Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There would be no point doing it if it wasn't your dream job. Personally I would get bored of painting minis 40 hours a week in someone else's colour scheme... but I know people who wouldn't.

It's an entry-level position, as has been pointed out. I read it as, they're not looking for someone in their 30s or 40s who is already a world-class painter. They're looking for someone who is 18 or 20, and who could become a world-class painter in the next 5 to 10 years, with the right dedication and training.

It's a creative job -- something many people would love to do. Go look at the starting wages for actors, or freelance writers... they are not any better. The idea with this job is, you get a regular monthly salary, training to become world-class, and you get to do what you adore doing, 40 hours a week. That is absolutely worth the relatively low pay, for someone's first job. For those of us who are a bit older, & have higher costs of living, etc., -- it's not -- but that doesn't mean the salary is too low. They will not be short of suitably qualified applicants for the job. After all -- what's better, if you're 20? Getting paid to do what you love, at your favourite company in the world? Or getting paid maybe £2K or 3K more, if you're lucky, doing a soulless dull job in an office somewhere?

Yes I agree with you Ian... I was wondering something... you go there and get trained to become a top worldclass painter... you get to be a worldclass painter after some years... and after that what are your career prespectives future wise? If you discard GW I dont see similar or relevant jobs for your curricullum.

I think your only option beyond that would be freelancing doing the same thing... though I imagine that if you have sculpting skills too, then prop-making for theatre & film would be viable too.

Flashman wrote:I was going to mock the salary, but I'm not sure it's that bad for sitting around painting miniatures all day. Anyway, it's not for me, but there are a few people on Dakka who are handy with a paint brush.

Do mock the salary, because painting miniatures for a living is hard work and there's nothing worse tham making your hobby your living. You spend 40 hours a week painting stuff in the studio and do what, spend the evenings and weekends painting your own stuff? You'd have to hope that you move on to better things fast, because £12,500 is rubbish. My mum used to paint toy soldiers, she'd get a load delivered to the house and she'd paint them up and return them within a week or so. It's hard going doing this in volume and even though they were straight forward toy soldiers in gloss paints there was a standard that had to be met and they all had to look the same and it was hard work.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Flashman wrote:I was going to mock the salary, but I'm not sure it's that bad for sitting around painting miniatures all day. Anyway, it's not for me, but there are a few people on Dakka who are handy with a paint brush.

Do mock the salary, because painting miniatures for a living is hard work and there's nothing worse tham making your hobby your living. You spend 40 hours a week painting stuff in the studio and do what, spend the evenings and weekends painting your own stuff? You'd have to hope that you move on to better things fast, because £12,500 is rubbish. My mum used to paint toy soldiers, she'd get a load delivered to the house and she'd paint them up and return them within a week or so. It's hard going doing this in volume and even though they were straight forward toy soldiers in gloss paints there was a standard that had to be met and they all had to look the same and it was hard work.

Yes, see my later post when I realised that this was just above the minimum wage (as set for October 2010).

Well that is cool but I get payed more painting my own figures at work and don't have to comply with company requirements.

i post this in ALL threads like this:

you guys know that you get 50% off of ALL GW stuff right?


however, you'd probably get more being a redshirt and there only real job is to start crazy internet rumours.

Being paid £12K to do anything at all is bordering on a crime, it's such a low wage. You could earn just as much working the night shift at a supermarket, stacking shelves.

Having said that, GW know full well that they will have to turn people away, because it is a 'dream job' and some will be willing to be treated like dirt for that opportunity.

filbert wrote:Being paid £12K to do anything at all is bordering on a crime, it's such a low wage. You could earn just as much working the night shift at a supermarket, stacking shelves.

Isn't that kind of the point though? The fact that you get to do something that will earn you as much money as working full time at a supermarket stocking shelves, except you get to do something that is theoretically a lot more fun and creative than stocking shelves? For a young, qualified painter who might be looking at working in a supermarket, it seems like a great option.

