I don't typically read the Journal but a friend of mine sent this on to me, and asked for my comments.

The Rolling Stones’ Guide to Business Success

I thought it was missing a lot of better ideas, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on what makes the Stones a successful business (aside from the obvious things like charging too much money).

Thanks

In case the link's not working:

By RICH COHEN
May 6, 2016 10:24 a.m. ET

The greatness of the Rolling Stones—that stunning library of guitar licks and lyrics, the decades of tabloid feuds and imbroglios, the packed stadiums—obscures a more interesting fact: For the past 50-plus years, this band, formed in a London pub in 1962, has been among the most dynamic, profitable and durable corporations in the world. In the course of my lifelong study of the world’s greatest rock band, I’ve come away with five lessons—strategies that any CEO or entrepreneur should keep in mind while playing the long game.

Choose the right name. The band was originally called Little Boy Blue and the Blue Boys. It was Brian Jones, the band’s lead guitarist and first public face, who, on the eve of their first real gig, gave the band the name we know. His eyes fell on the cover of one of his favorite records, “The Best of Muddy Waters,” side one, track five, “Rollin’ Stone.”

It was the band’s early manager, Andrew Oldham, who completed the transformation some months later. “How can you expect people to take you seriously when you can’t even be bothered to spell your name properly?” Thus the Rollin’ Stones became the Rolling Stones, a name that told aficionados everything they needed to know about where the band came from and the sort of music they played.


Know what the market wants from you. When the Stones heard the Beatles first single, “Love Me Do,” on the radio, they were still living in the London dump where they slept three to a bed for warmth. By the time they broke through with a single of their own, the Beatles had already staked out the high ground as the cute, lovable, nonthreatening boys next door. It closed off one avenue but opened another.

“By the time we came along, the Beatles were wearing the white hats,” Keith Richards explained. “So what does that leave us?” Rather than trying to become new Beatles, as many other bands did, the Stones became their opposite: wholesomeness from the Beatles, sleaze from the Stones; love from the Beatles, sex from the Stones. They recognized a niche in the market and filled it.


Beg, borrow, steal. At a time when the British pop charts were filled with bubble gum, Brian, Keith and Mick Jagger turned to Chicago blues. The Stones started as a cover band, playing bastardized versions of the songs they loved. They tried to copy them exactly but couldn’t help dirtying them up with their own experience.

The first real composition by Mick and Keith shows this process in action. Recorded in 1965, “The Last Time” has all the elements that would become characteristic of their best songs: the opening riff, the groove, the lowdown subject matter. It closely follows a version of the gospel song “This May Be the Last Time” by the Staple Singers, but Keith reworked it, adding steel, speed. The biggest change was lyrical. A hymn about Jesus and the Judgment Day became a pop song about girls and teenage comeuppance.


Cut the anchor before it drags you down. The Stones were the creation of Brian Jones, who blew away Mick and Keith when they first heard him play in a London dive. But by the late 1960s, Jones was in trouble, an early drug casualty. He didn’t turn up for sessions, vanished on the road. On June 8, 1969, Mick, Keith and Charlie Watts drove to Brian’s country home and fired him. He’d be dead within a month, laden with booze and pills, drowned in his own pool.

Why have the Stones lasted while all others faded? Whenever I asked an old-timer, I got the same answer. It’s Mick—his clearheadedness, his lack of sentimentality. Kind people don’t make it.


Never stop reinventing. The Stones have gone through at least five stylistic iterations: cover band, ’60s pop, ’60s acid, ’70s groove, ’80s New Wave. At some point, they lost that elasticity and ability to reinvent—they got old—but the fact that they did it so well for so long explains their inexhaustible relevance.

The Stones have lived and died and been reborn again and again. It means that, for many different generations of adults, the sound of high school was the Rolling Stones. Though the Beatles probably surpass the Stones in hits, they don’t come close in reinvention. The Beatles reinvented themselves once, maybe twice. The Stones have reinvented themselves so many times that they might as well be immortal.

—Mr. Cohen’s new book is “The Sun & The Moon & The Rolling Stones,” published next week by Spiegel & Grau.


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-09 03:47 by camper88.

[www.iorr.org]

So many errors there that I can't be bothered to correct them.I don't think I'll be bothering with his book.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

1. Write good songs.
2. Create a brand.
3. Stay together by constant touring.
4. Monetize when your core audience becomes wealthy.

Also, let's not forget the Stones made many business mistakes along the way -- selling their classic catalog to Klein, Keith not taking care of his talent, Jagger licking Ronnie Wood's ear on a key national TV exposure, spending the '80s bickering with each other .... and, oh, Dirty Work.

