What Other Industry Does This to the People Who Create Its Product?

7 July 2026  ·  9 min read

Over the past eight posts in this series we have laid out exactly what Bluethumb's terms and conditions require of Australian artists. Commission on sales made through the platform. Commission on sales that did not go through the platform. No website or contact details on your own profile. Price parity restrictions across every other channel you sell through. Exclusivity clauses that cost you money even when no sale happens. A broad image licence. An algorithm that punishes artists who do not pay for visibility.

Now step back and ask the question that the art industry has been conditioned not to ask: does any of this happen in any other industry?

The tradesperson analogy

A plumber lists their business on a trades directory. The directory charges a listing fee or a lead fee when a customer contacts them through the platform. A customer finds the plumber on the directory and calls them directly to arrange a job. The job happens. The plumber invoices the customer. The directory has no claim on that invoice.

Under Bluethumb's model, that plumber would owe the directory full commission on the job - because the customer originally found them there. The directory would also prevent the plumber from listing their own website or phone number on their directory profile. And the plumber would be required to charge the same rate on all their other platforms as they charge on the directory - giving the directory effective pricing control over the plumber's entire business.

No trades directory in Australia operates this way. No tradie would sign up to a platform with these terms. No tradie would accept them as normal. But artists do - because they have been told that this is how the art world works.

The musician analogy

A musician is on Spotify. Spotify pays streaming royalties - a fraction of a cent per stream. A listener discovers the musician through Spotify and goes to their website to buy a concert ticket. Spotify has no claim on that ticket sale. The listener discovers the musician through Spotify and buys a vinyl record from the artist's own Bandcamp. Spotify has no claim on that sale either.

Under Bluethumb's model, Spotify would be entitled to full commission on every sale that originated with a Spotify discovery - regardless of whether the transaction happened on Spotify. Spotify would also prohibit the musician from mentioning their Bandcamp or tour dates on their Spotify profile. And Spotify would require the musician to price their vinyl on Bandcamp at no less than the Spotify merchandise price.

No musician accepts these terms from a streaming platform. They would be laughed out of the room. But artists accept equivalent terms from art marketplaces because the art industry has spent generations telling them that platforms are doing them a favour by listing their work.

The Airbnb analogy

A host lists their property on Airbnb. Airbnb charges the host approximately 3% of each booking as a service fee. A guest finds the property on Airbnb and books a return stay directly with the host. Airbnb has no claim on that direct booking.

Airbnb's algorithm does boost new listings to generate initial data before settling into engagement-based ranking - a mechanic almost identical to what artists report experiencing on Bluethumb. The similarity ends at the commission rate. Airbnb charges 3%. Bluethumb charges 44%.

The recruitment agency analogy

A company uses a recruitment agency to find a candidate. The agency charges a placement fee - typically 15% to 20% of the candidate's first-year salary, charged once at the time of placement. The agency does not charge the company on every subsequent salary payment the candidate receives. It does not restrict the company from advertising future roles on other platforms. It does not require the company to price roles at the same salary level as they offer through the agency.

One transaction. One fee. No ongoing extraction. No pricing control. No prohibition on alternative channels.

Why do artists accept what no other industry accepts?

Because the art industry spent 150 years training artists that gatekeepers deserve a percentage of everything. Because the gallery system - which is itself exploitative by modern standards - normalised commission rates of 40% to 60% as the cost of access. Because artists are frequently told, explicitly or implicitly, that they should be grateful for the platform, for the exposure, for the listing, for the chance to be seen.

Gratitude is not a commercial arrangement. Exposure does not pay studio rent. And a platform that takes 44% of every sale, claims commission on sales it had no part in, controls your pricing across every other channel, prevents you from sharing your contact details, gives you a licence over your own artwork images, and buries your work unless you pay more - that platform is not doing you a favour. It is extracting from you at every possible point and calling it a service.

What normal looks like

A fair platform charges a reasonable fee for the service it provides and nothing else. It does not claim commission on transactions it did not facilitate. It does not control your pricing elsewhere. It does not prevent you from building your own audience. It does not charge you more to be visible after already charging you commission on every sale.

Solene Haus charges zero commission. A flat membership fee. No price parity clause. No off-platform commission claims. No restriction on sharing your contact details. No pay-to-be-visible subscription tier on top of commission. HAUS Shield protecting every artwork from scraping and screenshot theft.

That is not a revolutionary proposition. It is just a fair one. The fact that it feels revolutionary in the art industry context tells you everything about how normalised the exploitation has become.

Frequently asked questions

Is Bluethumb's commission rate unusual compared to other industries?

Yes. At 44% inclusive of GST it is significantly higher than comparable platforms in other industries. Airbnb charges hosts approximately 3%. Etsy charges approximately 9-11% in combined fees. Recruitment agencies charge 15-20% once at placement. No comparable service industry platform charges 44% on ongoing transactions.

Are Bluethumb's off-platform commission claims standard practice?

No. The claim that a platform is entitled to commission on sales that did not go through the platform, because the buyer originally discovered the artist there, is not standard commercial practice in any other industry. It is a term specific to certain art platform agreements and it is not one that artists in other industries would be expected to accept.

Why do artists accept terms that other industries would reject?

Because the art industry has historically positioned platforms and galleries as gatekeepers whose access is something to be earned and paid for, rather than as service providers whose terms should be evaluated on commercial merit. That conditioning has made exploitative terms feel normal. They are not normal. They are unusual, and they deserve to be treated as such.

Solene Haus

The art world you deserved.

Zero commission. HAUS Shield image protection. Collector relationships that belong to you.