Merch Cuts Under Fire in 2026: Crafting Fair Venue Merchandise Policies

The Merch Table Showdown in 2026

A Decades-Old Debate Reignited

For years, it’s been an open secret in live music: many venues take a percentage of artists’ merchandise sales, a practice often called a “merch cut.” In 2026, that once-quiet arrangement has exploded into public debate. Artists large and small are speaking out on social media, shedding light on what was long a backstage contention, as detailed in Pitchfork’s analysis of artist merch cuts and their coverage of the Virginia amphitheater callout. Fans have caught wind and are increasingly outraged to learn that when they buy a $40 tour t-shirt, a chunk might go to the venue instead of the band. According to reports from NME on venue campaigns, this realization has sparked significant backlash. NME further notes that this backlash has put venue operators in the hot seat, forcing a re-examination of policies that date back decades. What began in the 1970s and ’80s as a way for bars and promoters to claim a share of booming band merch sales, a history explored in Pitchfork’s deep dive on merch origins, is now under intense scrutiny from an industry striving to recover and evolve.

Why Merchandise Matters More Than Ever

Today’s touring landscape makes merch income a lifeline for artists. With streaming royalties minimal and touring costs soaring (fuel, hotels, visas, you name it), selling merch at shows is often the difference between breaking even or going bust. As highlighted by NME regarding financial survival, this is especially true for emerging bands: a small support act might be paid only a token fee for the gig, so the night’s hoodie and vinyl sales cover gas to the next city. Even mid-level headliners increasingly rely on merch profits to offset slim margins from ticket sales. As one Pollstar report noted, “merchandise is the difference between breaking even or losing money” for many acts on tour, a sentiment echoed in NME’s coverage of artist statements. In short, every dollar of merch counts towards artists’ survival in 2026 – which is why venue merch fees that skim 15–30% of those dollars feel like a personal threat to their livelihood.

Venues at a Crossroads

Venue operators aren’t blind to these pressures – they feel their own. After the devastation of 2020’s shutdowns and the slugglish recovery, many venues are grappling with higher operating costs (think inflation in utilities, security, insurance) and lingering debt. As Hypebot reports on growing calls to end fees, every revenue stream matters for keeping the lights on. Hypebot also notes that from the venue’s perspective, the merch table sits on their property using their space, utilities, and often staff – so taking a cut has been a common business practice to help cover those expenses. Loudwire explains that this has been standard procedure for years. Now, however, with public sentiment turning against merch commissions, venues face a tough balancing act. Do they hold the line to collect much-needed income, or adapt and risk short-term revenue for long-term goodwill? In 2026, this crossroads is forcing venues of all sizes to rethink how they handle merch sales, lest they damage artist relationships or spark fan boycotts. The good news is that forward-thinking venues are finding creative solutions to navigate this challenge.

Why Venues Take Merchandise Cuts (And Why Artists Resist)

The Origins of Merchandise Commissions

How did we get here? The notion of venues taking a slice of t-shirt and album sales is not new – it traces back at least 40–50 years. One origin story points to the late 1970s, when arena rock and tour merchandise boomed in popularity, as discussed in Pitchfork’s historical overview. Promoters and venue owners in major markets like L.A. and New York started demanding a share of the lucrative new “souvenir” trade in exchange for hosting the concerts. Another version has its roots in the 1980s hardcore punk scene: straightedge bands playing in bar venues weren’t boosting alcohol sales (since their fans didn’t drink), so club owners struck deals to take a portion of merch profits as compensation, a dynamic also referenced by Pitchfork. Whatever its beginnings, by the 1990s and 2000s the “hall fee” or merch percentage had become standard at many established venues and festivals. It was often quietly baked into contracts: artists grudgingly accepted that if they wanted to sell merch on-site, the house would take, say, 20%. This practice wasn’t much discussed publicly – until recently.

Venue Justifications: Space, Staffing, and Tax

From the venue operator’s viewpoint, merch cuts aren’t arbitrary gouging but a business offset. Venues argue that hosting merch sales incurs costs that need covering. Common justifications include:

• Retail Space & Setup: Dedicating lobby or floor space for merch means giving up area that could serve other uses. The venue often provides tables, fixtures, and prime locations for the sales, essentially acting as a retail shop for the artist.
• Staffing & Sellers: If the venue supplies personnel to staff the merch booth or security to monitor the area, those labor costs add up. Some mid-sized and large venues prefer to use their own sellers who know the venue layout and POS systems. In those cases, venues see a percentage cut as akin to paying a commission to themselves for handling the sales operation, as noted in Pitchfork’s breakdown of venue costs.
• Taxes & Administration: Selling goods on-site triggers obligations like local sales tax, entertainment tax, or merch licenses. In certain jurisdictions, the venue (as the host facility) could be held responsible if taxes on merch sales aren’t properly reported, a complexity highlighted by Pitchfork regarding tax burdens. To simplify this, some venues insist on running merch sales through their system. The flip side is they then take a cut for shouldering the accounting and tax compliance burden.
• Utilities & Transaction Fees: Processing hundreds of card transactions at the merch stand isn’t free – venues point to the electricity for lights/PCs and the credit card processing fees on those sales. A slice of merch revenue helps cover these indirect costs of making sales possible.

Viewed through this lens, a moderate merch fee can sound like a reasonable cost-sharing: the artist supplies the goods and keeps most revenue, while the venue earns something for facilitating the marketplace. In theory, it’s a business arrangement where both sides benefit – as long as the cut stays modest and the artist’s efforts still pay off. However, theory and reality have diverged as those cuts grew.

