[www.rochester.edu]

No. The keys are/ were killer songs, interstellar live performances, sex appeal, versatility and endurance.

Image was/ is just a clever marketing tool to put all these things in the footlight.



EDIT: ...just added sex appeal, off course. (the quality ; not the image building on that.) I forgot to enlist that one...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-13 16:43 by RoughJusticeOnYa.

as far as marketing, every brand needs a good logo..

maybe the best ever-

According to Sir Mick:

80% LUCK
10% TALENT
10% ENDURANCE

I don't think they were that lucky : drug busts (1967), a fire in the studio (1968), Altamont (1969) Klein's betrayal (1970) Labor tax laws (1971), heroin plaguing the band and entourage (196x-197x), Keef's "pranks" (1963-2015 and going)

At times Mick must have thought they were cursed.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 15:08 by camper88.

Quote
duke richardson
as far as marketing, every brand needs a good logo..

maybe the best ever-

The only other logos that are, I guess, the most famous and iconic would be Nike, Shell and somehow Fed Ex.

But Nike can be... sneaky. Shell, well, it's a bit - it's easy to miss sometimes. The Stones?

It sticks out like a...

... and this one is the BEST!!!

Possibly, in the beginning. In the world of music that the Stones were breaking into, hit singles were everything. If you didn't have a hit or two under your belt, the record company was not going to spring for studio time to record an album. The people who bought the singles tended to be teenage girls, and when the Stones were starting out they were doing covers of old man's music. Would teenage girls at concerts be screaming their brains out over a poker-faced, lantern-jawed Ian Stuart, eager to run after him and tear his clothes off while leaving the concert venue?

To this day they, Mick and Keith at least, play up the image factor. Keith has admitted as much in recent years that the ever present cigarette is more a prop than anything else, a device for photo opps and interviews. Mick seems to think that he just can't be seen in public with graying locks and a waistline of more than 28 inches. People have an image of how Mick Jagger should appear, and Mick Jagger himself is doing everything to see that this classic rock star image is maintained.

In the corporate literature of late, several articles have appeared touting the marketing brand of the Rolling Stones, as "great tips for an entrepreneur looking to get ahead" [www.inc.com] and "what the Rolling Stones can teach us about marketing success" [associationsnow.com]

The list, like the Stones themselves, goes on and on.

Quote
duke richardson
as far as marketing, every brand needs a good logo..

maybe the best ever-

True, but they were huge even before they adopted the logo.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
duke richardson
as far as marketing, every brand needs a good logo..

maybe the best ever-

True, but they were huge even before they adopted the logo.

Yeah they were Aqua, but I've often wondered how much money that instantly recognizable logo has made for them. It boggles the mind...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-14 00:57 by latebloomer.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
duke richardson
as far as marketing, every brand needs a good logo..

maybe the best ever-

True, but they were huge even before they adopted the logo.

Yeah the were Aqua, but I've often wondered how much money that instantly recognizable logo has made for them. It boggles the mind...

Well, based just on the number of T shirts I seem to have acquired . . . .

It's interesting, though, a lot of "non-Stones people" seem to think the logo represents Jagger, rather than the band as a whole, I guess because of the lips.

Like for many bands and artists I see that The Stones were in right place at the right time. I think it was Brian who was concerned that they must be the first R&B band in Britain because otherwise they would be just a band copying others. And they also had luck because Decca had rejected The Beatles so they couldn't afford to say no to another band that might become huge. And Andrew's purpose of making The Stones as an opposite force to The Beatles was infact very ingenious marketing trick. So luck and marketing plays a big role to many bands. That's how I see it.

Quote
stonehearted
Possibly, in the beginning. In the world of music that the Stones were breaking into, hit singles were everything. If you didn't have a hit or two under your belt, the record company was not going to spring for studio time to record an album. The people who bought the singles tended to be teenage girls, and when the Stones were starting out they were doing covers of old man's music. Would teenage girls at concerts be screaming their brains out over a poker-faced, lantern-jawed Ian Stuart, eager to run after him and tear his clothes off while leaving the concert venue?

I think some of you have never quite forgiven the Stones for having once had a teenage female fanbase (some of us are still here). Of course they got marketed as a pop group making singles - because that was the only model available at the time, and the one that ALO knew about - and the huge importance of the album as an artistic entity was yet to happen. That marketing was the price of an opportunity to keep playing their music - and that was the reason they lasted more than the eighteen months in the spotlight that most pop groups get - then and now.

The music was a part, but their image certainly had some effect on their success. 'The Anti-Beatles'...Don't tell me that didn't sell records to the 'rebels' of the 1960s!

