Over the years, the fine art and commercial art communities have slowly wised up, learning how to run their businesses as businesses and saying no to free work. So, why are these famous artists working for free when it comes to the Super Bowl? The NFL surely isn't struggling for money, so shouldn't they get paid? Should any artist, famous or unknown, work for exposure?
In this video from YouTube channel The Futur, Chris Do explains the evolution of the Super Bowl halftime show. He also explains some of the possible reasons why famous artists provide entertainment to millions for free during the Superbowl halftime shows. By some estimates, searches for Rihanna's cosmetics brand "Fenty Beauty" shot up by 833% after her performance in which she featured the brand. Rihanna has also struck a multi-million dollar deal with Apple for an Apple TV+ documentary, Apple Music featured playlists, interviews, and more as part of the deal.
In the video, one can see that Chris isn't too comfortable with the idea of doing work for exposure. The channel is centered on teaching creatives how to earn their true worth. However, in the right circumstances, bartering can be the right decision too. Trading your time and expertise in exchange for exposure might be the right decision when you have a product or service that will bring in money even while you sleep.
What do you think? Is it always a bad decision to work for exposure, or are there exceptions?