Addressing Blatant Discrimination And Ageism
This Is Beyond Boost Collective - Personal Attacks And Harassment Galore
Summary Of The Claims Made Against Us
Primary Accusation 1: We Don't Run Real Campaigns Or Ads
Primary Accusation 2: We Give Out Bot Streams
Primary Accusation 3: We Bot Playlists
Primary Accusation 4: Our Music Distribution Is A Scam
Primary Accusation 5: Fake Reviews
Additional Accusation 1: Evil Agreement, Exposed!
Additional Accusation 2: But Y'all Suck At Marketing?
Additional Accusation 3: Content ID Scam
Additional Accusation 4: How About Your 'Credit' System?
Additional Accusation 5: Conversation With Spotify Taken Out Of Context
Additional Accusation 6: Grooming Artists
Additional Accusation 7: Our User Agreements Are Suspect
Let's Confirm We Debunked It All
A Tally Of Every Ageist Slur & Personal Attack
A Tally Of Every Misleading Tactic
A Tally Of Every Fact-Check We Had To Make
Summary
If you don't feel like reading, please enjoy our video rebuttal:
We also made an additional video with evidence to refute the following allegations:
At Boost Collective, we work tirelessly to help artists get heard and be the best music promotion company in the world.
We are a thriving team that works hard, trying to do our part to create excellence in the world.
But on rare occasions, a black swan can rear its ugly head and derail everything. It's times like these that push you to the limits and define the integrity and character of the people who have to endure it.
What is this so-called black swan event that we must face, you ask?
Recently, Boost Collective and its team were ruthlessly attacked and defamed in an article that was recently published.
This was an article that was biased, hateful and ignorant of the facts, designed to defame Boost Collective and damage the reputations of the individuals who have poured their hearts and souls into building this company.
The article uses manipulative techniques, such as purposefully edited screenshots, selective information removal, and other misleading devices, to create a false narrative. Below, we will meticulously address each instance of this bias and misrepresentation.
This rebuttal is not just about defending our company; it's about setting the record straight and protecting the many artists who rely on our platform and have found success through our services.
We aim to expose the article's reckless disregard for the truth and clear bias.
For the purpose of this article, we will go over the entire piece in excruciating detail.
Our response will be thorough and meticulously supported by evidence, demonstrating the baseless nature of the claims made against us.
Our priority is to provide a clear and comprehensive counternarrative that eliminates any doubt about Boost Collective's services.
For context, we were never once contacted for comment or given an opportunity to defend ourselves before this article was published.
We tracked the publisher of the article down and reached out via email as soon as we discovered the article. This was our message:
As a reply to our (rather friendly and kindhearted) email, we were floored with this response:
There are the key points to take away from their response (other than the defensive and threatening nature of their reply):
1. They claim: 'are not a gossip column. We do not write smear pieces.'
We will be able to clearly prove this statement untrue throughout the article below. Please enjoy.
2. They are essentially deeming us guilty until proven innocent:
3. They claim to 'adhere to AP standards of ethical journalism'
Which is interesting, since adherence to these standards ensures that you get ALL sides of the story before it is published.
For reference, here are the AP news values and principles they are referring to. In particular, this section stands out:
As mentioned before (and made clear by the author's response), we were NEVER contacted before anything was published.
As you can already tell, this doesn't seem like an impartial publisher acting with integrity or good faith, looking to help artists stay informed.
In an effort to defame and attack us, the publisher blasted the article on almost every major music subreddit almost immediately upon publication, clearly showing no intention or interest in trying to get our side of the story:
Does this seem like someone who would make a fair, unbiased investigation into the integrity of Boost Collective's services?
The idea of acting 'in good faith' seems to be thrown out the window.
The purpose of our article is not to harass or intimidate 'MusicScamAlert'. We purposefully redacted any personal information related to their team (something we wish they had done for us). The purpose is to provide evidence, discredit accusations, and ensure the public is fully aware of our side of the story.
As seen above, it's clear we are dealing with someone who seems to be acting hostilely and in opposition to fair journalistic practices.
With all that being said, we STILL hope that the author genuinely wants to provide truthful, honest, and factual information to help music artists stay informed.
It is our wish that they make good on their promise.
But without further ado, let us begin our investigation of said article.
This is going to be a long rebuttal. There is a lot to unpack. But before we go anywhere, it's important to understand the basic 'theme' of the article made against us.
It seems that the article's fundamental theme is using ageist discrimination and remarks as the fundamental argument as to why Boost Collective is a scam.
As you will see in the coming examples, they use the age of Boost Collective employees as evidence that we are a scam, especially when they have no substantive evidence to prove a point.
Given that the first heading in their article is 'The “Boss Baby” Bot Farm,' it makes it clear that this isn't just an article trying to review our services impartially, but a sensationalist piece that aims to defame the employees who work at Boost Collective because of their age.
Never would we have thought that in 2025, we would face blatant discrimination for our age, and repeatedly have our intellect and ability undermined and put into question purely because of our age.
But alas, let us dive into it.
As a core part of their article 'theme', the writer took the time to create a phony illustration portraying us in a negative light as a way to bring us down and belittle us.
Where did they get the idea for this illustration?
We shared an original image of us to show our authentic, lighthearted side. The photo wasn’t some corporate headshot. It was from a free PDF E-Book we created years ago to help new musicians understand the music promotion space:
We took that photo and added it to our PDF to help readers feel we are human, real, and relatable— because that’s what this industry is all about.
But instead of acknowledging that effort, the article tried to spin the image as “childish”. Then, in the very same breath, turned around and called us “ruthless,” “arrogant,” and “scammers.”
Once they created this phony illustration, the article continues to refer to it and use it as a central theme in their attack:
More ageism and a manufactured, biased portrayal of us in a 'trench coat', purely suggestive and added for unnecessary sensationalist effect.
Beyond this, the article proceeds to add a dash of ageist slurs and slander all throughout, wherever they can:
Would an impartial, reputable source of information call their subject 'young and dumb'?
So are we 'young and dumb'—or master manipulator scammers and fraudsters? The article wants it both ways because it's not rooted in truth. It's built on narrative gymnastics and (seemingly) personal resentment.
The music space, especially the indie artist world, is young, fast-moving, and community-driven. This kind of condescending, out-of-touch commentary isn’t journalism. It’s a hit piece dressed as reporting.
If your goal is to strengthen the industry, maybe start by offering value instead of making baseless, discriminatory attacks online?
Here are more examples:
Ageist, snarky, and discriminatory remarks. How does this help the publisher appear impartial, fair, and unbiased?
As you're reading this, may I remind you of what they told us? It's right here:
More blatant discriminatory ageism, questioning our 'legit-ness' due to our supposed age. How is this any different from discrimination of race, gender, or sexuality? Incredible.
They found a typo in a PDF resource we gave out to artists for free, which was made years ago. Guess that gives them the liberty to bash us for 'being children', and again, due to ageism, we aren't capable of delivering the results promised.
What’s embarrassing is that while we’re out here helping artists navigate this space with free resources, campaigns, and real results, the writer's idea of supporting the industry is to maliciously attack music promotion companies and their employees with discrimination, false information, and bad faith.
And let me get this right:
As seen in the image above, the publisher considers a typo in an old PDF sufficient evidence to claim that Boost Collective is not capable of 'delivering the results promised'.
Yup, that about summarizes the journalistic rigor we are dealing with here.
The article claims we are deceiving our customers into pretending to look older than we are—and this is their best evidence of this? A figure of speech in a PDF we put out years ago?
Why would we even need to pretend to look older? Is this article genuinely so ignorant and backwards as to think that nobody would trust or support a business that employs young people, but we have managed to TRICK everyone that we are older?
Here's another example:
This publisher genuinely thinks Ronan lied about the year he graduated high school, yet has provided ZERO evidence to prove otherwise.
Does Ronan have to whip out his old student card? This is absolutely ridiculous.
Here's a 'greatest hits' demonstrating the 'journalistic integrity' and 'goodwill' we are dealing with - please scroll through every single slide, you won't regret it:
Not only is the blatant ageism getting tiring at this point, but how could anyone claim this article is a quality, impartial dive into the legitimacy of Boost Collective, made in good faith?
Does 'MusicScamAlert' really seem like a source you can trust to give you an honest, unbiased, truthful look into how Boost Collective operates? Or are they motivated by hate and discrimination?
And we're just getting started.
While the article aims to critique Boost Collective's business practices, it rapidly descends into a disturbing pattern of personal attacks and harassment, far exceeding any reasonable journalistic scope.
Now it's not just a matter of disputing business claims; we must now address this calculated campaign aimed at tarnishing individual reputations and inciting harassment.
This section will meticulously go through the barrage of personal affronts.
What you are about to see is a clear intent to inflict emotional damage and harassment on the employees of Boost Collective as well as their friends and loved ones, rather than engaging in a factual analysis of our company's operations.
One of the individual employees significantly targeted in the article was Jabari, someone you may have seen in our marketing, blog, or resources.
We'll let him guide you through the accusations made against him.
The following is written by Jabari directly.
Frankly, I'm beyond frustrated. This isn't just about defending Boost Collective's reputation; it's about protecting my own reputation against a relentless, deeply personal assault.
For context, I have been a long-time employee of Boost Collective. I am involved in many of our ads, marketing, and social media content. I have poured my heart and soul into this job.
The article has twisted my words, misrepresented my actions, and dug into my past with a level of invasive scrutiny that I wouldn't wish on anyone. They've tried to paint me as some kind of villain, based on nothing more than social media posts and wild speculation.
Let's get into it.
Just to preface, this article was supposed to be about Boost Collective. Instead, I'm here defending how I spend my wage in my personal time.
The article attempts to portray me as someone who spends lavishly or fraudulently. This is based on nothing more than personal Instagram photos and gross assumptions.
One example? They used a picture of me at a pool in Africa, framing it as proof of some extravagant lifestyle.