Standard Rates and Rising Tensions

What percentages are we talking about? Typical merch fees have generally ranged from around 10% on the low end up to 25–30% at major venues. This range is frequently cited in Pitchfork’s investigation into fee structures and is a key consideration when managing artist merchandise sales at festivals. Often the rate is split by product type: a common arrangement might be 20% of “soft goods” (apparel, posters, etc.) and a smaller percent or flat $0 on recorded media (CDs, vinyl), since labels already take a big share of music sales. But policies vary widely. Some venues historically pushed even higher cuts – artists have reported demands of 35–40% in extreme cases at certain arenas or amphitheaters, according to Pitchfork and NME’s reporting on coalition statements. It’s easy to see why that sparks outrage: at a 40% rate, the venue could earn more from the band’s t-shirt sales than the band itself, a disparity highlighted by NME.

Most venues are not so draconian; a 15–20% merch cut has been an unspoken norm at many theaters and clubs. Yet even that “standard” is now being questioned. Artists point out they already pay to produce the merch and often bring their own sellers, so venue cuts feel like double-dipping. The louder these complaints grew, the more the long-standing tension over merch splits boiled over. By the mid-2020s, what used to be begrudgingly tolerated by bands turned into open resistance as costs squeezed everyone. In the section below, we’ll see how artists and their allies have pushed back – and how many venues are rethinking the status quo in response.

The Artist’s Perspective: Why Merch Fees Face Backlash

Razor-Thin Touring Margins

Live music might seem glamorous, but experienced touring artists will attest that profit margins on the road are razor thin in 2026. After the pandemic lull, costs have come roaring back with a vengeance. Fuel expenses for tours jumped significantly, hotels and food are pricier due to inflation, and for international acts, visa fees spiked by over 200% in 2023 for U.S. tours, as reported by AP News on visa cost increases. Crucially, income from music sales has shifted – streaming pays pennies, so artists depend heavily on live shows and merch to make a living. This reliance is detailed in Loudwire’s article on why venues take cuts and further emphasized in Loudwire’s coverage of artist refusals. In this financial reality, merchandise money isn’t “extra” gravy; it’s often the only gravy. A band might clear more net income from one night of merch sales than from their share of the door tickets, once the promoter, agent, manager, and crew are all paid.

For support acts, the calculus is especially stark. Many small touring bands get paid a token fee (or no fee at all) to open for a headliner, essentially touring for exposure. They survive by hustling merch – every $20 t-shirt sold might be gas money to the next city. Venue commissions directly threaten this survival strategy. David Martin, CEO of the Featured Artists Coalition, highlighted that for new acts precariously balancing budgets, “merchandise is the difference between breaking even or losing money.” This critical point was underscored in NME’s interview with Martin and reiterated in further NME coverage. From the artist side, then, a venue taking 20% of merch can literally be taking the last bit of profit that keeps a tour viable.

“It Feels Like You’re Being Robbed”

Musicians have not minced words about how merch cuts feel to them. Many see it as an unfair tax on their hard work – one instituted by those who aren’t part of the creative process or touring grind. One U.S. indie band testified in early 2023 that “we’re providing all of the customers and yet [we]receive no cut from [the venue’s]many ancillary revenue streams”, a quote featured in Hypebot’s report on growing artist resistance. They pointed out the one-sided nature of the deal: venues don’t share bar profits or ticket fees with artists, so why should artists share their shirt sales with venues? Jeff Rosenstock, a veteran punk artist, went so far as to publish a spreadsheet of dozens of venues’ merch fees from his tour, stoking fan outrage at those percentages, as documented by Pitchfork. UK rock band Architects bluntly suggested that bands should strike rather than accept “insane” merch cuts, a bold stance covered by Loudwire and Loudwire’s follow-up on strike suggestions. Other artists have occasionally boycotted their own merch tables – choosing not to sell merch at certain shows to avoid paying a high commission, as noted in Loudwire’s reporting and Loudwire’s explanation of how cuts work, even though that means losing income.

From the artist’s perspective, the resentment runs deep because merch feels like their money – fans buy those items specifically to support the band. When a venue takes a slice, some artists liken it to a shakedown. To quote one singer, “It feels like you’re dealing with the mob,” when describing aggressive collections by venues that won’t let a band leave until they’ve handed over the merch cut at night’s end, an experience recounted in Pitchfork’s feature and Pitchfork’s discussion on tax burdens. That sentiment, once shared only in tour vans and green rooms, is now broadcast all over Twitter and Instagram, fueling a movement to reclaim merch revenue.

Fan Support and Public Sentiment

Crucially, fans have joined the chorus in 2026. As news articles and artists’ posts have spread, concertgoers are realizing that the $50 they drop at the merch booth doesn’t all go to their beloved artist – and they “hate it”, as David Martin of the FAC notes in NME’s article on fan reactions and NME’s further reporting. Fans view merch as a direct way to support musicians, so venue cuts are seen as an underhanded siphoning of that support. Some fans now deliberately buy merch only from artists’ online stores or at off-site events to ensure 100% goes to the band. Others, when they learn a venue has no merch fee, praise and publicize that venue, driving goodwill (and likely more sales that night, since they know it truly helps the artist).

This shift in public sentiment puts additional pressure on venues. A practice that operated in the shadows is now front-and-center, and being perceived as unfair to artists can hurt a venue’s reputation. In an age of social media, a single post about “Venue X taking 25% of a small band’s merch money” can spark hundreds of angry comments and even press coverage. In short, the balance of sympathy lies firmly with artists on this issue. Venues that ignore that risk alienating not just performers, but the public that sustains live music. As we’ll explore next, many venues – from independent clubs to global corporations – are responding by rethinking or scrapping merch fees altogether.

