Research: Mainstream vs Independent signed artists

There's a clear difference between mainstream artists and independent artists are pretty much the same as having a mainstream or independent film company behind you:

Mainstream artists have a large support behind them, in terms of money and creative control; Independent artists don't have a large support behind them.

For example: One Direction are signed to Syco - one of the biggest record companies in the world, signing acts from all types of genre (pop, opera, rap, etc.). 
Because of this big company behind them, they are able to afford better advertisements, websites, merchandise and bigger tours. But because of they're representing a big label, there is more pressure for them to keep their fans happy and keep away from any bad press. But independent band Lanterns on the Lake are signed to Bella Union - an independent label who signs acts from an indie, folk and 70s pop genre. They too have a website, merchandise and tours, but to a much smaller scale as they don't have a financial backing behind them.

Depending on your definition of success, merchandise and ancillary products can define how successful an artist is. It is likely that mainstream artists depend on these products to be successful because they want to make money and the sales of those products will bring them the money. Independent artists tend to think that having audiences at their tours and people listening to their music as being successful.

Both artists' fans can find out information about them through social media, though mainstream artists will have more access to different types of social media, as they will have more fans. 

Personally, I would prefer to be signed to an independent label as I would like to have control of my music and would like to be able to meet my fans without security having to be a problem. But being signed to a mainstream artist would be nice as I could make lots of money.