Super Bowl Halftime Show EXPOSED: Artists Work In Exchange For Exposure. Is it worth it?

Have you ever wondered how much artists are compensated for their performances at the Super Bowl halftime show? While the show itself is one of the most-watched television events in the United States, the artists who take the stage don’t actually get paid for their performances. Instead, they work in exchange for exposure. But is this exposure really worth it? In this blog, we’ll take a closer look at the Super Bowl halftime show and the artists who perform, and explore whether or not the exposure they receive is truly valuable. We’ll also consider the potential impact of this “work for exposure” model on the music industry as a whole. Join us as we dive into the controversial world of the Super Bowl halftime show and the artists who participate.

Super Bowl Halftime Show EXPOSED: Artists Work In Exchange For Exposure. Is it worth it?

As millions of Americans are tuning in to watch a Super Bowl this Sunday like raving onlookers in an ancient Coliseum waiting to witness a clash between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles or to watch and subsequently talk about the halftime commercials, some of the most expensive ad spots on TV. A bomb I can’t help but to think about how the Super Bowl is the biggest Spotlight for artists exploitation. It’s a spectacle unto itself with its front and center over the top production, complicated choreography, dancers, vocal performances, fireworks, lighting, costume design, and a surprise guest or two. Yet while everyone is sitting back and enjoying the game, marveling at the sophisticated musical arrangement, I’m wondering why none of the artists are paid. None as in zero. Did you know this? Sadly, it’s been this way forever. So, it got me thinking, wherever there is big business, name brand association, the allure of attention, future rewards, and undetermined revenue, there will always be a line of artists eagerly waiting to be exploited. We’re not talking about some up-and-coming musical acts that could use the exposure to jumpstart their careers, I’m talking about established chart-topping artists, Grammy-winning Rock and Roll Hall of Famers with massive fans and millions of albums sold. That’s right, your favorite acts like Eminem, Maroon 5, Beyonce, Usher, Coldplay, and this year’s headliner Rihanna all working for free. And why would they need to work for exposure? Here’s what we know.

Artists Work for Free

It’s 2023 and the Super Bowl isn’t paying its halftime talent. A yellow flag should be thrown – the refs, you and me, are blind. Something is wrong here. According to the National Retail Federation, the Super Bowl is likely to generate over 16 billion in nationwide spending with multiple revenue streams like partnerships, tickets, sponsorships, ad sales, merch, and local cities bidding to host the event. They aren’t going broke. It is estimated that NFL will make over 60 million from ticket sales alone, advertisers will spend up to seven million dollars on a 30-second ad clip, and major TV networks will pay close to 3 billion for the rights to broadcast the NFL games, including the Super Bowl. If they’re swimming in cash, why does none of it go to the creative talent? Is this truly artist exploitation or simply good business?

Historical Context

Let’s take a look back. During the decade from the 1960s to the 70s, the Super Bowl was more about entertaining the existing crowd rather than grabbing new eyes through television. In the beginning, college marching bands had the spotlight. The first Super Bowl, held on January 15, 1967, with the Green Bay Packers against the Kansas City Chiefs, celebrated halftime with the Grambling State University Tiger Marching band, followed the next year by seven Miami area high school bands. What started with humble beginnings soon became a stage for celebrities and well-known talent. By 1972, the halftime show featured American actress Carol Channing and the queen of jazz, Ella Fitzgerald. But by the 90s, the halftime show was starting to lose viewership. The singing group Up with People had performed four Super Bowls. Much of the Up with People organization was backed by corporate America, which wanted to promote a business-friendly image. At the time, many believed it was a deliberate propaganda effort to turn people away from the liberal counterculture of the 60s and 70s, a time when race riots and feminism were on the rise. The performances weren’t resonating with the cultural, political, and ideological shifts felt by the average citizen. In 1992, the Super Bowl would air on the CBS network and, at the time, Fox, a rival network, aired an episode of the sketch comedy series “In Living Color” during the halftime period, viewership of the rest of the game dropped by an astonishing 22%. In other words, “In Living Color” had pulled 22 million viewers from the game. Counter-programming against the Super Bowl had grown to give viewers an alternative to the halftime show with some networks airing one-off special presentations and previews of new series. The NFL decided it wasn’t going to sit back and watch their views drop. They sought to book in-demand celebrities and pop music acts and the year later the King of Pop himself Michael Jackson was set to take the stage. Leading up to the performance, the NFL had been through back and forth negotiations with Michael and his team who are asking for a million-dollar appearance fee. Although the amount was denied, the NFL and Frito-Lay did agree to make a base donation of a hundred thousand dollars to Michael’s charity to heal the world Foundation. They also agreed to give commercial time during the game to the foundation’s Heal LA Campaign, which sought to help LA youth by providing drug education, health care, and mentorship. Jackson’s 1993 performance was iconic and set the stage for other large acts to follow. Billboard reported that Jackson’s album “Dangerous” rose from number 88 to 41 on the Billboard 200 chart, selling over 50,000 units for the next six weeks straight since the show. Other big names like Bruno Mars, Janet Jackson, Diana Ross, Shakira, Lady Gaga, and more have all entertained during halftime, and all of them weren’t paid. According to the Daily Mail, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, “We pay the production costs for the halftime show. There is no fee for the artist. Some artists even provide their own funding to make their shows more memorable. The Weeknd, for example, reportedly added seven million dollars of his own money to create what he envisioned.”

