Slashdot Mirror
The Rolling Stones' Business Model
reallocate writes "These pages were graced a few days ago by a piece that included comments on the future of the music business from the Stones' Keith Richards. Now, here's a detailed Fortune report on the business side of the Stones -- Keith and Mick seem to know what they're doing and may not be all that concerned about the future -- the Stones have ground out $1.5 billion (yes, that's a 'b') in gross revenue since 1989."
SOMEBODY out there in /. land has to have a logical correlation rant on how the Stones are evil because they came into all their new billions by becoming Microsoft's little bitch for the 'Start' me up campaign.
commies (such as michael "censorware.org" sims) don't like the idea of other people making money.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Webster's dictionary should have a picture of Yoko next to the definition of skank.
I hate to bite on a troll, but as quite a few people might think this way, I don't think this article is saying the Stones are evil because they make money - I think it's saying just the opposite in fact. It is that they have a decent busines model, unlike most of the music industry these days, and I think the point of this article is to point towards it as an example others should follow.
all you need is love
.. who was a "drugged-out, late-teens strip-club owner from Ottawa". He offered $40 million to the band, all of which he didn't have.
..and he got away with it by introducing corporate sponsorship and cross-promotion to their gigs. I'm sure there must've been some strip-club/Stones cross-promotion going on as well ;)
Sounds like a smart business plan to me!
Ladies, form queue here -->
1.5 billion gross would be ~$26 dollars net adjusting for Keith's smack habit.
Are rolling in it!
+1 funny
For the biologists here, is it possible for someone to spontaneously mummify?
and get this little tidbit
So, too, does Prince Rupert Zu Loewenstein, a London-based banker who carries an old Bavarian title and who's been the band's chief business advisor for some 30 years--"and I hope for another 30 too," he says.
They have a bavarian Prince named Loewenstein? Is that a normal Bavarian royal surname?
Since TLD's are apparently being handed out by economic impact (see yesterdays article regarding whois) they'll have to have a new RS set!
--Computers... just a fad. You'll see
I'm quite happy that John Lennon is dead. It was too bad for him personally of course. No one likes to be shot to death. But for the rest of us it was a blessing. Think of all these wonderful years that have passed without having to listen to him pontificating on this or that subject. I am very grateful to have been spared years of his mindless drivel (too bad his mother didn't strangle him in his crib).
Poop is fun. Little sister has poopie nappie.
So this autistic walks into a bar and goes: BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH.....
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Well, Mick Jagger was a commerce student
before he joined the Stones, you know.
Fuck her.
The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred over a year ago, followed by a Holy War against Islam, and now Israel and the Palestinians as well as India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of their own war, Argentina is in the midst of a financial crisis, America is considering launching attacks against Somalia and Iraq, and you people have the gall to be discussing The Rolling Stones' Business Model???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
The bodies of the thousands of innocent civilians who died (and will die) in these unprecedented events could give a good god damn about The Rolling Stones' Business Model, your childish Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life" (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life"). The souls of the victims are watching in horror as you people squander your finite, precious time on this earth playing video games!
You people disgust me!
Tennis Star Kournikova Dating Singer Iglesias
-AP Professional tennis player Anna Kournikova's agent confirmed reports that she is involved in a romance with singer Enrique Iglesias. AP reporters attempted to contact Kournikova to inquire why she is attracted to that crooning faggot, but as of press time, no calls were retuned
It is a tricked-out Honda Accord! It has a mod chip, performance header, and custom rims! I rule the dragstrip! Fuck all y'all!
He didn't read the article, and neither did I, his point was just that slashdot tends to get angry at any company or person who comes up with a business plan that makes a profit. I guess its jealousy over the fact that the linux business model isn't working out so well and a lot of others are.
Linux Busines Model
1. Program software
2. Give it away for free
3. Microsoft is defeated
4. ???
5. Profit!
Bill Gates would never have written a teenage anthem as definitive and sacramental as "Satisfaction" anyways
</. >>
;^D Here goes...
;^)
:)
:)
:) Then we can smoke his ashes! (to quote Dennis Leary)
Ah, the future of the music-industry, from the mouth of the dinosaurs of the music-industry (:-)
<<grins, ducks and runs>>
<<peers at 15^H^H36 previous posts..>>
uh-huh...rrright - I'd better write something relevant
<rant & rave>
Well, firstly thats a pretty interesting article...it confirms something that I've been wondering about for a while now; the Rollings Stones haven't had any big hits for quite some time now.
I doubt any of us will ever become rock'n roll legends...(software/internet legends? Phah, thats easy
but I have to wonder how much of that $1.5 Billion
GROSS revenue actually went to each of the rolling-stones after tax, expenses, etc etc etc.
