Ever since we started our record label, I’ve often noticed that some artists hold a strong ideal around the Traditional Record Deal model — almost like a symbol of having ‘made it.’ At the same time, there seems to be a broader stigma in the industry around business models where companies earn money by supporting the artist directly, rather than taking a cut from the artist’s fan revenue. I completely understand where that skepticism comes from, but I also think it’s worth exploring the nuances.
Now, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having this opinion, but I wanted to take a moment to reflect on this phenomenon and share my thoughts on this.
The “Glory” of the Traditional Record Deal
Many artists grow up with a romanticized view of the music industry:
- Getting “signed” means you’ve made it.
- The label discovers you, invests in you, and turns you into a star.
- You don’t pay — because “real artists don’t pay to play.”
That narrative is deeply ingrained in music history, reinforced by films, celebrity interviews, and the old gatekeeper system. To many, anything that deviates from this — like paying for services — feels suspect or second-tier.
The “You Shouldn’t Make Money On Artists” Argument
There’s a prevailing idea that if a business earns money from artists before the artist earns money from fans, something unethical is happening. And to be fair, that suspicion has some grounding:
- There are scams out there — pay-for-play playlist schemes, fake PR firms, and overpriced packages with little return.
- There are companies that rely on overpromising and underdelivering to inexperienced artists.
But the problem isn’t the model itself, it’s the intent and execution.
The Gold Rush Analogy: A Fair Comparison?
Yes — and no.
In the gold rush, selling picks and shovels was often more profitable than panning for gold. Some people see modern music service providers (labels, distributors, PR firms) as “shovel sellers” taking advantage of artist dreams.
But this overlooks a key truth:
Every industry has B2B services.
Painters make money from homeowners. Wedding photographers from couples. Agents from authors. Producers from filmmakers.
There’s nothing inherently unethical about earning money by providing value to someone pursuing a goal.
The key is:
- Are you adding real value to the artist’s career?
- Are you transparent about what you provide and what you don’t?
- Are you aligning incentives — so your success depends, at least in part, on their success?
Flip the Script: Would You Work for Exposure?
Imagine this:
An organizer calls an artist and says,
“Hey, we can’t pay you, but you’ll get great exposure if you play this event. It’s a big opportunity!”
Most artists hate that kind of offer — and rightly so. Because:
- They’ve invested in gear, rehearsal, songwriting.
- They’re providing real value.
- And exposure doesn’t pay rent.
You often hear artists reply:
“You’d never ask an electrician to fix your oven for free ‘for exposure.’ Why treat musicians like that?”
Well — the same logic applies in reverse.
When a professional team provides marketing, branding, distribution, or strategic support, they’re offering real labor and expertise. If they only get paid after you succeed, they’re effectively being asked to:
- Bet on your future for free,
- Take on your risk,
- And act like a silent partner without ownership.
That model can work — but it’s not scalable, and it’s not always fair.
Just like musicians should be paid for their work, so should the people helping them build their career — as long as it’s done with transparency and value.
The Core Insight
This isn’t about who deserves money first.
It’s about recognizing that everyone in the creative ecosystem has real costs, expertise, and time.
The ethical question isn’t:
“Should someone make money from artists?”
It’s:
“Are they delivering value that justifies the price — and being honest about it?”
When the answer is yes, that’s not exploitation. That’s collaboration.
Where Should the Moral Line Be?
Here’s a framework I like to think about this:
| Question | Healthy Practice | Unethical Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Is the service transparently priced? | Clear upfront costs, deliverables, no hidden clauses | Ambiguous fees, bait-and-switch pricing |
| Are expectations realistic? | Grounded promises based on track record | Overpromising fame, spins, or guaranteed success |
| Business wins regardless of artist’s outcome | Royalties, shared upside, or reputational stake | Business has no skin-in-the-game whatsoever |
| Does the service free up the artist? | Enables artist to focus on what they do best | Creates dependency or confusion |
| Can the artist walk away? | Fair cancellation and rights structure | Locked-in contracts, unclear ownership |
“Working with a hybrid label or service-based model isn’t about paying to be a star — it’s about outsourcing work you’d otherwise need to do yourself or hire someone else for. Just like a villa owner pays a painting company instead of doing it all themselves, artists can pay professionals to help them get better results faster.”
Final Thought: Why Managing Expectations in Music Projects Is So Complex
When a villa owner hires a painter, the scope of the project is clear:
- Paint this wall.
- Finish by Thursday.
- Use this color.
- Here’s what it should look like when it’s done.
The result is tangible, immediate, and measurable. You can say, “Yes, the house is now painted.”
But in the music industry, most projects — especially around development, promotion, and growth — are anything but straightforward.
Artist Projects Are Inherently Unpredictable
When working with an artist, the goal might be:
- Grow a fanbase.
- Get more streams.
- Build a brand.
- Land on editorial playlists.
These are not direct actions — they’re complex outcomes that depend on dozens of external, moving pieces:
- Algorithmic behavior on platforms like Spotify
- Timing of releases and competing drops
- Market trends and genre shifts
- Media interest, mood, and virality
- The artist’s consistency and engagement
- Even luck
You can do everything “right” — and the outcome might still underdeliver.
Why This Creates Misalignment
For many artists, especially emerging ones, expectations are shaped by vague success stories:
“She blew up overnight.”
“They got signed from just one song.”
They might unconsciously expect guaranteed results when they invest money. But music is not plumbing. You don’t plug a pipe and watch the water flow. You build a possibility space and try to increase your odds.
What Can Be Promised
Instead of outcomes, music professionals often deliver:
- Strategic guidance and industry knowledge
- A finished product that meets professional standards
- Visibility and positioning
- Time-saving systems
- Access to tools and opportunities
What we’re really selling is momentum and readiness, not fame.
💡 A Helpful Reframe
“Think of your music career like planting a garden. We can help till the soil, provide great seeds, and show you how to care for it — but we can’t control the weather. What we can do is give you the best chance of a strong harvest.”
This mismatch between expectations and the nature of the work is one of the biggest emotional challenges in artist-label relationships and what I believe causes the stigma in the first place. It’s why clear communication, transparency, and education are as important as the service itself.
The stigma comes from a fear of being exploited — and that’s valid. But the future of music is nuanced. There are multiple models: traditional, hybrid, and DIY. Again, what matters is transparency, integrity, and shared goals.
“Rexius Records take on risk by covering a financial part of the scope and takes a reputational risk. We have clear transparent contracts, work with integrity and share aligned incentives — because we want to be in it with you long term”.
If you have read this whole article, it probably means that you think for yourself, and exactly the ones we are looking for. Either for working in our team, or being an artist in our roster. Please get in touch!
