A manager can be the person who turns a brilliant record into a workable career. They can also become an expensive passenger if the agreement is vague, the commission is too broad, or nobody has agreed what success looks like. Artist management fees are therefore not a small contractual detail. They determine how money, responsibility and momentum are shared when an artist is trying to build something sustainable.
For independent artists, the right question is not simply, “What percentage does a manager take?” It is: what work are they doing, what income are they genuinely helping to create, and does the arrangement leave enough money to make the next release, pay the band and keep going?
What do artist management fees usually cost?
The traditional management commission is 15% to 20% of an artist’s gross income. In practical terms, that can mean income from recordings, live work, merchandise, publishing, sync, brand partnerships and other commercial activity. A manager earning 20% is not automatically unreasonable. If they are working full-time, building a team, negotiating opportunities and carrying a meaningful share of the workload, that fee may reflect the value they bring.
But percentage alone does not tell the whole story. A 15% deal that applies to almost every penny an artist earns, including income the manager neither generated nor administered, may be less fair than a 20% deal with sensible exclusions. Equally, a manager taking commission while providing little more than occasional advice is not a partnership - it is a cost an emerging artist may struggle to carry.
At an early stage, artists and managers sometimes agree a lower rate, a fixed monthly consultancy fee, or a project-based arrangement around a release, tour or funding application. These models can suit both sides where income is limited and the work is clearly defined. There is no single correct structure. There is only a structure that matches the actual relationship.
Gross, net and the money that should be excluded
The most important line in a management agreement is often the definition of “commissionable income”. Gross income sounds simple: the manager receives their percentage before the artist’s expenses are deducted. That can be standard practice, but it becomes contentious where the artist has substantial unavoidable costs.
Consider a headline fee for a festival appearance. The artist may receive £2,000, but need to pay musicians, rehearsals, transport, accommodation, equipment hire and an engineer. If the manager receives commission on the full £2,000 while the artist covers every cost, the artist may be left with very little. A fair agreement can recognise this by excluding genuine pass-through costs or allowing agreed expenses to be deducted before commission is calculated.
There are several kinds of income that deserve particular attention:
- Money collected for other people, such as musicians’ wages, crew payments, VAT, ticketing settlements or promoter reimbursements, should not normally be treated as the artist’s earnings.
- Recording or tour advances can be risky territory. They may look like income, but they are often recoupable and can disappear quickly into the costs of making work happen.
- Grants, crowdfunding and fan-funded release money need a clear approach. Where funds are ring-fenced for production, manufacture or delivery, a commission can undermine the purpose of the campaign.
- Income from work that predates the manager may merit an exclusion, especially if they have no role in administering or expanding it.
Commission should follow real contribution
A manager does not need to personally book every show or negotiate every licence to earn commission. Good management is often strategic rather than visible: setting priorities, keeping a release schedule realistic, preparing for meetings, spotting bad deals and making introductions at the right moment. That work has value.
Still, a useful principle is that commission should broadly follow contribution. If a manager is actively managing the career as a whole, a broad commission may make sense. If they are only consulting on digital strategy, managing a single project, or helping with live bookings, a narrower fee is often more appropriate.
Artists should be wary of agreements that claim a percentage of every future activity by default. Managers should be wary of artists who expect full-time support without a realistic way for that work to be paid. Fairness is not about one side winning the negotiation. It is about making the relationship viable enough to last.
Expenses are not a blank cheque
Management expenses are separate from management commission, and they need equal care. It is reasonable for a manager to be reimbursed for pre-agreed travel, accommodation, postage, event access or other direct costs incurred for the artist’s benefit. It is less reasonable to pass on general office overheads, speculative trips, routine phone bills or undefined “administration”.
A sensible agreement sets an approval threshold. For example, a manager might be able to spend up to an agreed amount on a necessary cost, while anything above that requires written approval from the artist. This avoids an awkward situation where an artist receives an invoice they never expected and cannot afford.
It is also worth agreeing how expenses are recorded and when they are repaid. Monthly statements are a healthy discipline, particularly where income is irregular. Artists should be able to see money received, commission deducted, expenses claimed and the amount due in plain language.
The contract term matters as much as the fee
A modest percentage can become a bad deal if the contract locks an artist in for too long. Initial terms of one to three years are common, often with options to extend if specific objectives are met. The important point is not the number in isolation but whether either party has a meaningful way to leave if the relationship is not working.
Look for clear review points and termination rights. If a manager repeatedly fails to provide agreed reporting, misses deadlines or stops engaging with the work, the artist should not be trapped. Likewise, a manager who commits serious time and resources needs protection from an artist ending the agreement just as a deal they developed is about to close.
This is where a “sunset clause” may appear. It allows a manager to continue receiving a reduced commission on income generated during their period of management after the relationship ends. A carefully limited sunset can be fair. An open-ended claim on an artist’s future income is much harder to justify.
A reasonable sunset normally reduces over time and applies only to deals substantially negotiated or secured during the term. It should not quietly capture unrelated opportunities years later. Read the wording, not just the heading.
Questions to settle before signing
The best time to discuss difficult money questions is before there is any money. Artist and manager should be able to state, in ordinary language, what the manager is responsible for, how often they will communicate, what income is commissionable, which costs require approval and how either party can end the arrangement.
It also helps to discuss expectations beyond the contract. Is the manager expected to find a label, build a live team, seek sync opportunities, support a self-released record, or simply provide experienced direction while the artist retains control? Is the artist able to respond promptly, deliver music on schedule and be honest about their financial position? Management works best when both sides understand that career development is work, not wishful thinking.
Independent music is full of people doing several jobs at once. An artist may be writing, recording, packing pre-orders, driving to shows and running their own social channels. A manager may be representing a small roster while taking on consultancy work to make the economics stack up. That reality calls for agreements that are specific, humane and capable of changing as the project grows.
A fairer standard for independent music
At Last Night From Glasgow, artist-first practice means treating the financial mechanics around music with the same care as the music itself. Fair pay is not achieved by pretending everyone can work for free, nor by copying the most extractive terms in the industry. It comes from transparent accounting, proportionate fees and a shared commitment to building a career rather than extracting from a brief moment of attention.
Before signing, artists should have a qualified music solicitor review any agreement, particularly where it covers publishing, recording rights, touring, brand work or long-term commission. That cost can feel frustrating when budgets are tight, but unclear management terms are often far more expensive later.
The right manager should leave an artist better organised, better represented and more able to make the next record. If the fee structure supports that work, the relationship has a chance to become what independent music needs most: a durable partnership built around the artist’s future.