There's a lot of numbers being thrown around in that article...but no specifics...all GROSS figures...hmmm. <<secretly wonders how many pages Mick Jaggers end-of-year tax-statement fills>>
It occurs to me that software has a lot in common with rock'n roll songs:
They are 100% creativity, they are created from nothing. (hey, sold on CD's as well
However, the shelf-life of a given song is near infinite, once a succesfull song is released, you can sit back and let the money roll in. (Making sure you move from country to country to avoid the taxman/taxlaw >:)
On the other hand, the shelf-life for software is ridiculously short though - games are a prime example.(ok ok that doesn't work for (most) open-source software..i think
Maybe I should've become a rock-star after all...
</rant & rave>
To quote from the article:
"How long can we go on?" asks Keith. "Forever. We'll let you know when we keel over."
That sums it up nicely
In case the site gets slashdotted:
Inside the Rolling Stones Inc.
The Rolling Stones are an astounding moneymaking machine. Here's how Mick Jagger & Co. have perfected the business model behind the most successful act in rock & roll today.
FORTUNE
, 30,
By Andy Serwer
Mick Jagger is wearing a cool pink shirt, slim black trousers, and bright red socks. His hair is--well, there's a lot of it. But don't let the look fool you. Mick is all business. That's business with a capital "B," as in the stuff we write about all the time in the pages of FORTUNE.
I'm up in Jagger's suite in Boston's Four Seasons hotel just before the Stones kick off their worldwide Licks tour. Mick turns down the volume on a boom box, packs off two of his young kids with their nannies, and then holds forth on product pricing, economics, and business models. Jagger is eloquent and informed, but he has a disclaimer: "I don't really count myself as a very sophisticated businessperson," he says as he leans back on the couch. "I'm a creative artist. All I know from business I've picked up along the way. I never really studied business in school. I kind of wish I had, kind of, but how boring is that?" he says with a grin.
Like the protagonist in one of his most devilish songs, Mick has been around for many a long year. He had plenty of smarts to begin with, and now he has 40 years of music industry experience under his belt. Jagger may be getting a trifle old to rock & roll--he'll turn 60 next July--but from a business perspective he's at the top of his game. Which makes sense in a way. After all, that's a typical age for a CEO of a large, multinational organization. (Okay, so most of the CEOs we follow don't have to swivel-hip their way through "Midnight Rambler," but you get the point.)
There are, of course, plenty of detractors who say the Rolling Stones should pack in their guitars and drumsticks. "Way old," they sniff, "and way irrelevant." I have two responses, one subjective and one objective. Subjectively, the Rolling Stones sound pretty damn good, even after all these years. And objectively, if they're such has-beens, then how do you explain the band's phenomenal commercial success over the past decade? No, they aren't writing groundbreaking songs anymore--in fact they haven't really recorded any new material of note in 20 years--but we sure are listening to their old stuff. A lot. And buying concert tickets. Millions and millions of them. And that's the wrinkle here. Even though the Stones have been in what you might call a creatively fallow period, we want to hear them more than ever. Couple that with the fact that they have perfected their business model, and it's easy to understand why they are such an astounding moneymaking machine.
The bottom line is this: "The only rock & roll band that matters," or "the greatest rock & roll band in the world," or whatever you want to call Mick, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, and Ronnie Wood, they are far and away the most successful act in rock today. Since 1989 alone--the beginning of the modern age of the Rolling Stones (more on that later)--the band has generated more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues. That total includes sales of records, song rights, merchandising, sponsorship money, and touring (see charts: Hot Licks and Packing Them In). The Stones have made more money than U2, or Springsteen, or Michael Jackson, or Britney Spears, or the Who--or whoever.
Next: The Rolling Stones Inc. runs on a combustible mix of talent and labor...
Unlike some other groups, the Stones carry no Woodstock-esque, antibusiness baggage. The group has tendrils deep in American business, cutting sponsorship and rights deals with stalwarts like Anheuser-Busch, Microsoft, and Sprint. Remember the old Boston Consulting Group matrix of the four types of businesses? Well, if the Stones were a traditional company, they would be the cash cow.
As with most thriving enterprises, the Rolling Stones Inc. runs on a combustible mix of talent and intense labor--the product of four decades of trial and error. The band downplays the effectiveness of the organization: "I'm sure that if you looked at it and analyzed it, you could say, 'Well, that's fucked up,'" says Jagger. "That shouldn't be like that. No, of course it isn't run well. No show business organization is run well. There's always too much money paid out." Keith, for his part, just shakes his head: "It's a mom-and-pop operation," he laughs. "Mick is the mom, and I'm the pop, and then we have these offspring that need feeding." Well, kind of.