2026: Merch Fees Under Fire and Industry Responses

Artists Shine a Spotlight (and Name Names)

The current upheaval can be traced back to artists’ growing transparency. In late 2022 and 2023, a wave of performers began calling out venues publicly for their merch policies. Social media became the battleground: artists like Jeff Rosenstock, Tomberlin, Japanese Breakfast, Jack Antonoff and countless others shared specific instances of venues demanding hefty cuts, as chronicled by Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s coverage of specific callouts. They even named names – something practically unheard of in earlier years when bands feared industry backlash. For example, singer-songwriter Tomberlin’s detailed post about the Wolf Trap amphitheater in Virginia (a respected venue that nonetheless was taking a merch commission) went viral, a story detailed in Pitchfork’s report. These firsthand accounts galvanize fans and fellow musicians, creating a sense of enough is enough across the industry.

This artist-led shine of light was a game changer. It’s not that merch cuts were new, but by dragging them into the open, artists forced everyone – including venue owners – to acknowledge the elephant in the room. In the words of one venue manager, “the discussion regarding punitive fees on merchandise sales is now very much a public one,” as quoted in NME. With musicians openly encouraging each other to negotiate or refuse unfair terms, as seen in Pitchfork’s interviews with artists and Pitchfork’s analysis of negotiation tactics, the dynamic is shifting. No venue wants to be lambasted online as greedy or hostile to artists, especially when artist relations and hospitality are key to booking great talent repeatedly. The result: many venues are feeling public pressure to defend or change their policies in 2026.

Campaigns for Change: #MyMerch and 100% Venues

Alongside individual artists’ outcry, formal campaigns have emerged to push for industry-wide change. One prominent effort is the #MyMerch movement spearheaded by the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW). This campaign calls on venues, festivals, and promoters to pledge to become “100% Venues” – meaning they take 0% of merch sales, a goal outlined in Hypebot’s coverage of the pledge. By late 2023, over 125 North American venues had signed the #MyMerch pledge, and that number keeps growing, according to Hypebot. The idea is to create a public directory of artist-friendly venues, using positive reinforcement (and a bit of implied shame for those not on the list) to shift norms. Fans and booking agents can check this directory and support venues that have sworn off merch commissions, as described in Pitchfork’s overview of the directory and Pitchfork’s notes on enforcement.

In the UK, a similar initiative led by the Featured Artists Coalition launched the “100% Venues” directory in early 2022, reported by NME. Hundreds of UK clubs immediately joined – by August 2022, the FAC reported over 400 venues on board, ranging from 100-cap pubs to 3,000-capacity halls and major arts centers, as detailed in NME’s update on the campaign and NME’s list of participating venues. The UK’s Music Venue Trust (MVT) also backed the campaign, noting that actually most grassroots venues in the UK already didn’t charge merch fees historically, a point clarified in Pollstar’s analysis of indie venues and Pollstar’s discussion on price hikes. The directory simply spotlighted their good practice and urged larger venues to follow suit. The FAC and UMAW efforts have given artists a unified voice and provided media-friendly story hooks – headlines about “Hundreds of venues pledge no merch fees” grabbed attention, as seen in NME and NME’s follow-up, fueling the sense that the industry is moving toward a new standard of fairness.

Venues Respond: Dropping Fees and Finding Solutions

Perhaps the most striking development by 2026 is how many venues have proactively changed their merch policies in response to the outcry. Independent venues led the charge. In late 2022, upon seeing artists’ testimonies, a number of mid-sized venues in the U.S. dropped their merch cuts overnight. For example, the Biltmore Theatre (Oshawa, Canada) made headlines for eliminating its merch fee just days after Jeff Rosenstock’s viral post, as reported by Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s coverage of the Biltmore’s decision. In Connecticut, Space Ballroom (Hamden) and College Street Music Hall (New Haven) jointly announced that artists would keep 100% of merch revenue going forward, a move highlighted in Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s details on the joint announcement. And in Colorado, the 1,500-cap Cervantes’ Ballroom publicly abolished its longstanding 20% merch commission, with the venue’s marketing director stating “We feel they deserve this money and are proud to be part of this movement.” This sentiment was captured in Pitchfork’s interview and Pitchfork’s report on Cervantes’ policy change. Each of these cases garnered positive press and gratitude from artists.

They’re not alone. A growing list of venues proudly tout no merch cut on principle. Washington D.C.’s famed Black Cat club has refused merch commissions since it opened 30 years ago, thanks to being founded by a touring musician who understood how vital merch is to bands, a history noted in Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s profile on the venue. Newer venues have adopted this artist-first policy from day one – Chicago’s Subterranean and Toronto’s Lee’s Palace are cited as examples that built no-cut into their DNA, as mentioned in Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s list of ethical venues. In Boise, the 1,000-cap Treefort Music Hall boasts a 0% merch fee and notes that roughly 80% of their profits come from drink sales anyway, a statistic shared in Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s interview with the founder, illustrating that a venue can thrive with other revenue streams. Across the Atlantic, many UK indie venues (like The Fleece in Bristol and Concorde2 in Brighton) echo the same stance: they never charged merch fees to begin with, believing it “completely unethical” to take a band’s merch money, as reported in Pollstar’s coverage of UK venues and Pollstar’s quotes from venue owners.

