Celebrity licensing still treading water

I just returned from the annual Licensing Show in NYC. Despite the growing interest in licensing by celebrities to generate another revenue stream, I was surprised not to see any living celebrities licensing their names and images on products. The problem is, I suspect, most celebrity agents and managers don't have a clear understanding licensing and view it as something that will negatively impact their client's career. Nothing could be further from the truth. Licensing provides a great means of image control and can boost a career.

Consider that as a licensor, a celebrity could:

• Extend his/her "brand" into new markets, building broader market support
• Sustain his/her career through these "brand extensions" even when there's a down-turn in public support or in periods of inactivity. (Think Martha Stewart. Even after prison and scandal, her "brand" survived.)
• Generate passive income. While licensing royalties vary based largely on product category, deals generally return between seven and twenty percent to the Licensor.
• Gain better control of unauthorized commercial use. With a formalized licensing plan, the licensor, in this case the celebrity, can gain significantly more control over his or her likenesses than when employing a Right to Publicity defense, when his/her image is used by an unauthorized party for commercial gain.

All points to consider, for sure. But there's a little more to it than this.

Oh, and while you might think only "A" list celebrities can ink a multi-million dollar deal, stay tuned for future posts on to learn how both those on the "A", "B" and "C" lists are cashing in.

Technorati Tags: Branding Licensing