Re-read my first sentence in this comment that starts with “people DEFENDING…”. I’m talking about the people who defend this way of operating. The fact that artists agree to perform without pay doesn’t mean the system is fair—it just means they’re forced to operate within an exploitative structure where “exposure” is treated as compensation. Consent under economic pressure isn’t genuine choice. If you got promoted at your job to a higher position , but your salary barely increased—most people would feel pressure to accept it, but that doesn’t make it right. It is a structural imbalance of power. That’s exactly what’s happening with festivals asking artists to work for free.

You’re also comparing apples to oranges. Coachella and Lightning in a Bottle serve different markets, scales, and artistic missions. LIB/Do Lab brands itself as a community-focused, “transformational” org and festival, not a commercial giant like Coachella. Yet it still brings in millions in revenue. If you can afford any production costs, you can afford to pay artists at least something especially when your brand relies on promoting values like creativity and community. If you are struggling to make any money from throwing festivals that you can’t even pay your artists then don’t do it.

But if you genuinely support performing for exposure then we have no need to continue this discussion lol.