Even some major players have taken note of the changing tides. In late 2023, live-events giant Live Nation announced it would drop merch fees at all its club-sized venues in the U.S., including House of Blues and Fillmore locations, as part of a program to support developing artists, a significant shift detailed in Consequence’s report on Live Nation and Consequence’s breakdown of the policy. In fact, Live Nation went a step further – offering a $1,500 stipend to every headliner and support act on those club shows to help with travel costs, as noted in Consequence and Consequence’s article on artist bonuses. This was a remarkable gesture (underwritten by a huge corporation, admittedly) that acknowledged how urgent the situation had become for artists. While large arenas and amphitheaters under Live Nation or AEG have not universally dropped merch cuts, this move at the club level signaled that even the industry’s biggest companies see the writing on the wall. Simply put, merch cuts are under fire, and holding rigidly to high commissions is fast becoming untenable from a PR and artist-relations standpoint. Next, we’ll look at some concrete examples of how different venues – big and small – are crafting fairer merch policies to adapt.

Case Studies: Venues Finding Fair Merch Policy Solutions

Going Commission-Free: 0% as a Competitive Edge

Many forward-thinking venues are choosing to eliminate merch fees entirely and turning that into a selling point. The logic is that the short-term revenue given up is outweighed by long-term gains in reputation and relationships. A great case is the Barbican Centre in London, a high-profile 1,900-seat venue. Barbican’s management decided about five years ago to drop their standard 20% merch commission to 0%, even though it meant losing roughly £20,000 (?$24k USD) in income annually, as reported in Pollstar’s feature on venue finances. They viewed it as aligning with their mission to support artists. Barbican’s team didn’t just eat the loss quietly – their retail shop worked to make up the difference through other income and more creative merchandising in-house, a strategy outlined in Pollstar. In return, Barbican gains goodwill as an artist-friendly hall, which can attract top talent. Similarly, the owners of Denver’s Cervantes’ Ballroom concluded that being known as a venue that never taxes merch would strengthen their brand in the talent booking community – so they axed the 20% cut they used to take, as noted in Pitchfork.

On a smaller scale, countless independent clubs have long been effectively commission-free, and now they’re proudly advertising it. Venues like The Black Cat (DC) or The Fleece (Bristol) remind artists during advancing that they take no merch cut – often to audible relief from tour managers. These venues report that bands love coming back and even prefer routing tours through no-cut venues when possible. In a competitive market (especially post-COVID when every show booking is hard-won), being a “100% merch” venue is a competitive edge. It’s no coincidence that industry associations and grassroots initiatives highlight these venues; they set an example that not charging can be part of a viable business model, at least at smaller scales. Of course, dropping the cut requires ensuring the venue’s finances work without it – a topic we’ll address later on.

Opt-In Services Instead of Mandatory Cuts

Some venues have pursued a compromise approach: offer valuable services to artists in exchange for a modest merch fee, but allow artists to opt out and handle it themselves if they prefer. This turns the merch cut from a forced tax into a paid service. A prime example is The Salt Shed in Chicago, a large independent venue (capacity ~3,300 indoor / 5,000 outdoor). The Salt Shed’s policy is to take a 10% cut of merch only if the artist elects to have the venue fully manage merch sales, a model described in Pitchfork. For that 10%, the venue provides multiple trained sellers, helps unload and set up the merch displays (even offloading trucks of inventory), runs transactions through speedy point-of-sale systems, and even coordinates shipping unsold merch to the next tour stop, services detailed in Pitchfork’s venue profile. Essentially, the venue becomes a turnkey merch retailer – earning a small commission for the convenience. If an artist prefers to staff and run merch entirely on their own, they can do so and pay the venue 0%, with a few stipulations (e.g. they must handle all their own taxes/settlement and not run over curfew doing counts).

This kind of opt-in model can be a win-win. Artists with limited crew or experience are happy to pay a reasonable fee to have professionals maximize their sales (and let them focus on performing), while artists who have their own robust merch operation aren’t penalized. Importantly, it reframes the transaction as value-added rather than a pure grab. Other venues have similar offerings: some provide the option of venue merch staff at, say, 10–15% commission – but if the artist declines, the venue simply gives them the space for free and maybe some guidance on local tax reporting. By making merch fees optional and service-based, venues can justify the charge and avoid the bad blood that comes from an inflexible mandatory cut. It requires extra coordination and a bit of trust, but many report it’s worth it to keep artists happy and still glean some revenue when artists do need help.

Rethinking the Split: Caps, Thresholds and Fairer Terms

Another strategy in 2026 is for venues to modify the traditional percentage deal to be more palatable. Some approaches venues are trying:

• Lower Percentages & Caps: Rather than a blanket 20%, a venue might take a smaller cut like 10% or 15%, especially for emerging artists. A few have imposed a cap – e.g. the venue’s take will not exceed $500 no matter how much is sold. This ensures major acts aren’t paying thousands on big merch nights, while still giving the venue some upside on smaller sales.
• No Cut for Support Acts: A fair number of headlining venues that still take merch commission from top-line artists have chosen to exempt the openers and local support bands. They recognize those acts often barely scrape by. By letting support artists keep 100%, venues show goodwill and target the policy only at those presumably earning more. (Of course, some headliners resent being charged at all, but not taxing the little guys is at least a positive step.)
• Threshold Splits: Inspired by festival practices, a few venues use a tiered split model. For instance, the first $1,000 of merch sales is 0% or a very low percentage to the venue (so the artist gets the majority of initial sales), and only after that threshold does the venue take its standard cut on additional sales. This way, the venue doesn’t eat into the crucial baseline merch income that might cover an artist’s nightly costs, but if sales are very strong, the venue shares in the upside. It’s a form of compromise that acknowledges both sides’ needs.
• Flat Fee Table Rentals: Some smaller venues and non-traditional spaces opt for a flat fee approach: e.g. an artist can sell merch free of any percentage, but they pay a fixed “booth” fee like $50 for the night to cover the venue’s costs of providing space and a table. This is more common in events like fan conventions or festivals, but a few concert venues have tried it. It guarantees the venue some income but avoids the feeling of an endless tax on every item sold. The risk shifts to the artist (if they sell poorly, that $50 could be a large share), so flat fees are usually set modestly.

