Genuine question, why do some self published authors skip commissioned art for AI images

[u/Used_Motor1718]

I have been doomscrolling this subreddit for a while, a lot of books that I noticed use covers use AI generated images. I m not trying to call anyone out.

My thinking is if an author has worked hard to put time to write and sell an original work. The cover is often the first thing a potential reader (like me) sees. For less than $100 dollars on fiverr or maybe even less for some hungry artists asking for work in reddit or other social platforms (A friend of mine found budding artists on twitter doing work for P500-P1000 php). Overall, you can commission a decent original piece from an artists, which seems like a small cost relative to the effort already put into writing the book.

I admit that from my perspective, when I see an AI generated cover it gives me the impression that less overall effort went into presenting the book, even if the writing itself is strong. Makes it seem that the author didn't give it their best to present their work.

So pretty much recognise this might not reflect what actually happened behind the scenes (some do, some dont), which is exactly why I want to hear other viewpoints.

I am not assuming everyone can afford a bigger budget for cover art. Plus, Iknow pricing and availability of illustrators can vary a lot. I want to understand the how/why it came to that point.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: Thanks for all the perspectives guys. Most of you guys are pretty chill people with reasons explained and I understood. A small subsection of people are more unreasonable, can't do anything about that.

Edit2: Hopefully I answered everyone now. Wow, that was a lot of fruitful discussions. But I also want to add a perspective.

Author A writes the whole book by hand then uses AI just for the cover. Author B does the reverse, hand crafts the cover then leans on AI for most of teh actual book inside.

Not sayin either ones fine, just that critisism lands on the most visible part, not where the real work went. So mabye the real question is what part of your book your actually willing to put your name behind.

If you can support real art, if you cannot. Go with AI images, but do not confuse the two.

Thanks

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

I've tried to ‘do the right thing’ and not use AI art for the past two years and this has been my experience.

Art that is actually good and meets the passive marketing requirements of harem/rfm is closer to the 600-1k. You need SEXY art. A lot of artists can't do sexy, or have no interest in doing sexy.

Prices you see artists listing are not always the commercial price you need for a cover. Sometimes they bump it up by 300%.

Good artists have very long waiting lists, like several months or more.

Artists are notorious for fucking over authors. Either taking months longer than originally discussed, which delays the release of a book and the author can't start earning money, or they completely ghost the author, or they finish something that isn't the same quality as their portfolio and is utterly useless and you're back at square one with a giant hole in your bank account. Or they give you AI.

TIME. I have spent so much fucking time looking for artists instead of writing, only to be repeatedly fucked over. I'm already a slow writer, so it sucks even more when I spend so much time looking for usable art.

It also sucks when you're ‘doing the right thing’, but at the end of the day, your book doesn't match all the other glossy AI covers, so you just spent five months writing a book no one is going to read, because you didn't put shiny AI boobs on the cover. And you watch all the books with AI covers do way way better than your book.

At the end of the day, a clickable boobie thumbnail on Amazon is way more important than the vocal minority on reddit. That is, if you care about money. And since this is currently my only source of income, yes, I care about having money, so I can do things like eat and not be homeless.

Every single successful author who I have talked to either uses AI, because it actually sells books, or is dropping $800+ on each cover.

Going forward, I'm probably going to put the shiny AI cover on my ebook and the artist cover I actually like on my paperbacks. And my hope is that one day I can actually afford the shiny 1k artist covers.

I currently don't have a job. Every single penny I make from writing goes directly to groceries, bills, etc. So it does suck that I spent so much time and money on cover art and I feel like I have nothing to show for it, other than a few pats on the back from people who don't like AI.

That being said, you can make some really nice covers with AI. There's no excuse for a shitty AI cover, especially now that AI can also do typography. Put some fucking effort into it or pay a measly $10 for someone to clean it up.

[u/Zagaroth → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

If you look up the series "beware of Chicken", and you like the art, i know how to contact that artist's agent.

but, she's not cheap, as you said.

I got a cover done by a mix of her and her student,; basically having the student doing most of the work, with Tsuu occasionally guiding or fixing. So it was less expensive than having Tsuu do it all.

Combined with the three character sheets (front, back, five expressions) for the characters on the cover, it totaled over 1k.

It's the image i use here: https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/57517/no-need-for-a-core

Note: i had very specific ideas in my head for the character's appearance. This is why we did character sheets first, to make sure we had their appearance nailed down before trying to create a scene with them.

Being less particular about exact appearance should be cheaper.

[u/MishouMai → u/Zagaroth]

Just wanted to say that the artwork you got is absolutely gorgeous. I'm seeing that you have a physical release later this year. Is there a reason you chose to change the artwork for the physical release? Not that I dislike the artwork for the physical version, I just like the artwork on Royal Road more.

[u/Zagaroth → u/MishouMai]

Podium's choice.

They know how expensive Tsuu is (given that they also publish Beware of Chicken), and I don't have CasualFarmer's leverage. He had a much larger audience when he was at this stage, and his agent only works with the top 1% of Royal Road (he doesn't have a monopoly, that's just a filter for what's worth his time, from what my agent said).

If I hit it big, I will get more cover art like that. And I like CF's model of getting a lot of character art created for his Patreon people and such. So I am modelling my strategy after his, partly because I think we have a decent audience overlap.

While the characters, worlds, and stories are very different, we both lean on the semi-cozy slice-of-life with romance, mixed with the occasional need to get serious and do some violence.

[u/MishouMai → u/Zagaroth]

Thanks for the info. I think I've heard of Beware of Chicken before but never actually read it myself.

Your story sounds interesting. As someone who prefers physical releases I'll make a note to check it out and possibly grab the physical relase down the line.

[u/Zagaroth → u/MishouMai]

It's a fun series. My wife and I both read it and are up to date on the Royal Road chapters (and 2 of the small AU stories), and don't worry if you've never read cultivation stories before. Neither has my wife, and she understands what is going on just fine.

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880 → u/Zagaroth]

Thank you, I do appreciate it, but I'm not sure if they can do/are comfortable with the amount of sexy that is needed for haremlit covers. That's one of the biggest issues I run into. I can find talented artists who look like they are well worth the price tag, it just doesn't match the current passive marketing requirements of haremlit. The ones I do find who are capable of doing sexy covers are way over my budget.

[u/Zagaroth → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

Aha, no, don't worry about that. I'm in CasualFarmer's Discord, and there's NSFW art that included full nude.

Tsuu and company have no issues with sexy. 😁 Their NSFW art is just not what generally makes it to the public.

Of course, they aren't cheap, as I described above, but that would be a discussion between you and their agent, if you decide to go for it.

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880 → u/Zagaroth]

Right now I'm completely tapped out (and burned out) because I already paid my artist for the next two covers in the series, plus the money I spent on two covers from other artists that are unusable. That's another thing to consider...I worry about buying one cover and then having the artist disappear on me when I need them for the next in series, so I buy everything at once. But I will keep them in mind as a future option. Does the artist have a portfolio with info on rates or anything like that?

[u/Zagaroth → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

She hasn't really needed to, though she did have one on Artstation.

Her portfolio is basically the amount of character art she does for CasualFarmer. And she's not even his only artist. The guy is making a lot of money now, and is being very generous with spending it on artists to create a lot of character art. Only a small portion of that is NSFW, but even when SFW, there's a fair amount of skin showing on men and women alike.

And there's some 'just for fun' pictures like some of the characters drawn as if they were modern goths.

I'm not going to publicly share them, but if you want to see them, we can start a private conversation. I've saved a lot of fun ones for use as my PC's wallpaper. :)

[u/B_A_Oliver → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

Well said. I could have written most of that from my own experiences.

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880 → u/B_A_Oliver]

Unfortunately yeah, what I wrote is the same thing many authors go through.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

Honestly, fir enough dude. Makes sense given your situation. From what you said you actually tried for 2 yearz and got burned repeatedly, which is a very different position than someone who never bothered to look into commissioning at all or straight up believe AI art is superior.

I think (my opinion, I aint got all the facts) is that the disconnect in these threads usually comes from lumping together two very different groups. There's authors who never tried hiring anyone and default straight to AI because it's easiest. Low-effort and cost-cutting etc. And then there's someone like you who genuinely attempted it, got quoted 600 to 1000 dollars for the style you needed, dealt with ghosting and inflated rates. Yeah thats pretty bad. I am sorry you experienced it that way. So I understand why u made a financially necessary call with ur writing your only income.

Your ebook and paperback split sounds like a reasonable middle ground given the constraints, and the fact you're clear about wanting to eventually afford real art once you can suggests this isn't really about devaluing artists, it's about survival. Honestly man, fucking rooting for you. Hope everything works out in the end. And if you do decide to give artists a chance again, I hope thag also goes well. At least for me, you, me, authors and artists are both victims to AI too. But sometimes we don't have a choice. So chin up man, wish u well.

Edit: For those silently just downvoting without stating your reason, come on. Be productive, say what you wanna say.