The truth? The Airbnb cost me around $50 CAD a night, splitting with my friends. I travel smart. I make the most of my money. But the writer is determined to portray a personal experience as excessive.
Is my being in poverty the only way to make the writer happy?
Here is a link to the actual Airbnb.
A photo of the Airbnb on my personal social media matches the listing.
The other listings are also all super cheap to travel to and stay at:
But again, the article doesn't care about facts—it cares about optics. And if they can take my normal, modest experience and slap a misleading caption on it, they will.
But we're just getting started.
The article also tried to build a case for “lavish spending” by showing a photo I shared on my personal Instagram page of me at a Toronto brunch spot called KOST.
There, I spent $45 CAD on a meal, or ~$31 USD. That’s not outlandish, especially for a restaurant in a major city. Since when is enjoying a mid-priced brunch a red flag?
Here is an image of their menu:
Is every meal out now suspicious? Is going to brunch some new sign of financial crime?
What's next? Oh, they used a personal photo of me hiking in the mountains as if that were part of some luxury lifestyle.
That was a free hike. It literally cost $0. But when someone’s goal is to invent a narrative, facts don’t matter—only optics do.
They’re pulling from thin air, using normal, everyday moments to weave a fantasy of fraud. Here is the location for those who care:
As seen in this image, a CAD $212 flight from Toronto takes you to Lake Louise, which many Canadians use as an affordable getaway instead of traveling abroad.
That was honestly probably my cheapest-ever trip.
And yet another example of sloppy, sensationalist reporting: The writer uses a photo of Damian and I in Los Angeles, which the writer falsely labelled as taken in 2025.
In reality, that photo was from 2023, which is clearly visible on my personal Instagram page, where they got this photo from. This is another example of purposefully fabricating information.
I was standing in front of a rental car, a 2014 BMW 6 Series (worth about $20k USD).
This was twisted into more claims about lifestyle and timeline manipulation.
After attacking my personal spending decisions, it's time to concoct some theories and make baseless accusations of what I do OUTSIDE of Boost Collective:
No evidence was presented anywhere of 'fundraising' anything—not one investor conversation, not one article. Why? because there is no proof for their claims.
The claim that I’m “building a house of cards” is just more baseless drama. There is zero factual basis for it. So sensationalist, it reeks of a tabloid.
The author chose to go on a vicious, personal attack against me. They drew outrageous and defamatory comparisons between me and high-profile fraudsters.
Here are some more accusations put forth against me:
Let's start with the so-called 'Web3 company'. To be clear, I do not own, operate, or have any involvement with the Web3 company referenced in the article.
So, how did they get this claim that I had founded a Web3 company?
Well, they looked at my LinkedIn profile and saw that I am involved in a company called 'Northern Labs.'
So what do they do? They find a DIFFERENT company with the same name and, without further investigation, claim that this is the company I am operating.
On the left is the 'Northern Labs' company I am affiliated with (note the domain of the email is northernlabs.co), and on the right is the entirely different 'Northern Labs' company I have no affiliation with (note the domain of the email is northernlabs.ca).
Even a basic glance at LinkedIn would show that this is a completely separate entity—a fact the article chose to ignore to fit its narrative.
Nonetheless, they take screenshots of this company's website (not related to me) and say it's mine:
Jabari’s Northern Labs is an advertising consulting firm for B2B businesses:
Here is another proof of poor due diligence:
My Northern Labs is registered solely for emails. I don't even have a website.
Rather than performing proper due diligence, the writer conveniently saw “.ca” on the Web 3 company and assumed I'm responsible for that company.
In an incredible turn of events, they even post the 'employees' of this company I have no affiliation with, which clearly proves I'm not even part of their team (lol):
Screenshot of the unrelated Northern Lab's company employees
I'm not sure how this entirely separate company, unrelated to myself or Boost Collective, would feel about being called out in an article that has nothing to do with them (I'm guessing they wouldn't be happy).
This again begs the question: Is this poor journalism or purposeful, malicious ignorance of the facts to make me and Boost Collective look bad?
Here's another stunning example of how far this writer is willing to go to discredit us… and frankly, how far they're willing to delve into the personal lives of employees like me:
The article states that I lied about having a bachelor's degree with the intention of pretending I'm older.
How does the writer know this was my intention? Or does it just conveniently serve a false narrative the writer is trying to paint?
Do they have any proof to back up their accusation that I lied about my degree? In fact, yes, here's their proof:
No, your eyes aren't deceiving you. Their sole source of proof is a photo of me PARTYING on my personal social media page AFTER I graduated, therefore it's impossible that the dates line up.
I'll let the reader ponder on the myriad of faults this 'evidence' has going for it.
But beyond this, having the audacity to use an Instagram post of myself while publicly putting on blast the other unrelated individuals in the post is incredible to me.
How does tracking down the dates I went to a 'party' have ANYTHING to do with Boost Collective?
How would Boost Collective customers be deceived by a personal post I made on Instagram 3+ years ago?
I guess this is their attempt to try to prove my 'young' age, as their discriminatory assumption is that my young age = scam individual.
But hey, anyone with 'AP journalistic standards' would do the same when making an unbiased, well-informed article in good faith, right?
The implication that I’m somehow trying to “conceal my age” for gain is a complete fabrication.
The publisher of the article really thinks artists are so stupid as to be 'deceived' by my 'fabrication of age'.
What this tells me, honestly, is that this isn't really about Boost Collective.
It’s a distraction, a smear tactic, and a joke to anyone who knows what actual reporting looks like. It's wild speculation and a clear vendetta. It’s grasping at straws.
That's another one down and onto the next.
Another baseless accusation the article makes is that I'm starting a record label in an attempt to steal artists' revenues.
They've invented the idea of a "Boost Collective" umbrella - and stuck together a pile of nonsense to frame me as a fraudster.
The claims are apparently 'substantiated' from a mix of misrepresented LinkedIn posts + dorked articles:
Left: A graph between record labels and Private Equity. (3 years ago)
Right: A documented image of Ronan & Jabari having a talk about catalogs (2 years ago)
Haven't had enough? Here's even more:
Yes, on my personal LinkedIn profile I indeed made a few passing remarks to the Roman Empire.
But hey, the publisher deems this as strong enough "evidence" to question my integrity and make me look evil.
Aesthetic choices. Historical metaphors. Thoughtful reflections on ambition. All clear proof of Jabari's malice.
Let’s be clear: using the posts and content I post personally outside of Boost Collective, such as my writing on business or leadership, is not some kind of dog whistle for fraud. It’s intellectual exploration, something I do for fun, and something I deeply enjoy doing.
But rather than engage with the ideas I post in good faith, they frame it as evidence of “zealous ambition". I mean, is this real reporting? Or a twisted fan fiction where I'm cast as the villain in a story of their own invention?
I could dive into even more examples of personal attacks and insinuations of harassment throughout the article.
It's designed to demonize me at every turn and strip away years of honest, hard work.
The article doesn’t read like an impartial review—it reads like a hit piece:
It’s embarrassing, frankly, for them. Instead of verifying a simple timestamp or asking a question, they'll force a story.
This pattern keeps repeating. Normal meals become "excess." Free hikes become "luxury getaways." A basic rental car turns into a "status symbol."
The framing is so far removed from reality that it borders on satire. It’s not journalism. It’s the product of someone trying to craft a villain instead of reporting the truth.
This is a hit piece, not an investigation. One too easy to disprove.
You would think that the publisher of the article would have done their research before blasting the full names and photos of individuals on the internet in a defamatory manner.
But that isn't the case.
It seems like the publisher uses years-old photos as sole evidence of who the founders of the company are (I mean, why would you reach out to Boost Collective to get accurate information as per AP journalistic standards, amirite?)
Due to the lack of proper investigation, they sweep up Matthias, a former employee, into their relentless smear campaign against Boost Collective:
Oh wait...
Matthias left Boost Collective in November 2023
Way to put the spotlight on an employee that hasn't even worked at the company for over a year.
We’ve always prioritized transparency and trust with our customers. To this end, we’ve shared photos of our team online, providing an honest, lighthearted glimpse into our office environment and the people working hard behind the scenes.
We share these photos in good faith on our ‘about us’ page to build rapport and foster confidence in our company.
Regrettably, the article has taken these photos out of context in a reckless and harmful manner.
They have arrows pointing to the floors, captioned ‘The floors are identifiable. I can look for these in other photos’.
This is not only an invasion of privacy but also a dangerous act of incitement to find our office address that serves no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.
By posting photos of the team with captions such as ‘Should be easy enough to find. Their booth number was A2627. I will dork for this’, the author crosses ethical boundaries and raises serious safety concerns for our team.
The article makes multiple malicious attempts to target our employees, who have done nothing more than work hard to support artists and build a platform for their success.
Another question is simply, why? How does this investigate the quality of our services? What is the intended purpose of including this in their article?
This does nothing but motivate people to invade the privacy of our team members in ways as demonstrated by the author in the examples above.
This is not just irrelevant to the so-called mission of 'keeping artists informed' but also poses a real and unacceptable risk of harm.
We put ourselves out there to show we stand by our brand and product. We could choose to be like so many faceless companies in the music industry, hiding behind a logo.
By doing so, our team ends up in the crossfire, becoming easy targets for nefarious articles like these.
TLDR: How does inciting harassment within your article help keep artists informed about Boost Collective?
Here is another example of a so-called 'investigation' that again has absolutely nothing to do with judging the quality of Boost Collective's services:
Here's their method of 'investigation':
What did they aim to accomplish with this dissertation? Congratulations, you discovered Canarts Media, an entirely separate company that you put on blast for no reason.
That kind of irresponsible behavior can lead to real-world consequences. It’s careless.
But wait, it gets worse.
The recklessness didn’t stop with us. It extended to innocent people who aren’t even involved in the music industry.
One of our friends, has no ties to our business operations whatsoever, had his personality been questioned, his business was put in the spotlight.
He was roped into this fabricated scam narrative for no reason. Simply guilt by association.
And even went as far as misgendering him in the process.