Each of these tweaks strives to find a middle ground: the venue still covers its costs (or makes a bit of profit) on hosting merch, but the structure feels more fair to artists. Importantly, communicating these policies clearly in advance is key. Savvy venue managers include the exact merch terms in artist contracts and offer to discuss them during the show advance, a practice recommended when managing artist merchandise sales at festivals and emphasized in Ticketfairy’s guide to smooth merch management. By being upfront and transparent – “Here’s how we handle merch, here’s what we provide for that cut, and here’s what you’ll net” – venues can avoid the bitter surprise that often fuels conflict.

Real-World Venue Policies at a Glance

To see how these strategies manifest, here’s a snapshot of varied merch policies from real venues in recent years:

Examples: The above illustrates a range from grassroots venues that never charge, to mid-size halls finding compromises, up to legacy policies at the biggest venues. The trend in 2026 clearly leans toward lower or zero merch fees, especially at the club level. Each venue must assess what it can afford and how it can differentiate itself while staying solvent. Next, we’ll delve into how venues can balance the books if they reduce or remove merch commissions – because ultimately any policy, to last, has to be financially viable for the venue, too.

Balancing the Books: Replacing Merch Cut Revenue

How Much Money Are We Really Talking About?

Before panicking that dropping a merch fee will ruin your venue’s finances, it’s worth quantifying the typical scale of merch revenue. In many cases, merch commissions are a relatively small slice of a venue’s total event income. For a small club show (say 200–300 attendees), the band might do a few hundred dollars in merch sales. A 15% cut nets the venue maybe $50–$100 – nice to have, but perhaps equivalent to what the bar makes from selling 20 beers. At a mid-sized venue with 1,000 people, merch sales could be higher (imagine a hot band moves $5,000 of merch). Even then, a 20% cut yields $1,000 to the house; compare that to tens of thousands in gross ticket sales or $10–15k in bar revenue. At large arenas, the raw numbers grow (a superstar act can sell $100k of merch in one night), but merch splits often go to the promoter/tour as much as the venue. Treefort Music Hall in Boise reported that 80% of their profits come from beverage sales, a figure cited in Pitchfork – highlighting that focusing on bar and concessions can dwarf merch income. And the Barbican’s experience showed a £20k annual loss from removing merch fees, which they found manageable across their overall budget, as noted in Pollstar.

Every venue’s math will differ, but it’s crucial to calculate: what percent of your revenue do merch cuts truly represent? You might find it’s a single-digit percentage. If so, the goodwill earned by nixing that fee could well be worth the hit. And if it’s more substantial, there are ways to replace that revenue or reduce costs to compensate.

To illustrate, let’s take a simplified example of a sold-out 1,000-capacity concert and see where a venue’s income comes from that night:

• Tickets: 1,000 tickets at $30 each = $30,000 gross. If the venue is promoter, some of that is profit; if an external promoter, the venue might get a rental fee or a cut (say a $2 facility fee per ticket = $2,000 to venue).
• Concessions (Food & Beverage): 1,000 attendees x average $15 spent on drinks/food = $15,000 gross. With typical margins, perhaps ~$10,000 is venue profit after costs.
• Merchandise Sales: 1,000 attendees x average $5 per head in merch sales = $5,000 gross. Traditionally, at 20% commission, venue would get $1,000, artist keeps $4,000.
• Other Ancillary Income: e.g. parking fees, coat check, VIP upgrades, etc. Let’s say another $3,000 (varies widely by venue).

Now, if this venue drops the merch cut entirely, that $1,000 from merch disappears. But the trade-off benefits could include: artists more eager to play your venue (leading to more shows or higher quality acts over time), and fans potentially spending more on extra drinks or even extra merch (since they know it supports the band directly). Could a slight uptick in bar sales or one extra sellout show a month make up that $1,000? Quite possibly. In any case, seeing the numbers side by side helps venues plan how to make up the difference. As an exercise, many venue managers are now looking at their financials through this lens – treating the merch cut not as an automatic entitlement, but as a line item that might be optimized or substituted.

Tapping Alternative Revenue Streams

The most straightforward way to offset lost merch commissions is to double down on other revenue streams that don’t antagonize artists. For instance, many venues find that improving their bar operations yields far more income than merch cuts ever did. Investing in faster service and cashless payment systems can significantly boost per-capita F&B sales . (If each attendee buys just one more drink because lines are shorter, that could eclipse the old merch take.) Venues in 2026 are increasingly going cashless for bars to speed up transactions and even integrating mobile ordering – moves that have been shown to raise concession revenue by double-digit percentages. By making the fan spend more on food and drink (which fans don’t begrudge the venue, since that’s clearly venue-provided), you can recoup money that you choose not to take from merch.

Another approach: explore sponsorship and premium experiences to pad the bottom line. If you haven’t already, consider partnering with local or relevant brands for sponsored nights or venue-branded activations. As one guide on optimizing venue revenue suggests, bringing in smart sponsorships and private event rentals can generate significant income on off-nights. For example, hosting a corporate event or rental on a normally dark Tuesday might earn you a few thousand dollars – easily covering a week’s worth of what merch cuts would have provided. By turning off-nights into paydays through private rentals and creative programming, venues can reduce reliance on nickel-and-diming artists during their shows.