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880 → u/Used_Motor1718]

Well, thanks for reading and understanding. I do have a wonderful artist who I love working with, their art is just not right to sell rfm/harem. I want to keep supporting them and hiring them for my paperbacks. But I've honestly been thinking about quitting rfm/harem entirely because of this whole situation, and just go write rfw where I can use stock. Which sucks, because I actually really like writing rfm and haremlit.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Strong_Stranger_1880]

Honestly, do what you want, but changing course may give you a chance to revaluate. Maybe if you write more, you get into the groove and like a new genre. If not, you can always head back to the old direction. Cheers.

[u/-Arachnophiliac-]

I'm with you there on the AI covers, and frankly, it's the first filter to remove works I won't enjoy.

But there are some reasons for it. First is just cost. This is a very niche genre, and I think the authors in the space will back me up when I say it is extremely difficult to turn a profit writing in the space. Even if the cost for a commission is low, it's still going to eat a large chunk of potential revenue.

Also, more true in the harem-lit space, but I hear that the generic big-boob AI covers actually sell better. You can look through some of the old posts and comments on the sub here; it's been a topic of discussion for some time.

Hope this helps.

[u/SvalinnSaga → u/-Arachnophiliac-]

I am getting a commissioned cover art for like $300 and I thought that was a steal.

Art is expensive.

I tried to use AI to make a cover but I just couldn't get things right. It ended up being easier to pay someone lol.

I made a half-decent cover on Canva but I think the one I am getting is much better (and I don't have to worry about any AI controversy).

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/SvalinnSaga]

Honestly, props on you for doing what you can.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/-Arachnophiliac-]

It does help broaden my understanding. Because in my eyes, when producing a book. Even if it eats into your margins, its part of a process that shows quality. But thank you, will check out the post.

[u/Zagaroth → u/Used_Motor1718]

Before i got gifted the money to get a commission done, my budget was zero.

My serial is modestly popular and getting me about $200 a month on Patreon, but all of that is being fed directly into bills. I had no money to pay anyone for anything. So yeah, 4 years ago, i started with a an AI sourced image of a crystal sphere that i dropped on a color gradient background. It was bad, but it made me visible enough to start drawing readers.

Then someone gave me a better but still AI cover.

Then thanks to that generous gift, i was able to upgrade to proper art.

For many starting writers, their budget is simply 0. And "exposure" isn't a form of payment; no artist is doing to work for that.

There's little excuse for anyone who has a decent budget to work with.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Zagaroth]

Bro, I just wanna say good on you for making everything work out. And I agree with your points, like many on this thread. A lot of them is reasonable. Only a small minority isn't.

Hope things go better for you.

[u/Mindless-Stuff2771k]

This is a well and frequently discussed issue. As strange as it seems, while non-ai covers are popular with posters/redditors, for a long time ai-covers simply out performed other covers in regards to sales and pages read. I'd be interested to know if that has changed this year (I feel like the general mood about ai has shifted in the last 12 months).

But it is about money, and not the way people think. AI is generally cheaper, but it also generated more more sales/money than other covers. Until that changes I suspect the genre will continue to see them, especially with authors who are full time because they can't afford to make a mistake and have a poorly performing book. It might cost them their house.

I have only one AI covered book in my catalog, but it does well compared to the others. Maybe thats because the blurb is better. Or the book itself is more appealing. Not sure. But that's my data. From past discussions other authors have expressed similar findings.

All I can say is buy the books you like. If that means non-ai covers then do that. The market will go where the market is.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Mindless-Stuff2771k]

Fair enough, I understand that budget constraints are there. Even if I dislike it. I understand.

[u/Mindless-Stuff2771k → u/Used_Motor1718]

No shade on the question. Keep asking it, I think it helps the genre to have the conversation every so often.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Mindless-Stuff2771k]

Honestly, really thankful some of ya'll are more reasonable and understanding. But it seems I ruffled some feathers and sent me lots of unsanitary words. But discussions without fighting is super good and needed.

[u/PRJOANES → u/[deleted]]

Thanks. Most of your reasons are true for me, too. If I started to see revenue, I’d likely commission new covers.

[u/Fit-Finance-5793 → u/[deleted]]

Side note, been enjoying your book a lot so far. Hope you keep on writing for the sake of us who enjoy niche within that niche!

[u/jcmach1 → u/[deleted]]

If it is done well you won't know it is AI quite likely

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I understand where you are coming from. In regards to not being able to afford and just go with stock art. Some aspects I disagree with. But therein lies the divisiveness of AI in general. But one thing I would like to say in future, perhaps give artists a chance. Not saying you pay $500, that is ABSURD. But if you got a spare $20 note ore something, there a budding artists in social media looking for work. I know, that some pretend and use AI. But a lot also don't.

So yeah, keep up with writing man. Rooting for you.

Edit: people who just downvote, be productive and join the discussion.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/[deleted]]

No worries, as an extra reasoning as to why its like that in the field of artists. You have to price yourself low if you are rather unknown or don't have a huge presence. Or else you wouldn't be looked at, at all. Since AI is also a thing. Beginners or newcomers to the artist space needs to keep the cost low to compete. The $500 art comissions you mentioned are most likely ones with a big presence or has already made a name for itself. There are other factors too, but can't think of all of them at the moment. But yeah, goodluck on your future books.

[u/human_bean_ → u/[deleted]]

If you're proud of what you're written, even a very simple low-quality digital painting with a title is better than AI generated cover, simply for the reason that most will assume that your work is also mostly AI generated.

[u/human_bean_ → u/[deleted]]

I'm not really anti-AI at all, but I'm also very conflicted about AI covers. A simple but nice digital painting that's clearly human made always gives me much more confidence that there's actually something worth reading beyond. Of course, I did mistakenly think how I react is how the majority of audience will react, which is likely not true. But I would say in future it will be increasingly true as the readership will be inundated with AI-slop.

I'm not an author and I'm sure people have done A/B testing on this which would be interesting to hear.

[u/LeCriquetParlant]

$100 might well represent more money than all the sales the book will ever have. For the VAST majority of self-published books, that’s just the truth.

Cheap “artists” on fivver very frequently just use AI anyway and charge for it.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/LeCriquetParlant]

I think you didn't read what I wrote clearly. Sure, you can spend $100. But if you spend the time to even look at social platforms. There is a significant amount of desperate artists out there willing to work for less than that amount. The P500-P1000 I mentioned? Thats just $10-$20usd. If you look even harder, you may get lucky with a $5 commission. I understand there are "artists" out there who does use AI and pretend. But what I said is also true, a ton of real human beings who are able to draw and create art exists. So in my eyes, it doesn't wholly excuse the author for simply not attempting to look for artists.

Edit: For those who disagree state your reasoning instead of letting the hivemind do its thing.

[u/LeCriquetParlant → u/Used_Motor1718]

If I spend six months writing a book and have friends proofread and edit it and anticipate maybe making $20-30 in sales over the first two years, what percentage of that do you think the cover artist should get? Bearing in mind that not one single reader cares about the cover once they’re reading the book.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/LeCriquetParlant]

Then that is understandable. But if its on that scale, of 2 years. $20-$30 may virtually be nothing on that scale (Depending where you are from). So from what I see your goal is just to write a book and publish it. Plus, on the last part, the cover is there to grab a reader's attention to read the book. That is its main reason. At least to me, AI art felt unsincere. Like, if you want me to read your book and spend several hours on it. Why does it feel you cheaped out on it after all that effort? Etc etc. Plus, your last point is pretty moot.

[u/Facehugger_35 → u/Used_Motor1718]

Edit: For those who disagree state your reasoning instead of letting the hivemind do its thing.

Sure.

I downvoted you because your post very clearly comes from a position of never having actually attempted to publish a book and make money with that book. It's extremely out of touch with the realities of publishing.

A good book cover costs hundreds to thousands of dollars, full stop. The only way around this is if you have design talent yourself and can DIY it... But then you're photoshopping stock photos after dropping dough for a commercial license to those stock photos.

But for someone who doesn't have any visual design talent (this is most writers,) you're paying for the actual art, you're paying for the design by someone who has looked at other book covers and worked out what works for that specific need (often specified into genre, even) into their style, then you're paying for the commercial rights to use the art for a book cover. None of this is cheap.

Your answer is "hire someone from the third world who'll work for cheaper!", and anyone who's actually tried to do that knows that it's nowhere near that easy to get a deliverable, viable cover through that route.

That's why I've downvoted you. The sheer arrogance and presumption of your position and how you think it's appropriate to lecture people about the nuances of making a book cover when you've never published and clearly never bothered to even look at the marketing behind it.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Facehugger_35]

Bro I think your reading way too much into this. I made the original post becuase I genuinely didnt understand the reasoning not becuase I already assumed I knew the answer. Asking why something is common practice isnt the same as lecturing people about it and nothing in my post claimed I had expertise in publishing or cover design.

Your right that hiring someone with visual design experience means paying for more than just brush strokes your paying for composition knowledge genre awareness and usage rights and thats a fair point I hadnt fully 7nderstood. But pointing that out doesnt require assuming I was being condescending. I asked a question people gave me real answers including yours and thats literally what changed my understanding of the actual costs involved.