The writer dug into his domain registration info and questioned why his domain was private, as if "hiding" something. Well, it seems clear now: because of people exactly like this writer.
What does this even have to do with Boost Collective?
All because his business name includes the word “Collective”, they put his full name on blast in their article. As if that’s enough to justify dragging him into a false narrative. How does this help musicians? It doesn’t. It’s pointless, invasive, and rooted in paranoia, not truth.
Even more disturbing: the writer included in photos of an employee's girlfriend alongside all the other non-affiliated people who have nothing to do with Boost Collective.
I mean, where do we draw the line here, guys? What is the point?
Reputations harmed, trust eroded, and careers unfairly targeted. All because one writer would rather chase controversy than check facts.
What’s actually being exposed here is a complete lack of ethics. It's a willingness to exploit unrelated individuals for clicks.
The publisher seems to hope that they can win brownie points with the music artist community by publishing an article so densely packed with baseless accusations and lies that they'd assume nobody would actually fact-check it.
That's our guess, anyway.
Here's another example of where the article crossed the line:
The writer claimed we were 'in high school' (no proof is provided) in a photo taken at a tech conference, where we were, in fact, representing our company professionally and in our twenties.
We even went to happy hours to network with other enterprising people from around the world.
The ageist discrimination reeks throughout their entire hit piece, as you can see.
Here's another one:
As you can see in the screenshot above, the article spews out more unnecessary personal attacks, making it look more like a hate-filled op-ed than a formal, unbiased article.
It's also very ironic to say we can't write a coherent sentence when they make typos, as seen above.
Worse yet, the writer ripped even more personal photos from our private Instagram accounts—pictures of us simply enjoying life, partying, and having fun.
Then tried to use them as some sort of twisted evidence that we lack work ethic or seriousness.
Let’s be honest: the music industry is a fun industry. It thrives on culture, energy, and creativity.
Taking images of us living life and then trying to twist them into an argument about our business credibility is laughable and sad.
They used regular experiences (e.g., a rooftop lunch, a city walk, a poolside photo) to demonize us.
It reveals a complete lack of understanding about the space we operate in, a desperate attempt to manufacture a scandal where none exists.
Instead of acknowledging that we’ve built a thriving company helping thousands of artists... The writer chose to frame our youth, our style, and even our joy as a red-flag scam.
Being young doesn’t make us less capable, and enjoying life doesn’t mean we don’t work hard. The only thing these photos prove is that we’re real people with real lives, building something that matters, despite people like this trying to tear it down.
Why do you think so many music artists in the world resonate with us? Because artists enjoy life, enjoy the creative flow state, enjoy their youth, enjoy seeing the REAL and HUMAN side to a company, which is why we stand out against many of our competitors:
Instead of focusing on facts or results, the author speculated on how old we “might have been” and built a condescending narrative from there. Not only is that lazy reporting, but it’s also discriminatory and harmful.
Age has no bearing on ethics, professionalism, or ability.
And to weaponize age as some kind of red flag, while ignoring our verifiable achievements. It's a transparent attempt to discredit us through prejudice, not evidence.
Now that we have finally addressed every major instance of discrimination, ageist remarks, and personal attacks, we can finally sink our teeth into actually defending Boost Collective and debunking the bogus claims made against us.
Alright, let's get down to business. The article accuses us of having a 'twisted', secret business model that screws artists over, cobbled together through a mountain of baseless allegations which we will disprove.
Here is their grand theory:
As you might already know, Boost Collective offers music promotion and distribution services:
These run parallel to one another—you can purchase a music promotion campaign and never use our music distribution platform, or you can pay for music distribution and never purchase music promotion.
Or, you can decide to do both! For example, we give an optional free 14-day trial to our music distribution subscription when you purchase a music promotion campaign.
Playing around with our website proves this.
But rather than asking us for comment or making an attempt to see exactly how the service works, they concocted this theory mentioned above, where they totally misrepresent the way we offer our services.
Throughout the sections below, we will provide clear-cut evidence proving their 'theory' wrong that you, the reader, can independently verify.
The author of the article claims that we don't run real campaigns, that we don't know a thing about marketing, that we only promote ourselves, and that there's no evidence of any successful campaigns that Boost Collective has ever run.
The fact is... that's simply not true.
We also made a video refuting all of these claims with evidence.
Check it out, it debunks the following:
The article states that there is no public record of Boost spending money to promote any artist.
And that no artist associated with us has ever provided evidence of a successful marketing campaign.
Let's prove this wrong…
There is no public record of us running successful campaigns for artists?
One of these 10 million stream plaques hangs in our office, a gift from artist dampszn in recognition of the results we helped achieve.
He’s listed publicly on our website:
Let's continue with this example.
We’ve achieved millions of streams together with dampszn, and we’ve been doing so for years.
Let's pull the overall stream data from some of his songs as of March 25th, 2025. We have access to his Spotify for Artists data, and he granted us access to view it.
All of these songs have been promoted through Boost Collective’s playlisting services.
Now, lets pull 3 examples of playlists we got him placed on.
We generally avoid showing off playlists, ad accounts/pages associated with them for the protection of artists.
Unfortunately, there are bad actors in the music industry, and all too often, when we reveal playlists publicly, they get targeted with bot followers… The organic growth and thousands of dollars spent to grow them through ads end up going to waste.
Watch this video for more context.
In the meantime, here are more case studies:
Source: Spotify
Let's check on this campaign.
Here’s a screenshot of proof of having access to the Spotify for Artist data for their song, and 3 more examples of playlists we got the song on (There were more than just 3 playlists used to promote the song).
Let’s have a look at them!
All three of the playlists shown above are verified and legit.
We have included a time stamp to protect us from more attackers, who can easily target and bot our playlists once they discover them, then claim we are fake or a scam, like the article we are responding to here…
We also have the best interest of the artist in mind… as we don’t want anyone targeting their music or being affected in the case that someone decides to target a list they are on.
It would be a terrible look on us, and it would frame us as the bad guys (as the author is trying to do). It's happened before… and we’re sure it will happen again.
Purposefully Ignoring Our Artist Testimonials On Our Current Site
Why not reach out to Matt Corman directly to ask him if Boost Collective is legit or not?
Let's touch on their point: “No Boost artist has ever provided evidence of a successful campaign run by Boost. (We Checked).”
One client we began working with in 2024 was Matt Corman. One of the biggest independent artists.
He is proudly displayed on our main website home page.
His case study is one of the most successful marketing campaigns and a feat we are incredibly proud of. We were able to build a playlist for artist Matt Corman that yields over 100k streams monthly.
Let's break down some recent data around this playlist.
In the image above, we have included the streams from the lyrical lab playlist we grew for Matt in the last 28 days.
We also show a screenshot from Artist Tools as of March 27th, 2025, when we wrote this.
We also show a graph of the organic follower trend since the inception of the playlist being launched.
Since March 1st, 2025, $1,984.45 has been spent on the playlist. This is directly from the Meta Ads Manager.
We also show a view of the ads running, how many clicks the ad is getting, and at what cost.
Out of respect for Matt, we have put red boxes over the streams for his ‘Radio’ and ‘Mixes’ results.
Since July 23rd, 2024, we’ve achieved 1,102,069 streams through the Lyrical Lab playlist that we’ve grown for Matt Corman.
The playlist is also displayed publicly at the top of his ‘Discovered on’ section on Spotify.
Let's go a step further… We reached out to Matt Corman, and he consented to have a call recorded verifying the work that we’ve done, and his experience working with Boost:
Have a listen to the call above.
In this video… Matt verifies that yes, we have indeed achieved over 1 million streams through his playlist.
We even asked him to verify that he had not been botted. He confirmed that everything was indeed legitimate.
How about a small indie artist who uses Boost Collective for promotion?
As of this writing (March 27th), indie artist Jmbeats just posted a video on his Instagram account going over his playlist additions from his small Boost Collective campaign.
Source: Jmbeats Instagram Post
He was excited by the early results he’s already seeing after just a few days since purchase… His first playlist was added just 2 days ago on March 25th.
We reached out to Jmbeats, thanking him, and this was his reply:
He’s actually a really great guy and a talented artist for his size. Anyone interested in his music can find it here!
Oh, and by the way… he doesn’t even distribute his music through us… This also helps debunk the misinformation the article states about artists having no choice but to distribute their music through us if they want to be promoted.
He, like the vast majority of our clients, purchased his campaign in minutes on the website.
To finish off this section, we’d like to highlight their article once again…
Source: fireandlifemusic Instagram Post
If you go to the 'tagged' section of our Instagram page, you can literally find artists posting about playlists that they’ve gotten on.
Shout-out to them for posting and tagging us back in March of 2024!
Source: Bryansanfordmusic Instagram Post
How about this post from September 14, 2025?
The author proves they are fully capable of digging deep to find evidence, yet ignores anything that might contradict their narrative.
Let's dive into some smaller campaigns that are currently running as of March 2025.
The first example is from Jimmy Frizzell and his song 'Paradise':
Stream count on Spotify last 28 days
Stream graph on SpotonTrack
Proof of playlists we added the song to via SpotonTrack
Proof of playlists we added the song to via Spotify
Despite being burned in the past, Jimmy has seen great results across multiple songs with Boost. He's come back and purchased campaigns multiple times.
Here's another example:
And another example:
The artist released, but SpotOnTrack delayed the data slightly, on a consistent growth considering new placements
Another example:
Bethany Cruz has seen very consistent results with a healthy amount of new listeners, streams and more through her campaigns with Boost Collective.
And yet another example:
Taylor Ricard's promotion has been consistent, remember to average out the gap days and the “spike” days in this visualization due to the glitchiness of SpotonTrack.
While Spotify's algorithmic breakdown of stream sources isn't publicly disclosed, we can show a real, verifiable correlation between our playlist ads and measurable stream growth.
That’s what matters when using a supporting service like Boost Collective.
Our playlists are publicly visible, the songs placed in them are trackable, and the stream upticks are available for anyone to analyze—if they actually care about the truth.
