Lessons from the Rihanna Case: The Consequences of Paying Billionaire Creators and Performers in Exposure
An Urgent Wake-Up Call from the Creator Economy to the Creative Industries on Fair Compensation
Did you know that Rihanna wasn't paid for her performance at the Super Bowl halftime? And it is not because she’s a billionaire. Luckily she’s not in a hurry for cash. A representative for Rihanna, neither Roc Nation and Apple Music, declined to confirm to Forbes magazine whether she put her own money into the performance.
It's not uncommon for performers such as Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake or Lady Gaga at major events like the Super Bowl halftime show to not receive a direct payment for their performance. Typically, the exposure and publicity from such a high-profile event can be valuable for their career and can lead to other financial opportunities. Additionally, the production costs for a Super Bowl halftime show are usually quite high, so it's possible that the performance fee may have been covered through other means, such as promotional partnerships or sponsorships.
However, while exposure and publicity can be valuable for creators and performers, it's important to recognize that their work has value and they deserve to be compensated for it. The idea that exposure alone is enough compensation can create a problem because it can lead to a devaluation of creative work and a culture of exploitation.
It's important for creators to advocate for fair compensation and for consumers to support them by paying for their work. Additionally, organizations and events should strive to compensate performers and creators fairly for their contributions, recognizing the value that they bring to the table to create a more equitable and sustainable creative industry.
An artist not being paid for their performance in a high-profile event perpetuates an absurd notion that exposure is a valid substitute for compensation. While an artist may gain exposure and potential sales opportunities through a high-profile performance, many creators, musicians, artists, and performers do not have the same level of platform to leverage for future success.
Tolerating exposure in lieu of payment can validate a problematic status quo in the industry and contribute to a culture of unpaid work. This can lead to the proliferation of unpaid internships in arts and media, reinforce the stereotype of the starving artist and create a reality where careers in the arts are only feasible for those with independent financial security.
The unique value that artists bring to events should be recognized and they should be fairly compensated for their contributions. This will help to support and sustain the creative industry and its practitioners.
Exposure in lieu perpetuates a problematic culture of unpaid work and can make it difficult for artists and creatives to sustain themselves financially. Everyone can understand the logic behind this argument.
The Exposure Paradox
Streamers, YouTubers, and other content creators who rely on exposure to directly generate income face a unique set of challenges in this topic. What sustainability can expect a professional market that transform exposure into money to create profits if they are only paid in exposure itself as the only valid payment?
Relying solely on exposure as a form of payment for creators can create a paradoxical situation where the success of the creator is dependent on exposure, yet exposure alone is not enough to ensure the creator's financial stability. This can be particularly challenging for emerging creators who may not have a large following or established revenue streams.
Exposure alone is not enough to sustain a creator's career in the long run. It's important for creators to have access to multiple revenue streams from the base to ensure the necessary work to set sponsorships, merchandise sales and other opportunities. This not only helps to ensure financial stability for the creator but it also supports the growth and sustainability of the creator economy as a whole.
Fair Pay Fair Play: Technology will Change the Game (again)
As we saw, there is a paradox in the creative industry where many creators are expected to work for exposure instead of fair compensation. This paradox is particularly evident in emerging platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, where creators are often expected to produce content for free or for very little compensation in exchange for exposure and potential future financial opportunities.
While exposure can be valuable for creators, it should not be used as a substitute for fair compensation. If we continue to perpetuate a culture where creators are not paid for their work and are expected to work solely for exposure, we risk undervaluing their contributions and making it difficult for them to sustain themselves financially. This can create a paradox where some creators are expected to work for free, while others are paid substantial amounts for their work.
To address this paradox, it's important for organizations and events to compensate creators fairly for their contributions, regardless of their platform or level of notoriety.
The lack of fair compensation for artists in high-profile events like the Super Bowl highlights the long-standing issue of undervaluing the creative industry. And this is where the creator economy comes in - it provides a platform for creators, artists and performers to take ownership of their work and value their contributions fairly.
The rise of the creator economy, which has gained popularity in recent years due to media coverage and popular interest, has provided new opportunities for artists to monetize their work and connect directly with their audiences. This is where blockchain and decentralized technologies our applications (dapps) come in. By enabling creators to directly own and monetize their work, these technologies have the potential to further empower artists and change the dynamics of the creative industry.
With blockchain and decentralized technologies, artists can establish ownership and control over their work, and receive direct compensation from their fans and supporters without the need for intermediaries. This has the potential to increase the value and recognition of artists and provide them with greater financial stability.
Even if the media coverage is not so vigorous as it was between 2020 and 2022, the creator economy is still rapidly growing, but to ensure its longevity and inclusivity, it must embrace the transformative power of blockchain technology. It will not exist as a whole reality for creators until then. By leveraging the transparency, decentralization, and immutability of blockchain, we can create a fairer and more accessible ecosystem where creators are empowered to own and monetize their work, without relying on centralized platforms or intermediaries.
The Rihanna case not being paid and accepting it highlights the importance of fair compensation for creators, while the rise of the creator economy and the adoption of blockchain and decentralized technologies provide new opportunities for artists to take ownership of their work and value their contributions fairly.
Keep looking into the future. See you next time,
Murnau