No, wait, hear me out!
It’s easy to assume that anyone who offers to pay an artist “in exposure” is a jackass and a huckster. And the vast majority of times, that’s true! However, it’s worth remembering that there are a certain, very specific, set of circumstances when it might not be. Keep an eye our for those times, it could end up being a benefit instead of the wrong-headed insult it usually is.
Exposure can actually help solve some stuff for you
Here’s why – firstly, let’s look at the world we occupy: there are many things that are mostly true for most artists:
- Mental availability & reach are both super-important, and you basically can’t have enough of either. Getting to talk to a wider audience is something that should be happening all the time.
- Your channels and resources can only reach a finite audience. You can’t afford every piece of publicity you want (no-one can), and algorithms inherently limit you from reaching too far into new, potential audiences.
- Your time is both finite and valuable. If there’s an opportunity to gain the benefit of something that would normally take up time that you’d rather use for something else, that can be profitable.
Exposure is awesome!
Secondly, remember that exposure isn’t actually a dirty word – the entire PR industry only exists (and gets paid, often very well) because exposure is not only valuable, but measurably so. If the jackasses and hucksters hadn’t misused it so often, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Exposure rules.
The only scenario where it’s worth getting paid in exposure
So, bearing all that in mind, my thing is that if all the following things are true, getting paid in exposure “can” be worthwhile:
- The exposure will reach people who EITHER don’t already know you AND/OR their exposure reaches your most desirable audience. If it’s basically the same audience you already have, it’s not worth it.
- There’s a mechanism to get paid if their exposure doesn’t deliver against expectations. Why should you shoulder all the risk? Anyone who asks you to do that is unrealistic and not to be trusted.
- Their content includes your distinctive assets more obviously than their own. This is a big one – if you are getting paid in exposure, then YOU should be getting the exposure. If you just pop up in their content as a bit-player, you’re just appearing in their ads for free. If, however, it’s set up so that it looks less like a them thing and more like a you thing – with your logos or colours or fonts or whatever – then it might have benefit. Your brand assets are the thing that audiences use as shorthand to remember you, so these 100% would have to be prominent.
- Their content drives a beneficial outcome for you. Seems self-evident, but what I mean here is that there is an outcome beyond just ‘views’ and that you can track – that might be email signups, followers, whatever. Hell, get a tracking pixel up in there to be sure.
- They are authentically passionate about your work. Another biggie for me – unless they are actually, demonstrably, and personally committed to your success as well as theirs, you’re just getting used.
- The value of the content they will produce is greater than or equal to the potential paycheck you would expect. This is a sanity check – don’t forget their time and skill has value too. If you think it’s about the same (or more) than the market value of what you’re doing for them, then that’s a fair exchange and a good deal.
Yeah, fine. BUT.
The problem is that 99.9% of people who offer payment for exposure are basically just dicks about the whole thing.
Ultimately, both the concept and anyone offering it are probably best avoided. However, if you ever come across someone willing to offer all of the above, then don’t dismiss it out of hand.