This is the kind of transparency we operate with.
One of the article's most bizarre and uninformed claims is that because our Boost Collective Meta Ads library doesn’t show artist-specific ads, it must mean we’ve “never actually promoted artists.”
If you haven't checked out this video yet, there is proof refuting this claim in there as well.
This is such a surface-level, misleading conclusion that it’s hard to take seriously. Of course our business ad account doesn’t have artist campaigns publicly listed—we don’t run them from the same account.
We’re not trying to mix audiences or data. The Meta pixels between our marketing-facing
business site and the music-facing consumer campaigns are different.
This is basic advertising hygiene.
If you're writing a so-called exposé about music promotion... First, learn how music promotion actually works.
Puts a new angle when reading this, eh:
ironic. Like that Alanis Morissette song.
No serious music promotion firm mixes its artist ads with its business ads. Why?
Because the audience for musicians who want promotion is completely different from the audience of casual music fans who click on Spotify ads and discover new artists.
Just look:
The other top Playlist promo firms. It’s not just Boost Collective – it’s common sense.
Anyone who’s ever actually run Meta campaigns at scale would understand this instantly. The writer's use of this as "evidence" is not just false—it’s out of touch.
We’ve built separate campaigns, pages, and ad flows to maintain clean data and optimize results—that’s what any competent, results-driven company does. Yet here we have someone trying to school us on how promotion works.
While completely missing the most fundamental aspect of ad segmentation and ad pixel discipline.
So they’ve accused us of two things:
Beautiful. We’ll move on to the fake claim that we’ve never run ads for artists.
To further prove just how baseless the claim is that we've “done nothing for artists.” Let’s talk about a campaign we ran for the artist AUGY. One that had no playlist placements involved at all.
For this project, we worked directly with AUGY to produce and edit high-performing ad creatives.
AUGY's campaign was handled professionally from start to finish. There was nothing “childish” about it. Behind the scenes, we executed every step with intention, structure, and discipline.
We co-developed the storyline and launched a full-scale paid ad campaign.
Then came rigorous testing. We didn’t just run one version of the ad.
We tested hooks, thumbnails, copy, CTA placements, and even timing. We gave the campaign room to breathe, and then we monitored real-time performance data to scale what was working.
This kind of campaign takes patience, organization, and skill. It’s the very opposite of the reckless “house of cards” image the article tried to paint.
That’s the truth they conveniently ignored. And it's the truth we’ll continue to stand on.
The result? Over 500,000 streams, significant listener growth, and a real, engaged fanbase.
Left: Adderall High stats on Spotify, Right: Adderall High stats on Viberate
And here is proof that we are the payers of this direct-to-song ad campaign:
We didn’t just toss up an ad and hope for the best. We received real comments, real engagement, and real proof that our promotional strategy works.
No bots. No shortcuts. Just smart marketing and well-executed creative.
For proof, here is the link to one of the Instagram ads we ran for Adderall High:
Left: Apple Music results for Adderall High, Right: Organic comments from listeners driven by our ads.
Running direct ads to Adderall High was how we reached over half a million streams in under 20 weeks.
Here's AUGY himself vouching for his campaign results with Boost Collective:
To summarize, I hope this has given you (the reader) enough evidence to discredit their accusations:
Are you still not convinced? You're in luck—we made a video breaking it all down. Check it out here.
Just to summarize:
We were accused of never running ads because the public-facing Boost Collective ad account, which is used to promote our company and services, is NOT used to promote playlists.
Of course, to anyone with even a bit of ad buying experience, it is clear that you split ad accounts based on what you want to run ads to.
We have separate ad accounts we use to run ads to our playlists (again, something the publisher would have discovered if they had given us a chance to comment), which is standard practice.
Based on the mountains of evidence above, we have proven that we run ads to these playlists and directly to songs as well.
Now, let us double down and address every allegation the article made about us giving bot streams.
To begin with, it's crucial to understand that we exist to provide real music promotion for independent artists.
Our mission statement is to 'be the best at music promotion in the world'.
Therefore, any allegations of bot streams are direct attacks on the very core of our mission. We take these claims with the utmost seriousness, as they undermine the integrity of who we are and why we come into work every day.
Let us be absolutely clear: we do not, and will not, tolerate any form of artificial manipulation of streaming numbers.
We will always work hard to provide real exposure for artists. We are prepared to demonstrate, with evidence, the baseless nature of these accusations. Let's dive in.
The screenshots above claim that 1) this song is distributed by us, 2) botted by us, and 3) had its stream counts removed due to us botting it.
The article provides precisely zero—not a shred, not a whisper—of evidence linking this song to anyone who has ever engaged with Boost Collective. No client testimonials, no order confirmations, no communication logs.
Nothing. Instead, we're asked to accept, on blind faith, that because this song is distributed under 'Collect Entertainment, LLC.' and because our name is 'Boost Collective Inc.', we are somehow the puppet masters behind this entirely separate entity.
This is akin to claiming that because a restaurant named 'Joe's Burgers' exists, and you run 'Joe's Pizza,' you are therefore responsible for any questionable ingredients found in their patties.
It's a preposterous assertion, built on nothing more than a superficial similarity in names and a desperate need to fabricate a connection where none exists.
In fact, we have evidence to prove that this very song they claim is botted and distributed by us, was actually distributed by DistroKid:
Source: here u go.
The article offers nothing but conjecture and innuendo, expecting us to accept their narrative without question.
But hey—let's assume they're right—why don't we verify who Collect Entertainment, LLC is?
Well, it just so happens to be the artist Loovy himself.
This once again shows a clear disregard for the supposed journalistic integrity of the attacker.
I wonder how this artist would feel having his brand, song, and name associated with literal misinformation. He seems like an entertaining guy!
We even reached out to Loovy about the situation, this was his response:
He was obviously pretty shocked and confused...
They've presented a theory that would make a tabloid editor blush. Where is the proof? Where is the artist's testimony? Where is the connection to Boost Collective?
The article offers nothing but conjecture and innuendo, expecting us to accept their narrative without question.
However, Loovy is not the only artist mentioned.
A song that music artist Jayo distributed with Boost Collective has also been accused of having its streams wiped.
Judging by the screenshot, this photo was taken from the Spotify web player. The player only displays play counts for an artist's top 10 songs with over 1,000 plays.
But if you take twenty literal seconds to check the play count in the Spotify app (Desktop, IOS, or Android app), you will see some impressive plays.
Here is the same song viewed in the Spotify web player, not on the app.
There are two theories here of what might have happened, and neither looks good for 'MusicScamAlert':
1) They genuinely had no idea that the Spotify web player doesn't display streams, and without any further research, felt confident this was their 'gotcha' moment (wonderful journalism), or
2) They purposefully used the Spotify web player instead of a Spotify interface that displays streams to push their narrative.
And considering we have other instances where they provided manipulated or doctored 'proof', it's reasonable to suspect the same could have happened here.
I would like to remind you of what they wrote in their email to us:
Well, we verified that this 'evidence' is bogus.
But this is not even the only claim made on the Jayo track:
We have already established that the plays have, in fact, not been wiped.
But whatever, let’s go ahead and attempt to follow their theory.
The article is claiming we put customer songs on playlists we bot, then refuse to remove the track since we are the distributor. Spotify then flags the release for bots, we pay the fine, then keep the earnings?
Among other parts of our article, as also debunk this theory here.
Not only does 'MusicScamAlert' provide no proof that we run or operate a bot farm, but we have mountains of evidence to suggest the opposite.
For more evidence, please refer to this video made by our in-house ad buyer on how we legitimately get results.
We think it's important to state this again:
'MusicScamAlert' accused us of running a Bot Farm with no tangible evidence.
Does not give us an opportunity to refute the claim or defend our side of the story.
And then proceeds to blast this article all over the internet.
This baseless accusation (which we just refuted with this video and article) has caused us significant damage.
This is dangerous 'journalism', and we hope nobody ever has to be the victim of such a hit piece.
This is one of the most incredible accusations made throughout their article and is also core to the narrative they want you to believe.
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to start.
As seen above in the 'Bot Farm' accusation, they accuse us of having a Bot Farm because they claim we provide a lot of 'India-origin streams' (no evidence for this either, but we dispel this accusation in this video). I don't know if the publisher knows, but here are Spotify's payouts per stream from India vs. the USA:
As you can see, streams from the USA pay over 480% MORE than India streams. If we were somehow able to generate one million Indian streams, we would make a MEASLY $841.
Here's an additional source estimating stream payouts per country (as of 2022).
So, how many hundreds of millions of 'India' bot streams would we have to give out in order to make a 'scam empire' amount of cash?
Furthermore, 'MusicScamAlert' failed to provide even ONE example of a song with millions of 'India' or other so-called Bot Farm location-derived streams visible. Why? Because there are none.
The only examples they were able to find (or manufacture fake evidence of) were songs that had no streams visible on them, which in theory would also PROVE that Spotify DETECTED the 'so-called' fake streams, and REFUSED to pay them out?
So, for us to make any serious kind of money, MusicScamAlert assumes:
1. We take a song and cram many MILLIONS of streams on it from India (again, one million streams is only ~$841)
2. Spotify is apparently so bad at detecting fake streams that they let MILLIONS of these fake streams get paid out
3. Once Spotify discovers they paid out these MILLIONS of streams, they 'hide' the stats.
Spotify clearly states that they do not pay out bot streams.
Make it make sense.
TLDR: Their bogus claim that we make money off of bot streams is proven FALSE.
This accusation alone is proof that the article is not only chock-full of weak (or manipulated) evidence, but you can also discredit many of its accusations by using a little bit of logic, doing a little bit of research, and taking their accusations to their logical conclusion.
Again, none of such evidence was ever given:
1) Proof of revenue we generated from fake streams
2) Songs that have bot streams on them
3) That we own or operate a bot farm
The severity of these accusations cannot be ignored. These are damaging to our reputation, employees, and everything we stand for.
