4 ms·

Apple isn't paying artists who perform at its stores

19 points by vector_spaces 8y ago

Grustaf 8y ago
Unless they forced them to work for free, or promised them money and then reneged, what is the problem? If the artists agreed, it was probably because they felt the exposure was worth giving up their time.
- vector_spaces 8y ago
  Unfortunately for artists, although opportunities for "exposure" are nearly endless, they don't pay the bills. Part of the problem here is that, as the article mentions, Apple is using these artists to improve its optics when it comes to diversity. Apple can almost certainly afford to pay these artists a fair wage. So why does it choose to put them in the difficult position of passing up a collaboration with Apple, vs. putting on a show with a questionable return value for the artist? Not being willing to offer fair compensation for the labor and costs these artists incur to put on these performances, especially given how difficult it is to survive in places like the Bay Area as an up and coming artist, it seems a bit like Apple is getting the better end of the deal here. Especially when, as the article mentions, the audience is more focused on getting an iPad repaired or a new iPhone charger -- they aren't the engaged audiences that strengthen a fanbase.
  - Grustaf 8y ago
    The opportunities for exposure at places like Apple are far from endless. But in any case, if you don’t think the exposure is worth your time, then just don’t do it. Pretty simple. We are talking about grownups here. Clearly the thought it WAS worth it. And the argument that Apple can afford to pay is silly. They could also afford to give me a free Mac Pro. That doesn’t mean anything. The in store entertainment budget might not be flexible, who knows.
jrnichols 8y ago
"And yet, Apple didn't pay any of the artists who performed or spoke that night—at least not in cash, Nzinga says. Instead, they were given Apple products." So they were compensated in another way. Ah. This changes things substantially in my eyes, and makes the headline rather misleading. Then they're trying to conflate diversity efforts with this issue. Doesn't quite work. Ask how many coffee shops pay performers. usually the answer is "not very many," and they have a tip jar sitting out front.
- musicale 8y ago
  If Apple has figured out how to pay featured iPhone photographers, they can probably figure out how to pay other featured artists in cash as well. Though personally I'd probably take that Apple Watch Series 3 or an Apple TV 4th gen. ;-) I wonder if you have to pay tax on it (e.g. sales tax?) Still might be OK; then they could change the headline to "Apple charges artists to perform at its stores."

19 points by vector_spaces 8y ago

Unless they forced them to work for free, or promised them money and then reneged, what is the problem? If the artists agreed, it was probably because they felt the exposure was worth giving up their time.

vector_spaces 8y ago
Unfortunately for artists, although opportunities for "exposure" are nearly endless, they don't pay the bills. Part of the problem here is that, as the article mentions, Apple is using these artists to improve its optics when it comes to diversity. Apple can almost certainly afford to pay these artists a fair wage. So why does it choose to put them in the difficult position of passing up a collaboration with Apple, vs. putting on a show with a questionable return value for the artist? Not being willing to offer fair compensation for the labor and costs these artists incur to put on these performances, especially given how difficult it is to survive in places like the Bay Area as an up and coming artist, it seems a bit like Apple is getting the better end of the deal here. Especially when, as the article mentions, the audience is more focused on getting an iPad repaired or a new iPhone charger -- they aren't the engaged audiences that strengthen a fanbase.
- Grustaf 8y ago
  The opportunities for exposure at places like Apple are far from endless. But in any case, if you don’t think the exposure is worth your time, then just don’t do it. Pretty simple. We are talking about grownups here. Clearly the thought it WAS worth it. And the argument that Apple can afford to pay is silly. They could also afford to give me a free Mac Pro. That doesn’t mean anything. The in store entertainment budget might not be flexible, who knows.

jrnichols 8y ago

"And yet, Apple didn't pay any of the artists who performed or spoke that night—at least not in cash, Nzinga says. Instead, they were given Apple products." So they were compensated in another way. Ah. This changes things substantially in my eyes, and makes the headline rather misleading. Then they're trying to conflate diversity efforts with this issue. Doesn't quite work. Ask how many coffee shops pay performers. usually the answer is "not very many," and they have a tip jar sitting out front.

musicale 8y ago
If Apple has figured out how to pay featured iPhone photographers, they can probably figure out how to pay other featured artists in cash as well. Though personally I'd probably take that Apple Watch Series 3 or an Apple TV 4th gen. ;-) I wonder if you have to pay tax on it (e.g. sales tax?) Still might be OK; then they could change the headline to "Apple charges artists to perform at its stores."