Опрос иллюстраторов: 54% считают свои гонорары недостаточными, а медианная ставка в Лондоне составляет £350 в день

We asked illustrators what they charge and how they're feeling out there. The answers were more honest than we bargained for. Here's a number we didn't expect: £350. That's the median day rate among the illustrators who told us they're based in London. It's also the median day rate for illustrators everywhere else in the UK, pooled together. Same figure, to the pound. Whatever premium London is supposed to carry, it isn't showing up in what illustrators actually charge. We ran a survey this month, and 403 illustrators responded, 146 of whom were based in the UK. We asked what they charge, how they price it, whether it feels fair, and what they wish clients understood. We expected the day rate to be the main story. It wasn't… It was about 20%. That's the share of illustrators who told us, straightforwardly, that yes, they feel fairly paid for their work. One in five. Another 26% said no. And the largest group by far, 54% of them, said "it depends" – which, once you read what they wrote underneath, turns out to be quite the pain point. "Whatever their budget or fee, we are still significantly underpaid," says one illustrator in London, six to 10 years in. We should be careful with the day rate figure, and we'll be upfront about why. Only 90 UK-based illustrators gave us a number we could read with confidence. The median is £350, with the middle half falling between £280 and £450, while more than a quarter charge under £300. Just 9% are above £500. Experience moves it, but not as much as you'd hope. At two to five years in, the median is £425. At 11 to 20 years, it's £450. Two decades of practice buys you £125 a day. Here's the odd thing about spending all this time on day rates: hardly anyone prices that way. Of the 342 illustrators who told us how they usually price, just 41 said day rate. Half of them, 174, work for a project fee. Ninety-six use a mix, and 31 price primarily on licensing and usage. So the number the whole industry quotes is the one most illustrators don't actually run their business on. Several of them told us why. "Day rates don't work for illustration unless it's live illustration," says an illustrator in the south of England with two to five years' experience. "Project fees protect us, the client and mean people are paid fairly for their work. Some people are quick workers; others are slow. You are paying for the artworks, not someone's time to do it." That tension came up again and again: the faster you get, the less the clock rewards you. As an illustrator from the Midlands puts it: "30 years of experience means I work faster. You're still paying for the 30 years of getting to this speed, not the 'couple of hours' it took." One CGI artist agrees: "Some clients think if we can do it faster, it should be cheaper, but don't understand that we can do it faster due to the 25 years of experience. So as we get better, they expect it to be cheaper. Value proposition can get lost." And then there's what the day rate hides. "Despite a day rate that sometimes looks pretty chunky, we illustrators aren't really raking it in," says one in the north of England. "When we factor in time between projects, usage, scope overrunning and removing taxes, NI, holiday pay, it often equates to a very average income." Or, as an illustrator in the south of England with under two years behind her puts it: "My salary is not 365 x my day rate. I sometimes wish that I could put what my actual take-home is on my price quoting so people can see the reality." We gave everyone free rein to tell us what they wished clients understood better about pricing. More than 320 people gave us their honest thoughts, which tells you something about how the industry is feeling right now. Nobody writes an essay in a survey unless they want to get something off their chest. Just over a fifth of those answers mention licensing, usage or copyright. It's the biggest recurring theme after time itself, and the one that causes the most frustration. "Licensing, full stop," writes an illustrator with six to 10 years' experience. "Most of them think that they can pay literal peanuts for a design that will be distributed on a large scale." "There isn't a big knowledge of usage fees in branding and advertising," says another, in London. "That licensing fees are on top of creation fees," adds a third. "And that just because I draw something for them doesn't mean they can do whatever they want for a low fee." One illustrator in the Midlands admitted she often gives up on the conversation entirely: "I often end up having to slide by the licensing and charge much less than I should. Some clients, even big ones, don't understand that having full copyright basically triples the final fee." Others aren't cross about it so much as tired of being misread. "I'm not trying to scam them by offering a licence," says an illustrator with 11 to 20 years' experience. "I'm not trying to prevent them from doing anything with the image, but they need to be realistic about what their budget can get them." Case in point on the scale question, from an illustrator of 20+ years: "The price scales to the value. Art for an indie band T-shirt should not cost the same as something driving revenue for a $1 trillion company like Apple." It simply couldn't be avoided. It's all anyone is talking about, despite the fatigue. But we wanted to know whether AI had affected work or income over the last 12 months, and most people answered. Around 60% said yes. Within that, a third said yes, "significantly". Only 12% said no. The remaining lot chose "not sure yet". One relationship in the data does stand out. Of the illustrators who said AI has significantly affected their work, 16% feel fairly paid. Of those who said AI hasn't touched them at all, 38% are happy with what they get. What that tells us is anyone's guess, despite there being a solid gap. The survey can't show exactly what's happening: whether AI is dragging rates down, or whether a thin year makes AI a scapegoat. Both scenarios fit the same numbers, and both were argued forcefully in the answers people sent us. What we can rule out is that it's one corner of the industry taking the hit for everyone else. We checked. It's remarkably even, from 24% in publishing to 40% in motion and animation, with editorial, advertising and packaging all sitting in the low-to-mid 30s. Nobody is having a notably better time of it. Some of it really made us wince. "It's less about what clients understand, and more that AI has decimated the industry," says an illustrator in the south of England with 11 to 20 years' experience. "My rates are lower because I am desperate for work and no one will take on £400+ anymore." An illustrator in the north, under two years in, wrote: "Wishing I could ask for more than minimum wage, but people would rather get an AI to do it than pay a human now." Others see it from the other end. "They're paying for taste and skills accrued before the prevalence of AI," says one. "These tastes will stand out more as the slop intensifies." And a working note from someone using the tools rather than fearing them, in London: "Yes, you can concept and produce mid-level results from LLMs. BUT the proof is in the pudding. The years of preference and taste acquired will yield better results." Three views, all held by working illustrators, all in the same dataset. We'd be doing you a disservice by pretending they resolve. Around 42% raised their rates in the last year. Good. But 18% have never raised them at all, and another 18% haven't touched them in more than two years. Inflation came up unprompted in the free text, usually with a note of disbelief attached. "The rate from 2019 does not work in 2026," says one illustrator with 20+ years of experience. "If an accountant's rate goes up year by year, my rate would be the same," says another. "It's just to keep up with the inflation." And one illustrator with more than 20 years in the business shared a sobering thought on what she wishes clients knew: "That agents still take 30% and that rates have not changed in twenty-five years." If you take one thing from 403 people opening up about money, make it this: there's no trick to it. The illustrators who feel fairly paid are the ones charging more. A median of £425 a day, against £280 for those who say they aren't. That gap holds up. Why? We can't say. Charging more might be what makes the work feel fairly paid. Or feeling valued might be what lets you charge more in the first place. But the comforting version, where it's all about knowing your worth and never about the number, isn't what these 403 people described. "I educate my clients by offering a specified quote, then they can see how much each item costs," says an illustrator with under two years' experience. And one respondent wrote something that wasn't about clients at all: "My clients seem understanding about pricing. I need to get better about asking for higher rates and explaining the value behind what I do." There you have it. A survey can't wave a magic wand and fix the state of the industry. But it can show you what the person next to you is actually charging, and what they'd only say in an anonymous box. And it shows something else: more than 320 people who can beautifully explain their value. The research, the licensing, and the years behind it all. Not one of them was in any doubt about what their work is worth. So if you're an illustrator reading this and you haven't raised your prices in a long time, perhaps that's overdue.