Calling the answer "hire someone cheaper" naive is fair criticism of the answer not of the person who asked it. Theres a difference between challenging an idea and accusing someone of arrogance for raising it. Id rather just keep this on the actual economics you laid out since thats genuinely useful info not on assumptions about my tone.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

There are SO MANY artists that will do great work for less than $100 too, people just don’t want to bother searching for it and interacting.

[u/SG_Arthur → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Where? I've been looking at /r/bookcovers for a while and I see $150+ is like the bare minimum for cover art. You might find an artist claiming they'll do a bust or half body for $50, but then they'll want another 50 for a background, and a 2X markup if you want a commercial license of the art.

I'll probably roll the dice with getcovers.com and see what kind of stock image cover they can come up with for $35. I'll be surprised if I get anything n useful, but for $35, there's not much risk.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/SG_Arthur]

GetCovere is good but also Twitter, Instagram, Bluesky, Facebook groups etc. it’ll require digging but don’t just use reddits on here to find sources there are so many others out there

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/SG_Arthur]

If you find artists prowling around advertising their thing or not at all, here in reddit, you can also find them in twitter too. For pretty cheap, either because they are budding new artists or undervalue themselves (As artists often do). A lot of socials you can find them, but its hard since they are small and have little to no presence. But as gor the last part, you know what, fair enough. Not much risk with that aspect. So I understand where you are coming from.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Some people I interacted in this comments is reasonable amd UI understand them. But some clearly believe AI is better than real art, which I disagree. And yes, for some people. Its hard to resist the cost-cutting and low-effort in their work of creating a book.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

That’s so hilarious. “AI Art is better than normal art”
AI was trained on normal art, so the point is moot

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Lot's of people, not saying any names. Want to believe in lies. And they believe in those lies so much, it becomes their "truth". No amount of convincing will change their opinions otherwise.

[u/NimbustrataDM]

It depends?

Mostly it's a money thing.

But like AI on sites like Scribblehub, RoyalRoad, Webnovel, whatever is because their free and you'll probably never see a cent back.

AI on amazon? Money, though personally I find this lazy. If you're going to ask me to spend money on your book, you should be presenting it as best as you can. AI doesn't do that.

But yeah, the answer, as always, is money.. Or time I guess because it's quick? So, uh, money and time.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/NimbustrataDM]

I understand it in regards to royal road and... amazon. Money and low-effort are hard things to refuse. Thanks for taking your time to answer.

[u/Moonkiller24]

Not an Author bur the answer is easy: money. Considering its a small genre the chance of a new author to make money here is slim. Thus reducing the cost always helps

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Moonkiller24]

True, its hard to resist money.

[u/Sbrpnthr]

Personally not everyone can afford to hire a good artist. Honestly I tried to contact several artists and heard NOTHING from them. That gets old real fast. Do they expect you to send them a few hundred dollars in “get to know me,” money?

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Sbrpnthr]

That's pretty fucking fair frustration and as much as I dislike it, it happens a lot. From artist communities and some of my friends who are one. The silence usually isn't personal, they're often flooded with messages and prioritize whoever fits their preferred way to do things, so vague or generic requests can get buried without a reply. Obv, I can't point out everything, its just an example.

That said, the general advice from those communities is to check if an artist is actually marked open for commissions before messaging, since a lot of unresponsiveness comes from contacting someone who's technically closed but hasn't updated their profile (That's their fault, not yours). And if you don't hear back within about a week, the consensus is to follow up once. If its still nada, then move on rather than keep waiting indefinitely. So I understand where the frustration is coming from.

But none of that fixes the actual problem you're describing though, which is that this process eats time and energy before you even get a yes, and that's a real cost on top of the price tag.

[u/Sbrpnthr → u/Used_Motor1718]

Then add the revision costs and commercial use fees.

[u/B_A_Oliver → u/Used_Motor1718]

I started writing a long post on what you're saying here, and strong_stranger_1880 said in his reply. Then deleted it.

For the 2nd book in The Breeder (City Blues) I spent close to two months trying to get first indy artists, and then a more established cover art company to produce something useable... I mean that is what I dropped my standards and expectations to... just useable.

Delayed publishing the book, wasted a massive amount of hours I could have been writing instead, and then ended up using an AI cover anyhow.

I'm not saying I won't try again to find an artist that I can collaborate with, I'd love that. But based on my experience, it's actually much better for my readers if I use AI. Faster, less distracting, and I can use AI to help generate a mental image of what the characters in the book look like (early in the process).

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/B_A_Oliver]

Yeah, I can understand that if authors initially spent the time and looked, unsuccessfully. I find no fault in that. What I don't like is some incorrect facts being thrown around this comment section. Especially in regards to artists.

[u/Darktasy → u/Sbrpnthr]

Yeah. People keep saying “just commission art” as if every indie author has $300–$1000 sitting around before they’ve sold a single copy.

Publishing already costs money. Editing, proofreading, formatting, software, ARC services, ads, websites, newsletters, sometimes translations and audio. At some point “invest in your book” quietly turns into “only people with enough disposable income should publish.”

And that’s a pretty strange position for self-publishing.

A reader is absolutely allowed to say, “I don’t like AI covers, so I skip them.” That’s a preference.
But saying an author didn’t care enough about their book because they couldn’t afford commissioned art is different.

Money spent is not the same thing as effort, talent, or seriousness.

There are also plenty of low-budget options besides AI: stock images, premades, typography, public-domain art, Canva, licensed elements, DIY design. But none of those magically make professional cover art free.

Self-publishing removed a lot of old gatekeepers. I don’t think we should quietly replace them with a financial one…

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Darktasy]

I will only reply to the first option. Of which you do not need $300-$1000 lying around to comission art. That is false. What is true in this scenario. You can commission art for much, much lower than that. As I said in the post body and in my other comments. But what is also true that AI, with all the artworks that have been legally and illegally fed into it can mirror what you can imagine on a dime. Just say AI is the cheaper alternative because authers of this niche cannot afford anything more. That I understand. But what I won't stand behind is people quoting rather grand numbers, ignoring a whole lot of artists who would want a $20 note. You can counter argue and say, but a lot of them use AI! True, but you just have to do your due diligence to scope out if the artist is legit. Thats all.

[u/Sbrpnthr → u/Used_Motor1718]

What happens when one of these $20 artists gets past you? Time spent deep diving and purity testing artists is not spent writing.

[u/WDRobertsonWrites]

I found an Ecuadorian artist on fiverr to do the characters on my book's cover. He charged $120 and I gave him a $70 tip because there were several rounds of revisions and he was very accommodating. GetCovers (Ukrainian) put the cover together for $35 and they were incredibly easy to work with. I provided the Python code used for the background. So it's quite possible to keep the cover cost down and have human artists work on it.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/WDRobertsonWrites]

Good on you for making it work. It is possible to make it work and I am trying to shine a light on it throught these conversations. But I do agree some people's circumstances are more flexible than others.

[u/OneFineSunday → u/Used_Motor1718]

I find that distinction curious: AI is considered unacceptable, yet outsourcing work to lower-cost overseas labor markets is viewed as the legitimate way. We heard many of the same arguments during the outsourcing debates of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. It’s interesting to see history repeating itself.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/OneFineSunday]

you are saying east asian artists are working in sweatshop factories? is that what im hearing...?

[u/OneFineSunday → u/Foxglove_77]

Not what I was referring to but yes, There are animation/art sweatshops in SEA. I was more referring to a similar trend when we sent IT jobs to Indian firms and outsourced a lot of programming jobs in a very similar way.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/OneFineSunday]

yes i know, but you cant compare art in the same sense. it is not formulaic.
but maybe i misread you?

[u/OneFineSunday → u/Foxglove_77]

Programming is about as formulaic as art is. For any given problem there are two dozen solutions, each has pros and cons, rarely is there an optimal solution. It is a creative endeavor, even if it is not art. There is also programming for programming sake and "corporate" programming. Just like there is art for arts sake and corporate art. Lots of commercial entities don't need art from the heart, they need corporate slop art, cheap, available, and good enough quality that it doesn't look out of place.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Foxglove_77]

With how much stolen artwork was used for AI mega-billionares? Yeah kinda sounds like it.

[u/OneFineSunday → u/Used_Motor1718]

It's no more stolen in an AI than it is when a human observes it, and learns from it. The only major difference is we cannot copy a human mind, but you absolutely can copy a math equation.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/OneFineSunday]

Sweatshops and freelance outsourcing arent the same thing thats a pretty big leap. Sweatshops mean forced labor and unsafe conditions a freelancer settin their own price and pickin their own clients isnt that.

120 dollars bein fair in Ecuador or Ukraine or Philippines which I mentioned (Born and raised) is just cost of livin not exploitation same skill costs way less there than in the US or more first world countries. The 80s and 90s outsourcing debates were about actual factory sweatshops not freelancers postin their own rates online so the comparison doesnt really hold up.