Others have said it already, but this is a trainee position. I'm guessing that full-fleged 'Eavy Metal painters, while not making a ton of money, would make at least a bit more than the trainees. This job isn't really aimed at middle-aged people people with their family who already have a career in something else, and it really shouldn't be judged as such. Yeah, it would be great if everyone got paid loads of money to do whatever job they wanted, but realistically there has to be a starting point. Getting paid close to minimum wage to do a cool, creative-type job is better than getting paid close to minimum wage to do a boring supermarket or food service job, or getting paid zero dollars to do a cool, creative-type job.

Between stocking shelves or making the same painting GW minis for a living plus the insane discount, chance to see things early and even rub elbows with guys like Jes and Phil I know what job I'd take (hint, it's not the one involving stocking shelves).

Exactly. I know which one I'd take too (it's also not the one involving stocking shelves), and I barely even play GW games anymore .

The way I see it, if you're at a point where you're looking for a full time job (i.e. year round) then the alternative isn't stocking shelves. Someone brought up the idea that you're "apprenticing" with 'Eavy Metal, I think that's a better comparison. In Canada (again I don't know much about the UK labour market) apprentices make more than that. Check out http://www.gov.mb.ca/tce/apprent/pdf/provincial_wage_table.pdf (1CAD=0.65GBP). I know there are people who aspire to be a chef as much as a figure painter. I mean, come on, a Pork Production Technician Apprentice makes more than this. That's right, I said pork. Who doesn't love pork? I bet they get a discount on bacon.

All I'm trying to say is aim higher dakkaites, aim higher.

I wanna process pork when I grow up!

Necros wrote:I wanna process pork when I grow up!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Specs, comparing mini painting to trades is hardly an even matchup. The apprentices making the kind of money you're quoting typically have to go to school almost every year before they can move to the next level.

It's not just a matter of work some hours, make more money, and just like with GW, starting apprentices mostly only make a bit over minimum wage. Plus, a lot of the trades have a pre-apprenticeship period where you make even less before you can even become an apprentice.

In some cases apprenticeship doesn't pay at all. Chew on that.

That would be a HORRIBLE job. Pay is OK at best, but to sit on your ass and paint all day? Boring as hell.

Sure, it SOUNDS good, but think about it.

How long do you usually paint for? 2 hours at a time, Maybe three?

Now sit down for 6 hours a day painting. Then come back and do it again tomorrow. And the day after. The bonus is, people will CONSTANTLY be telling you to do this, do that, do EVERYTHING better.

That sounds a lot more like Hell than it does a dream job.

The pay is 12500 because they will still get a 1000 applications. If they pay was great they would get way too many.

That's how the computer game industry works, I hear. The best way to get in at the ground floor is generally an unpaid or barely paid intern position.

Empchild wrote:hrmmm 70k a year, great insurance, and a 2500 sq ft home vs 20k a year painting minis and what would be a most definate divorce.... ya no thanks. I knew painters didn't make much but wow that is understatably cheap.

I make 75k a year and own a 2600 sq ft home.

I'm tony stark..

20k a year, definitely a job for a young bachelor.

You do have the option of getting paid in Great Sword box sets instead (487 boxes per annum)

They used to have to paint per day (pick from the following categories):
3-5 rank and file miniatures.
2 Cavalry/bikers/terminators/ogre sized models
1 vehicle (rhino size)
2-3 days for large vehicles, monsters, characters

The trick is to all paint in exactly the same way so as the entire aremy looks uniform, some painters may focus on one army, but invariably it is a team approach.

Ideally you then go home and spend 4-5 hours per night in front of the TV pumping out painting on comission to lift your wages.

One enterprising painter in OZ is clocking $40-50K US per year on painting and modelling commissions... however he is able to paint at work.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
One enterprising painter in OZ is clocking $40-50K US per year on painting and modelling commissions... however he is able to paint at work.

Wow, do you have a link to his work? That's a great deal of cash for painting.