Quote
wonderboy
Jagger licking Ronnie Wood's ear on a key national TV exposure

How was that a business mistake?

Koen:
I was 16 or 17 at the time, and for sure that didn't sell any records in my high school.
Jagger is a great entertainer and artist, but there was a time there when you had to apologize for the mid-70s version. Those were my formative years and I remember a lot of people in the rock audience didn't care for his persona then.
Plus none of them were in good condition to put on a good performance on that stage.

Why not just state the obvious?

Write good songs and make good records that people never get tired of listening to. Stay fit and healthy enough to perform those songs live on stage for decades. Create a reputation for being the greatest rock and roll band in the world based on fantastic live performances. Realize that you earn more money on touring than selling records. Tour new markets with the greatest show on earth. Realize that those who were young fans in the 60s and 70s are grown up people with jobs and higher income in the 90s and 00s --> charge more money for tickets.

Interestingly, there is a book called Beatles for Sale:How everything they touched turned to gold.
Ultimately talent and enduring appeal..very difficult to define precisely of course.
In the Stones case, I tend to think the various "scandals"...drugs, women etc has actually helped and not hindered....the Daily Mail has its uses!

Is there another band that has a logo/ brand identity as strong as the Stones?

I can't think of one.

i think the stones undersold themselves and if they hadnt would be higher in the record sales list than they currently are.

when you think of some of the ordinary songs other bands released which are hailed as classics then you think of the stones catalogue where many fantastic songs do remain almost unheard of by the general public then i have to ask why these songs are not more famous, also i think the stones made a lot of their material unreleasable and their image and reputation as being over the top and often vulgar has given people the wrong impression about them and left out the opportunity for more people to want to discover their massive and impressive output.

to think the beatles outsold the stones massively as did elvis and even michael jackson is criminal, and in some polls the stones are anything from 8th to 13th biggest selling artists of all time, which is just a joke.

also led zeppelin who had a recording career of around 12 years and who didnt release a lot of albums or had a lot of songs on each album also outsold the stones, thats another mystery.

Quote
camper88
Is there another band that has a logo/ brand identity as strong as the Stones?

I can't think of one.

No there is not,it is one of the greatest logos in the world a great design and hugely powerful.

Nate

The design of all that Kiss merchandise is horrific you can not compare that to the stones logo in terms of great design.

Nate

Quote
Nate
The design of all that Kiss merchandise is horrific you can not compare that to the stones logo in terms of great design.

Nate

It's all in the eye of the beholder I would say. But one can not deny that the KISS logo and the make up designs are somewhat iconic and has a huge recognition value.

I totally love the classic Stones tongue. But with a very few exceptions I can't stand all the countless variations and designs of it that came out over the decades. The classic one is the real deal for me.

Quote
Hansman
I totally love the classic Stones tongue... The classic one is the real deal for me.

You mean this one?

Quote
wonderboy
1. Write good songs.
2. Create a brand.
3. Stay together by constant touring.

4. Have a bunch of unique musicians. By unique I mean having a unique sound. There are countless drummers and bassists who are "better" than Cholie and Bill but none of them have that thing these two had.

5. "Look outside the window" aka don't be a silly rocker living in a world of rock. The Stones used Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Frank, René Magritte (artwork for the 73 tour bill) Andy Warhol and others to bring an extra value to their music.
It worked...

Quote
The Worst.
Why not just state the obvious?

Write good songs and make good records that people never get tired of listening to. Stay fit and healthy enough to perform those songs live on stage for decades. Create a reputation for being the greatest rock and roll band in the world based on fantastic live performances. Realize that you earn more money on touring than selling records. Tour new markets with the greatest show on earth. Realize that those who were young fans in the 60s and 70s are grown up people with jobs and higher income in the 90s and 00s --> charge more money for tickets.

yes yes !

be a live band, as they have been, where love of performing has sustained them.

and they bothered early on to write the best rock and roll songs ever, to perform..

It is baffling to think that people would actually buy that Kiss merchandise,who would want that stuff lying around their house I guess there are a lot of people around with really bad taste.

Nate



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-10 19:29 by Nate.

Would The Beatles Apple be classed as a logo/ brand?

Quote
jlowe
Would The Beatles Apple be classed as a logo/ brand?

Yes, but I think that people are more familiar with this apple:

Nowadays it's like this:

1) Showing up at a talent show of sorts
2) Having the right looks rather than talent
3) Being contacted by a record company executive
4) Put together with 3-4 more like you (see 2)
5) Make young girls scream
6) Tour around the world making millions lip-synching

Edit: Sorry, I forgot, maybe, the most important point above: Not being able to play an instrument. Or read notes, write songs or even listen to music...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-10 21:45 by Stoneage.