The Stones, or at least some members of the band, can still come across as wiggy rock stars. ("You're talking to the business right now," Richards tells me, holding up his two hands ceremoniously. "These are the business.") But in many respects the Rolling Stones are like any other large business. They are global, they pay taxes (grudgingly), and they litigate. The band has a P&L and budgets, and accountants, and lawyers, and bankers, and investments, and software, and hardware. "They know what they're doing," says Barry Diller, a Jagger confidant. "That's what separates them from any other band."
Spend time with their senior entourage and you quickly realize how the Stones got so market-wise. Sure, Mick attended the London School of Economics ("I mostly studied economic history"), but his greatest talent, besides strutting and singing, is his ability to surround himself and the rest of the band with a group of very able (they probably hate to be called this) executives.
The Rolling Stones are a private and secretive organization. Most of the team, like Joe Rascoff, the band's business manager, and tour director Michael Cohl, stay out of the public eye. So, too, does Prince Rupert Zu Loewenstein, a London-based banker who carries an old Bavarian title and who's been the band's chief business advisor for some 30 years--"and I hope for another 30 too," he says. (Keith calls Loewenstein "the mastermind of our setup.") But just because the Stones' financials aren't public doesn't mean there isn't rigorous benchmarking. "Mick likes to run a pretty tight ship," Keith says to me with a twinkle in his eye.
The business side of the Stones has several facets. As for any executive running a conglomerate, understanding and managing these diverse businesses are the key, says Jagger. "They all have income streams like any other company," he says. "They have different business models; they have different delegated people that look after them. And they have to interlock. That's my biggest problem." And as we will see, his biggest opportunity.
The touring side of the business produces a torrent of revenue when the band is on the road, and then of course absolutely zilch when the tour is done. The record business also blows hot and cold--depending on if a new album is released or if old ones are promoted--though it's not as erratic as touring. Music rights, on the other hand--money paid to a band when its songs are played on, say, the radio--are predictable enough that some artists (most famously David Bowie) have been able to securitize these rights and sell bonds backed by their revenue streams.
To harness these businesses, to make them "interlock," the Stones and Prince Rupert have set up a unique business structure, which looks roughly like this: At the top, not unlike at a blue-chip law firm, is a partnership consisting of the four core members of the group: Jagger, Richards, Watts, and Wood. Do all four get equal shares of touring and new-record sales? No one in the Stones party will touch that one. "In the old days they all got equal splits," says the Stones' former manager, Allen Klein, "but I doubt it now."
Connected to the Stones partnership and Prince Rupert is a group of companies that include Promotour, Promopub, Promotone, and Musidor, each dedicated to a particular aspect of the business. This family of companies is based in the Netherlands, which has tax advantages for foreign bands. When the group isn't touring, these companies employ only a few dozen employees. At the high-water mark of a tour, on the night the band is playing, say, Giants Stadium, the Stones may employ more than 350. Backstage the enterprise resembles a flourishing startup, with dozens of fast-moving junior employees in black T-shirts running around to make sure the IPO, er, the show, gets off without a hitch. It looks crazy, but it works. Perhaps Keith sums it up best: "With our business, who really knows what's what. You go and look at Lake Superior, and you say, 'Look at all that water, and that's just the top!' "
Next: Touring is the biggest moneymaking part of the Stones' operation....
Today touring is professionalized, complete with immigration lawyers, traveling accountants, and real-time budgets. It is also the biggest moneymaking part of the Stones' operation. Since the 1989 Steel Wheels tour, the Stones have grossed over $1 billion on the road. Though exact profit margins are hard to come by, it's safe to say that tens of millions of that total flowed to each of the band members. It wasn't always this way. "When we first started out, there wasn't really any money in rock & roll," says Jagger. "There wasn't a touring industry; it didn't even exist. Obviously there was somebody maybe who made money, but it certainly wasn't the act. Basically, even if you were very successful, you got paid nothing."
Jagger recalls that in the beginning, "you'd just jump from gig to gig. There'd be no sound or lights or anything." Gradually, beginning with the Stones' 1969 American tour--which ended with the debacle at Altamont--the touring business would become modernized, with traveling lights, sound, and stage. Jagger himself had a major hand in this, sometimes negotiating directly with promoters in various regions and countries. But it wasn't until the 1989 Steel Wheels tour, when Canadian rock promoter Michael Cohl took over managing the band's shows, that the Stones would begin to fully exploit the economic potential of this business.