Consider too the power of venue merchandise. If your venue has a strong brand in the community, selling your own merch (shirts, hats with the venue logo) can be a revenue stream that doesn’t involve artist income at all. Some venues have had success creating limited-edition venue posters for big concerts or doing merch collaborations with artists (with a revenue split that the artist agrees to). While fans primarily want the band’s merch, they might grab a cool venue tee as well – especially if the venue is known and beloved. These sales put money in the venue’s pocket directly. Just be mindful not to step on the artist’s toes; any venue-specific merch should complement, not compete with, the artist’s offerings (for instance, a poster featuring the venue + artist together could be a neat joint keepsake, done with the artist’s blessing and a fair split of proceeds).

Finally, don’t underestimate customer experience improvements that encourage higher overall spending. Upgrading seating comfort or adding attractions can induce fans to spend more time (and money) at the venue. Modern venues that renovate for better sightlines and amenities often find they can justify slight ticket price increases or see people arriving earlier and staying later to enjoy the space, a strategy discussed in Ticketfairy’s guide to planning venue upgrades and Ticketfairy’s revenue optimization resources. In other words, focusing on your core product – a great event experience – can drive revenue growth in primary areas, making secondary income like merch cuts less critical. Venues that plan smart upgrades for maximum ROI understand that if you increase the value you provide, you can often increase what you charge (or sell) in ways that audiences embrace.

Cutting Costs and Increasing Efficiency

Another side of the equation is expense. If losing a merch cut feels like your margins will suffer, ask if there are cost savings or efficiencies that can offset it. One area to look is labor and operations. Running an in-house merch stand requires staff hours (often late into the night) to count in/out inventory and handle cash – tasks that can contribute to staff fatigue. Venues that have reduced or eliminated merch fees sometimes simultaneously reduce their own responsibilities: if artists handle their merch entirely, you might not need to schedule as many employees to assist. That’s a labor cost saving (and your team can focus on other patron services instead). This can even help prevent staff burnout – fewer tedious late-night count-outs means a less exhausted crew after the show, a benefit noted in Pitchfork’s article on venue operations and Pitchfork’s discussion on tax burdens. As explored in guides to preventing venue staff burnout, smarter deployment of staff and avoiding unnecessary overtime is key in 2026. By not staffing a merch cut operation, you streamline the night’s workflow.

Technology can also play a role. Sales tracking tech – such as integrated point-of-sale systems that artists can plug into – makes merch transactions more efficient and transparent. Some venues offer to let artists use their mobile POS system (connected to the venue network) purely as a courtesy, smoothing the process without charging a fee. Others have installed IoT-based inventory counters or security tagging to deter theft (so artists don’t feel they need venue staff watching the merch table). These investments in a “smart venue” infrastructure can reduce friction and cost in the long run. For instance, if a venue’s system handles all credit transactions for an artist’s merch with ease, the venue might cover just the processing fees (a tiny percentage) rather than taking a large commission – a fair trade-off that costs the venue almost nothing extra.

Lastly, revisit your budgeting and pricing. If you remove merch income, you might decide to adjust other financial levers slightly. Some venues have raised their base rental fee or asked for a slightly higher guarantee from promoters to cover lost merch commissions – being open about why. If you explain, “We don’t take merch cuts here, but in return our rental fee is $X higher to cover staffing,” many promoters find that acceptable because they know the artist will be happier (and possibly the artist can sell more merch without a markup). Alternatively, perhaps a small increase in drink prices or ticket fees can quietly absorb the difference over time. The key is any change should be reasonable and communicated transparently. Don’t secretly tack on a new charge that ends up undermining the goodwill you earned by dropping the merch fee. But do think holistically: a sustainable venue business might involve a dozen different revenue streams, and it’s okay if one of them shrinks or disappears when you can bolster the others.

In short, venues can absolutely balance the books without leaning on artist merch cuts – it just takes a thoughtful approach to maximizing other opportunities and controlling costs. Next, we’ll outline how to formalize a fair merch policy and communicate it, turning these ideas into a concrete plan.

Crafting a Fair Merch Policy: A Step-by-Step Guide

Define Your Philosophy and Get Buy-In

Start by clarifying your venue’s stance on merch. Do you aspire to be an artist-first venue that takes no cut at all? Or will you take a modest percentage under specific circumstances? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer, but you need a clear philosophy that you can articulate to staff, artists, and promoters. Many venue operators gather input from their team (especially those who handle settlements, booking, and artist hospitality) to weigh the pros and cons. Financial modeling of the scenarios we discussed can help – know what going 0% versus 15% means for your P&L. If you have co-owners or investors, get their buy-in by showing the long-term benefits (artist loyalty, easier booking, positive PR, potentially more shows). Experienced venue managers recommend framing it as an investment in your venue’s reputation and relationships. Remember the words of one UK promoter: venues that insist on taking a merch cut really should give artists a cut of the bar, or just “do the decent thing and stop” charging merch fees, as quoted in Pollstar and Pollstar’s follow-up on grassroots venues. Decide that your venue will be on the decent side of history, and commit to a policy that aligns with that ethos.

Put It in Writing – Early

Once you decide on a fair merch policy, codify it in your artist contracts and offer sheets. Surprises are the enemy of goodwill. The booking phase is the time to set expectations. If you’ve eliminated merch commissions, you can actually make it a selling point: highlight in the offer that “Venue does not take any merch percentage; 100% of merch sales go to artist.” This signals respect and can even tip the scales if an artist is choosing between venues in two cities. If your policy is a low cut or optional cut, spell out the details: e.g. “Venue can provide merch sellers for 10% fee, artist may opt out and handle own sales at 0% fee. If venue sells, staff cost is included in that 10%.” By including clear merchandise terms in artist contracts and advance notes, you avoid confusion on show day, a point emphasized in Ticketfairy’s guide to managing artist merch and Ticketfairy’s advice on preventing conflict. Artists and tour managers will appreciate knowing the deal upfront – it lets them plan merch pricing (perhaps they can charge fans less when no fee is involved, or at least not inflate prices), and it builds trust that you won’t pull a fast one on settlement night.