Quote
Hansman

Quote
camper88
Is there another band that has a logo/ brand identity as strong as the Stones?

I can't think of one.

Can't argue with that. Thanks for the comparison and all the applications of the name. Very useful, really.

I think one thing that sets the two apart (besides a matter of taste, which is subjective), is that the Stones communicate their brand without words, whereas KISS needs to say KISS to state what they are.

It's as different as Apple's logo and Apple Records. Or the Nike Swoosh and Addidas. One translates across cultures, categories, and generations and the other is bound in time, a cultural relic of the 70's.

Quote
dcba

4. Have a bunch of unique musicians. By unique I mean having a unique sound. There are countless drummers and bassists who are "better" than Cholie and Bill but none of them have that thing these two had.

5. "Look outside the window" aka don't be a silly rocker living in a world of rock. The Stones used Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Frank, René Magritte (artwork for the 73 tour bill) Andy Warhol and others to bring an extra value to their music.

Thanks for sharing both of these ideas.

Completely agree on the outside the window idea--not only to do so but to be open to acknowledging your influences, which I think promotes a kind of freedom to keep do that.

On the uniqueness of Charlie and Bill, can you tell me more about what you're thinking here?


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger

Quote
Stoneage
Nowadays it's like this:

1) Showing up at a talent show of sorts
2) Having the right looks rather than talent
3) Being contacted by a record company executive
4) Put together with 3-4 more like you (see 2)
5) Make young girls scream
6) Tour around the world making millions lip-synching

You seem to be well informed about this.

Quote
Koen

Quote
Stoneage
Nowadays it's like this:

1) Showing up at a talent show of sorts
2) Having the right looks rather than talent
3) Being contacted by a record company executive
4) Put together with 3-4 more like you (see 2)
5) Make young girls scream
6) Tour around the world making millions lip-synching

You seem to be well informed about this.

Actually 1 to 5 above is nothing new, check any books covering British pop in the late 50's, probably the same across the water.
Of course in those days it didnt receive the same level of TV and media attention.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
Koen

Quote
Stoneage
Nowadays it's like this:

1) Showing up at a talent show of sorts
2) Having the right looks rather than talent
3) Being contacted by a record company executive
4) Put together with 3-4 more like you (see 2)
5) Make young girls scream
6) Tour around the world making millions lip-synching

You seem to be well informed about this.

Actually 1 to 5 above is nothing new, check any books covering British pop in the late 50's, probably the same across the water.
Of course in those days it didnt receive the same level of TV and media attention.

Also seems something more appropriate for a start-up, not for an enterprise that's more than 50 years into the business.


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger

Quote
camper88

On the uniqueness of Charlie and Bill, can you tell me more about what you're thinking here?

It's the swing or (as Keef said) the "roll" that should always go with the "rock". Keef meant it's quite easy for a band to rock that is to hit hard on the audience. Most well-rehearsed bands can do that. Punk bands or metal bands rock hard.
But the "roll" which you might call that sexy feminine element in the music is much harder to get.

Plus Charlie and Bill had a way to play exactly what the song required and nothing more. No extra frills no empty displays of virtuosity (unlike Led Zep for example).

the Stones beat everybody out their because Mick sings the lyric which says GIMMIE ALL YOUR MONEY , that is winning and most awesome !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
dcba


It's the swing or (as Keef said) the "roll" that should always go with the "rock". Keef meant it's quite easy for a band to rock that is to hit hard on the audience. Most well-rehearsed bands can do that. Punk bands or metal bands rock hard.
But the "roll" which you might call that sexy feminine element in the music is much harder to get.

Plus Charlie and Bill had a way to play exactly what the song required and nothing more. No extra frills no empty displays of virtuosity (unlike Led Zep for example).

Very true. Thanks.

Andrew Loog did quite a few of these things.
- Maneuvered Ian Stewart out of the band, at least insofar as the public presentation. ... A few years later, when Brian needed to go, the Stewart case probably made it easier for them to act.
- Got Mick and Keith to start writing songs. (How much of this can he take credit for? Would they have done this one their own anyway?)
- Promoted the bad boy image. Again, how much of this would have happened anyway? It was a good thing at the beginning, but caused Keith much sorrow over the years.
Of course then he mismanaged the band financially after they had made it big.
Still, the Stones had better management than, say, the Kinks. Of course at the same time the Kinks were not easy to manage. The Stones did what was necessary to succeed.