Generally speaking, prior to Steel Wheels, the band would hire a tour director--the late Bill Graham of Fillmore West fame once filled this role--who would call local promoters in each city to set up shows. Individual deals would have to be cut with each promoter, who took, say, 10% to 15% of ticket sales after the cost of the show. The tour director would then have to collect $250,000 here, $400,000 there, from promoters all over.
Cohl, who started out as a self-described "drugged-out, late-teens strip-club owner from Ottawa," had been one of those local promoters. After a run-in with the volatile Graham in 1988, Cohl came up with an idea that he thought would tantalize the Stones, who at the time weren't on speaking terms with each other, never mind touring. "I knew the guys from Pink Floyd, who knew Prince Rupert, and I asked them if they would call Rupert for me," he tells me as the sounds of the Stones rehearsing "Street Fighting Man" echo backstage. "Ten minutes later Rupert was on my phone saying, 'Excuse me, young man'-- he talks in this very nice, formal British accent--'excuse me, I understand you have something to say to me.' And I said $40 million for 40 shows. He said, 'Very interesting.' "
The way Cohl's plan worked is that he would book the entire tour himself, dealing with the venues directly and cutting out the local promoters. He would also produce new streams of revenue by selling skyboxes, bus tours, and TV deals, and by taking merchandising to a new level. He would bring in corporate sponsors like Volkswagen and Tommy Hilfiger. And most important, he would help stitch these operations together, through cross-promotion and the like, to maximize their earning power.
After months of negotiations and a desperate, failed bid by Graham to retain the Stones, the band accepted Cohl's offer. Cohl even ended up signing on as the band's tour director. There was one small problem: "I didn't have $40 million," recalls Cohl with a grin. "I had sold half of my company to Labatts [the Canadian beer company], and the truth of the matter is when I offered Rupert the $40 million, I didn't have their permission to offer it either." Ultimately Cohl was able to come up with the money, and he and the Stones put together the tour. (Another wrinkle: Steel Wheels had to be insured--Lloyd's covered Stones tours--and before the insurer would issue a policy, the band had to take physicals. Keith passed, legend has it, to his own astonishment.)
"First and foremost, the show itself was the seminal, watershed point," says Cohl. "When you look at what a stadium show was pre-Steel Wheels, it was a bit of a scrim, and a big, wide, flat piece of lumber, and that was it. The band turned a stadium into a theater. It all started with Mick. He simply said, 'We have to fill the end space.' It was complicated to the third power and expensive to the fifth. But it worked."
It was also incredibly hairy. "I think Michael would admit that it was a huge learning curve for him doing Steel Wheels," says Jagger. "Michael had never done it before really, so it was a bit of a gamble." The tour began in August, and by October Cohl looked at the numbers and realized they were losing money. Gobs of it. The band and the organization had to cut costs quickly. "It was a deal where I said they could make a whole lot of money, and I would guarantee it 'subject to,' and the 'subject to's' made us partners at the end of the day. So we all had to learn how to do it," says Cohl. And they did.
Next: Ticket prices have been the subject of much grousing....
In the end, the Steel Wheels tour--tickets, merchandising, sponsorship money from Anheuser-Busch--made over $260 million worldwide, then a record for a rock tour. The venues, Cohl, the band, and Labatts all made out bigtime. Steel Wheels became the template, and Cohl has been doing Stones tours ever since, refining the operation each time around.
On the new, E*Trade-sponsored Licks tour, the band, which includes keyboard whiz Chuck Leavell and bassist Darryl Jones, is playing three types of venues: stadiums, arenas, and small clubs, each with a unique set of songs (the band has rehearsed more than 130 for this tour), staging, and lights. "It is an amazing challenge," says Patrick Woodroffe, the lighting designer on the tour, who's jumped in a cab with me after the Boston show, "but it's great for the audiences and it keeps the band fresh." The props and set are downplayed a bit. The giant, multimillion-dollar videoscreen, the staging, and the lights that change for every song don't overwhelm but complement.
Because they are doing smaller venues, the Stones and Cohl know revenue from Licks won't approach the monster Voodoo Lounge Tour in 1994-95, which brought in close to $370 million worldwide. Nor will it eclipse 1997-99's Bridges to Babylon/No Security tour, which did over $390 million. But merchandising (Jagger's and Charlie Watts's domain) will be more sophisticated than ever. Jagger tells me that there will be some 50 products--such as underwear by Britain's Agent Provocateur and new, expensive items like shirts, jackets, and, yes, dresses. And it will be "our most efficient tour ever," promises Rascoff, though he refuses to divulge any of the band's financials. "Doing fewer stadiums this time cuts costs because in previous tours we had to have three stages and three crews. This tour we have one stadium stage with one crew." In other words, when sales in your core business aren't maximized, you look to cut costs and boost tertiary revenues.
