Recordlabel.aiReviews of recordlabel.ai

I tried the smart campaign at first as it used to be very successful for my music and easy to use but this time I was very disappointed with the response. When I asked about this, they suggested I move onto the manual campaign with my refunded credits. Almost £150 worth. This was incredibly complicated. It turns out you need to lower your credit filter after every submission otherwise it won’t flag up any curators or playlists. i’m not sure why the system doesn’t calculate the credit filter itself after every submission and lower it accordingly? It could’ve saved me a lot of time trying to work out what was going wrong and saved the back-and-forth emails. However after several back-and-forth emails and over a week of wondering what was going on I managed to get it sorted. I was able to approve the 8 curators who said they wanted to put my track on their playlists. I was then told that they had 3 days to respond to my approval. I did recognise the names of some of these curators from previous campaigns that I have done with this company. However, after three days I have received notification that NONE of them have responded in time, and therefore I have lost all those playlists and I’ve been refunded the credits AGAIN! I feel like this company connected to playlist IQ and Omari MC have seriously gone downhill in their service and success rate. I now have all my £150 worth of credits back in my account to try a new campaign. But it feels like Groundhog Day! Like I’m going round in circles with no success. I have asked if I can have my money back but they inform me that that’s not possible. I just have to stay in this loop with my credits and try again and again and again. It feels like my money has been stolen. When I mentioned this, they said that they could have just kept the credits after this unsuccessful campaign like other companies do. So I’m forced to stay with this company and keep trying to use these credits to get some success. Or just give up and let them keep the credits. I’ll keep you updated on how that goes. But I’m not holding my breath.

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 expand: I joined RecordLabel.ai as a curator based on representations about payout rates, including a comparison to SubmitHub. Recordlabel.ai 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. In further response to Recordlabel.ai's response to my 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.

It's bollocks.. you search the Internet for "voice to music instruments" and after jumping through hoops, it turns out that you have to pay. Waste of time. Dogshit