Paying for a mascot through royalties: when and why it benefits everyone

When a company considers creating a mascot, the first question is almost always the same: “How much does it cost?” It’s a legitimate question, and there are several ways to answer it.

In fact, there is a common practice across creative industries: payment through royalties on sales, or a hybrid model that combines a lower upfront fee with a percentage of the results.

It may sound like an unusual proposal, but it isn’t at all.In film, publishing, and character licensing, the principle has always been the same: part of the value isn’t paid immediately, but grows alongside the success of the product. Those involved in the project earn more if the project succeeds.

Applied to a mascot, the concept is straightforward: instead of treating it purely as an upfront cost, it is considered an asset that directly contributes to sales. Often, products that feature recognizable characters or brands can be sold at a higher price than generic ones. In this sense, the royalty is not simply an additional cost, but something that can be absorbed — and in some cases exceeded — by the value the character adds to the product. Of course, it’s not a formula that fits every situation.

It works best when the mascot doesn’t remain confined to communication, but becomes part of the product itself. Let’s take an example. Imagine a company that produces blankets and wants to create an illustrated line for children’s beds. Purchasing licenses for well-known characters can be very expensive; developing an original character, on the other hand, opens up another possibility: using the mascot on the product line while granting a percentage on sales.

Let’s imagine a blanket sold at €29, with a 5% royalty tied to the mascot. This means that for each item sold, a small portion of the value goes back to the creator of the character. Let’s take a simple case: A pizza box manufacturer decides to print more appealing packaging. They have three options.

The first is to try to license globally recognized characters. The second is to involve an established artist, dealing with the challenges of access, limited availability, and high costs. The third is to rely on a more economically accessible solution, with the — unfortunately very common — result of ending up with generic or mediocre graphics, lacking distinction and adding no real value to the product.

But what if they chose instead to partner with an artist willing to be paid through royalties?

In this case, the artist is compensated over time, based on sales or the distribution of the product line (with every incentive to create something that truly performs in the market), while the company reduces its upfront investment. A mascot, then, can remain a simple graphic element or evolve into a true asset: a character that develops over time, can be adapted across multiple products, and grows alongside the brand. Of course, royalties only make sense when there is something being sold that can be tracked.

Ultimately, it’s not a universal solution. But for certain projects, it’s exactly the right one.

If you’re considering a mascot and want to understand whether a royalty-based model could work in your case, we can explore it together and determine the most suitable approach.

• 

• 

•