I really like the idea of turning the cups into a showcase for local artists, and having a different artist featured every 1,000 cups could be a lovely way of giving people some visibility.
The one thing I’d gently suggest is considering offering the selected artist something in return beyond exposure. While exposure is always welcome, artists are also working people trying to make a living from their creativity, and unfortunately exposure alone doesn’t pay the bills. Their artwork is also becoming part of the look and identity of a commercial business, so I think there’s something important about recognising that contribution.
It certainly doesn’t need to be a huge amount — perhaps a modest fee, shop credit, or another small benefit alongside the exposure. I think that would turn a really nice idea into an even better one: showcasing artists while also recognising that their creative work has real value.
After Aga closed I thought she’d be a hard act to follow, but Krust Bakehouse have done it - and surpassed my expectations.
And this initiative shows how invested they already are in the area and the community by identifying this lovely way of collaborating with their business neighbours to give their customers something different, something made in Forest Hill.
I love it!
And I’d suggest taking things a little bit further. Krust is at 49 Dartmouth Road and my tenant, Melisa Dora, is literally only a stone’s trow away in the Coach House at the rear of No.57a where she runs her lovely little gem of a ceramics workshop and classes. She already makes tumblers and other tableware for some other cafes and restaurants - see here - so I will mention this thread to her to see if she might like to try to get involved with Krust and the artists and I will put up £200 to buy and give away that value’s worth of any resulting ceramic collaboration cups as promotional gifts or whatever they all decide.
The original artwork could be on show (on the wall) while the cups are in circulation, and each one could be auctioned off with the money going to the artist - would that work?
I can’t imagine there’s any margin in it for Krust to give the artist any financial incentive, so it needs to come from the community in some way
I hear “exposure doesn’t pay the bills” quite often, but I do think that perspective can sometimes be a little too black and white.
Imagine the proposition the other way around. If Krust said to an artist:
“We’ll print your artwork, name, Instagram account, website and QR code on 1,000 physical objects, put them directly into the hands of 1,000-ish local consumers, and pay all the production and printing costs. What will you pay us for that advertising?”
I don’t think anyone would think it unreasonable for Krust to put a price on that? Businesses have always paid for advertising precisely because exposure to a relevant audience has economic value. So I’m not sure why, when exactly that value is being provided to an artist for free, it suddenly counts for nothing.
It seems to me that both sides are bringing something of value to the exchange. Krust gets interesting artwork on its cups; the artist gets their work and contact details physically distributed to a local audience at no cost to them. It’s effectively a barter arrangement.
I’d see it very differently if Krust were commissioning an artist to create bespoke commercial artwork to a brief, requiring revisions etc, and then offering “exposure” instead of payment. But that isn’t what this appears to be. They’re offering artists the opportunity to submit their own work to be showcased, they’re completely upfront that it’s unpaid, and they specifically encourage artists to include their own website, Instagram or QR code so people can discover them.
The exposure may be hugely valuable to one artist and worth absolutely nothing to another - and either can simply decide the opportunity isn’t for them. But I don’t think “exposure doesn’t pay the bills” really answers the question of whether exposure has value. Advertising doesn’t directly pay anyone’s bills either; it’s valuable because of what it can lead to.
Creative work has value. But so does access to an audience. I don’t think recognising one requires pretending the other has none.
I’m probably quite naive and behind the times in the way things work these days, so I thought it would be a simple case of neighbours reaching out to one another for a bit of time and goodwill, which would be reciprocal - call it bartering if you will - and leave the rest to karma.