Make sure your venue settlement sheet has a clearly labeled section for merchandise, even if it’s just to record $0 due or to note any special arrangement. When it comes time to count sales and settle up, both parties should literally be on the same page. By institutionalizing the policy in the paperwork, you empower your event staff to uphold it consistently (it’s not a case-by-case whim, it’s the venue’s standard practice). Consistency also helps avoid situations where one artist tweets that your venue took 15% when another says you took nothing – those discrepancies can tarnish credibility. So, decide your terms and apply them uniformly, with appropriate flexibility only when mutually agreed upon.

Communicate and Train Your Team

Your front-of-house and production staff should be fully briefed on the merch policy and how to execute it. If you’ve always done things one way and now it’s different, hold a meeting or include guidelines in staff manuals. For instance, if previously venue staff ran the merch table and now artists will handle their own sales, make sure the team knows: Are they still expected to assist in any way? Who handles the float (startup cash) if needed? What about security in the merch area? Clarify these operational details so that show days run smoothly under the new system. If you do still provide any services for a fee, train staff on the hospitality angle – they’re not “enforcers” extracting money, they’re helpers providing a service. As one venue that offers optional merch staffing said, they hold their sellers to a high standard because it ultimately impacts the fan experience, as noted in Pitchfork. If a fan is stuck in a slow merch line, they won’t care who’s running it – they’ll just be unhappy with the venue, a point made in Pitchfork’s venue profile. So, whether it’s your staff or the artist’s, ensure everyone aims to make merch sales swift and smooth.

It’s also wise to educate newer staff on why the policy is what it is. Share with them the current industry context: that being fair on merch helps attract artists and fosters a better atmosphere. When your team understands the “why,” they’ll be more enthusiastic ambassadors of the policy. They might even take pride in it – imagine a merch seller who used to dread arguments with bands at settlement now being able to say, “Don’t worry, we don’t take a cut here,” and seeing the artist’s relief. That positivity feeds into overall better artist relations. In essence, make your team partners in executing the fair merch approach.

Offer Fair Tradeoffs (and Perks)

If you do implement a policy that still takes a small cut or fee, ensure you offer value in return. We touched on this earlier: don’t just charge 15% for “the privilege of selling” – explain and provide what the artist gets for that. For example, maybe your cut covers all credit card fees and you’ll provide settlement reports with taxes calculated. Or maybe your percentage includes a dedicated seller plus a free catered meal for the artist’s merch crew (saving them time to grab dinner). Think in terms of hospitality and support. Many venues that haven’t dropped merch fees outright have softened them by packaging them with extras. It’s much easier for an artist to accept a 10% fee if they feel they got premium booth space, lighting, help with setup, and shout-outs from stage about the merch table. Essentially, make the artist feel like you are collaborating in maximizing their merch sales, not just skimming off the top. This fosters a sense of shared goal – you both want a great merch night.

Also consider non-monetary gestures that show you’re not out to bleed the artist dry. Some venues that still charge a merch fee will throw in something like free venue-branded swag for the band, or extra drink tickets for the artist’s crew, as a goodwill gesture. It might seem small, but it reinforces that you care about the relationship beyond the dollars. A little generosity can take the sting out of a business arrangement. And for venues that go 0%, you already have a goodwill goldmine – but you can amplify it. For instance, some no-fee venues put up a sign at the merch table that says “100% of merch proceeds go to the artist – thank you for supporting them!”. This not only makes fans feel good about spending, it subtly credits the venue for being artist-friendly (without overt self-congratulation). It’s a free PR boost and can even drive more sales, since fans might splurge knowing it’s all for the band.

Stay Flexible and Listen

Crafting a fair policy isn’t a one-and-done task; it should evolve with feedback. Solicit input from the artists who come through your venue. If you’ve got regular local bands or a good relationship with a tour manager, ask them how the merch experience was. Did the artist have everything they needed? Any complaints about the arrangement? Sometimes you’ll learn that your well-intentioned system has a snag – maybe the designated merch area is hard for fans to find, or perhaps by not taking a cut you inadvertently ignored helping with something the artist expected. Be willing to tweak your approach.

Keep an eye on industry trends too. This conversation isn’t over – merch cuts are still under fire and there may be new norms by 2027. For example, if major festivals start doing 0% across the board or if new technology (like direct-to-fan merch apps) emerges, be ready to adapt. Some venues might experiment with hybrid models, like profit-sharing on merch for tours that use the venue’s e-commerce platform (selling via venue app to avoid lines, etc.). Who knows? The key is to remain flexible and open-minded. If an artist comes to you with a specific concern or proposal – say they want to sell an item outside the venue after the show to avoid a fee – listen and see if you can accommodate in a fair way rather than saying “rules are rules.” As long as your baseline policy is fair, these special cases will be easier to resolve amicably.

In summary, treat your merch policy like a living part of your venue’s hospitality strategy. It should reflect your venue’s values, be clearly communicated, and be implemented in a way that artists feel they are treated as partners. That approach will yield far better results than the adversarial “we demand our cut” stance of old. Finally, let’s look at the big-picture benefits venues reap when they get this right – and some key takeaways to remember.