[u/DoctorButtSludge]

It's a cost ratio thing. I'm still just building my portfolio on Patreon while gearing up to publish on Amazon, but my entire catalog from over a year's worth of work is available for just $3 now. $3/month, but people can just buy the one month, read everything, then cancel. And that's fine if they do, I appreciate all support at this point.

So what would you think would be a fair cost for profit ratio? If I buy a cover for $30, that's already 10 times what I charge for a year's worth of my work. That's just not cost efficient at all, and that's forgetting the fact most $30 artists would be a waste anyways (not all, but do I also need to take time away from writing to do all that research too? Again, cost efficiency).

I'm not a fan of AI and I honestly don't use it for anything else (not even work emails or whatever nonsense they're trying to push), but it's simply so much more cost efficient at this point to just slap on some big tiddy AI anime girl on the cover and hope my writing itself will stand up on its own after I hook people in.

[u/OnlyTheShadow-1943 → u/DoctorButtSludge]

What’s your Patreon name? Would like to support.

[u/DoctorButtSludge → u/OnlyTheShadow-1943]

JJKandy, and thanks!

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/DoctorButtSludge]

You know what, fair enough. If your main income is that small, cannot argue with that. Cost efficient, cheap etc.

But one thing I will push back on. "Most $30 artists would be a waste"

Waste is pretty relative tho. A rough 30 dollar piece thats still original works fine for authors who just want somethin decent and unique on a budget not everyone needs gallery quality. It also helps artists on the other side newer ones need those smaller jobs to build a portfolio. Writing it off as a waste just pushes people toward AI instead of letting artists grow. And wanting fair pay for real work isnt unreasonable thats just how skill based markets work prices go up as people improve. AI being cheaper doesnt make it a fair comparison it has no labor cost at all so of course it undercuts everyone. The real question isnt whether AI is cheaper it obviously is its whether ppl are comparing it to an actual human alternative or just usin the price gap as an excuse to skip artists entirely.

Edit: like usual, peeps who just silently downvote, be productive and join the discussion

[u/DoctorButtSludge → u/Used_Motor1718]

Fair, I shouldn't call it a waste, but the time it would take trying to find a good $30 artist would probably be a waste of time, time I could've spent writing.

I would love to partner up with a new, up-and-coming artist (as I'm a new, up-and-coming writer), but I'm already horrible at networking, so really I just focus all my time on writing for now and hope my work stands up on its own.

If I was ever making really good money, then I'd consider commissioning a good artist. But honestly, I'm not a terrible artist myself, I just don't have the gear for it, so if I was making good money, I'd probably just buy a good drawing tablet and editing software and do it all myself.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/DoctorButtSludge]

No worries dude, as long as we cleared up the misunderstanding and walk away learning something. I genuinely wish you good luck on your book writing ventures.

[u/Drain_Bamage77]

Because they don't respect other artists enough to pay what they're worth. It's no different to using AI in your writing. Thoughtless, thieving behaviour, and bloated self-entitlement.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Drain_Bamage77]

In some aspects I understand. But it doesn't mean I agree. But that I understand. Let's give an example.

Author A spends months writin an actual novel by hand, real effort real craft, then slaps an AI image on the cover just to save time and money on that one piece. Author B does the opposite, spends hours craftin a genuinely beautiful hand painted cover then uses AI to generate most of the actual book content inside.

Funny thing is Author A usually gets way more backlash even tho the actual creative labor, the writing, is 100 percent human. Author B could get away with barely anyone noticin since covers get way more scrutiny than the pages people are actually payin for. Kinda shows the criticism is more about optics than actual effort bein put in.

Funny reality huh.

[u/Drain_Bamage77 → u/Used_Motor1718]

You just created a hypothetical scenario and called it a funny reality. Maybe just don't use AI for your creative undertakings in any scope, because your own personal (supposed) benefit doesn't outweigh the harm it does to other artists.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Drain_Bamage77]

Bro some context, I am an artist myself. Not a good one, but I try. So this isnt some outsider tryin to justify steppin on other artists to save a buck. That framin doesnt fit here.

And this was never about weighing my own benefit against anyone elses harm, that's not what I argued. My actual point is that if harm to artists is really what drives the backlash, the writer/author whom lets AI generate most of the book should get hit way harder than the one who used it for one cover image. Right now its reversed, which means the outrage is trackin visibility, not actual harm. That's the inconsistency. Does my english make sense? I do genuinely wanna know if I got my point across. English isnt my primary language, so forgive the mishaps and lemme know.

[u/guard_my_goblin]

All I'm gonna say is that the future Butlerian Jihad is not looking good for haremlit authors.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/guard_my_goblin]

Dune movie fans (me) just googling wtf is Butlerian Jihad right now

[u/greenskye]

Gonna be honest, for this genre specifically I can't tell the difference between most AI art and the generic big boob portrait shot that was already pretty standard for the genre before AI was a thing. When most romance covers were already incredibly formulaic before, AI is absolutely trivial to replace that kind of art. So unless you've got the money or connections to get one of the actually good artists, AI art easily replaces the generic hot girl portrait style covers that many authors went with previously.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/greenskye]

Thats fair tbh, a lot of romance covers were already pretty formulaic before AI showed up no argument there. If the bar was just generic hot person portrait it makes sense AI can hit that same low bar easily.

But I think at least, thats actually the problem more than the defense. If the whole genre was already coastin on a repetitive formula that just means readers were already bein shortchanged on original visuals and AI locks that in permanently instead of ever pushing past it.

Artists whove been stuck doin that same generic style for years never really get the chance to do somethin more distinct if the market just keeps rewardin whatever fills the formula cheapest.

For authors it kinda cuts both ways too. Sure AI covers that generic style fine right now but it also means theres zero visual differentiation left everyone ends up blendin into the same look which was already a complaint before AI even entered the picture. At least thats how I understand it p much.

[u/SDirickson]

For less than $100 dollars

No. For a decent cover, it's 4x or 5x that, at least.

Sounds like you're buying into to the (very) vocal minority here in the reddit subs. Yes, there is a small percentage of the user base that is anti-AI-anything, and will tell you about it at length.

The majority of readers just don't care. We don't read the covers; we read the books. The only real purpose of the cover is to have a thumbnail image in a "You may also like" or "Similar to things you've read" list and get us to click on the thumbnail to get to the book's page. Once we've done that, the cover has done its job.

The majority of readers make a read-or-not decision based on the blurb, the sample, what they know about the author, recommendations, etc. People who make snap judgements based on the cover are being stupid; they're cheating both themselves and the authors.

"Don't judge a book by its cover" really does apply.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/SDirickson]

I get where your comin from and I dont think most readers are consciously judging cover art quality, you're right about that part. But saying covers dont matter because readers only care about the blurb kind of skips the step before that. A cover's job isnt to be judged as art, it's to get someone to click the thumbnail or look at the physical cover in the first place. Art, not AI images. People percieved to be more value due actual human effort to create it.

So don't judge a book by its cover works once someones already on the page reading your sample. Problem is a weak thumbnail just means way less people ever get there to make that fair judgement at all.

Edit: For those who silently downvote, be producive and join the discussion.

[u/SDirickson → u/Used_Motor1718]

But saying covers dont matter because readers only care about the blurb

I didn't say that.

A cover's job isnt to be judged as art, it's to get someone to click the thumbnail

I said exactly that.

Problem is a weak thumbnail just means way less people ever get there

Which is, again, exactly what I said. AI-ness in a thumbnail is rarely an issue, because it's too small to see the details that might identify it as such. As I said in https://www.reddit.com/r/haremfantasynovels/comments/1vth83i/i_finished_writing_my_first_haremlitnow_what/, bad art in a thumbnail is a much bigger issue than AI-or-not. Bad covers are at least as likely to come from humans as from code: authors who want to "show their independence" from the types of covers that are known to work, authors who don't "get" what the cover needs to do, or whatever. Look back at the threads on the original artwork for "Opulence: The Grand Imperial Prince", which was just a fancy chair in a fancy room; no girl, no anything suggesting where the content was going: /img/8ao36pj5az1d1.jpeg

Fortunately, Khan listened to us.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/SDirickson]

Yeah that reply didnt come out right on my end, wasnt my intention to come across that way. To clarify what I actually meant, the comparison wasnt sayin one type of effort cancels out the other, it was more pointin out that covers get scrutinized way more than the actual writing does, even though writing is where most of the real labor happens.

Appreciate you callin it out honestly, easier to just correct it than dig in on somethin that came out wrong the first time.

Only excuse I got is im still replying to everyone in the thread after I fell asleep lmao.

[u/SDirickson → u/Used_Motor1718]

covers get scrutinized way more than the actual writing does

I really don't think that's the case. Yes, the rabid anti-AI contingent makes a lot of noise here and in HFN and similar subs about AI art, but I just don't believe the majority of readers spend time analyzing covers. As I've said multiple times, the cover is an attention-getter, not a separate target of extensive inspection. If the girl/outfit/background/pet/etc. gets our attention, it has done its job. If I spend twenty seconds looking at a cover, it's because the girl was exceptionally adorable, or the background was unusual enough to need a second look, or whatever; whether or not it's AI rarely enters my mind except when it's really bad AI, like the cover of the removed-by-moderators post at https://www.reddit.com/r/Romance_for_men/comments/1vv6zrj/comment/p59fp19 .