As usual, ticket prices ($50 to $350) have been the subject of much grousing in the press. But Jagger is happy to delve into the topic. "This is one element of the business thing that I try to really control as much as I can," he says. "Pricing a concert ticket is very different from pricing a Lexus or toothpaste. It's more like a sports event. And you are prepared to pay the market price. So if U2 or Madonna costs $100 (I'm making these up), you don't want to be charging $200. I try to keep ticket prices within the market price range. It's America. We're not living in a socialist society where we're all paid so low and no one can afford it."
The ticket-pricing controversy burns Cohl up. Athletes like Derek Jeter and Marshall Faulk are free to make whatever they can, "but people complain that Mick and Keith can't. I think that is the biggest load of crap. We are only charging $50 a night for club shows, which we lose money on. I read on eBay one of the tickets to Roseland Ballroom [in New York] went for $10,000. That makes us schmucks! When we charge $300 for some seats, somebody's out there selling them for $500. If we were to charge $500, somebody would sell them for more. Come on, what are they complaining about?" It's true that ticket prices to Stones shows have outpaced inflation (along with health care and college tuition), but you kind of get the feeling that the same people who are complaining about high ticket prices also rue the fact that Blind Boy Fuller died poor.
The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don't want to screw anybody out of anything, least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30% in holding until we sort it out." No wonder Keith chooses to live not in London, or even New York City, but in Weston, Conn.
Of course, it wasn't just the taxman's pinch that forced the Rolling Stones to focus on the bottom line. They also got screwed by record labels. "In the early days you got paid absolutely nothing," recalls Jagger. "The only people who earned money were the Beatles because they sold so many records."
By the mid-'60s the Stones had reportedly sold ten million singles, including "Satisfaction," and five million albums, but the band was still living hand to mouth. "I'll never forget the deals I did in the '60s, which were just terrible," says Jagger. "You say, 'Oh, I'm a creative person, I won't worry about this.' But that just doesn't work. Because everyone would just steal every penny you've got."
In 1965 the band began to work with Allen Klein, a New York manager, who would help it negotiate a new contract. Klein, now 70, recalls his big day with the band some 37 years later: "I told the guys, 'I want you to come down with me to Decca. Wear dark sunglasses and look angry but don't say anything. Leave the talking to me.'" By intimidating the British record execs, Klein helped land the Stones their first million-dollar payday. Klein (whose company, ABKCO, still owns rights to the Stones' songs from the earliest days through 1971) and the band would have a falling-out and part ways in the early 1970s. With vintage photographs of the Stones covering his office walls, Klein leafs through the old contracts in his office and shakes his head: "The others didn't look at them that much, but I remember Mick would read every single page."
Interestingly, the Stones have never had a blockbuster album, like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours or Michael Jackson's Thriller. But what they have done is make 42 albums. And they've sold tens of millions of those records and CDs, and singles and EPs too. Since 1989 alone, for instance, the band has sold more than 38 million albums at roughly $12 each, for gross proceeds of over $460 million.
The new Stones albums haven't been as hot as the oldies, obviously, but the band has high hopes for the Forty Licks album, due out this fall. The album has 36 of the band's biggest hits, plus four new songs. Also, Allen Klein's ABKCO has just re-released 22 of the band's earlier albums on SACD hybrid, a new CD format (compatible with traditional CD players), including all of the band's great records from the 1960s. In a way, the Stones' older music is like Coke Classic. The band tries to introduce new varieties, some of which do okay, but it's the original stuff we still love the best.
Next: So what keeps the Stones going?...
Serwer: Your income must vary all over the place, year by year, because the tours give you this huge bump and then there's nothing.
Richards: But there's always an awful lot of PRS coming in.
Serwer: What the hell is that?
Richards: Performing rights. Every time it's played on the radio. I go to sleep and make money--let's put it that way.
Now this is the Microsoft part of the Stones' business empire. Profitable. Steady. And stretching out to the horizon. "Music publishing is more profitable to the artist than recording. It's just tradition," says Jagger. "There's no rhyme or reason. The people who wrote songs were probably better businesspeople than the people who sang them were. You go back to George Gershwin and his contemporaries--they probably negotiated better deals, and they became the norm of the business. So if you wrote a song, you got half of it, and the other half went to your publisher. That's the model for writing."
And Jagger/Richards have written more than 200 songs. The pair has had a few monster hits like "Honky Tonk Woman," but more significantly they have dozens of songs that are played on FM radio, which is still a vibrant category. And it's not just the radio. Every time "Shattered" or "Jumping Jack Flash" is played anywhere around the globe when commerce is involved--at an ice-skating rink, on a jukebox, or at a club--the Jagger/Richards cash register goes ka-ching.
