Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 422
|
Vanity Labels: Good Business Or an Ego Boost?
So I stumbled onto this old article from The New York Times circa 1992, questioning artists motivations to make their own labels/imprints and I instantly thought of Katy's recent business venture. What do you all think???
Quote:
When pop stars want to flex their muscles, they often do so by setting up their own record companies. Although generally viewed with skepticism -- such companies are widely referred to within the music business as vanity labels -- personal imprints remain a powerful and seemingly irresistible status symbol: a confirmation that the artist-proprietor is a superstar. "It's a lube job for the ego," says Peter Grant, a pop manager whose clients included Led Zeppelin and who managed its Swan Song label.
Although there are no real estimates as to how many artist-owned labels exist, their scope and financing vary greatly. Some are simply vehicles for releasing the star's own recordings. Others are attempts to find and nurture new artists. But at the core of such labels is an often complex partnership between the superstar and an established record company. Artist labels give stars a larger portion of the sale price of their own recordings and offers them a stake in the career of other artists the stars may sign.
Lately, deals for vanity labels have taken on a new twist that gives pop stars a chance to expand an imprint into other areas. Last month, Madonna set up her own multi-media company in partnership with Time Warner. The deal, reportedly worth $60 million, is similar in breadth and intent to one Michael Jackson signed last year with Sony, which included his own Nation Records. Madonna's enterprise, Maverick, will consist of a record company and a music publishing company and will include television, film, merchandising and book-publishing divisions.
|
Full article here
I legit think a 22 year old article has clocked Ms Perry 
|
|
|
|
