2015 ArchViz survey

[glorybound]

http://www.cgarchitect.com/2016/01/2...aphic-volume-4

If you haven't seen it, it's pretty interesting.

[vlado]

Interesting. Is there a description somewhere on how the survey data was collected and how reliable it is?

Best regards,
Vlado

[glorybound]

I don't know the details, however, I remember filling out some survey awhile back.

[Neilg]

I have a feeling these skew very low.

[glorybound]

It depends on who took the survey. The highly skilled ones, who are highly paid, probably didn't take the survey. These surveys are very deceiving and can pull down the whole industry. How many people will lower their rates, thinking that they charge to much and their clients will find them out.

[glorybound]

The fine print says that only people that work in a arch-viz studio took the survey.

[glorybound]

The survey was taken by approx. 2,000 CGarchitect members. Some questions would be less based on how the questions were forked and how far someone got into the survey. From my calculations everything is statistically representative within about 3-5%

[rjohnson33]

I'm always disappointed by how much these pricing discussions focus on comparing arch-viz to itself. As opposed to assessing what price a worker with high technical skills and investment in training and their own equipment would typically charge in the construction industry. I wish the focus was more on establishing the worth of visualisation to the projects that we help to market or develop.
As a young industry, taken in isolation, there is too much competition over too wide a range of costing scenarios in order to set prices based on our own contemporary's prices. It always going to skew prices low. Far lower than they might be, in my opinion.

[Neilg]

There's also the fact that an image is a lot of different things and nobody seems to take that into account. It's like comparing the price of all art commissions that happened in a year. The price difference between a watercolor of a dog and a 4ft oil painting is appropriately vast.

There are studios where each person finishes 2 images a day - and then studios where less than 2 full time weeks on each image is a rush job. These price surveys don't reflect that, they're a complete waste of time.

[Morne]

Or people taking the survey lowering costs to try and show how cheap their studio can do stuff for, or the guy increasing costs in the hope to show his boss he is underpaid

[Neilg]

Or people taking the survey lowering costs to try and show how cheap their studio can do stuff for, or the guy increasing costs in the hope to show his boss he is underpaid

It's anonymous.

[glorybound]

The employers billable number is different than what the artist sees. The last time I punched the clock, I was paid $45 per hour, but was billed at $125. So, I guess it depends on who they talked to at the studios.

[Morne]

It's anonymous.

I meant people fill in the survey bloating it with false info, in the hope of making the graphs show something in their favour.
For example somebody will fill in they get $300 per hour, then when the results get back and show $150 an hour, the guy can go to his boss and ask why is he only getting $20 per hour

Not saying that's happening, just saying there's no way of verifying any of this

[fernanditogarces]

I am with you 100%

[fernanditogarces]

I'm always disappointed by how much these pricing discussions focus on comparing arch-viz to itself. As opposed to assessing what price a worker with high technical skills and investment in training and their own equipment would typically charge in the construction industry. I wish the focus was more on establishing the worth of visualisation to the projects that we help to market or develop.
As a young industry, taken in isolation, there is too much competition over too wide a range of costing scenarios in order to set prices based on our own contemporary's prices. It always going to skew prices low. Far lower than they might be, in my opinion.

I am with you 100%