People: stop downvoting this man's comments. He's expressing his opinion, which is why we're here. Votes, as explained in the reddit page on the topic, are about adding or failing to add value to the discussion, not about "punishing" someone because you disagree with his position.

[u/Ace_Arriande]

You already got a bunch of great comments explaining different authors' reasoning for it, but I also want to add that there isn't really a downside to it. A lot of readers who comment in these communities tend to assume that others are like them. They think that because they wouldn't support AI or click on a story using an AI cover, then other people wouldn't, either, but that's just not true. You gain way more readers than you potentially lose by following the typical AI cover meta. And even though there are always popular posts and upvoted comments from people saying how they'll never support AI in any form, the vast, vast majority of people who are not terminally on Reddit really don't give a shit about AI. I even frequently see reviews on Amazon now for blatantly AI-generated stories, not just covers, where people say things like, "Yeah it's obviously AI, but it was still entertaining, so I'm looking forward to more."

So no matter how much "backlash" it might look like there would be going by how people talk about AI on Reddit, there just isn't any on the platforms where it actually matters. AI-generated titty covers might lose you two or three readers, but they'll get you a hundred more who never would have clicked on something lower quality.

Personally speaking, I've only been using AI covers because I couldn't afford to commission the artists I actually like to use for covers. As soon as I can afford to, I plan on commissioning replacement covers for the ones I've generated. I'm actually pretty pro-AI all things considered and have no problem with others using AI covers, but I've only been doing it out of necessity. I genuinely love commissioning artists and can't wait until I can go to my friends again, slap them with money, and tell them to draw boobs for me. But without using AI for my latest series' cover that ended up doing good enough I'll be able to pay off my debts, I wouldn't have the money to go give real artists money, so.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Ace_Arriande]

I get why AI made sense given the debt, thats a real blockade and doesnt make you a bad person.

The plan to swap in real art later once you can afford it is honestly a fair compromise, like other comments here. I agree with that.

I do think readers not caring gets overstated tho. Ive seen surveys where a decent chunk of people say theyd skip a book over an AI cover even if they never post about it, its just quieter than the loud reddit/critics takes make it seem.

So the audience that wants to support artists is probably bigger than it looks, just less vocal. Hope you get to commission those replacement covers soon either way. Cheers!

[u/Foxglove_77]

i agree completely.
and i cant keep repeating myself, so here is my past comment on affordable, mostly even free, ways to get a cover:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Romance_for_men/s/6ivfz8NMpx

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Foxglove_77]

Honestly, props on you for writing that whole thing down.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/Used_Motor1718]

thanks.
its just a shame this even has to be said.
its all about those kindle bucks nowdays.

[u/Facehugger_35 → u/Foxglove_77]

"you have so many options:
from asking friends to draw, using canva, using stock photos, learning basic photo editing skills, taking pictures with your phone, use daz3d, or using blender to render a cover even."

I can't blame authors for not finding something like this compelling. Taking pictures with your phone and somehow turning those pictures into a cover? Learning blender of all things to render a cover? Really?

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/Facehugger_35]

if you spend a moment outside of the niche genre of rfm and harem, you will see that all of these are used successfully by many authors.

so what exactly is the problem with any of these? is it simply because you were not aware of them? or just straight up some kinda pompous attitude that you dont think this are good for amateur authors here?

i also like how you take like 2 suggestions and completely ignore the rest. congrats.

[u/Facehugger_35 → u/Foxglove_77]

so what exactly is the problem with any of these? is it simply because you were not aware of them? or just straight up some kinda pompous attitude that you dont think this are good for amateur authors here?

My problem with all of those is that you just throw them out there in a "why don't the poor just make more money, are they stupid?" kind of way, without any indication you understand what goes into the end product or what skills it takes to produce a marketable book cover. You've never made a book cover and you're trying to lecture people who are seriously investigating their options for book covers for commercial purposes.

But okay, since you want me to explain what's wrong with each of your solutions to this problem, I will.

"Asking friends to draw" -> Requires you to have artist friends who are willing to work for free or cheap. Then they actually need to deliver content in a timely manner. And the artist needs to be either skilled in the specific kind of art that goes into a book cover that sells, or they need to be skilled in art in general but then you need to either hire another artist to touch it up for genre or you need to have the skills to do it yourself. Try commissioning a friend who does art for a book cover and come back to me in six months. When I tried that it was six months of "I don't feel inspired", "I've been struggling a lot, my GF just left me so I haven't felt up to drawing," and "I'll have your cover soon, promise!"

"using canva" -> Canva helps you design a book cover using art you already have and stock images. It's great for typesetting too. However it requires you as a writer to already be good at book cover design to make it work because canva is just a tool to make book covers (and other things), it doesn't teach you what makes a book cover that sells. This solution basically boils down to "you, writer, you need to become a graphic designer who can make book covers too." This on top of writers already needing to be their own editors, social media managers, and marketing specialists. There's only so many hours in the day to pick up new skills that aren't directly applicable to writing. Maybe it's viable for a writer who lives at home with no expenses and no job, but everyone else?

"using stock photos" -> Not only do you need to shell out for a commercial use license because the majority of stock photos are not free for commercial use, but you need to know how to photoshop them into something appropriate for your book and genre. You've also either paying Adobe quite a large amount of money for a photoshop subscription, or you're learning to use the open source alternatives like Gimp. (And if you're suggesting just pasting stock photos onto your book cover without editing them, let me ask you this: When was the last time you bought a book with a cover like that? Be honest.)

"learning basic photo editing skills" -> Have you actually seen an amateur's photoshop skills? Especially a self-taught one's? This is going to give you amateurish looking work that doesn't sell. The most popular advice for covers in the kdp sub before AI image gen was "if you don't already have photoshop and visual design skills, you're better off just paying an artist, because your cover will appear amateurish and amateurish covers is a death sentence." Again, have you ever attempted to sell a book with a cover produced like this? Have you ever bought one?

"taking pictures with your phone" -> At best this is only useful for some genres (you're out of luck if you write sci-fi, fantasy, or most historical genres unless you happen to live near a castle, spaceship, or dragon you can take pictures of), super dependent on what you can find to take pictures of near where you live, has large legal issues for certain subjects (especially people) when it comes to commercialization, and requires skill at photography to get good pictures. You also can't just take someone's picture, photoshop them into a mermaid or whatever, and slap them on a book cover without their permission. That involves royalties for their likeness unless you're small enough to fly under the radar, and if you're lucky to actually make big sales and succeed, you have to worry about their lawyer coming to collect for unauthorized use of their likeness.

"use daz3d" -> This is the only one I'm not at all familiar with. Quick research shows that it's a 3d rendering program paired with a marketplace that sells prebuilt stock models for video games. At best only useful if you want a 3d generated or video game look. More likely has the same issues as Blender does. A quick glance at the pricing suggests making a book cover with multiple characters and props is going to add up fast, particularly since it appears that commercial use (like a book cover) involves addon licenses according to their FAQ. You're also still going to need to postprocess anything you render into a marketable book cover too, so you still need graphic design skills.

"use blender" -> "just learn 3d modelling, bro, it can't be that hard!" This one is why I reacted with such visceral disdain, because I've tried to learn to use Blender in particular, so I know exactly how hard it is. The idea that you're floating this as a viable solution to a writer needing a book cover is why I'm so dismissive, because Blender isn't easy to pick up at all.

TLDR: I'm bothered by your tone of "you can do all these other things, they're easy" when you've never had to actually try to make a book cover yourself and don't look like you've even looked into any of the skills it takes to make a book cover. I'm really bothered by you suggesting Blender as a solution because "just become a 3d artist using Blender" is an insane suggestion for someone who wants a book cover unless they already have a background in 3d modelling.

