Creative Commons license icon

FC 2010 Dealer's room - unofficial statistics

Edited by GreenReaper as of 14:01
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (6 votes)

I've always been curious about what the variety of things for sale in the dealer's room at furry conventions are, so at FC 2010 I decided to get some rough numbers. I probably made some mistakes along the way, but I think it's generally reliable. It should not be assumed to apply for any other conventions except this one, this year.

The variables I recorded:

1. Artwork (yes/no) (prints, comics, art CDs)
2. Any adult material (yes/no)
3. G/PG material only (yes/no)
4. Gender of vendor

Dealers counted: 125
Selling adult material: 63
Selling artwork: 99
Selling adult artwork: 58
Male vendors selling adult artwork: 30
Female vendors selling adult artwork: 28
Selling G/PG artwork only: 17
Male vendors selling G/PG artwork only: 6
Female vendors selling G/PG artwork only: 11
Selling pin-up artwork (neither adult nor G/PG): 24
Male vendors selling pin-up artwork: 6
Female vendors selling pin-up artwork: 18

So, to generalize:

50% of dealers in the dealer's room sold adult material.
80% of dealers sold artwork.
92% of dealers selling adult material sold artwork.

59% of dealers selling artwork sold adult material.
24% of dealers selling artwork sold pin-ups.
17% of dealers selling artwork sold G/PG material.

58% of dealers selling artwork were women.
Men and women had adult artwork for sale roughly equally.
Twice as many women had G/PG artwork for sale than men.
Three times as many women had pin-up artwork for sale than men.


Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

those men are pervs :|

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

To be fair, so are a lot of the women. :-)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

It's inherently hard to track this information, since some dealers not only offer artwork, but trinkets like magnets, keychains, etc. Also, some artists who only have G/PG stuff on their table do non-PG sketchbook stuff.

It's a good basis though. I'd also be interested in how dealers thought they did compared to previous years. Better, worse, or same, and see the percentages there. :)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Apparently original artwork is still popular; prints, not so much.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

That makes sense. Prints are usually too expensive for what they are, and not really as much income as original art is to an artist. I can easily see why they're falling out of favor. Some artists had the right idea and had matted prints ready to stick into a pre-fab frame like an 8x10 or 9x12. Looks nicer, and worth the extra money. Kinko'd copies for $10? No thanks. :)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

But even so, a $10 print has something the original art usually does not have: affordability. I've seldom been able to buy original art at conventions because they wind up being priced way over what I can afford to spend; the better and more in-demand the artist, the higher the price. (I'm not complaining about that, it's just the way it is, and I'm not going to argue the artists don't deserve the asked-for-price, because they do, and deserve more besides. But no matter how much it might be worth it, if I don't have the money, I don't have the money.) When unable to afford a desired piece of art, it's good to know that an affordable print of the same work may be available through the artist. And that is generally where my money goes -- when I can afford to spend it at all.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

To me, that $10 would seem a waste - but I'm not a huge fan of any particular artist, and I'm always at my computer, so I can fulfill most of my furry art needs online for free just by browsing around.

What I do want sometimes is the service of custom art, and that I'm willing to pay for - well, more than nothing.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

I'd also be willing to pay a good deal for custom art. But what I'm willing to pay and what I'm able to pay are two entirely different universes. And an inkjet printout of somebody's artwork off of the internet is not only a cheat -- as in, cheating the artist of any renumeration whatsoever -- but is also of far less quality than than the prints the artist produces. (Unless you've invested in a top-of-the-line printer, in which case you've already paid the money up front -- except to the artist -- and even then you're only getting an image printed from a low-rez JPG.)

In all cases, you get what you pay for, according to the dictates of your wallet. The original painting is worth the extra bucks IF you have the money. A print is a nice affordable substitute.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Well, I wouldn't print it out at all. I'm talking about free art, uploaded by the authors to their galleries, that I view onscreen. There's a lot of it around nowadays. Obviously, most of it is not of the highest quality (skill-wise), but some of it is right up there with the best.

I don't like sites that break people's copyright. I do encourage people to license their art freely - and I do so myself with my photography and writing - but it is their call, especially if they have to make a living off of it.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Everyone is a pervert in one way or another.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.