Statements from Board Members: Voting on Platform Revenue Model

Earlier this month, Subvert's elected board voted (6-0-0) in favor of adoption an Optional Contributions model instead of an artist and label platform fee. Here are statements from each board representative about their decision.

Freya Yamamoto (Label Representative) (YES)

My rational in voting yes for moving forward with testing the Optional Contributions Revenue Model was to look at revenue options that feel inline with the spirit of Subvert and help to differentiate Subvert from other marketplace platforms that have static fees that are paid for by the artists / labels only.I don't believe this is necessarily the final revenue model for Subvert and may even prove out to not work for Subvert as a platform but I do think it has the most differentiation and allows for Subvert to look at creating a platform where fans can support artists and the co-op as they see fit and that artists and labels can also reap rewards for encouraging the use of Subvert over competitors.If everyday is Friday then more fans will be willing to give more to artists and know that their purchases go to supporting those artists they love and the platform that enables them to connect is supported by those able to do so.

Austin Robey (Worker Representative) (YES)

This is a consequential decision, and I'm grateful it had the opportunity to be discussed at length through and become our first official board vote.I created this proposal and voted in the affirmative because I believe this model gives Subvert the greatest chances of success. I think it will help us grow the platform and co-op membership, create a stronger value proposition, and help us stand out beyond being just a co-op alternative platform.

But ultimately, I believe in the solidaristic generosity of our community. We've already seen this in action. Half of our artist and label members choose to pay for a zine, when they can claim it for free. Half of purchases on Bandcamp pay more than the asking price. What this reveals to me is that generosity is baked into this community. I believe there is a desire to support community-owned artist infrastructure.

Also, this feels like a great place for Subvert to lead. Our sphere of innovation is less technical and more about innovating business models and organizational logic. This means we should think critically about what our cooperative nature allows us to do that would be much harder for traditional founder and investor-owned corporations. Our platform fee structure feels like the perfect place to be bold.

I want us to show through our actions that we are creative enough to be financially viable without extracting from artists. We have to continue obsessing over financial self-sustainability. I don't believe the Optional Contributions model is in conflict with that goal. I believe it advances our odds of success.It's true that this model might not work. We won't know until we have tried and measured the results. That's exactly why this proposal was drafted as a time-boxed experiment with clear evaluation criteria. We can test whether our assumptions hold up and pivot if needed.

I want to acknowledge the members who expressed skepticism about this proposal — Nuri, Zonrqui, Hank, and others. I respect your perspectives and encourage continued feedback. This disagreement and diversity of opinions is a sign of healthy democracy. We never want our democratic governance to rubber stamp ideas from leadership. This productive tension within our community makes us stronger.

Hannah Lee Benson (Artist Representative) (YES)

Sharing my perspective, it'll be short since I feel like so much has already been said, but I think the optional contribution will really make Subvert stand out from the competition and be a concrete incentive for artists and labels to promote their projects. It feels bold, and I think it's the perfect time to be so!

Sean Adams (Worker Representative) (YES)

I voted in favor of testing the optional contribution model for a number of reasons, some of which overlap a bit:

First and foremost, I do believe this model can work for Subvert in a revenue-positive way. This is a model that has been applied successfully for some other transactional platforms (notably Gofundme and Actblue) that, while they're in completely different verticals and have completely different goals, I believe share some key similarities to Subvert, namely centering the actual recipient of the money with the platform acting as an enabler for that transaction.

That being said, the second reason I voted this way was because I think this model might be able serve as a very clear differentiator between Subvert and others within our vertical (other digital music marketplaces).

Thirdly, since this model makes clear that we're not deducting any platform fee from the value of the sale, but rather asking for an add-on contribution, it actualizes one of our core ethos of putting artists first, and doing that over making Subvert an exercise in hyperoptimizing for extraction of profit (which is not to downplay the need for our eventual model to be sustainable).

Fourthly, I feel good about the test parameters and the way that the ability to pivot to a different model if this one doesn't work is baked in to this test. We'll have to learn through the test if the generosity and solidarity we've already seen within the Subvert community is something we'll also see from the public at large as we open up the platform - but the framework of this test gives us the room to gather that information and adjust where we go with developing a sustainable financial model if we don't see what we're hoping to see.

Nick Austin (Supporter Representative) (YES)

While I initially had reservations about the effectiveness of this model, hearing perspectives from the Subvert community (and directly from fellow board members) made it clear that this proposal best positions us to stand out at launch. Moving forward on bold, unconventional steps is exactly the mindset we need at this time. Though much has already been said within the board, I believe this model best reflects the ethos around Subvert, and should be championed by the co-op.

Iz (Artist Representative) (YES)

I voted yes on the 0% fees / optional contributions proposal — but with some caution. The biggest challenge here is sustainability: unlike a fixed fee model, this approach carries uncertainty around whether enough supporters will contribute consistently to cover  operating needs. The unpredictability is real, and it’s something to watch closely as we test and evaluate this model.That said, I ultimately believe this experiment reflects the radical ethos of Subvert at its best. As one member (EROCY) put it, “0% fees is a very simple and powerful way to communicate the ethos of this community… it turns the conversation into why wouldn’t you sign up and give it a go?” That framing captures what makes Subvert different: we are building something non-extractive, artist-first, and community-owned.So my vote was “yes” because this model, even if risky, has the potential to differentiate Subvert, grow the ecosystem, and prove that another way of organizing is possible. The trial period gives us space to test, learn, and adjust if needed.