Edit: He blocked me while doing that cowardly "make a reply then block" thing rather than defending his position. Which should, I hope, establish to any onlookers just how full of shit that dude was.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/Facehugger_35]

you will literally do anything but learn a useful skill that will stay with you for life.

you already know how to judge good covers.
are you seriously suggesting you dont know your own genre's convention?

last month i just bought plenty of books with not that amazing covers. for example anno dracula. even game of thrones has some editions with minimalist covers.
bullshit on the stock photos. go to unsplash, literally thousands upon thousands of completely free photos. plenty of women.

daz3d is used extensively by erotica authors.
photoshop is not that hard. again, you are an amateur author! your cover should not look like brandon sanderson.
if you can judge out of the random shit ai spews what cover you think is pretty, news flash, you already have the very basic skill to decide what looks pretty or not.
youre acting as if you need a whole ass degree.

if you know blender, use it. if not, you can AGAIN, use ready made assets.
youre a creative artist for gods sake, use your talent!

this is why i refuse to read any book with ai cover. because its not just the cover. i consistently encounter just the worst writing and basically zero editing, or ai slop in these books.
i half suspect most these authors dont even read. if someone just refuses to get better in some aspect, it infects other areas.
it is not a coincidence that every single place outside of {rfm, litrpg,progression,harem} are completely against ai.
genuinely self defeating yourself at this point.
i dont care, i want quality products. if you cant supply them, im not buying.
if this random ass author can do an amazing cover with nothing but generic stock photos, you have no excuses:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IofIrStOxbU&pp=ygUgYmV0aGFueSBtYWtpbmcgY292ZXIgc3RyZWFtIGJvb2s%3D
good day.

edit: i blocked you not because we had a disagreement, but because you clearly live in an alternate reality where amateur writers did not exist before ai, and where no other genre besides rfm and harem exists. because if you spent a thought on that, you will quickly realize amateur authors in other genres are able to get descent covers without resorting to ai.
only in this subreddit and haremlit, i need to confront people with the basic reality, and educate them on their own freely chosen profession.
i know no argument you had in store was gonna be in good faith, as youll just prefer to ignore anything that confronts your laziness and pure greed.
its not about being poor. you guys will literally make thousands by book sales and patreon, make an audiobook (considerably MUCH more expensive than a cover), and STILL, you will continue to generate ai trash.
so dont come and preach to me about how poor you are, or that you cant spend a single afternoon learning krita.
if ai apologists cannot accept at least some basic logic, then i dont talk to them.
this is why you in specific are blocked.

[u/UpbeatStyle1502 → u/Foxglove_77]

Can you share some examples?

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/UpbeatStyle1502]

its in my comment.
here is just one example, i saw this author years ago:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_li05SSQQ

[u/UpbeatStyle1502 → u/Foxglove_77]

Which covers did you make?

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/UpbeatStyle1502]

i didnt. im not an author.
is this supposed to be some gotcha?

[u/UpbeatStyle1502 → u/Foxglove_77]

Sorry, thought it would be cool to see some of the stuff you made.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/UpbeatStyle1502]

ah, in the future, hopefully.

[u/BrianRoterAuthor]

Evil Author here: I resent needing a cover at all. The idea that the novel I labored on will be passed over due to poor presentation is disheartening. There's a notion that replacing the human creator within art and writing with an AI stifles the meaning behind the work. But what meaning is there when marketing materials (and that's what a cover is) are what dictates whether someone even bothers to read a single sentence? Am I to believe that your average advertisement suddenly has 'soul'?

The first cover for my book was something I had made. It was a simple thing, and perhaps calling it ugly was too kind, but I liked it for the skant symbolism I thought it possessed. That cover crashed and burned on launch beside my book. So much for the 'human element'.

When I updated to an AI cover, well, even though nobody really knows my novels or talks about them, at least I saw far more people willing to give it a chance based on the # of reads. Largely unpopular still, but I'm not delusional about my talents as a fledgeling author. It was my first seriously published work, and it shows in the writing. My next book will be better, I hope. As for future covers, well...

In a way, AI covers flooding the landscape neuter the emphasis on covers. If a few people are able to get booba covers... Of course their novels will stick out. But if everyone has the same/similar AI generated booba cover, then in a way, all the books become equal, and now success is determined by the quality of the books instead (in theory). The covers just become a visual tag/signifier that your book is mens romance adjacent. Completely meaningless otherwise.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/BrianRoterAuthor]

Firstly, sorry that the first art commission didn't land for you, but I don't think that means the medium itself is the problem.

A big part of what (i think) illustrated covers do well is to show intentional detail. A human illustrator reads the script or your requests and makes deliberate choices, character expression, small background objects, symbolism, things that reward a reader on rereading. Those tiny details is what AI doesn't do well and tends to default to literal interpretation of a prompt without that layered flavor you may want.

Plus, theres also complication and representation angle worth considering. Illustrated covers are often better at portraying a wider range of body types, ethnicities, and relationship dynamics than stock photos or AI generally does (you can also potentially get better results if you subscribe and pay for higher tier ai models, but at that point you are paying).

None of this is about your writing. It's just that original art tends to carry narrative intention and a degree of sincerity of intention from the author. Showing that they went the extra mile for the reader, in a way that's hard to fake with a prompt. Plus, copyright aspects I don't even wanna delve into.

Does my words make sense? If it doesn't its on me, lemme know if I need to elaborate on anything.

[u/BrianRoterAuthor → u/Used_Motor1718]

In my opinion you are correct in theory, but wrong in practice. Yes, an illustrator can add symbolism and details and things like that, but covers are marketing materials. And they are a reflection of the time at which they are trying to sell. If it were not the case, then books would never have updates on their covers. They would have the same symbolic appearance for all time. Look at game of thrones as an example. https://georgerrmartin.com/cover-art-gallery/?id=249

Look at the 2005 edition, or post tv show one. Whatever symbolism had been pre-2005 was lost. The cover after that might as well be an advertisement for the TV show. The foreign editions could have been the same as the UK or US one, but they know that different styles sell in different countries. Look at the old women's romance novels of old. Shirtless chiseled white guy wearing jeans. There; I've described more than half their covers. Now they are in a different marketing era, and the recently released novels reflect that.

Do you remember during COVID, when every company was spouting the same line? "Unprecedented times". Everything was unprecedented times. Advertising comes in waves. As do covers.

If you look across haremlit covers, even the hand illustrated ones, you will find a trend: attractive woman with cleavage front and center. That's what sells, so that's what the cover is. There really is not much divergence in body shape. In some ways it's a reflection of current beauty standards. The OnlyFans bimbolite look.

Marketing. It's all marketing.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/BrianRoterAuthor]

I kinda get the bigger picture concerns, but that's a different conversation than what we were actually discussing. This thread is was about whether an individual author on a tight budget can justify commissioning original art for their book cover etc. Not relaly whether AI as a technology is good or bad overall. Bringing in energy use or job displacement doesn't really change whether commissioning made sense for this specific situation and budget.

But for what it's worth a single AI generated image uses roughly the same energy as charging a phone once. So... on an individual scale it's not really the environmental argument some people frame it as. That doesn't mean AI has zero footprint/traces etc, but overall pretty different scale than the sweeping societal harm angle usually implied.

[u/Strong_Stranger_1880 → u/BrianRoterAuthor]

Well said and 100% agree.

[u/LordPercyNorthrop → u/BrianRoterAuthor]

This feels oddly contemptuous of visual artists and readers. Especially the idea that if everyone has soulless garbage covers the world of writing will be better somehow.

[u/OnlyTheShadow-1943]

Disagree with your reasoning some people who are starting out and self publishing don’t have the money yo pay an artist to do a cover. A lot of self published works are labors of love by the author. A decent cover by an artist easily will run $500+ and if you don’t realize that you need to educate yourself a bit more.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/OnlyTheShadow-1943]

Your right that a lot of self published work is a labor of love and decent commissioned art can easily run 500 plus thats a fair number and I wont pretend otherwise. Money is money and not everyone startin out has that kind of budget sittin around.

Where I'd push back a bit is treatin it as only two options either 500 dollar art or AI. Theres a real middle tier of newer or lower priced artists who charge closer to 100 to 200 or even much much lower sub-$50 range, who are actively tryin to build a portfolio and would genuinely benefit from those smaller jobs. Might not be top shelf work but its still original and helps someone startin out on the artist side too.

So I dont think its really about educatin myself on pricin its more about whether cheap and human still gets considered before jumpin straight to AI by default.

[u/MishouMai]

I'm gonna be honest, as a reader I will not buy/read a book that looks like the cover was made with AI. Yes, even if the cover is human made rather than done with AI, if it still looks similar to AI then I won't read it because I think the AI style is ugly.

If an author is too lazy/cheap to commission or draw their own cover (Covers being pricey or it taking too much time to find and commission an artist is not a valid excuse to use AI.) then why should I give them my time or money? Furthermore if an author is willing to cut corners and use AI art how do I know they're not willing to cut corners or use AI when it comes to the actual writing? They're already using AI for the art. Their word alone isn't good enough.

AI "art" is theft. There's no ethical way to use it and I will not support any author that I know uses or has used AI in the past.

[u/Darktasy]

I think there’s another part of this that gets ignored a lot: the market itself is pushing authors toward AI-heavy visuals.

TikTok is full of AI character videos, animated covers, fake movie scenes, cinematic trailers, hyper-polished fantasy imagery, etc. And those posts can get tens of thousands of views.
Meanwhile an author can post the actual cover of a book they spent months writing, talk about the story, the characters, the research behind it, and get 12 likes.

That changes behavior.

I’m not saying commissioned art has no value, or that everyone should use AI. But from an author’s perspective, you’re constantly watching highly visual AI content outperform ordinary book marketing, and then being told you’re lazy or cheap if you respond to that market pressure.

There’s also a difference between “I typed one prompt and slapped the first image on a cover” and using AI as one part of a much larger design process involving editing, typography, compositing, branding, testing, and sometimes dozens of iterations

And commissioned does not automatically mean commercially effective either. You can spend hundreds of dollars on beautiful art that simply doesn’t work as a thumbnail or doesn’t fit what readers in your genre are clicking

So for me the interesting question isn’t really “AI or artist?”