One of the NE Big Gunz members that I met at mikhaila's last fantasy tournament apparently can paint at work... I think he did some sort of phone support where he has a headset and his hands are free. Apparently all of his coworkers also do things with their hands- take up knitting and the like. Not a bad profession if you love painting and want to do your own stuff!

About the OP- Even though people will take this salary doesn't mean they should offer so little. I worked at an indoor climbing wall as staff when I was in college, something a lot of people my age wanted to do- but also got treated like dirt and paid next to nothing. Just because people will take it because it's something they love, doesn't make it right... pay people decently and they'll be loyal to you, and not need to jump ship as soon as they "come of age".

So, I'm not saying I wouldn't take it if I was a good, budding painter living in the UK... but it still doesn't mean it's a fair salary just because people will take it. It just means they can get away with it because of the popularity of the hobby...

And this job could be a portal to other jobs in the niche to which wargamming is located. Imagine putting "GW apprentice painter" on a resume for say, Wizards of the Coast when they are looking for artists for their next series of hirings. Don't you think that would have something to say for pursuing a dream where you can wargame all you like, get PAID for it, and get geeky girls to go gaga over your gigantic paint brush...collection?

RiTides wrote:So, I'm not saying I wouldn't take it if I was a good, budding painter living in the UK... but it still doesn't mean it's a fair salary just because people will take it. It just means they can get away with it because of the popularity of the hobby...

That is kinda the way capitalism works, though -- either it's acceptable for GW to offer to pay people what they're willing to work for, or money is wrong.

More than anything else, this is a scarcity issue, a supply & demand issue. You pay a lot for a Bugatti Veyron because there aren't many of them in the world, and lots of people want them. Conversely you don't get paid very much at all for working as an apprentice GW painter... because there are fewer apprentice GW painters in the world than there are Veyrons, and lots of people want the job.

It's a win-win situation for capitalism.

What does 'quoting ref 99' mean?

Seems to be used a lot in the UK whenever I job-search (I'm from the states).

It's not UK-specific. It's so that advertisers of anything (including jobs) can test which ads get the best responses.

The concept was first introduced by John Caples, in _Tested Advertising Methods_, which is still the standard manual for anyone who wants advertising that actually works rather than being a waste of cash:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0130957011/jtse-20

Ian Sturrock wrote:It's not UK-specific. It's so that advertisers of anything (including jobs) can test which ads get the best responses.

The concept was first introduced by John Caples, in _Tested Advertising Methods_, which is still the standard manual for anyone who wants advertising that actually works rather than being a waste of cash:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0130957011/jtse-20

But what does it mean? Is the question
For instance, I am thinking about applying for it. I have some friends of the family that live near there and they said if I ever got a job over there they would help set me up (help me find a place to stay, some home cooked meals every once in a while to save money). That came about when I was searching for archaeology jobs and I was actually offered a job over there, unfortunately the funding fell through so it didn't matter. I mean naturally it is like a 99% chance of not getting the job, but it couldn't hurt. Anyway, does the "quoting ref 99" mean I have to do something special, ala quote something, or what?

fantasypisces wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:It's not UK-specific. It's so that advertisers of anything (including jobs) can test which ads get the best responses.

The concept was first introduced by John Caples, in _Tested Advertising Methods_, which is still the standard manual for anyone who wants advertising that actually works rather than being a waste of cash:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0130957011/jtse-20

But what does it mean? Is the question
For instance, I am thinking about applying for it. I have some friends of the family that live near there and they said if I ever got a job over there they would help set me up (help me find a place to stay, some home cooked meals every once in a while to save money). That came about when I was searching for archaeology jobs and I was actually offered a job over there, unfortunately the funding fell through so it didn't matter. I mean naturally it is like a 99% chance of not getting the job, but it couldn't hurt. Anyway, does the "quoting ref 99" mean I have to do something special, ala quote something, or what?

It means when you apply for the job, you mention it is in regards to ref 99 - either in your email or covering letter or whatever. Then the HR bod at GW looks at the ref and says ' great, that ad we placed in Honkers Monthly periodical is really paying dividends'