I would love to go freelance someday but it's the thought of having to purchase and manage my own health/life insurance, 401k plan, etc. that keeps me away from the $8000 difference in average salaries. Sure you make more working for yourself but a lot of that goes into expenses that 9-to-5'ers don't have to worry about.

That said, I found my salary to be right in the median of it all.

I also just found another Survey for the year 2002. This one by AIGA/Aquent. Which has more responses.

>This fact I did find a little disturbing. The average salary for people with 15+ years experience is only $62,000 a year. To me that sounds too low for somebody who has busted his/her hump for such a long time.

with all due respect, I feel that if you stay stagnant for 15+ years doing the exact same thing and not moving forward you don't even deserve to make that much.

>Sure you make more working for yourself but a lot of that goes into expenses that 9-to-5'ers don't have to worry about.

yeah, you also have to suck up to people you dont like , work on projects and you could care less about and most likely fit into a roll that is not even decided by you, and believe me at the end you end up paying for all the extra expenses one way or another, its more an issue of who you want to be in control

>that 9-to-5'ers

umm, what design job do you know of where people work only until 5 ?

>with all due respect, I feel that if you stay stagnant for 15+ years doing the exact same thing and not moving forward you don't even deserve to make that much.

I think you are picturing an old white guy sitting in a cubicle, somewhere in the back of the office, measuring his type with a pica ruler and wondering how much the devil had to do with the invention of the Mac.

The survey probably refers to Design/Creative Directors, even owners, who have been practicing design for over 15 years. Those are the people who I think are getting payed lowly.

If you are an old guy doing the same shit since 1985 then $62,000 sounds like a lot.

>umm, what design job do you know of where people work only until 5 ?

it's just a metaphor : )

Most surveys are rather pointless unless the numbers favor an argument in your direction.

I don't think HOW really ever focussed on too many fields outside of your standard print designer/art director realm.

I know I'm getting paid more than I should in this economy, so I'm not complaining ;o)

As for the 9to5 thing...remember that is a HUGE issue. If you're making 45k at a 9 to 5 and 50 at a 9 to stay-until-the-comps-are-mounted, you're far better off at the former.

personally, I always ignore How's review. the number of respondents is unrealistically low, so what kind of numbers can you really get? besides, who would willing subject themselves to looking at that magazine anyway!?

thanks for the AIGA link, Armin. I tend to put more faith in those numbers.

Keep in mind that the AIGA has a rather narrow definition of 'graphic designer' and that Aquent is a temp agency for ad/design agencies, which inevitably has some ultier motives.

That's not to say the numbers are useless, just that, like any survey, study the source before coming to your own conclusions.

Hmm...web producers make 85k? I need to change the title on my business card...

surveys like this are bogus if one's loloking for verifiable data. unless numbers come directly from companies' payroll sheets (right), these numbers are approximations which assume the survey-ee is telling the truth. there's absolutely no guarantee of that, and frankly, i' totally unwilling to base something as crucial as my earnings on such vapor.

as well, exactly how does a national average compare to local numbers? badly. a designer making around 40K in the middle of nowhere is doing pretty well. that same designer and salary in chicago is doing badly. move the designer again to new york and he's drowning in debt.

as for this survey reflecting salaries are now somehow more "honest," that's utter bullshit. the implication that everyone inside the market during the bubble was dishonest about their skillset is also bullshit...and fairly insulting.

when i was in the bubble as a designer, i worked full-time every day, went home, collapsed on the couch, then got up and kept going from my home office until about 1AM. i don't know about your time at m1, but mine at leap was exhausting.

>as for this survey reflecting salaries are now somehow more "honest," that's utter bullshit. the implication that everyone inside the market during the bubble was dishonest about their skillset is also bullshit...and fairly insulting.

I did not mean this to be an insult, and it doesn't apply to everybody of course, but there were a lot of people like that, whether we like it or not. A lot of people, like you PK, were hard workers and really liked what they were doing. But nobody can say with a straight face that a bunch of recent graduates who only knew how to use the new technologies were worth paying 60-70K a year for doing shitty work.

>i don't know about your time at m1, but mine at leap was exhausting.

