Some venues demand that artists pay them a percentage of their merch sales for the night. These so called “merch cuts” have become increasingly common, with venues demanding anywhere from 10% to more than 30% of a band’s merch sales. This is extortion, and it’s not sustainable for bands. There is no reason for venues to take a cut of a band’s merchandise sales, which have been manufactured, transported, and sold at their own expense.

Note: we do not consider it a "merch cut" in the rare cases when venues offer the artist the option of hiring a merch seller provided by the venue. This must be a fully voluntary option—e.g. the artist is able to sell their own merch but can choose to hire a venue merch seller.

“Pay to play” is the practice of venues charging bands a fee to play at their venues. Bands provide a service to venues, not the other way around, and should be paid fairly for that service. In no case should that ever become a negative balance, transferring all risk to the artist. We define pay to play as:

a) venues or festivals directly charging artists to perform

b) venues or festivals charging an application fee to perform

c) venues or festivals forcing artists to purchase tickets at the artist’s expense  

“Door polling” is the practice of venues asking patrons to say at the door which band on a bill they have come to see, and then adjusting payment for a band based on those responses. This is not fair to artists, does nothing to help build community, and is a practice that should be rejected. Payment deals must be transparent and negotiated at the time of the show booking, not determined by door polling 

The financial agreement between venues and bands should be clear, stated clearly before the show is confirmed, and adhered to through settlement at the end of a show. That means that artists should receive clear terms for payment, including exact terms for guarantees and door splits, itemized expenses that will be deducted from final payment, method of payment, and time of payment. Too often bands are not given clear written guarantees for what the terms are of their performance at a venue, which leaves them vulnerable to unfair settlements or hidden charges or other ways that they come away from a night of hard work with too little or even no compensation.

We view the sample advance created by Twin Cities United Performers as a good template for the questions to be answered by venues in a transparent contract ahead of a show.