Deceptive, Misleading Practices
In summary, I was onboarded as a curator by Omari MC in March 2025. His recruitment email included the statement: “Some curators would have to review 75 songs on SubmitHub to equal payout for feedback for 1 song on our platform.” Despite his response to my feedback below, it remains unclear why he used the exact term “payout for feedback”, when according to the platform, standard campaigns only compensate for detailed feedback if an artist allocates a budget and accepts the offer. As a longtime industry professional, the term “payout for feedback” is straightforward and understood in the context of similar platforms. A more accurate description for Recordlabel.ai would have been “payout for offers”, since compensation is contingent on artist acceptance rather than providing feedback alone. Despite this, the platform owner has indicated that the issue lies with my comprehension rather than the misleading language used during onboarding, as reflected in his response to this review. He then proceeded to leave a retaliatory 1-star review for my business, despite that business having nothing to do with my experiences as a user on Recordlabel.ai. To elaborate further: Omari recruited me to his service RecordLabel.ai as a curator based on representations about payout rates, including a comparison to SubmitHub. He wrote to me that "some curators would have to review 75 songs on Submithub to equal payout for feedback for 1 song on our platform" when trying to get me to sign up. During my participation, I completed several submissions, expecting compensation consistent with what was communicated during onboarding. According to the platform FAQ, standard campaign initial responses are unpaid, and detailed feedback is only compensated if an artist allocates budget to your list. This model differs significantly from the expectations presented when I signed up. Despite completing multiple reviews, my dashboard still showed $0.00 balance. By using SubmitHub as a benchmark, they created a reasonable expectation that the Recordlabel.ai platform compensates curators for the professional act of providing feedback. This apparently is not the case outside of vaguely established "Rush orders." While the platform removed my playlist promptly upon request, the compensation process was unclear, and there was a discrepancy between the onboarding claims and actual payouts. I recommend that other curators carefully review the FAQ and understand the compensation rules before participating, as their onboarding process feels more intent on vague comparisons than clarity. As a longtime professional in the music industry for over two decades, I advise STRONGLY to STAY AWAY. In response to Omari MC's reply to this review: My concern was never that the model “differs” from other platforms. The issue is that the recruitment messaging — specifically the comparison to SubmitHub — framed compensation in a way that reasonably suggested meaningful payout for reviews themselves. That distinction between “reviewing” and “approval-only compensation” was not clearly conveyed in the initial outreach that led me to join. Pointing to thousands of other onboarded playlists or suggesting a lack of comprehension does not change my experience. My review reflects how the compensation structure was presented to me at the time of recruitment and how it functioned in practice after I invested professional time completing submissions. I encourage prospective curators to read all materials carefully and ensure they fully understand how compensation applies before participating. Compensation structures tied solely to approvals can raise broader industry questions, which is why clarity during onboarding is especially important.