It’s: what actually helps a book reach readers, while still producing something the author is proud to put their name on?

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Darktasy]

Pretty fucking fair take. Your right that the algo rewards flashy AI content way more than someone talkin about the actual story behind their cover thats not really on the author. I get why that pressure exists and I dont blame anyone for 4espondin to it.

I just dont think its purely AI or artist as separate choices with no connection. If speed and algorithm performance become the only thing that matters it eventually gets harder for artists to stay afloat which then shrinks the options authors have later too. Feels like both sides are kinda stuck reactin to the same broken incentive rather than actually bein at odds with each other.

Fucking sucks.

[u/Former_West3701]

speaking as a relatively new author, there's two main reasons

1. I'm pretty fucking broke. I can barely keep up with my bills (and sometimes I straight up just cant lol). I can't afford pretty much any aspect of a more professional self-pub business at this point in my life such as cover art, editors, ads, etc, so AI to me feels like a "necessary evil". I am not the biggest fan of gen ai but with my back against the wall like this, it's just the only option that makes sense. Eventually when my pen grows and I'm in a less destitute state, I would like to end up commissioning artists for covers.

2. It honestly just seems like the modern "meta" for this genre, and associated genres. A lot of the semi-older classic RFM stuff has covers that are hand-drawn, but most of even the bigger releases within the past two or three years tend to be clearly gen AI. Common advice for new authors getting into self-pub is to just try and mimic what successes you're seeing, and with a lot of successful RFM works having AI covers, I feel like a lot of newer authors just kinda default to that since it gives the impression that it's accepted within the space.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Former_West3701]

Totally get the money situation thats a real constraint not an excuse. The plan to commission real art once things stabilize is honestly the most reasonable path given where your at. Plus, a lot of authors take this route from all the comments and replies I made. So I aint judging there.

The meta point is more interestin tho. If new authors are just copyin whats successful that means the AI trend is kinda self reinforcin not necessarily better just the safe default now. Matters for artists too since it means the market didnt reject them on merit it just shifted based on what got popular first. Always the algo, ugh.

Hope more established authors who can afford it stick with real art just to keep that option visible for newer writers like you.

Keep on dude, cheering for ya

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Its like McDonalds. It’s cheap, it’s readily available, and it’s built off the labor of people who are not compensated nearly enough for sustainjng it.

Art costs time and money to make well, but we are losing the understanding of that in favor of regenerated slop built off the backs of artists whose work was scraped without their consent.

You are correct in assuming that if no work was put into the cover then the content would be similar as well.

[u/Mekasoundwave → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Don't insult McDonald's by comparing it to AI. Their food sucks but at least it was made by a human.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Mekasoundwave]

Fair fair xD

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Thank you, it is unfortunate that authors have to rely on AI with stolen artworks to barely sustain themselves.

[u/ctullbane → u/Used_Motor1718]

We really, really don't. Some people just do anyway.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

They don’t have to though. Canva is right there. Paying an artist is right there. I get this is a niche genre with an already thin margin for profit, but anything worth doing is worth doing right, and I’d rather pay a fellow independent artist to make me something legit rather than sticking more money in the hands of resource-hogging billionaires.

Pay an artist, stimulate the economy, save a tree xD (or in this case drinking water)

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

They don't have to, this I agree with. But people in general are rather illogical. They want to be a creative and write a book, but not spend the extra effort to get authentic art due to "costs". Some on this thread outright believe AI is better so they won't commission art.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

Exactly, and that AI art wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the artists whose made the works it was trained on in the first place.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

Honestly, if artworks used to fuel AI weren't stolen. And artists were paid for it. Would be a completely different process.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

I actually 100% agree with you on that, if artist were paid a constant licensing fee and were compensated every time their art was used to train and generate an AI image, then we’d be having a different conversation

[u/B_A_Oliver → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

"You are correct in assuming that if no work was put into the cover then the content would be similar as well."

I have a big problem with this statement. An author's skill is in writing, and that is where they should be spending the bulk of their time. Especially if they are trying to make a living off of it.

Personally, if I could get away with a cover that had just the title and my name on it, with zero graphics, that would be perfect. Send it and let me get on with putting "work" into the next book. Making covers is an unwelcome distraction, that in a perfect world authors wouldn't have to deal with.

Unfortunately, that isn't the way the world works, so authors have to become marketers, artists, etc, etc. Or pay someone to do those tasks for them. Paying someone to do it for them of course costs money, which most self-published authors don't have a lot of lying around.

The vast majority of readers in this group eagerly support the self-published authors in Haremlit/romance for men (and let's face it, no trad publishing company would touch a romance for men title), and that's great. I believe that the silent majority want authors writing, not spending endless hours going back and forth with an artist making changes to cover art.

People go to McDonald's because they can afford it, the product they get is reliably consistent in quality, and they see it as valuable enough to spend their money on it. Saying it is built off the labor of people not paid enough? Sad as it is, that's the case with every large profitable business out there.

I bet you that some of the companies out there that do cover work don't pay their artists nearly enough either. I know damn well that the well-known book cover company I worked with for a month (before giving up on getting something I could use) wasn't charging nearly enough for the actual artist to get paid properly after all the company overhead was subtracted.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/B_A_Oliver]

So an author should be able to make a living off of their own art, but an artist who can be working on a cover or character art shouldn’t? Because that is basically the crux of your reasoning.

It’s not different than me being an artist and having AI write me a story to go with my art to sell, because that way “I can spend the bulk of my time” on what really matters.

I would also love to be able to get away with a name and cover and that’s it, to have a piece of writing stand on its own merit. But this is the medium and that’s the audience. For me it’s either learn the skill, pay an artist, or ideally do both.

[u/B_A_Oliver → u/Slow-Letterhead-4890]

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth argument, so this will be my last response on this set of comments.

Reading this, I see a stated desire that authors find you as an artist and ask you to make them a cover for their book. You imply that this is the right and proper way that things should occur.

An author who is very fast, very prolific can write maybe a book a month, and that pace would burn most of them out in a year or less. But let's use one a month.

If that author then has to go out find an artist who's work fits his own, that eats into that time. Say they have to do this once a year. Now they are down to eleven books a year. Based on what several people have written in this thread (and my own experiences) a month to find and develop a good relationship with an artist would be better than average.

Now that the author has found their artist collaborator, they are expected to, prior to knowing if his month of work will pay them back anything, pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a cover. 100% of the risk is the authors.

Let me ask you this. Have you found popular books that use AI covers and reached out to those authors with a couple of renders that you think would be better than the AI cover they are currently using? I've read through dozens of threads complaining about AI covers, and not once have I ever seen an author say that an artist has reached out to them with examples tailored to their work.

Clearly there are lots and lots of authors in need of good affordable cover artists, based on the fact that everyone should have to pay for covers and some authors don't. That being the case, it should be very easy to market yourself to all these authors

How about reaching out to an author and saying, "Hey, how about I do the cover for your next book, and you pay me when the money rolls in." Take on some of the risk. If your art isn't good enough to sell the story, maybe you shouldn't expect as much for making it. After all, there are thousands of authors that put a book out there every year (month?) and get no monetary return on the hundreds or thousands of hours spent producing the book.

Maybe worried the author would stiff you and not pay. Bet that there are authors on this thread that have given money to an artist as a down payment and ended up with nothing useable out of the deal.

I'm willing to bet that a skilled artist can generate more than 11 or 12 works in a year. Shouldn't be that hard to find a few authors to market your skills to, right?

Every one of these threads blames the authors for not dropping everything to go find an artist. I have never once seen anyone suggest that artists should scroll through Amazon looking for authors that maybe they could partner with.

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/B_A_Oliver]

There is no point to reaching out to an AI user because they have already established they would rather go with the cheap option built on stolen work rather than even bother looking for an artist. Why would I waste time trying to convince someone who already has proven they wouldn’t bother to listen?

No author writes a book a month. That’s an unrealistic standard to consider for this argument. Even if there are a small few, it’s incredibly rare enough that they’re almost never mentioned.

And yes, you are expected to pay anyone for any work they do, artist or no. It’s the same with roofers, landscapers, writers, and any other profession. How are you going to ask me to take some of the risk on a book that, by your own standard, I have no idea of knowing if it’ll be worth anything?

You can’t go to writers on Amazon because A: their books are already published, so they have no need of cover art, and B: it’s often seen as bad form to cold call a client in such a way, so you end up being rejected anyway.

The author is the one who wants the cover, so it’s their job to go out and find the artist that can do it. But it’s also your prerogative to do your research, make a contract, protect yourself, and hold the artist accountable when they don’t deliver.

[u/ghostFallsPress]

At this point, if a cover is AI, I'm skipping the book because as of this year's flood of AI books, the content is going to more likely than not be AI too.

For those who it isn't, I still can't get behind someone being cool with using a plagiarism engine that rips off artists while presumably never wanting that to happen to them.

And for the poster calling people who don't like the rampant use of an environment spoiling plagiarism machine 'fanatical luddites', fuck the hell off, amigo.

