The 21% Who Feel Paid, and What They Have in Common

Creative pay is under pressure, and the pressure has a name your team is tired of hearing: AI. But the numbers coming out this month tell a sharper story than "AI is bad for artists." They show how illustrators actually price, why the number you quote in briefs is the wrong one, and how smart studios are turning cheaper access into an advantage instead of a race to the bottom.

If you commission creative work or set budgets for it, this is your cheat sheet. Let me catch you up.

The day rate is a myth you're still budgeting around

A survey of 380 illustrators found a median UK day rate of £350, the same figure in London as everywhere else. No London premium. Two decades of practice only buys about £150 a day on top.

Here's the catch: hardly anyone prices by the day. Of 323 who explained how they charge, just 40 used a day rate. Half quote a project fee. When you ask for a day rate, you're pushing artists onto a model that punishes speed. As one illustrator put it, "you're paying for the artworks, not someone's time to do it." The faster and more experienced someone is, the worse the clock treats them.

So stop asking for day rates in your briefs. Ask for a project fee tied to scope and deliverables. It matches how the best people already work, and it stops you from accidentally paying senior talent less for being fast.

The line item you keep leaving out

A fifth of the survey's write-in comments were about licensing, usage, or copyright. It was the biggest frustration after time. One illustrator said big clients "don't understand that having full copyright basically triples the final fee." Another admitted she often skips the conversation and just charges less than she should.

That gap is your problem too, not only theirs. If your team commissions an illustration for a small campaign and later rolls it out globally, the artist priced for the small use. When your legal team wants full copyright, that is a real cost nobody put in the brief. As one artist framed it, "art for an indie band T-shirt should not cost the same as something driving revenue for a $1 trillion company like Apple."

Put usage and licensing on the brief up front. Name the channels, the territories, the duration. It saves the awkward renegotiation later and it tells good artists you know how this works.

AI is hitting the whole field, evenly

Around 60% of illustrators said AI affected their work or income in the last year. A third of those said "significantly." And it is spread across the board, from 24% in publishing to 40% in motion, with editorial, advertising, and packaging all in the low-to-mid 30s. No corner is safe, and no corner is thriving.

The survey can't prove AI is dragging rates down versus a thin year making AI a scapegoat. Both fit the data, and working artists argued both, hard. What the numbers can't tell you, the responses do: the people surviving are leaning on taste. One noted clients "are paying for taste and skills accrued before the prevalence of AI," and those tastes "will stand out more as the slop intensifies."

Marcos Montiel is a live example. The rise of AI imagery pushed him back to pencil on paper before he touches an iPad or Illustrator. He moved the human hand to the front of the line. If you're briefing illustration, that's what you're actually buying now.

Cheaper access is a strategy, not a discount

While artists worry about being undercut, some studios are choosing to make their work cheaper on purpose, and it's working for them. Koto launched CcType, a foundry with individual styles from £60 and no renewal fees. That is not how a decade-old agency for Amazon and Netflix usually prices its output.

What's smart is where it came from. Koto had released custom client fonts through Google Fonts for free and saw demand it didn't expect. Chief creative officer Jowey Roden called it a "build-in public mentality," launching with one typeface instead of a full catalogue. Giving work away taught them there was an appetite. Charging a low price was the next step, not a retreat.

Yinka Ilori made the same bet in physical goods. His 40-piece Dunelm collection starts at £9, with a sofa around £299, because "most people can't afford to buy a lamp for £2,000." He picked the high-street brand over higher-end offers because it gave him free rein. Low price, full creative control, wide reach. That combination is the play.

The deep cut

The survey's cleanest finding is the one to act on. Illustrators who feel fairly paid charge a median of £450 a day. Those who don't charge £280. Same skill range, different number. As the writers put it, "the illustrators who feel fairly paid are the ones charging more."

Here's what that means for you: fair pay is not a vibe your procurement process can dodge with a friendly email. It's a number. When your budget forces the low end, you're not getting a deal, you're recruiting the artists who feel underpaid and quietly resent the work. If you want the taste that survives the AI slop, you have to fund it. Pay closer to £450 than £280, name the licensing, and quote a project fee. That is the whole trick, and there isn't a cheaper one.

Three questions for your team

1. Do our creative briefs still ask for day rates? If so, rewrite them around project fees and named deliverables before the next commission goes out.
2. Where does usage and licensing live in our commissioning process? If it's a surprise at contract stage, we're underpaying up front and overpaying in renegotiation.
3. When we cut a creative budget, are we picking the cheapest bidder or the artist whose taste holds up against AI output? Which one is on our next campaign?