Is It Even Possible in Today’s Tattoo Industry?
The conversation around tattoo industry consolidation isn’t going away.
Private equity acquisitions.
Corporate platforms.
Compliance changes.
And the rallying cry that keeps echoing through studios:
“Support artist-owned tattoo supplies.”
“Reclaim the trade.”
It sounds simple.
But here’s the uncomfortable question:
Is it even possible to buy exclusively from artist-owned brands anymore?
And more importantly — what does “artist-owned” actually mean in 2026?
The Reality of Tattoo Industry Consolidation
Let’s start with facts.
Several major tattoo brands are now part of larger investment-backed groups.
For example:
Body Art Alliance includes brands such as FK Irons and World Famous Ink, with investment involvement from BIC.
TATSoul, Bishop Rotary, Critical Tattoo and Eternal Ink sit under Nexus Brands, backed by Audax Private Equity.
These are documented acquisitions. Not rumours.
This is private equity in the tattoo industry — and it follows a familiar roll-up model seen in many other sectors.
This conversation around consolidation is happening during a wider tattoo industry downturn, which makes ownership structures feel even more urgent.
The question isn’t whether consolidation is happening.
It is.
The question is what it means.
What Does “Artist-Owned Tattoo Supplies” Actually Mean?
The phrase sounds clear — but structurally, it isn’t.
Does “artist-owned” mean:
100% equity held by a tattooer?
Majority ownership?
Minority ownership with outside investors?
Tattooer-founded but later sold?
Tattooer-branded but OEM-manufactured?
Ownership structure determines control.
And control determines:
Long-term direction
Pricing strategy
Exit plans
Investment priorities
Without transparency, “artist-owned” can function more as identity marketing than structural reality.
That doesn’t make it dishonest.
But it does make it vague.
Can You Really Avoid Corporate Supply Chains?
Here’s where the purity argument starts to crack.
Even the most independent tattoo supply companies rely on:
Imported steel
Industrial pigments
CNC machining
Global freight networks
Overseas component manufacturers
There is no fully isolated tattoo ecosystem.
Even small-batch machine builders rely on global infrastructure.
So the real question isn’t:
“Is this completely independent?”
It’s:
Where does the profit concentrate?
With a working tattooer?
With a mid-size private company?
With a global investment portfolio preparing for exit?
That distinction matters more than the slogan.
MoCRA and Tattoo Ink Compliance: Who Benefits?
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA) introduced new federal requirements for cosmetics manufacturing — which includes tattoo ink.
You can read the FDA’s overview here:
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/modernization-cosmetics-regulation-act-2022-mocra
Under MoCRA tattoo ink compliance, manufacturers must now address:
Facility registration
Safety substantiation
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
Record keeping
These changes are not inherently sinister.
But compliance always favours scale.
Larger companies can afford:
Legal teams
Dedicated compliance staff
Lab-grade environments
Regulatory consultants
Small independent pigment makers feel that pressure more acutely.
That doesn’t prove regulatory manipulation.
But it does highlight structural advantage.
Why the Building Trade Isn’t Reacting the Same Way
Here’s where the conversation gets interesting.
Look at construction.
Builders use tools from companies like:
DeWalt
Milwaukee Tool
Makita
Most of these brands are owned by multinational conglomerates like Stanley Black & Decker or Techtronic Industries.
Billions in revenue.
Global shareholders.
Yet you don’t see carpenters demanding the “reclaim the hammer” movement.
Why?
Because construction never mythologised toolmakers the way tattooing did.
Tattooing historically blurred the line between craft and manufacturer.
Machines were built by tattooers.
Knowledge was guarded.
Supply was underground.
When ownership changes in that context, it feels cultural — not just commercial.
That emotional response is unique to tattooing’s history.
The Inconvenient Truth About Independence
Here’s where I have to admit something uncomfortable.
I care about independent tattoo supply companies.
I respect lineage.
I like buying from people who tattoo.
But I also like:
Fast shipping
Clean returns
Warranty portals
Reliable stock
And if I’m honest?
Some independents are difficult to deal with.
Late responses.
Limited stock.
Operational fragility.
We talk about community.
But we behave like customers who value convenience.
That tension is real.
And it’s not hypocrisy — it’s human behaviour.
Is This a Corporate Takeover — Or an Industry Maturing?
Every craft industry follows a similar pattern:
Underground phase
Growth
Professionalisation
Consolidation
Tattooing is entering stage four.
That doesn’t mean it’s dying.
It means it’s maturing.
The real risk isn’t scale.
It’s concentration.
If too few companies control:
Machines
Ink
Needles
Distribution
Studio chains
Then resilience drops.
And resilience is what keeps subcultures alive.
So Where Does That Leave Us?
I don’t think total independence is realistic anymore.
But I do think awareness is.
Understand who owns what.
Diversify suppliers where possible.
Support independent tattoo supply companies when it makes sense.
Recognise the trade-offs between convenience and decentralisation.
And stop pretending this is a simple moral battle.
The corporate takeover of the tattoo industry isn’t a cartoon villain story.
It’s structural economics meeting a subculture with a strong identity.
The question isn’t:
“Are corporations evil?”
It’s:
What kind of ecosystem do we want to fund — and are we willing to accept the friction that comes with it?
