Stop Making Creatives Pay Before They Even Apply
Why the pay-first model exists and why you shouldn't use it
Every artist, writer, musician, designer, and performer knows the feeling: you’re excited about a call, award or contest and ready to share your work… and suddenly you’re hit with a paywall before you’ve even started.
It’s amazing in this day and age that there are still platforms and organisations that take this inverted approach. Put simply, payment should always come at the end of the submission process. It should be fully integrated, friction-free, and done at the end of any form-filling-out process because, well, this is exactly the way every other modern digital experience works!
Why are creative submissions any different?
It’s backwards in more ways than one, and it needs to stop.
What's in this article
Upfront fees: A relic from a pre-Stripe, pre-Ecommerce world
There’s a reason older platforms demanded payment first - they were built before seamless checkout flows existed. Admins needed a simple way to check commitment, so they made applicants pay before sending over a form. It made sense back then. Like dial-up modems, Myspace, or burning CDs.
But in 2026?
We shop online. We book travel online. We order groceries online. And in all of those cases:
You don’t pay before you even know what you’re getting.
You browse, you choose, you build your cart, you review the details…
and then you pay.
And submission fees should be no different. You’re buying a service, whether it be entry to a competition, a chance to be included in an exhibition, expedited review or administrative costs.
I’m sure there are a few examples which necessitate a pay-first flow but in the main, it no longer works this way. Requiring fees at the start of a submission is an artefact of an antiquated way of life where the submission journey was limited by tech. We’re free of that now, and buying habits have naturally evolved along with it.
And yet many organisations still do it.
So why do organisations still do this?
The best defence against AI deception is a mix of awareness, verification, and intuition. Whilst we see many attempts to protect against AI-generated content, such as stark warnings, checkboxes and AI detection tools (coming soon to Dapple too), the best defence is, and probably always will be you, dear reader.
Here’s the 5 main reasons why:
1. Using a mix of free tools or old tech
One of the biggest reasons is the lack of modern tech. Legacy software is still abound in the creative industry. If you’ve been using the same system for years, it may not have adapted, and it could be dragging you down. Equally, if you’re cobbling together a mix of emails, free forms, a PayPal account and a spreadsheet to try and run your opportunity, you may be hamstrung into this approach.
2. They think payment-first reduces admin (it used to, but no longer does)
Back in the early 2000s, this was true. If someone paid upfront:
- You knew they were serious.
- You didn’t have to chase them.
- You didn’t have to reconcile half-filled forms.
It simplified admin in the paper-and-email era.
3. They misunderstand what actually increases revenue
Some organisations genuinely believe that taking payment first improves their submission rate.
And in a very narrow sense, it does — the completion rate among those who start submitting is higher. Obviously.
But what they don’t realise is:
- Far fewer people start in the first place.
- So fewer people finish.
- So total revenue drops.
They’re optimising the wrong metric.
4. They fear the “abandoned submission”
There’s a very common (and natural) anxiety amongst many who run calls:
“What if hundreds of people start submissions but never pay?”
What they don’t realise is that abandoned submissions aren’t a problem:
- They give you valuable visibility.
- They give you “warm leads”.
- They can be nudged.
- Some convert with a simple follow-up.
- And the payment step itself naturally filters quality.
Not knowing who’s dropping out. That’s the real problem, as payment-first hides that data.
5. They don’t want to spend money updating their process
Updating workflows, redesigning systems, retraining teams - it feels like a hassle. It used to be, but not anymore.
Many organisations don’t revisit their submission process for 5–10 years at a time. The fact that “it technically works” can be enough for people to avoid dealing with it… even if it works badly. Plenty of modern submission management platforms, however, have improved the setup and onboarding to combat this. Systems like Dapple or Zealous can have you up and running in a matter of minutes.
Applicants don’t like to pay first…
Put yourself in the applicant's shoes. It’s fair to say that creatives are already balancing unpredictable income, limited time, and the emotional energy it takes to put their work forward. Hitting them with a fee before they’ve even started the process is a sure-fire way to ruin any prospective brand loyalty before it’s even got going.
1. It scares off the exact people you want to reach
Emerging talent. Underrepresented communities. People taking a chance.
A surprising number of people will make a swift exit the moment money appears too early.
2. It triggers distrust
When you’re used to end-of-journey checkout flows, being asked to pay prematurely feels… off. It feels either overly sales-y or scammy. Like the org cares more about your money than your work.
A lot of applicants simply think:
“Why are they charging me now? What am I paying for?”
And then they leave.
3. It lowers total submissions and total revenue
Upfront fees shrink your funnel dramatically.
Yes, the small group who pays upfront is more likely to finish their submission.
But what about the far larger group that never even gets that far?
It’s like locking the supermarket doors until someone buys a ticket to enter. Sure, everyone inside might buy something, but you’ve just blocked a whole host of potential customers.
The Case for Paying at the End
Modern digital behaviour is stunningly consistent:
- People browse first.
- They engage second.
- They commit last.
This pattern doesn’t just feel right—it works.
When applicants can start their submission without a financial barrier, several good things happen:
1. More people actually begin the process
Which leads to:
- More diverse submissions
- More emerging voices
- More completed entries overall
A wider funnel means a healthier competition.
2. Applicants understand the value before paying
By the time they reach the final step, they’re happy in the knowledge that:
- Their work is fully uploaded.
- All the form fields have been fully filled out and honed.
- They’re sure they’ve followed the guidelines.
- They’ve experienced a slick entry process.
The fee becomes part of an informed choice, not a blind gamble.
3. Organisers can support applicants along the way
If using a reputable submission software, if someone starts a submission but stalls:
- Their submission is saved as a draft
- Follow-up reminders can be sent
- Orgs can offer help and answer questions
Upfront fees give you zero visibility into who nearly applied but dropped off.
4. The checkout flow feels natural
Good quality submission platforms treat submissions like any other high-quality, modern online experience:
Fill in your details → upload your work → confirm → pay → submit.
All in one seamless, intuitive, trusted flow.
It’s the pattern used everywhere from Amazon to Airbnb because it’s what works.
The Future of Submissions Is Integrated, Not Fragmented
One of the biggest problems with old-school submission flows is how fragmented they are. They look like this:
- Visit a website
- Click a link to pay somewhere else
- Copy the transaction ID or wait for an email with a submission form to be sent
- Return to, or open a form hosted on a different service
- Hope the admin matches everything up correctly
It’s stressful for applicants, reflects poorly on the organisers and creates an admin-headache for both parties.
So let’s just stop the “pay first” approach once and for all!
Creative communities deserve better than outdated payment flows and clunky submission processes. They deserve the same intuitive experiences they already get everywhere else in life.
Taking fees at the end:
- Builds trust.
- Increases access.
- Improves total submissions.
- Boosts revenue.
- And feels natural to anyone who’s ever shopped online.
Still charging fees at the start?
Take a look at Dapple and see how a modern submission flow should work. Your Stripe account integrates with just a few clicks. Creators get auto-saved drafts in their own accounts, gentle reminders help nudge unfinished submissions toward the finish line, and you can offer multiple payment options that drop neatly into a single basket. And, of course, payment is taken right at the end, exactly where it belongs.
See how Dapple could help you?
If you'd like to see how we can help you run your creative opportunities, book a call with our team below.