Given that we were able to discredit these accusations easily, does 'MusicScamAlert' sound like a trustworthy publication or a dangerous outlet spewing fake news with malicious intent?
And to bring this point home, we never guarantee streams. If we could bot artists, why would we purposefully not guarantee streams?
Here's an excerpt from our very own help center:
One of the major accusations the article made is that we bot our playlists.
They keep coming back to 'Unpause' as one of their major points to 'prove' this:
Well, we want to put any claim that we bot ANYTHING to rest, once and for all.
To do this, we got our ad buyer to make a video in which he will walk you through a full breakdown of how we launch playlists and prove that our playlists are legitimate.
So yeah, I hope that video makes it clear we've debunked these bogus allegations:
But anyway, here's another allegation to cover:
The image they are referring to is from an article that was posted to our free-to-read blog over 4 years ago. The purpose of the article is purely educational. The context of the article (read it for yourself) is to help artists get added to playlists.
See the image below to see the context they conveniently did not add to their article:
As seen above, a mock illustration to prove a point in an educational article is not proof that we used this playlist to fulfill customer orders.
TLDR: They took a mere illustration in a 4+ year-old free educational article we made to help artists, and tried to misconstrue it as one of their main proofs that we bot playlists and streams. Seems like a weak argument, don’t you think?
Again, we do not deal with, purchase, or have any relationship with anything related to bots or artificial streaming activity. You can't build a real, long-term customer base with real artists supporting us on this.
Here's a way we can further prove our point.
Aaron, the owner of Artist.Tools, perhaps the most trusted playlist verification platform, actively analyzes companies' playlist legitimacy. Artist.Tools gave us the opportunity to demonstrate that our playlists are legitimate (something that should be expected of 'journalists' who supposedly 'keep artists informed', unlike 'MusicScamAlert').
We happily obliged, and Artist.Tools proceeded to make us a dedicated page, defining us as legit. Who seems like a more trustworthy source? 'MusicScamAlert', who claim to follow 'AP journalistic guidelines' then proceed to violate those very core principles, or Artist.Tools, who took the time to actually verify claims, get our side of the story, and clear our names once all evidence is considered?
https://www.artist.tools/review/boostcollective
We encourage artists to verify the legitimacy of our playlists through artist tools. We believe this is an exceptional tool that helps artists navigate the music promotion space.
One of the recurring themes central to their theory that Boost Collective is a 'scam' is that we use our music distribution service maliciously to trap artists, among other things.
We have compiled every single accusation the article has made in regards to music distribution below.
Right off the bat, they make this incredible statement: We force artists to distribute with Boost Collective in order for them to get on playlists.
Yet they have not provided any proof that this is the case.
Why haven't they? Because a quick 30-second perusal of our website debunks their claim:
This is so blatantly wrong that it verges on malicious intent. This point has yet again proven that this publisher's journalistic integrity is nonexistent.
You can purchase and receive a music promotion campaign without using distribution or let alone making a Boost Collective account.
If the publisher had done their due diligence, they would have seen that we actually offer an optional 14-day free trial for music distribution that customers can try out as a freebie with purchase, and can be removed from checkout if not wanted:
You don't even need a Boost Collective account to make a purchase or track your campaign or order if you don't want to - you will get email updates on how the campaign is performing.
If the publisher were truly impartial and had any form of journalistic integrity, they would have spent 30 seconds verifying that we do not 'force' anyone to use our music distribution service.
It seems like another source of 'proof' they use to prove this claim is an old PDF they found, which we debunk in this section, but that's a story for later.
Here's another example of when they accused us of mandatory distribution:
It seems as though the author will do anything but actually go and try our service for themselves. They make the claim that artists using the Boost Collective distribution service are forced to sign contracts and agreements, signing their music away while we take everything.
However, if you actually check our distribution agreement, it actually reads:
“BOOST COLLECTIVE DOES NOT CLAIM ANY COPYRIGHT OR OTHER OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OVER YOUR MUSIC. WE ONLY OBTAIN A LIMITED LICENSE TO DISTRIBUTE IT”.
Any artist uploading their music through our platform can attest that we do not send them contracts and agreements they need to sign to distribute their music.
By the way, take downs on the Boost Collective platform are as easy as clicking the 'take down' button:
We also asked Isaac, our director of distribution, to go into the work he leads.
He felt he should explain on the surface what actually goes into running a distribution platform for artists.
He wrote the following on March 28th, 2025:
I never thought I’d have to explain how music distribution actually works — especially not on a Friday afternoon, at 32 years old, after a full week of handling real backend issues. But here we are.
I’m Isaac, Director of Distribution at Boost Collective. And while most people think this job is about clicking “upload” and waiting for songs to go live, the truth is… It’s not even close.
My team and I deal with a level of complexity most people don’t realize exists. We manually inspect every release. That means actually listening to each track, checking for content violations, verifying rights and licenses, and making sure artists aren't unknowingly uploading music that could trigger takedowns or legal flags.
We take sample usage seriously, too.
We monitor platforms like YouTube and TikTok for user-generated content that could cause issues. We manage YouTube Content ID claims. We make sure artists don’t lose out on revenue — or worse, get penalized — just because they didn’t clear something properly. We’re not here to punish artists, we’re here to protect them.
And when violations do happen, there’s no “pay the fine and move on” button. DSPs expect transparency and accountability. We have to show proof of action. We have to document everything. And that’s how we maintain strong partnerships with platforms that thousands of artists depend on.
I know most people won’t see this work. And that’s fine… It’s not glamorous. But when someone tries to downplay it or tosses around accusations like we’re not doing things by the book, it stings. Because I’ve seen how much time and care my team puts into this. I’ve seen what it takes to keep our platform legit… and to make sure artists aren’t shut out from the opportunities they deserve.
So if you ever want to know how distribution really works, not the shortcut version, not the conspiracy theories… Just reach out to our support team and ask for me. I’ll walk you through it myself.
— Isaac Benjamin
Director of Distribution, Boost Collective
We can also put this theory to rest.
Since we deliver music to major DSPs like Spotify, Apple Music, etc, we are forced to uphold the strictest music promotion rules.
If we have a customer paying to distribute music through us, we MUST provide them with legitimate music promotion that drives REAL people to their music, or else Spotify will FINE US, not the artist.
Again, zero proof is provided for the claim that we ‘mask bot streams’ by forcing people to use our distribution. This isn’t even how music distribution works. You can't 'mask bot streams'.
Regardless of whether you use Boost Collective for music distribution or any other company, Spotify will detect artificial activity and fine the distributor. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to mask bot streams regardless of whatever music distribution platform you use, as this detection happens at the Spotify platform level. Again, simple research would have surely caused this accusation not to be made.
They make this accusation again here:
As mentioned above, we do not force anyone to use our distribution platform.
It is also important to understand that the distributor is the one responsible for paying the fines in the eyes of the DSPs, as seen here:
Spotify charges labels and distributors, not the end user, the fines.
We have to pay the DSP automatically if there are fines.
So, let us get this right - the article claims we 1) forcefully distribute customer tracks, 2) bot their streams, and 3) face immediate, direct fines from Spotify and other DSPs that WE have to pay upfront FIRST, and somehow have a thriving business model this way?
Can you pass on the fines to the artist? Sure, but there is no reasonable way to force or obligate an artist to pay to cover the penalties we incurred.
A quick brush-up on the relationship between the DSPs, distributors, and users would come in handy before making such incredible theories.
Considering the article repeatedly makes these false allegations, we think it's important to show even more examples and make it clear just how wrong they are.
We care deeply about our standing with Digital Service Providers (DSPs). This isn't just business—it's about protecting our DSP connections, our distribution staff's careers, and our artists' futures.
Facts About Spotify Fines:
The suggestion that distributors face no consequences is fundamentally incorrect. As a provider of content to Spotify, we operate under strict guidelines, and fines can threaten our entire operation. Our position carries far greater risk than individual artists', making it critical to maintain compliance and protect our DSP relationships.
While we're at it, here's another false claim that the article hopes you just assume to be true:
Spotify's flagging system is entirely track-based, specifically ISRC-based. This is fundamental knowledge for anyone working in music distribution.
The article demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about how music distribution actually functions. Anyone with genuine experience in the distribution space knows that Spotify's tracking and flagging system operates on a per-track basis, using individual ISRC codes as identifiers.
This is not an opinion, but rather a technical fact about Spotify's infrastructure that any credible distributor would understand. The original claim shows a concerning lack of industry knowledge and experience in music distribution operations.
As you can see above, their misconstrued theories about how Boost Collective operates make ZERO sense if you have even the smallest amount of music industry know-how and do even the smallest amount of research.
But alas, we must push on, and it's time to address their allegations that we gave out bot streams.
The author accuses us of having fake reviews.
They claim that these are not real artists and that they don't even make music. However, within a matter of minutes, we were able to find those artists and prove that the reviews on the page were real.
This is a preface as the article uses the following as 'evidence' for multiple points, including their arguments for 'fake reviews' and 'predatory distribution':
In what appears to be another desperate attempt to make us look bad, the author fixates on the discovery of a hidden, old, and unused legacy backup of our website.
Let us be clear: this is a version of our many-year-old website that has neither been active nor intended to be accessible to the public.
The author's implication that this inactive site represents some kind of 'secret dirt' or evidence of an 'evil future business plan' is not only completely unfounded but also demonstrates a blatant disregard for factual accuracy.
To suggest that a dormant, internal-use website that is clearly not intended for the public has any bearing on the services currently offered to our artists is reaching at best, and nefarious at worst.
It has never been marketed to artists, it is not live, and it does not reflect our current operations or business model.
There's a reason the author is so seemingly proud of their 'working' method of finding this internal-use website, as there is basically no other way anyone would've been able to stumble upon it.
The author's attempt to spin this into a 'gotcha' moment clearly shows they're willing to grasp at anything, no matter how irrelevant, to fit their story.
Please keep this in mind as we debunk her accusations of 'fake' reviews. Many of the examples they cherry-picked were not even from our live, active site that is available to the public.