Is It Worth It?

So why does it matter that these artists aren’t getting paid if they’re willing to put on a show? It’s something that all creatives know too well – they trade their craft, time, skills, and energy in exchange for exposure. And if these major artists are willing to work for free, it gives the NFL an excuse to not pay other creatives working to make their show special. For example, even some dancers go unpaid as the NFL recruits them as volunteers. Taja O’Reilly, a dancer and athlete, spoke up after experiencing the 2022 Super Bowl. Riley shared with Dance Magazine that there were eight mandatory rehearsals, one non-disclosure agreement, and zero pay. Instead, dancers would spend hours upon hours perfecting their moves in exchange for the exposure opportunity of a lifetime. In other words, they get to put the word “Super Bowl” on their resume. Is it a smart business decision for the NFL to not pay creatives? Of course. Instead of having to pay millions of dollars on top of production, insurance, and travel fees, they can now add more money to their profit. It’s genius, really. If you can convince an artist to work for exposure dollars, you get to put on a great show and keep the cash for yourself. Unfortunately, it sets a precedent for the rest of the industry and trickles down to the smaller creators. There are no guarantees when working for exposure. Although it is reported that music streaming after the 15-minute show increases, such as Shakira’s Spotify streams after performance increasing by 230% and JLo’s by 335%, nothing is truly guaranteed. An artist could give a lackluster performance, reach the wrong audience, or simply have an off night. Artists are essentially gambling their time in hopes of a return. Not to mention, creatives spend a huge amount of time and money to master the craft. There could also be a fear of missing out – you know, FOMO. If an artist says no to performing at the Super Bowl, it’s likely that another artist will say yes. There will always be someone willing to do it for less, but it doesn’t always mean that’s the right thing to do. Plus, if the halftime show is only open to artists who can afford to work for free, which…

Frequently Asked Questions about the Super Bowl Halftime Show and Artists Working for Exposure

Q: What is the Super Bowl Halftime Show?

A: The Super Bowl Halftime Show is a highly anticipated musical performance that takes place during the halftime break of the Super Bowl, one of the most watched sporting events in the United States.

Q: What is the controversy surrounding artists working for exposure during the Super Bowl Halftime Show?

A: Some artists have spoken out about being asked to perform at the Super Bowl Halftime Show in exchange for exposure rather than payment, leading to a debate about the value of exposure versus fair compensation for their work.

Q: Is it worth it for artists to work for exposure at the Super Bowl Halftime Show?

A: This is a subjective question and artists have differing opinions on the matter. Some see the exposure from performing at such a high-profile event as valuable for their careers, while others believe that they should be fairly compensated for their work regardless of the potential exposure.

I hope you find useful my article Super Bowl Halftime Show EXPOSED: Artists Work In Exchange For Exposure. Is it worth it?, I also recommend you to read my other posts in my blog.

If you need help with anything join the community or do not hesitate to contact me.

Please consider joining my newsletter or following me on social media if you like my content.