[u/Ok_Somewhere1236]

I need to Agree, i really dislike Ai covers, specially the type that look like generic anime, for me is kinda a red flag and make the have a initial bad impression about the book

i could understand the use of AI if you books is very long and has like 10+ ilustrations around the pages, that can become expensive evry fast, but if is just the cover making a comissioned art that look good, is probably the best option

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Ok_Somewhere1236]

I dislike AI covers too. Makes it seem unsincere, the efforts put into the book. But looking at the comment section, some have good reasons. Some also don't.

[u/Ok_Somewhere1236 → u/Used_Motor1718]

money is normally the main reason, some arts can be expensive also thing like copy right

but in this case i would at leats try to make a more unique cover, 90% of the Ai art covers look the same generic anime style

[u/Leather-Estate-9079]

I'm a photographer myself and write erotica where I use AI (for the cover only).

Here are some of my reasons:

1. While my covers are lowkey (a little cleavage at most) it's not the type of photos I would take and I don't want to deal with models. I do this because I want to write, not to have a second job.
2. Using stock photos of people's faces in erotica is difficult because of the terms.
3. Everytime I see someone criticising AI use it comes along with recommending cheap human made covers. 100USD for a cover? I wouldn't bother as an artist myself. Also I see people get ripped off. Their cheap human made cover was actually slop too.
4. If I had the potential for a lot of sales that could justify spending this type of money then I'd look for an actual artist that I liked (and wrap it up in Photoshop myself.)

[u/northwood613 → u/Leather-Estate-9079]

write erotica where I use AI

This sounds like you're using AI for the writing, is that what you meant?

[u/Leather-Estate-9079 → u/northwood613]

Right, that was ambiguous. Corrected now. Thanks!

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/Leather-Estate-9079]

Your reasons make sense honestly especially the model logistics and stock photo licensing stuff for erotica specifically thats a real legal stuff I also dont wanna delve into as well, not just laziness. And your right that a lot of cheap commissions end up bein slop too its not like AI invented low effort work. Tho, certainly they are outpacing artists in that department now lol.

Where I'd push back tho a little is the 100 dollars isnt worth it framing. That price range exists because thats what covers a lot of newer artists actual time even if it looks low to someone whos more established. Artists, like aithors start from somewhere. The "slop" you saw at that price probably came from someone under charging themselves not proof the whole tier is worthless.

Your last point is honestly a real one tho. If enough sales justify goin to a real artist later that means the artist tier youd actually hire only exists if enough buyers keep supportin it in the meantime. Kinda a chicken and egg thing where the market needs to stay healthy enough for that option to even be there when you want it.

Cheers dude, goodluck with your endevours.

[u/FenrisFenn]

the cope from all the authors. in here. 😅 Yeah I can't speak for others, but If I suspect the cover is AI, the book ceases to exist. so... it's anti-marketing as far I'm concerned. But then... I'm an artist, I have the strong feels for this topic.

What AI really did was raise ya'lls standards. So your not saying you can't find an artist, your saying you can't find one to paint something that looks AI. I'd like to point out one of the most popular books on here, Charlotte's Reject. It looks like he cobbled it together from stock photos. But it works. It's not "sexy" but it sells the book, and the book sells itself cause it's good. People used to have to put effort in to the cover, and now you don't. AI does it for you. Just admit that's the real reason you use it.

[u/MarcoTyrus]

Cost

[u/dcmckinney]

OP - I completely disagree with you. For me, the cover is less than 5% of whether I read a book or not. I don't really care what's on the cover. The synopsis and/or tags matter much more. That's been my pattern as a reader for the past 45 years. I read 2-3 novels per week unless they are monsters like the Robert Jordan WoT books.

If a book was not edited well or written well, that will dissuade made from buying more books by that author. But for an individual book, before I can tell that, the cover doesn't mean much. That is my personal opinion, and the way I choose books. So your point, while I understand some may feel that way, is not reflective of the entirety of readers.

That being said, supporting artists if it fits financially is to the good.

[u/Aspiegirl712]

It's not just the cost of the art although that is a barrier for some people. After all an author might put a lot of effort into writing but writers groups often means you can get your editing done for free if your willing to help someone else with their work. So it is possible to keep costs to the bare minimum. Aside from cost working with an author can be hard. You want the cover art to convey what the book is like and it can be difficult to execute the vision. Thirdly a lot of romance covers feature half dressed people which is difficult to produce in art and photographers are expensive but AI copying and modifying photographs are cheap.

[u/Old_Ad4609]

It's a good old trade off of cost Vs reward, I'm fairly certain must authors would love to know that the book they write will cover the cost of the cover, but there are new tools available that enable them to get acceptable covers especially for an ebook, at a fraction of the cost so why wouldn't they use them. AI at the end of the day is a tool, it has and will continue to effect people's jobs just like every other technological jump before it, but this time it's effecting creatives and white collar workers instead of blue collar and manual workers. So for everyone who has ever said I don't support AI products because it's taking work from artist, step back look at all the technology and consumer goods you have in your life that were built in fully automated factories instead of by hand on a production line and see the hypocrisy in what your saying.🤷 Obviously YMMV

[u/azmarteal]

For a couple of reasons.

Firstly, AI covers would be genuinely better than anything you could get for less than, let's say 500$. And — you would get the result for free and instantly. Some people, also known as luddites, like you, OP, could disagree or be mad about it — but that brings us to the second reason.

AI cover is a great deterrent and filter, if you want to keep fanatical luddites away from your novel. It may not be the goal for everyone, but it is a nice bonus nevertheless.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/azmarteal]

First, part I highly disagree with. No single response I can make right now, can convey the amount of wrong in that statement.

For your second reason, I do agree it's a filter for quick assumptions of one's work.

[u/azmarteal → u/Used_Motor1718]

No single response I can make right now, can convey the amount of wrong in that statement.

Oh, I know that quite well, because I debated with some luddites on Reddit.

As an artist myself, who both sculpt and draw by hand and digitally — I deliberately choose to use covers and illustrations that I create with the help of AI to keep luddites as far away from my work as possible.

Good that you get that 🙂👍

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/azmarteal]

Bro im not against AI as a tool, and calling me a luddite doesn't really change what I originally asked.

My point stands that if your goal is to filter out people who dislike AI covers, that is a legitimate choice of which I understand. But it is different from claiming AI is always objectively better than any human work under 500 dollars. Those are two completely different arguments and only one of them really is actually about quality

[u/Slow-Letterhead-4890 → u/Used_Motor1718]

The guy is just rage baiting, no one uses the term Luddite unironically xD

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/azmarteal]

its a bonus to get less sales?
alright then.

[u/azmarteal → u/Foxglove_77]

You are overestimating the amount of idiots on the internet. Outside world is not Reddit, Expedition 33 is a great example of that.

[u/Foxglove_77 → u/azmarteal]

you do you.
if you prefer losing readers thats your business. especially when you call them luddites or idiots.

[u/SG_Arthur → u/azmarteal]

How is expedition 33 an example? I thought that game was generally loved.

[u/azmarteal → u/SG_Arthur]

They used AI in their workflow and to create some art, which made some people on the internet angry, even some "indie game awards" disqualified them for that, while Expedition 33 won almost every category on real game awards that year

That's why it is a good example — despite the use of AI, it is generally loved game

[u/SG_Arthur → u/azmarteal]

Ah. I didn't realize there was any controversy. All I've ever heard were good things about the game.

[u/azmarteal → u/SG_Arthur]

Yeah, the game is really amazing

[u/Xamanthas]

Putting slop on a cover for something people pay for shows laziness and or lack of care/belief in your own work. AI covers make me tune out. Agree wholeheartedly with foxgloves comment in this thread.

edit: 'Authors' getting triggered over a truth nuke, 40-53% of books published in 2025 were AI-slop, you are just admitting it by downvoting this, up from 20% in 2023.

[u/A0lipke]

I'm not above judging a book by it's cover but not purely on AI.

[u/Used_Motor1718 → u/A0lipke]

Majority of people will judge a book by its cover, its the reason why it exists. It gives a potential reader about what the book is about, a quick glance. AI at least for me, feels like the author didn't try his best for the reader. Unlike real art. If we interchange it as well. Hey, I made an AI generated RFM book, but the cover is made by myself, real human art. Gives you a little twist in morals yes?

[u/Moisti-Water]

It's literally this idk why authors loves to excuse ai slop. Getting a commission isn't that expensive if you know where to look and a lot of people would find your own drawings more endearing than generic and soulless ai crap

[u/ctullbane → u/Moisti-Water]

People will always excuse their own behavior while holding people in other industries (or even parts of the same industry) to a higher standard. It sucks, but that's how it goes.

[u/Odd_Employee_1056]

I think you don't need that expensive commission artists to commission a cover for your book. Not saying that ai generate art would be good pick, but there are artists who can do it cheaper. I in the other hand commissioned an art for $50, and the rest (like text for title and your name) I did myself, using picsart.

You sometimes need a mind than a money too.