Again, Jagger is intimately involved in this business. Perhaps the most famous product rollout of all time used a Stones song--Windows 95 and "Start Me Up." Microsoft reportedly paid $4 million for those rights. ("Yeah, we met Bill Gates," says Jagger. "And [Paul] Allen is always around.") Not to be outdone, Apple used "She's a Rainbow" to launch the colored iMacs. But, says Jagger, "we don't really do a lot of commercials. I mean, I'm not against them per se, but we don't do them that much. We do a lot of film licensing. We get lots of requests, and I usually say yes. It's a great business. You have a sort of price that you like to keep to, unless it's a low-budget film and it's a really interesting film--then you can make a deal maybe." Though the cost of buying rights to use a Stones song in a film varies, on average it runs a filmmaker in the low six figures.
Over the past decade Fortune estimates that the songwriting team of Jagger/Richards has garnered $56 million from songs being played on radio and in public venues, as well as being used in advertising and movies. A significant chunk of change. "The thing that we all had to learn is what to do when the passion starts to generate money," says Richards. "You don't start to play your guitar thinking you're going to be running an organization that will maybe generate millions."
The tours, the records, the rights: They've all made the Stones the wealthiest rock & roll band on the planet. None more so than Jagger and Richards, who unlike the others enjoy the full fruits of all that licensing. Their portfolios are mostly in the hands of the trusty and tight-lipped Prince Rupert. Though Jagger follows the financial news in the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, he isn't doing much with stocks these days. "I used to play the market, but I'm not that interested at the moment because I don't think it's a very interesting time," he says.
Keith is more philosophical: "I watch the [Dow] go up and down and wonder. It's like watching the horses really. How much is that an indication of anything? Oh, the Dow's up.... And you go, okay, who's running in the 3:30 at Belmont? I have a small portfolio. I find things I love, like houses--bricks and mortar. Nothing wrong with a bit of land. I've invested in my friends' projects. And there's Rupert. He is a great financial mind for the market. He plays that like I play guitar. He does things like a little oilwell. And currency--you know, Swiss francs in the morning, switch to marks in the afternoon, move to the yen, and by the end of the day, how many dollars? That's his financial genius, his wisdom. Little pieces of paper. As long as there's a smile on Rupert's face, I'm cool."
So what keeps the Stones going? Money, yes. But the band could make big bucks simply by doing commercials instead of touring. Going on the road is about ego gratification. "This whole thing runs on passion," says Richards. "Even though we don't talk about it much ourselves, it's almost a sort of quest or mission."
The Stones and their estates will continue licensing songs and selling records for years. But sooner rather than later, the touring will cease. Jagger's stage antics are remarkable when you consider his age. But how much longer? Charlie Watts, the oldest Stone, is already 61. The band hasn't said this is the last tour, though it could be--and of course that kind of speculation is great for ticket sales, particularly in second-tier cities, where this really could be the Stones' last show.
"How long can we go on?" asks Keith. "Forever. We'll let you know when we keel over." And when that day comes, it will mean not only the end of the world's greatest rock band but also a winding-down of one of the most successful enterprises this crazy business has ever known.
That was pretty damn good, I've seen quite a lot of trolling my time and that was right up there with "The Night Before Goatse"
because if you're right the entire slahsdot crowd is going to have a have a serious case of brain death really soon! .... never mind
hahahahahhahahahhahaa fuck i've been trolling a lot today, my IP is going to get banned so hard
They made the pact back at Altamont, not with Bill Gates, though that contract was almost just as frightfull. The contract was drawn up before the show, the Hells Angels presented it to Satan and he excepted. The ritual ultimately culminated in a blood sacrifice and the Stones got their ticket to ride.
Hi. Is there a God? Thanks in advance.
You go on playing your D&D, and you have fun with it. Then when you feel the need to be close to a girl, take a knife, go out onto the street and find a girl and rape her. Hey it can be a girl you know or a stranger or whatever, don't worry about it. Warning: if it is a girl that you know and she knows you, you should probably kill her afterwards to avoid getting caught.
Trust me, I've been using this method for years, it works well!!
Please girls do not grab Mick Jaggers ass! It's beginning to crumble!
Moral: Kids, stop trying to get on reality TV and go to economics classes.
(This is just a plug for my new single, Smack up ma CEO of a Fortune 500 company)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
So I was drinking with my buddy Ace, and he told me about this time he fucked this girl in the ass, then fucked her cunt and shot his wad in her, then ate her out.
I was all like: "Ace, you dumass, when you were eating her out, there was your cum in there not to mention the shit from her ass! That's disgusting!"