Another accusation made against Boost Collective is that our page was flagged for 'fraudulent' reviews.
In reality, this is not the case. The reason our Trustpilot page has that warning was that we were publicly displaying Trustpilot reviews on our website, which Trustpilot does not allow unless you pay for their service.
As you can see, upon updating our page, Trustpilot was quick to reinstate our page without the warning:
To further drive home the point that Trustpilot supports Boost Collective, they rank us on their 'Best in Music Management and Promotion' list:
This is yet another jab from the article that is blown purposefully out of proportion in order to make Boost Collective appear as bad as possible.
Let's have a look at Nathan Shapiro's review and verify that's actually a real person...
We looked up Nathan on our backend, and we were able to find him quickly.
We found emails back and forth between us and Nathan.
Nathan goes by the artist name: n8land. This is why, on the surface, if you look up his real name, you won't find him on Spotify.
Here's Nathan's music project. He makes some pretty cool music, ranging from Future Bass to more aggressive EDM styles.
If you check the credits of his music... You can find his name:
The author also claims that we had a fake review on an old version of our website from a girl named Ayiruana.
We did a quick search in our backend and we immediately found Ayiruana.
The author claims, "She is not an artist and does not make music." That is a bold claim.
Does the author not think for a second that many people who make music use an alias instead of their real name?
So, what name does Ayiruana use to make music under? She goes by AIR3SB3RR13S on Spotify.
If you check the credits of her music, her name is listed there as well:
Ayiruana ordered a small package from us back in 2023. Due to the size of her campaign, the 1,000-stream threshold required for streams to be publicly listed on Spotify has not been met.
Ayiruana was placed on a playlist called ALONE:
For transparency's sake, we believe it's very important to note that this playlist was unfortunately botted by someone who had targeted us (likely a competitor) in an effort to damage us. It was under the Boost Collective Spotify account, which was publicly displayed (more context in this video).
Ayiruana was placed in the time period before the playlist was botted by a bad actor.
As you can see, the playlist's followers had grown with ads. We stopped adding ads to it, and over time, it slowly started losing traction. Ayiruana was placed while the playlist was being grown.
We want to protect artists, after all. We don't want someone targeting their music with artificial streaming. This is exactly why we have archived that playlist and any other playlists targeted by bad actors.
Also, in searching for Ayiruana in our system, we found an email she sent us in which she said she loved Boost and went ahead and actually left a review.
Will 'MusicScamAlert' accuse us of faking this evidence, too? 🤔
How about the review from Rebelle Flor... apparently she isn't a real person or an artist either...
Upon a deeper look, we saw that the article misspelled one of the reviewers' names. Ironic, right?
Was it an accident? These are serious accusations. But then the article goes a step further and claims we manufactured the artist altogether.
The Article spelt “Rebelle” as “Robelle”. This is an artist that we've promoted in 2023 and 2024, not a “made-up” artist as the article claims.
Here's a screenshot showing the playlists from one of her campaigns we had worked on.
It's important to note again that she was added to the Unpause account before it account was targeted.
They claim to be doing “true journalism,” but their actions speak louder. We didn't receive any attempt to verify these accusations.
Just a rush to publish a headline based on a deliberately misspelled name and an unwillingness to do a basic fact check. That’s not reporting—it’s propaganda.
Instead of simply reaching out to us for clarification (which they never did), they created a fiction, then reported on it like it was fact. And that’s the heart of the problem: this writer doesn’t want the truth.
So then... let's sum this up:
They claimed the testimonials we provided were falsified. They claimed this page is proof of our deception, and this is how we "trick" artists... How can that be the case when the page from which these reviews were taken is neither public nor advertised?
It's hard to say if this mistake is negligence or nefarious. Either way, the lack of due diligence is shocking given the severity of their claims.
It's ironic that the article would critique us for being 'children' with 'no marketing know-how' with ferocity. Then do this. Was this a slip-up, or was it intentional? 🤔
The attacker falsely claimed we posted fake Trustpilot reviews. This claim is both false and defamatory, and we are publishing this statement to clarify the facts and defend the truth.
The article specifically targets a review left by a real customer, Atik Butt, who rated our service 5-stars and praised our support team for resolving a payout issue.
The article then engages in one of the laziest and most reckless forms of “investigation” we’ve ever seen: they searched Facebook, found someone with the same name in another country, and used that to call the review fake.
Let’s break this down.
The author of the article writes: “Lives in Mumbai. Doesn’t make music.”
This conclusion was made by simply looking up the name “Atik Butt” on Facebook... They found someone who lives in Mumbai, India who is not a musician. They used this as definitive “proof” that the Trustpilot review must be fake...
So let's break down exactly why this review is actually legit:
1) Trustpilot Publicly Shows A Reviewer's Location
The review in question is publicly listed as coming from a user in Pakistan. See below: (one click on the profile reveals this information).
Sorry, but India is not Pakistan
Mumbai is in India, and the reviewer is from Pakistan. These are different countries, cultures, and identities. There is no confusion here unless someone is intentionally trying to mislead.
The two individuals do not even look alike. Even a casual glance reveals this is a case of mistaken identity being willfully twisted into a baseless narrative...
Let’s walk through what actually happened with the real Atik Butt — who was, in fact, a Boost Collective user:
With regards to the support message above: To protect the customer's privacy, particularly regarding payout methods and personal account details, we have redacted sensitive information and only included the relevant messages necessary to verify the legitimacy of the review and the resolution provided.
Atik followed through and shared a 5-star review—not because we asked or faked it, but because we treated them with respect and helped solve his issue.
Let's check out Atik, or "Atikk" as he goes by sometimes within the review history:
Review on Songtradr (2021)
Review on Boost Collective (2025)
These reviews are timestamped and publicly visible.
This further reinforces that this was a legitimate customer who left genuine feedback across multiple platforms over multiple years.
Lastly, if you want proof that he is an artist, he goes by Oyee Atikk on Spotify:
The author claims that we are using fake screenshots… and makes claims that we aren’t able to have the data… because how on earth could one possibly have access to so many profiles?
Let's break it down…
The question of “why would they have access” misses the point—our clients gave us access.
Does the author not know that you can invite users to view your data on Spotify?
As far as we know, there is no limit to the number of artists you can access.
Let’s help the author out here. You can access the page above by going to the teams section in Spotify for artists, clicking on your artist you have admin-level access to, and then clicking invite… It's important to note that we only ask for “VIEW ONLY” access, as you can see in the email.
Very interesting how we would know this information when we've apparently 'never promoted a song before'…
We work directly with the artists we promote, often managing their campaigns with their full consent and collaboration.
“Why would they have access to all of these songs on their Spotify for Artists’ dashboard?”
Simple… When we want to share their success, we simply ask—and they agree to share.
The author says, “If that’s not the case, then they doctored these.”
So their lack of knowing that you can have access to multiple profiles is the reason why they’ve definitely decided that the results are fake…
Yes, we do have access to hundreds of artists’ Spotify for Artists accounts, which “Boost definitely should not have access to.”
So the author is saying that we shouldn’t ask for access to view and monitor the data for the campaigns we are working on? How would we be able to track our work?...
Artists grant us Spotify for Artists access so we can manage their campaigns effectively. That’s why the same device can display campaign dashboards.
The differences in UI are due to how the Spotify for Artists app was loading and displaying data that day…
In fact, let's go back and verify the results featured in one of the screenshots they deem to be fake:
Let's use the ‘Gone’ screenshot for example…
They’re saying this screenshot is fake and implying the results aren’t real…
The author even goes as far as to claim they have to be fake, because all the screenshots were taken from the same phone… which anyone who has used Spotify for Artists to view multiple artist data knows is not true.
Yes, they were all taken from the same phone. When we were building our landing page, we gathered many screenshots from the app in succession…
Here’s a visual recorded by us, to show how you can switch artist profiles. Anyone who has access to multiple profiles can easily do this:
As seen in the video, you can switch artist profiles in seconds, open their songs, and take a screenshot.
How does the publisher of the article not know this? They’re quick to label us as inexperienced and lacking marketing knowledge… but it seems like they don’t know how the Spotify for Artists app works.
In the quick screen recording above, we also show some of the results and screenshots that the author scrutinizes us on. As you can see, the stats are fully intact, there is no botting or stream wiping, and it was all shown within a minute.
Do they seriously think I need to sign IN and OUT of accounts to access Spotify for Artist data?
Check this out:
It takes no time to do this. Source: Spotify
Artists either share access directly or simply send us the screenshots and data themselves.
We’ve worked with multiple artists on a daily basis. Spotify knows this and, thankfully, makes switching between accounts easy.
This is good campaign management. A large roster view:
No message. No email. No questions. Just assumptions spun into a conspiracy theory.
Because "Inspect Element” seemed juicier than the boring nature of reality, they chose that.
We call this a Red Herring Accusation.
The writer created a fake scenario and drew a logical conclusion from it. While I’m sure Inspect Element could work, that does not link to us at all. You can’t call a conspiracy theory a “rabbit hole” and then absolve yourself of the burden of proof.
One of the most desperate and telling moves by the publisher was digging up an old, unused version of our website from years ago.
Here's more context about this old, unused website they use as 'evidence'.
The article took a photo from this website (not intended for public use) and tried to present it as an official “success story” being promoted to the public:
Left is the dorked experimental website placeholder image. Provided quickly by a designer.
Again, it’s not designed to impress. It’s a placeholder illustration for web dev.
Again, this is a visual placeholder illustration. Purple is the stream color used on the mobile app, and blue is used on the desktop version.
Doubling down (wrongly) on the illustration’s intention, and mixing this with their wrong claims of our lack of Spotify for Artist account access.
Never accounted for budgets, impact of release radar, or the validity of the screenshot here.
The reason why they drill down on this one screenshot that isn't even seen on our public website is that the actual customer results we have on our website are real and irrefutable evidence of campaign success.
Here's another example of them using this old website. Here, they claimed the testimonials we provided were falsified.