Long-Term Benefits of Fair Merch Policies

Strengthening Artist Relationships

Adopting a fair (or fee-free) merch policy is a powerful investment in artist relations. When artists feel a venue genuinely has their back – not just in words but in sharing the economic risk – it builds trust fast. Veteran promoters and venue managers consistently say that artists remember who treats them well, a point reinforced in Pitchfork’s article on artist incentives and Pitchfork’s discussion on social currency. If your venue helps an artist earn as much as possible from a show, that artist is more likely to want to play for you again. They’re also more likely to speak well of you to their peers and agents. In the words of Karly Hartzman, lead singer of the band Wednesday, “I remember the shows that take care of us forever… That will make more money in the long run because artists are playing your venue repeatedly over the years and sending other bands your way.” This long-term perspective is highlighted in Pitchfork and Pitchfork’s interview with Hartzman. This encapsulates the long game: by not straining the relationship over a few hundred dollars today, you open the door to potentially tens of thousands in future business as those artists grow and return.

Building artist loyalty isn’t just a festival thing – it matters for venues of all sizes, too. Much like festival organizers strive to turn one-off performers into repeat headliners through exceptional hospitality, venue operators can cultivate loyalty by being fair and supportive. Artists talk, and your reputation in the artist community can become a selling point. A band’s tour manager might tell another, “Oh, when you play XYZ Venue, they don’t mess with your merch money – it’s a great place,” which could give you an edge in landing that tour stop. Especially in tight-knit genres or local scenes, this goodwill is invaluable. It’s the kind of authentic word-of-mouth marketing you can’t buy.

Enhancing Your Venue’s Reputation

In the eyes of fans and the industry, fair merch policies are increasingly seen as a marker of a venue that “gets it.” Fans today are savvy; they read those social media threads and news articles. When they hear that your venue is doing right by artists, it elevates your brand. Some venues have received glowing press coverage purely for dropping merch fees, framing them as heroes of the live music ecosystem. While you shouldn’t do it just for the press, the positive PR is a nice bonus. It can strengthen community support, too. Local music communities often rally behind venues that support their local bands. If you’re known for fairness, you may find more people (artists and fans alike) advocating for your venue in times of need – whether that’s fundraising, petitioning against noise complaints, or just choosing your shows to attend over a competitor’s.

Let’s not forget, venue reputation also matters in business relationships. Promoters, booking agents, and artist managers pay attention to how venues handle all aspects of shows. A promoter might be more inclined to bring events to a venue that doesn’t create end-of-night drama over merch settlements. Agents routing a tour often ask around about venues – if yours is “artist-friendly,” you could get the nod over another city’s venue that bands have complained about. In essence, a fair merch policy can be a differentiator in the market. It’s part of presenting your venue as a professional, ethical operation. Coupled with factors like great production, solid maintenance (always keep your venue show-ready with proactive upkeep strategies so artists have no technical gripes), and respectful staff, it feeds into a cycle of excellence that people notice.

Increasing Repeat Business and Referrals

When artists have a positive experience – and pocket a bit more cash – at your venue, it often translates to repeat bookings. Bands tend to return to markets where they had success and felt valued. If dropping a merch cut helps an artist actually turn a profit in your city for the first time, you can bet they’ll want to come back on the next tour. Over time, that could mean your calendar starts to fill with returning acts that grow bigger each time. A band that played to 200 people at your club and loved it might draw 500 on their next album cycle – and they’ll likely choose your venue again if possible. This growth benefits you as their crowds (and bar sales) increase. It’s essentially an investment in future ticket sales and a stable pipeline of content for your venue.

There’s also the referral effect. Managers and agents share intel on which venues treat their artists fairly. Your fair merch policy can lead to referrals, where an agent who had a good experience with one artist at your place will route their other artists there too. In the festival world, it’s well-known that providing stellar artist hospitality leads to managers wanting their roster back on your bill . The same holds for venues: be good to one client, and you might get five more via their recommendation. You might even attract higher-caliber acts who normally would skip a smaller venue, simply because they’ve heard you run a tight ship and won’t nickel-and-dime them. In a sense, you’re converting what could have been one-off transactions into ongoing relationships that drive revenue repeatedly.

Fostering a Positive Venue Culture

There’s an internal benefit too: adopting artist-friendly policies can improve the overall culture and morale at your venue. It sets a tone that the venue is about collaboration and respect, not adversarial dealings. Your staff, from bookers to box office to bartenders, can take pride in working for a venue that values fairness. This can translate into how they treat patrons and artists – with a bit more care and positivity, knowing the company philosophy backs them up. For example, a merch seller who no longer has to act like a debt collector at the end of the night will feel less stress and maybe put more energy into helping fans at the table, chatting and upselling merch in a friendly way (which ironically can lead to more sales). A production manager who hears fewer artist complaints about money can focus on delivering a great show technically, rather than dreading a confrontation at settlement.

Moreover, being fair with merch sets an example that can extend to other areas of operation. If you champion fairness here, you might also examine things like your approach to artist hospitality or crew accommodations, looking to up your game in those areas too. It creates a virtuous cycle of hospitality. There’s evidence of this in many venue success stories – the best venues tend to excel across the board in artist treatment. They probably aren’t gouging on merch, they’re likely also providing decent catering, clean green rooms, and so on. And those things combined make artists want to deliver a fantastic show, which thrills fans and helps the venue’s bottom line through strong attendance and word-of-mouth. In essence, fair merch policies are one piece of a larger puzzle of running a venue that’s beloved by all stakeholders.

With the benefits laid out, it’s clear why the trend in 2026 is moving towards more equitable merch arrangements. But implementing change can be challenging – it requires both principle and pragmatism. To wrap up, below are key actionable takeaways for venue operators looking to navigate this merch cut debate wisely and successfully.