Ace slapped his head: "Oh my god, I forgot the sequence!!!!"
Its not goatse.cx, but its still bad.
If you're an avid D&D player, 'n you haven't managed to get past level 7, then you've got bigger problems than girls....
my dad listens to the rolling stones. that explains everything. he is a drunk too.
WiFi hookup in my tricked-out Accord. Rollin' down the boulevard, bitches can't tear their eyes away. Custom paint, custom wheels, life is schweeeeet. SUCK IT UP LUUUUZAZZ!
Essentially the message of the article is this: you can't ignore the business side of things unless you want to end up penniless and eternally controlled by the suits.
If you sum up their ages, it comes in right around 134. They are (probably) not burning through other peoples money like some pet food dot com. They've made their billion, married their super models, and pretty much out lived everybody else in their industry. The future they concerned with is propably not a get rich quick scheme -- that probably doesn't matter any more.
Now Mick, feel free to send those comp tickets to the enclosed address.....
Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
Let me get when I rock the...the..the... This shit ain't got no fuckin drums in it man Daym, wht don't you put some fuckin drums in the music So I can Get down to businees
.9 in my hand
I think it's time I paid a little visit
To my run down neighbourhood cemetry
To tally up the people I buried
57, 58, 59, All layin' down in the same line
You sorry motherfuckers couldn't handle me
I done fucked up 17 families
So bring it on if you wanna play
Huh, make my motherfuckin' day
Cause you'll be one dead motherfucker black
I'ma put you ass on you back
I won't play no games wit cha boy
You'll just be one more nigger in the morgue
Yeah I like that man That shit sounds kinda funky don't it Hahahaha, yo let me finish this freestyle tho man Hold 'em down, hold 'em up, yo
It's gonna be a killin' after midnight
Niggas gettin' reday for a big fight
You could say this one's a murder by a lunatic
Hear me livin' on your ass bitch
Loadin' up my weapons gettin' ready for
Another street sweepin' neighbourhood drug war
Police come around in a meat wagon
Knowin' that tonight they'll be draggin'
Off motherfuckers to a six fot ditch
I hope ya insruance paid up bitch
Cause tonight is the night motherfucker
Be a good killer or a damn good ducker
Cause if you ain't, your ass is fallin' to the paint
Bloodshed seems to make a nigga faint
Not me with a
I couls fall asleep lyin' next to a dead amn
Ya gotta understand me
It's been a vet sorry motherfucka layin' out dead see
So if you wanna come, come hard Or you'll just be another nigga in the morgue
Yeah, you motherfuckas Motherfuckas goin' for bad and shit You know what I'm sayin' But you'll be another niger in the morgue motherfucker Oh yo, check this out
But gettin' back to the bloodbath
You motherfuckas out there go for bad
That shit played out my brother
I ride by and gun done motherfuckers
Whether friend or foe bro
Steppin' on my toes, your ass has gotta go
Now heres how the shit took place [How'd it go?]
A nigga waved a tre eight in my face [Damn]
Screamin' that shit about the Squab Mob
Talkin' big shit about the South Park
Said he's gonna stop me
Pissed off cause I'm down with the 5th Ward posse [Um-Hmm] Shit didn't make me numb I ain't scared of no goddman gun [My nigga] Once I sw 'em break I stuck 'em [What about his 3 guards?] Fuck 'em!
I'll put him on his ass cause he's bigger
Then worry about the other 3 niggas
All of them ran to get backup
That's 12 more bodies I'ma stack up
Open up the trunk in a rage
And loaded up my goddamn 12 gauge
If the punk don't keep ya
I'll be forced to hit ya wit the street sweeper
Ya ass shouldn't a started no static g
12 gun shots automatically
I ain't goin' out like no sucka
I'm goin' out like a crazy motherfucka
Everybody knows that I ain't got it all
And I don't give a fuck about none a y'all
Hit 3 or 4 in the head
That's 3 or 4 niggers left for dead
It doesn't pay to check cards
Cuase I'm sendin' motherfuckas to the morgue...
Turned out to be the latest trends
And ther ain't no more progressive music
The business has put it to an end
Ol' "Rolling Stone" has gathered some moss
No they ain't what they used to be
They try to look like "Look" with their political pages
And advertising all over T.V.
So na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
I bet you've heard this song before
Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
Take your cocaine and hit the door.
- "Cheap Shot" John Mellencamp, 1980.
A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
Punch him in the nose.
I read in this article where a bunch of them ran a train on a 13 year old girl. That girl grew up to be a MULTIPLE MURDERER who was sentenced to DEATH and EXECUTED!
So watch out. You have been warned.