They claimed this page proves our deception of artists and that this is how we "trick" them. How can that be the case when this page is neither public nor advertised?
Overall, this is a perfect example of why this industry needs to be careful.
There are too many clout-chasing busters out here, willing to craft the most elaborate mental gymnastics imaginable just to generate clicks and spark controversy, even if it risks tanking the reputation of someone with fabricated and falsified evidence.
And they don’t care who they damage in the process. While they spend time crafting lies, we’re too busy helping musicians get heard.
That’s the real difference.
The truth doesn’t need to be twisted—it stands on its own.
The article paints a narrative that we use a many-year-old two-page distribution deal agreement that we make artists sign.
Since they found this agreement through dorking (this PDF isn't intended for the public and was never available on our public website), they concluded that artists are actually signing this agreement.
However this couldn’t be further from the truth, and not one shred of evidence is given to support their claim.
Artists are not signing this agreement - it's nowhere to be found on our current website, and it's not being offered at all.
Any artists signing up for our distribution service are not interacting with this agreement or any alternate draft of the agreement.
The author of the article claims that we’re currently using a predatory contract to rope in artists and steal their work.
This is not true…
Any artist who has signed up with a Boost account and is uploading music on the Boost Collective website is not being forced to sign a PDF…
The contract in question is a draft they found by hunting through our years-old files.
The biggest dead giveaway is that the Boost Collective logo on this draft hasn’t been used in years.
It also completely contradicts our publicly available distribution agreement, and the author never provided proof by finding anyone who has signed this agreement.
Here is a quick phone call between Ronan and Bryson Cole, an artist who uses our platform to distribute his music:
Bryson agreed to allow us to use this call recording.
When questioned about having to sign a contract with some of the terms the author mentions.. Bryson is confused because he didn’t have to sign any sort of contract at all.
A screenshot of this 'dorked' article that is not intended for use
Alright, so no one going onto our website is signing this contract and doesn’t have anything to do with our distribution platform…
However, they continue to use it to fabricate more 'evidence' of us being a scam… so let's set the record straight.
In their reply to our email, the author shut us down and said, “I don’t take phone calls”. We were never reached out to ask questions about what this contract was or what it was used for.
If we had gotten to speak with them, we would have been able to explain that this was never put into use, which is why there are no actual fields for artists to sign on the contract:
“Signing this deal is a massive risk”. – Yet there’s nothing to sign…
No representative from Boost Collective has their signature on the contract either… which further invalidates it and questions the relevance of why this was even dug up in the first place.
Once again, this is a document that is not intended for the public to see and is many years old. Yet they cling to this 'evidence' as many of their arguments:
The next section of this hit piece dives into some of the most absurd and bold allegations written by the author.
Based on this same dug-up PDF, they falsely claim that we match artist marketing budgets.
For any artist who has been on our site in years, they’d know this is nowhere to be found.
We don’t offer any such service on our website where we would be matching budgets.
Misinformation like this not only distracts from the real value we provide to thousands of artists every month, but also acts as a disservice to music artists who deserve to read impartial takes based on evidence.
The article makes many jabs calling our marketing ability into question.
This requires a rebuttal on its own, although we have addressed some of the bigger accusations in this video.
Another point the article made in an attempt to support their claim that we don't know anything about marketing is this:
The publisher claims that Release Radar cannot be pitched because the claims are factually incorrect. Let's set the record straight with official Spotify information:
Key Facts:
It's important to note that while Release Radar is algorithmic, it falls under Spotify's editorial playlist umbrella. This applies to genre-specific editorial playlists as well, which now utilize algorithmic curation.
Evidence shows that artists with zero followers can achieve Release Radar plays through:
The data clearly demonstrates that Release Radar placement is directly influenced by editorial pitching and promotional efforts, contrary to recent mischaracterizations.
Source: Spotify
This is yet again another claim we were able to debunk with just a bit of research that anyone could have done. Again, is this really an impartial, unbiased article aimed at informing artists? Or a slanderous smear campaign?
Alright, let's set the record straight for Content ID:
Artists that opt into Content ID receive a claim for using their own music on their channel—that’s how YouTube’s Content ID works.
It’s not something that can be hidden, and that’s the entire point of the system.
The publisher says that, unlike major distributors, we do not allow artists to choose whether to opt into Content ID.
If they had taken the time to actually check our platform (or ask us for a comment), they would see that we do as well:
Let’s touch on revenue splits for Content ID, while we're at it.
Framing this as an attempt to withhold or redirect artist earnings is not aligned with how Content ID operates on our distribution, especially as it states in our public distribution agreement that everyone can see linked at the bottom of our main website.
As you can see, we take a 20% cut from Content ID earnings, clearly displayed.
For comparison, DistroKid—widely regarded as a reputable company, especially to the publisher of the article that has an affinity for them—charges a yearly fee per song for Content ID access, plus 20% of content ID revenue. With Boost Collective, it’s offered without an upfront fee, and we’ve allowed eligible users to opt in since January 2024.
It’s also important to note that, like the majority of distributors, if revenue is generated through unethical or fraudulent means, we work with the stores to return those funds.
This is one of the key reasons we may need to temporarily hold earnings from a track if it falls under such a scenario.
This is incredibly standard, and is something all major music distribution platforms also enforce:
Here’s a snippet of United Masters’ distribution agreement which states: “We reserve the right to withhold a payout should we suspect that any information we have for you is incorrect, that you are involved in any fraudulent or illegal behavior, that an unauthorized person has accessed your account (but are not required to do so), or if we suspect that you have uploaded infringing content.”
Yet again, these are more baseless accusations that we now have to clear up in order to uphold our reputation.
Does this sound like fair, responsible journalism to you?
Let's break down the article's claims about 'Boost Credits'.
Using a hidden website that has no relation to the current services we provide, they accuse us of not paying out artists, but rather paying them out in credits:
They state that “They even use a 'points' system to award the royalty split to their artists, instead of telling them how much they actually have in the bank.”
This statement is absolutely absurd.
Not only is this not shown anywhere in the 'evidence' they provided above, but they also never provided an example of an artist who was 'paid out in Credits'.
For context:
This credit system had nothing to do with royalties at all. So then… what were Boost Credits?
Years ago, we offered artists the ability to use credits to get artist services, like cover art creation, music video creation, etc. You could purchase credits and use them in exchange for services on our site. Some readers might even remember this.
We had many services such as a cover art maker, a banner designer, music mastering, social media post creation, promo graphics, and more. Since a lot of the services would have been priced so low, and artists would want to order many of them at one time, we believed a credit system would make it easier. Artists could stock up on credits and get these small services without having to pay each time they wanted one.
However, demand for the services was minimal, and so we decided to phase out the credit system.
This is exactly why credits don’t exist on the current platform. The market didn’t care for them.
But NEVER in this offering was there any correlation with artist payouts.
Here's Bryson Cole, an artist who distributes music with Boost Collective, and his take on this so-called 'credit scheme'.
When he’s asked about the claim the author makes that we pay out in credits and not real money, he laughs and confirms that no… we do not pay out in credits… we pay out in actual money.
It's incredibly clear by just visiting our site that this has nothing to do with the actual services we provide, but rather is made to mislead artists and paint us in a bad light.
A smaller thing they use repeatedly as a 'gotcha' moment is this conversation we had with Spotify Support.
Ironically, the post exists to give artists clarity. The Article claims they are here to "help" artists, yet shames us for getting hands-on information.
For context: this is a screenshot we had as a conversation with Spotify support confirming that if you run ads to a playlist and add people to it, we are good.
Because as we have proven above, we do run ads to playlists that we provide for artists to pitch and get added to.
We wanted to ensure that artists know that playlists being grown through ads are totally okay with Spotify.
Funny enough, they admit there is nothing wrong with the substance, then move straight to insults.
Paradoxically, this screenshot relates to a common concern for artists:
Penalization.
Many artists struggle with knowing what is real or fake, so it's reassuring to get a response directly from the source. How can this be a disservice to artists?
As artists are moving independently, it's crucial they know it's OK to promote music via growing playlists.
Why push the narrative that simply displaying this fact indicates we are a scam?
Another stretch the writer makes is the accusation that Jabari was somehow “instructing artists to evade” something... Simply because he made a professional critique of a piece of industry advice.
The following is written by Jabari:
For context (that 'MusicScamAlert' conveniently left out): This was from an article we made on our blog helping artists understand REAL vs FAKE promotion.
Many music distributors, to make their lives easier, put flat-out blanket statements, getting artists to agree not to promote their music at all.
Of course, this doesn't help the small independent artist, because it takes away an option for exposure, which is using legitimate music promotion.
Our entire argument is that distributors SHOULD enforce not using 'fake' music promotion companies, but ALLOW legitimate ones to be used (like Boost Collective, as proven in this entire article).
In the article, we even added Reddit threads of artists being mad at DistroKid and other distributors for this pop-up (but again, adding this would ruin 'MusicScamAlert's' narrative):
Source: Boost Collective Review
Because guess what? Nearly every notable artist uses external promo services.
Not only is this accusation completely false, but it’s a gross misrepresentation of what it means to have a critical conversation in a low-trust industry. The worst part is, they tried to use that single moment to draw a conflict between Boost and a much larger, completely separate company.
Let’s be real: the term “evade” was never used by me, anywhere.
It was invented by the writer to push a narrative that doesn’t exist. I wasn’t promoting dishonesty. I was offering context—something their article sorely lacks.
We need more discourse in this space, not less. When information is treated as God’s untouchable dogma… We lose the opportunity to create useful campaigns.
If giving artists deeper insight into their options is now considered criminal, then the writer is making a case not against me, but against open thought itself.
Comrade, Big Brother (the writer) is watching! Careful not to offer a thoughtful counterpoint!
We aren’t the first nor only service offering playlist promotion. It's a thriving method of music promotion. It's dangerous to the community when Attackers paint "Us vs. Them" scenarios like this.