As always, everybody tells it like they experienced it. At m1 we had a bunch of pretty, young, hip designers that fit m1's image, but had no clue about any Design principle and by saying they knew Flash or HTML they could land these jobs. Only once did I stay later than 9:00 pm for any project at m1, so you might be right that I made a bad generalization based on my experience.

I still stand by my statement that a lot of “designers” would never ever have landed jobs at a design firm if it hadn't been for the internet bubble. The demand for designers was very high at that point, so to fill that demand a lot of companies settled for quantity, hiring anybody that could spell Internet; instead of looking for quality people. And that's what I saw. Along with a few talented people, from which I learned a lot.

So, if I insulted you or anyone, I'm sorry.

it's not so much you i'm irritated with, it's the perception that everyone in the internet boom was there to dig out the gold with no contribution. it's not true. i find myself defending my participation in that market segment during job interviews, as if somehow my credibility just went away. total guilt by association, which is galling: i don't recall being the person asked to cook the alleged books.

PK makes a good observation about the oversimplification of a national wage survey in that it does not reflect regional cost of living.

I can't verify the general assertion that the internet bubble had more suds than it did real designers. But I'm certain that my previous employers weren't haphazard in the selection of their staffs who (despite their new media jobs) had strong print backgrounds. Their compensations as consequence (and mine) were in the median range or slightly higher than those cited in AIGA's 2001 and 2002 surveys. Bearing in mind, of course, the high price of living in and around Mahattan. Interestingly, I was hired on account of my print porfolio and service bureau experience, not because of HTML or Flash (which I knew little). I was originally assigned to provide print collaterals for their online accounts. Personally, the salaries of the internet bubble were an urban legend than a reality. If the internet had its heyday by way of monetary gains, my 1040EZ said otherwise.
That said, I am not against anyone having a little more disposable income. But I concur, it's criminal to pay a 15+ yrs dedicated professional $62,000 in Manhattan.

>besides, who would willing subject themselves to looking at that magazine anyway!?

Reading HOW is like watching that thing you do, a well produced piece that won't change your life but one that doesn't require a lot of thinking and it's good to kill some time.

I know HOW is not the best source for any analytical subject, but I had it in front of me and it had colorful charts, so I decided to talk about it. Don't shoot the messenger ; )

>Personally, the salaries of the internet bubble were an urban legend than a reality.

I could almost agree, since I worked with overpayed designers I can say it's true, but yes, generalizing that everybody was overpayed is incorrect.

I like the That Thing You Do comparison. I don't know what it is about that movie...it's certainly not a great movie, but I can't help watching it every time its on.

Exactly : ) same thing with HOW, we have a subscription here at work, and I always read it, I mean... it's there...

If you have a job making a whopping 49k and you leave to freelance for 57K you will be sorry. Your tax burden is doubled and you have to pay for your own medical. As a freelancer you should be paid enough to compensate for those two facts PLUS 20%. Otherwise you are only screwing yourself. I have the 15 years experience you talk of, and no one thinks I'm worth what they can pay a person right outta school. So yes, salarys are less [though the pool has far less experience overall] and nobody seems to no the difference. In my opinion it is a sad state of affairs for those competing with the newbies.

PS: Don't forget the equipment you need to purchase [5-10k]. Then there is software and the yearly upgrades. Type costs, too. Paper, etc. It is tough being in business for yourself. Very tough. But then again, you are your own monkey!! A truly priceless commodity.

Just wanted to add my opinions on the inexperienced overpayed people during the internet bubble thing:

I'm in Europe so my point of view is probably a bit different then that of americans.. We didn't have as much of an explosion of salaries during the bubbly-days. My pay wasn't astronomical and that was cool by me.

Alot of the 'designers' that entered the trade at that time were new, yes.. Alot of them (including me) didn't have alot of prior formal design experience, but they did have alot of energy and time to spend catching up. (us 18 -at the time- year olds didn't need much sleep, tee hee)

But print designers that entered the new media industry at that time had just as much of a handicap.. The tech aspect of new media design is alot bigger then that of print design, so I'm sure they had alot of catching up to do too. Print and New Media _are_ very different.

The practice of webdesign is very much a balance between technology, design, and being able to adapt to new technologies quickly. People call the -gee wizz- and -wow- factor 'hip', but I think of it as exploring the boundaries of a medium.