"A lot of PR went into it" as Keith says in 25X5...but yeah, clearly right place/right time, right combination of musicians, managers (even when they weren't right in some ways), producers, and yes, the best logo, arguably the best name of a band or nearly so.... quite a lot going for them, while taking nothing away from them either.

Marketing, or IMAGE, played a major part for the Stones growth. The "anti-Beatles bad boys" image got them noticed. But that would not have mattered had the songs, chemistry and performances not have aligned perfectly WITH the image that was created.

Well said, bitusa.

Having been there, watching the telly, the music, the look, the performances...yeah.

~"Love is Strong"~

Image in terms of reputation, sure, that helped. Pissing on a wall... Image in terms of how they looked?

HELL NO! Ugly ass sonsofbitches! Good grief.

Marketing is key to the success of everything. Fact of life.

There is a difference between marketing and sales. Both are critical.

Marketing gets you noticed, gets you in the door.

Sales happens because the user has bought, because there is perceived value.

After 50+ years there is still marketing going on, but the product sells itself.

The right place the right time and the right attitude and the right songs................and Brain Jones as figurehead the first couple of years.

__________________________

He was very smart, that brain dude..

Work, and the right songs ... at least in the first decades...

Quote
RomanCandle
Work, and the right songs ... at least in the first decades...

You mean the first five decades?

Ponder the words of Lemmy on the subject- "The Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London."

Quote
roryfaninva
Ponder the words of Lemmy on the subject- "The Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London."

College students? Brian? Keith did give art school a go..

Not sure about Stu or Bill, I think Bill was in the RAF wasn't he?

Quote
bitusa2012
Marketing, or IMAGE, played a major part for the Stones growth. The "anti-Beatles bad boys" image got them noticed. But that would not have mattered had the songs, chemistry and performances not have aligned perfectly WITH the image that was created.

When I first heard the Stones (Angie - TOTP 1973) I had never heard of them or anything about them at all. I'd never even heard the words 'Rolling Stones' before and yet I was an immediate fan so for me it was solely & 100% about the music..........that POV was consolidated a week later when I heard Heartbreaker and the rest of GHS...........I still know didn't anything at all about who they 'were' in terms of reputation or cultural/socialogical standing.
Does being on TOTP count as marketing, perhaps it was but also maybe just a presentation of art.

The point is for me, I would have liked Angie - Heartbreaker et al if I'd heard them for the first time being played by a busker in the tube station or by a bar band, would anyone call that marketing?.....

Your analysis coupling the triggers of image and music may apply to others of course..............



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-16 02:34 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
bitusa2012
Marketing, or IMAGE, played a major part for the Stones growth. The "anti-Beatles bad boys" image got them noticed. But that would not have mattered had the songs, chemistry and performances not have aligned perfectly WITH the image that was created.

When I first heard the Stones (Angie - TOTP 1973) I had never heard of them or anything about them at all. I'd never even heard the words 'Rolling Stones' before and yet I was an immediate fan so for me it was solely & 100% about the music..........that POV was consolidated a week later when I heard Heartbreaker and the rest of GHS...........I still know didn't anything at all about who they 'were' in terms of reputation or cultural/socialogical standing.
Does being on TOTP count as marketing, perhaps it was but also maybe just a presentation of art.

The point is for me, I would have liked Angie - Heartbreaker et al if I'd heard them for the first time being played by a busker in the tube station or by a bar band, would anyone call that marketing?.....

Your analysis coupling the triggers of image and music may apply to others of course..............

What was your age in '73 EddyB?

__________________________

Quote
NICOS

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
bitusa2012
Marketing, or IMAGE, played a major part for the Stones growth. The "anti-Beatles bad boys" image got them noticed. But that would not have mattered had the songs, chemistry and performances not have aligned perfectly WITH the image that was created.

When I first heard the Stones (Angie - TOTP 1973) I had never heard of them or anything about them at all. I'd never even heard the words 'Rolling Stones' before and yet I was an immediate fan so for me it was solely & 100% about the music..........that POV was consolidated a week later when I heard Heartbreaker and the rest of GHS...........I still know didn't anything at all about who they 'were' in terms of reputation or cultural/socialogical standing.
Does being on TOTP count as marketing, perhaps it was but also maybe just a presentation of art.

The point is for me, I would have liked Angie - Heartbreaker et al if I'd heard them for the first time being played by a busker in the tube station or by a bar band, would anyone call that marketing?.....

Your analysis coupling the triggers of image and music may apply to others of course..............

What was your age in '73 EddyB?

13.......

it seems that the Rochester students may have a soon a direct lesson from the Masters themselves