Especially since they make no effort to get our side of the story, it's clear the article is manufacturing conflict. The over-sensationalism they feed into the playlist promotion topic helps nobody.
I took the liberty of showing the expanded version of the blog (which the article cut out).
Source: Boost Collective Review
One of the most blatantly dishonest omissions in the article is how it conveniently cuts out my mention of a *sizable, legitimate promotion platform that recently partnered with two of the largest music distributors in the world.
That detail alone completely dismantles the writer’s narrative—that music promotion is inherently shady or worthless.
But instead of acknowledging this game-changing shift in the industry… The writer deliberately excluded it because it doesn’t serve the story they’re trying to push: that promotion is always a scam, and promoters are out to exploit artists.
It’s an insidious move, because the truth is, promotion helps artists—especially indie artists trying to break through the noise.
Even major labels regularly leverage external promo companies to help push their artists—we know because we’ve worked with them directly.
Not to mention. Labels invest a lot in playlists with Digster, Topsify, and Filtr.
(Filtr is owned by Sony Music, as their playlist stream engine)
Playlists.net was literally acquired by Warner Music Group. The industry values playlists DEARLY.
But you won’t find that in their article either. Why?
Because it proves that REAL music promotion isn’t some rogue, backdoor operation that should be avoided—it’s part of the machine.
Another accusation is that our user agreements are malicious in intent or 'out to get' artists. We are going to look at every example and prove that this is not the case.
For reference, when we drew up our terms of service agreements with our lawyers, we extensively researched similar music distribution and promotion platforms to help us frame our own agreements and use as a reference for professional standards.
And what you are about to see is that the very terms of service 'MusicScamAlert' deems malicious are almost identical to the terms you will find at other major music companies, like DistroKid:
Source: DistroKid
Again, more reckless accusations by 'MusicScamAlert' - even just a little bit of research would find that our agreements are in line with the rest of the industry.
Here is an Indemnification clause from DistroKid, yet again, where they also use the term 'defend'. What credentials do the writers at 'MusicScamAlert' have if we can discredit them this easily?
Source: DistroKid
Where do I even start with this one?
As you can see right in front of your eyes, this section says 'processing of any order for Services'. This entire section is taken from our 'Terms of Service', NOT our Distribution Agreement. The Distribution Agreement takes legal precedent regarding music distribution (not a confidential information clause in our TOS), and all music distributed through us abides by this.
You, the reader, can read through our terms of service and distribution agreements as well, and see that they take this clause out of context (as it relates to our SERVICES, not music distribution) and that the purpose of the clause is to tell users that we keep their data confidential.
This is yet again another way of manipulating evidence to make us look bad.
And here's another part of our agreement that they claim is malicious:
So this so-called waiver of moral rights is really bad according to 'MusicScamAlert'. Our question is then, why does DistroKid have the exact same clause in their own music distribution agreement?
Calling us a scam based on this 'evidence' automatically also assumes the same goes with DistroKid, and all other music distribution platforms with standard music distribution agreements.
Let’s set the record straight: there’s a big difference between unethical payola and how Boost Collective operates.
Payola means slipping money under the table to external playlist curators in exchange for placements, without transparency or any guarantee of listener value.
In the old days of the music industry.. A label would call up their buddy at the radio station, and slip them money off the record for spins…
At Boost Collective, artists place orders for promotion, and here’s what happens:
The music goes into our system and is pitched to our internal team of curators. We’ve built and maintained hundreds of playlists across major genres, moods & styles… They’re all managed by our team, not outsourced.
Songs are reviewed and added to the most relevant playlists based on fit. No bribes, no external gatekeepers.
Once placed, those playlists are actively promoted using real-time ad campaigns. We allocate budget dynamically depending on order volume at any given time.
These playlists serve as bodies of music — vessels we drive paid traffic to primarily via Meta.
Even in our own support article, we educate artists that they should avoid services that guarantee a specific stream count or playlist placements.
If an artist has no luck getting on playlists after they are pitched to the curation team, we either offer a refund or an alternative campaign (eg. YouTube music promotion), the choice is theirs.
So no — we’re not paying off anonymous playlist owners behind the scenes. We’re managing and growing our own ecosystem of playlists, curating with intention based on where we can fit music to the best of our ability, and pushing traffic with media buying.
There’s not a limited amount of playlists like the competitive editorial game where preferential treatment is given because of a bribe…
If an artist’s song is added to one of our playlists, it’s because:
That’s not payola, it's a modern, ethical approach to playlist marketing.
When we think about why we run Boost Collective, it's to level the playing field…
Every time a major label releases music, it always gets the special treatment.. It always lands editorial placement…
Independent artists rarely get top spots and almost never get special treatment from the major DSPs.
The majors have locked down all the verticals of growth. Tour support? Radio? DSP editorial? Strategic collaborations? Late-night talk shows? Good luck…
We do our best to give our clientele the best shot we can with what we’re given. Music is incredibly subjective, and the quality of music matters. Results vary. Some tracks do amazingly, some perform poorly. That’s the reality of music.
Phew, that was a long rebuttal. We weren't kidding when we said we'd go over everything.
As a refresher, this is their 'grand theory' of how we operate:
We have proven every single one of these points wrong. Here's a quick access guide:
| Their Theory | View Debunking |
| ❌ Boost distributes the music and retains rights. | |
| ❌ Boost places the track on botted playlists. | |
| ❌ Fake streams generate revenue. Boost Collects. | |
| ❌ Spotify flags the streams, but Boost, as the distributor, simply pays a fine instead of facing serious repercussions. | |
| ❌ Boost Continues monetizing the song indefinitely, while the artist remains locked in the system, unable to leave due to their restrictive contract. |
And as you have probably seen if you got all the way down here, these are just our primary rebuttals.
Just to bring the point home, we've tallied up every major instance of discrimination or personal attack we could find in the article (and we're 100% sure we're missing some).
The personal attacks and ageist discrimination are one thing.
Another is being caught using misleading and out-of-context 'evidence' to slander Boost Collective and accuse them of being a scam.
Here are merely the examples we were able to keep track of:
Using misleading, out-of-context 'evidence' at least 9 times in an article makes it seem like these weren't journalistic errors, but purposeful manipulation of the facts to slander Boost Collective.
Really makes us question what they meant in the email they sent us:
Especially when in the immediate next lines of the email, 'MusicScamAlert' claims such 'cited' sources may not be discovered:
Alright - what's next?
Honestly, this would take up too much time. There's a reason why our rebuttal is over 18,000 words long.
I think you get the point :)
After navigating this labyrinth of accusations, misrepresentations, and frankly, bewildering personal attacks, we hope the picture is clear.
Let's recap. The article, masquerading as an exposé, descended into a series of ageist slurs, character assassinations, and bizarre insinuations that would make a tabloid blush. We were painted as "Boss Babies" running a "bot farm," our intelligence and competence questioned solely based on our age. The publisher, in their infinite wisdom, decided that a group of individuals in their mid-twenties, with a sprinkling of older professionals, were somehow incapable of running a legitimate business.
Oh, the irony.
Think about it: in 2025, we're still fighting against the archaic notion that youth equates to incompetence.
We've had to debunk a slew of baseless accusations – claims that we run fake campaigns, deploy bots for streams, rely on fabricated reviews, and generally operate as some kind of scam, all while correcting the narrative on completely unrelated non-issues they tried to sensationalize.
The article's obsession with personal attacks reveals a disturbing lack of journalistic ethics, from snide remarks to direct attempts to incite harassment and tarnish reputations. It's as if the publisher decided that attacking our characters was more important than investigating the actual services we provide.
As of writing, not only has this caused immense stress and harm to the employees who work so hard to try to help music artists get further, but also to our loved ones - our friends, family, and others close to us that caught strays from this article.
And all this, without a single attempt to gather our side of the story. The very foundation of ethical journalism—presenting all perspectives—was blatantly ignored. Instead, we were deemed "guilty until proven innocent," a concept more fitting for a kangaroo court than a reputable publication, all the while we see them blast their article across the internet in an attempt to get clicks and attention.
Furthermore, it's impossible to ignore the sense of intimidation that permeated the entire ordeal.
MusicScamAlert, in their apparent hubris, seemed to believe that the sheer volume of their article, a labyrinthine 11,000-word manifesto of baseless sensationalism, would overwhelm and silence us.
They seemed to believe that our age, a factor they repeatedly and disparagingly highlighted, equated to inexperience or naivety. They mistook our youth for vulnerability and incompetence, assuming we were an easy target.
They believed they could talk down to us, intimidate us into silence, and ultimately, discredit us.
We've painstakingly addressed their accusations, misrepresentations, and personal attacks. We've provided evidence, context, and the simple truth that was so glaringly absent from the original article.
Clearing our names is one thing, but keeping so-called 'vigilante' publications accountable is even more important to us. It is not good for anyone to spread misinformation, especially once it has been refuted as strongly as we have with this rebuttal.
Bashing a music promotion company via a smear campaign riddled with personal attacks and false, misleading information is NOT how you inform music artists.
It's how you spur controversy, create distrust, and seed negativity in an industry that needs positivity more than ever before.
Boost Collective, like many other music promotion and distribution companies, exists solely to HELP independent artists and actively EMPLOY independent artists.
Not one of our community events, giveaways, studio nights, or any other form of tangible goodwill was shared or mentioned in their article:
We have been and always will be on the same side as the independent artist - working tirelessly to provide them with a service that helps them get to the next level, without having to go to or rely on major conglomerate music companies or labels.
To those who have followed this journey with us, thank you. Your support means the world. We hope this rebuttal maintains your trust in Boost Collective. We are here to serve artists, to help them succeed, and to do so with integrity and transparency.
If you ever (and we mean EVER) feel like you want to talk to us about your experience or thoughts about Boost Collective, please contact us at support@boostcollective.ca. We are always more than happy to help.
We were attacked, defamed, and discriminated against. But we will not be silenced. We will continue to fight for our reputation, for our artists, and for the truth.
Thank you.