.png)
Did you know that all of the musicians who appear in the half-time Super Bowl concert are not actually paid for their performance? 🤯
The recent show has brought attention to the ongoing debate surrounding artists working in exchange for exposure, a practice that has become increasingly prevalent in the music and creative industry.
From high-profile performers such as Rihanna to small up-and-coming artists being asked to work for free, the conversation surrounding this issue is more relevant than ever.
Exposure has long been touted as a valuable commodity in the music industry, with many emerging artists being promised increased visibility in exchange for performing for free or for a reduced fee.
While exposure can certainly help artists build brand awareness, this practice has serious consequences for the industry as a whole.
By accepting payment in the form of exposure, artists are effectively devaluing their own work and contributing to a trickle-down economy that is harmful for everyone, especially for small artists and creatives.
Rihanna may not necessarily need a few extra quid... but small artists and creatives are particularly affected by this trend. As they are often asked to work for free in the hope that the exposure will help them gain traction and increase future revenues. 📈
Yet, this rarely translates into tangible benefits or reward, and these artists are often left with nothing to show for their work other than the exposure they received. 😐
Sadly, this perpetuates a cycle of underpayment and exploitation that undermines the livelihoods of artists, creatives and many small businesses alike.
The reality is, If we honestly value ART as a culture...
It’s only right that artists get adequate compensation to forge sustainable creative careers and hopefully get rid of the ‘starving artist’ stereotype.
Would you work for FREE for exposure? 💭
Comments