I think people grew in different ways during the internet bubble.. And yes, there were alot of bad apples. But in new frontiers (even bloated ones!) nobody is perfect.

At my last job at a very small agency, I think they used these salary surveys to their advantage, paying us the "graphic designer" median when really, since we were so small, we were all at least senior designers, if not art directors at certain points.

No one mentioned semi-permanent "freelancing" gigs at big corporations, which I am experiencing now, where my yearly "salary" is more than 2.5 times greater than my last job. This seems to be the best of both worlds, since I have insurance through my wife.

The concern of not making a proportionate larger salary as I grow older and more experienced is a great concern to me personally, especially now that I have a wife, daughter and mortgage. What if I just want to stay a "behind the scenes" kind of guy, coming up with the concepts that the "suits" can sell to the client? How long before I become obsolete? Will the climate change eventually, in that the older designers will be experienced and educated AND be up on technology? Or will youth always win, leaving me to rot?

>Personally, the salaries of the internet bubble were an urban legend than a reality.

>>I could almost agree, since I worked with overpayed designers I can say it's true, but yes, generalizing that everybody was overpayed is incorrect.

Hey, I'm one of those inexperience designers who were overpaid during the Bubble!

And guess what: I'm still overpaid. Think I'm mad about it? Hell, no! It saved my life.

When I went back to school to study design I was leaving a lucrative but mind-numbing career as a marketing manager (aka, The Client). I'd worked with designers plenty, and like many of the clients I'm sure you've had, felt that it would be way more satisfying to be in their shoes. But instead of hanging around and making the lives of my freelancers miserable with my stifled jealousy I decided to do something about it.

I warned my wife that my career change would most likely mean we would be taking a familial pay cut, but that I'd probably be a much happier person. She was amazingly supportive, so I signed up for an insane schedule of design classes at my community college that quarter, figuring that way I'd discover pretty quickly if this was a good idea or not.

As you can guess, I loved it. Cranked through two years of school, and acquired the most rudimentary of design educations. Before the end of my program I was doing freelance work for folks I knew socially, many of whom worked at or were starting Internet businesses. It was 1998. One thing led to another and I was working steadily, despite my greenness as a designer. The best part was, thanks to the Bubble, I was able to support my family well enough for us to have a child. Your worst nightmare, right?

I have great respect for designers who have come up through traditional Art School system, and often feel inferior as a designer when working with them, justified or not. I also have a (possibly justified) fear of being perceived as—or worse, being—a hack. But I truly love working as a designer and have a commitment to being the best one I can be. And there have been plenty of occasions when I have had to help more experienced, more traditionally educated designers get their designs into shape.

It's simple, really: I was at the right place at the right time. I recognize it and will forever be grateful.

pnk

Pnk, don't let the "educated" designers get you down. I started doing design at the age of 15 with absolutely no direction. You'd be surprised at the list of designers who never went to art school.

I don't have anything against designers who made lots of money during that time. On the contrary, congratulations to you!

My rant is more about the hiring process and the fact that some 35 year old guy with tons of experience was making less money than a young guy coming out of college. Personally I don't really care that much for the 35 year old or the 19 year old, it was just a weird time for designers. That's all.

I was at the right place (USWeb/CKS) at the right time (1999) too, so I can't complain.

You'd be surprised at the list of designers who never went to art school.

...and you'd be even more surprised at the number of us who feel our degree, in a field bereft of any sort of accreditation, was a complete waste of time.

"...you'd be even more surprised at the number of us who feel our degree, in a field bereft of any sort of accreditation, was a complete waste of time."

I don't think school was a waste of time at all. Of course design takes natural-born talent, can't learn it, if you don't have it, you don't have it. But that doesn't mean learning the history and the "rules" is a waste of time, nor is four years with great professors and talented peers.

It was also a completely free and experimental time -- I know if from day one I was working for a client, I would have given up a long time ago, never having developed a love for design that gets me through those frustrating client days.

i dont know much about web design im only at an early stage,but it seems to me that people have the wrong atitude towards it,sure it can be boring to sit in front of a screen allday but your geting to do what u love(designing)so to add a final thought you are all lucky bastards and i hope to be be up there with yous