AI. This isn’t a debate point, it’s a fact.
One regular excuse I see from beer brands is that they can’t afford to hire someone to produce original artwork. And you know what, as someone who runs a small, creative business there are a lot of things I can’t afford either. Yet despite having a meagre turnover of £50,000 a year, somehow we still manage to find a way to pay every single writer, artist and photographer we work with, at a rate we consider to be fair, based on what we’re asking for. Last year that was 59 freelance professionals. To us this doesn’t feel like rocket science, but I’ve figured that maybe to others it isn’t so simple, so perhaps it's worth me explaining how we manage this process.
The majority of freelance creatives will set their own rates, which are generally calculated based on a combination of experience and reputation. A photographer with 10 years of work under their belt and an extensive portfolio is likely to cost you more than someone fresh out of university, but you’d (generally) expect better results and more professional service as a result. More intensive, more time-consuming work will cost more too. For example, if you’re hiring someone using a studio for commercial product photography, this will probably cost more than hiring someone to turn up at your brewery and shoot in situ. This is all highly generalised of course, the real cost to the creative practitioner is time, and time is money.
Although creatives will usually have their own rates, these same people are always looking for work, and my groaning inbox full of illustrator and photographer portfolios is evidence of this. As a result, what I’ve found in almost six years of running Pellicle is that they are typically sympathetic when a small business doesn’t quite have the budget to meet their requirements. This means that such businesses have an opportunity to set those expectations, and put it in the hands of the creative to decide whether it's financially worthwhile or not.
In terms of setting a rate there is some great advice out there published by trade unions. For example the Nation Union of Journalists advises a base rate of 30p per word, equivalent to £300 for 1000 words. But its worth noting that for copywriting writers are more likely to charge by the day, rather than per word. For images, the Artists Union recommends a rate of £352.01 for a day's work, based on hiring someone with around five years experience. But when it comes to a new graduate that rate drops to £216.63 a day, which, honestly, is a bargain considering the talent out there!
Pellicle does not match that higher rate yet, despite one day intending to do so. Instead, for artists and photographers we presently have a fixed rate of £250, which we make clear at the point of offering a commission. This then gives the artist in question the ability to decide if the project is financially sustainable and give a straight yes or no answer. In almost six years of running Pellicle I’ve had one person say no, and that’s because there are so many artists out there looking for work. Scrapeware has now dramatically exacerbated this situation, so it really is a buyers market for high quality, engaging artwork.
I think breweries who are marketing a new beer could also do well to set proper intentions when they bring a new product to market. If that intention is focused on great malt, juicy hops, and delicious flavours then that intention is not reflected if you’ve asked a scrapeware algorithm for a man in a spacesuit necking a can while floating past the Horsehead Nebula. In fact I’d go so far as to suggest you’re betraying that intention.
Make no mistake, due to scrapeware the creative industries are facing a crisis point. This is not just a beer problem, but I work in and around the beer industry, so as someone who makes 100% of their living as a writer and photographer within beer it is most definitely a me problem. My ask is that if you’re using this software to generate art for can labels, social media promotions, and website imagery, please stop, think about it, and hire someone who knows what they’re doing.
We’re talking about a genuinely small outlay for a skilled individual who can help make your brand pop. If I can do it for every piece of illustration or set of photography on my businesses meagre turnover, then yours can too. And if you’re not willing to set this intention, then your brand will continue to look like shit, and is canvassing that it simply doesn’t care about what it’s selling.
The above illustration is by Adam Menzies for an award-winning piece published on Pellicle in June 2024 by Rob MacKay called ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Pints? — On AI Art in the Beer Industry.’