AIDS May Escape Diagnosis in Older People
by Joyce Baldwin
Geriatric Times January/February 2001 Vol. II Issue 1
Of the AIDS-infected population, 10.4% are over 50 years old, yet health care professionals may not consider an HIV/AIDS diagnosis when examining an older patient. What's more, it may be difficult to determine if dementia is HIV-related or a sign of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to discern that an infection is an opportunistic one linked to HIV, not an unrelated condition such as pneumonia or herpes zoster.
Experts believe AIDS might be misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed in elderly patients, perhaps because stereotypical thinking perpetuates the myth that seniors are not sexually active.
"If an older person presents with fatigue or illness, the symptoms are often attributed to age-related changes rather than indications of a sexually transmitted disease," Marcia Ory, Ph.D., M.P.H., told Geriatric Times. "The person who presents may have no idea they're infected [with HIV], and the health care provider looks at a 65-year-old woman, maybe a 70-year-old man, and they think of everything else before they think: Could this be a case of HIV/AIDS?"
"The assumption is that health care providers look at somebody 75 and don't think sex and don't think drugs," said Ory, chief of behavioral medicine and public health at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the National Institutes of Health. Although in most cases they are right, Ory said that clinicians would be surprised at what they would find out about some of their patients if they did an assessment.
In an interview with GT, Bradley S. Bender, M.D., noted the lack of research regarding HIV/AIDS and seniors, "I think [it] is a common notion to say that [HIV/AIDS] is misdiagnosed more frequently in older persons, but I don't think there are a lot of data that support it." Bender is professor of medicine at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Gainesville, Fla.
While working in a nursing home, Katie Wooten-Bielski, M.S.N., C.R.N.P., noted that, although some people had infections such as herpes zoster, "no one ever addressed sexuality in older adults or the possibility of HIV infection in any of our patients." Wooten-Bielski, a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, believes it is important to "be open to the possibility that even an older person could have an infection that could have been sexually acquired." She reported in Geriatric Nursing (1999;20[5]) that older people with HIV may be mistakenly diagnosed with other conditions. She told GT that Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, shingles, herpes zoster, tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus, oral thrush and dementia may all be HIV-related.
Another factor contributing to under-diagnosis is that older people are more likely to get diseases such as disseminated tuberculosis and lymphoma that mimic opportunistic infections, Merle A. Sande, M.D., told GT. "Therefore, the medical team may be less likely to think of these progressive lung diseases as being associated with AIDS. Just because older people get more things, and AIDS is not high on their radar screen, they're not going to think about [it], and they may make misdiagnoses."
In "AIDS and the Elderly," an article in Clinical Infectious Diseases (1999;28[4]:740-745), Chiao et al. stated:
Several case studies illustrate that older patients with AIDS who present with symptoms of opportunistic infection often undergo the workup and treatment for other disease processes such as cerebrovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, bacterial or viral pneumonia, malnutrition, and occult malignancy. Thus, symptoms that would suggest HIV/AIDS in a younger patient may be overlooked in the older patient and, therefore, the diagnosis of an HIV infection is made late in the course of disease.
Sande, co-author of the article and chair of the department of internal medicine at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, told GT that determining whether a patient has AD- or HIV-related dementia is sometimes a difficult distinction to make. Sande and his co-authors found that HIV-related dementia is associated with subacute encephalitis; progresses more rapidly than AD dementia; is more often associated with peripheral neuropathies, myelopathies, weight loss and fatigue; may show mildly elevated protein levels in the cerebrospinal fluid; and often may improve with administration of antiretroviral therapy.
The most prevalent mode of transmission of HIV in the senior population is now through sexual intercourse, not through contaminated blood products. (In 1996, only 2.4% of AIDS patients =50 years of age reported receipt of blood or blood products as the mode of transmission [Chiao et al., 1999]-Ed.) Yet, no longer concerned about contraception and not thinking of themselves as at risk for developing AIDS, the over-50 segment of the population is much less likely to use condoms or to seek HIV testing than are their younger counterparts. Of infected seniors, 84% are male; the largest exposure categories are men who have sex with men (36%), followed by no risk reported (26%), injection drug use (19%) and heterosexual contact (15%).
NIA's Ory said that a 60-year-old may need the same safe sex message and the same "be careful about drugs" message as a younger person. Commenting on the need to educate seniors and their health care providers, she told GT, "Most of the prevention messages are not targeted toward the middle-aged and older person at risk. They are not even targeted toward health care providers to understand that these people can be at risk.
"It is true that this population is engaging in less risky behavior, but I think the key is that those who are engaging in risky behaviors are just as likely, if exposed to the virus-and in some cases maybe even more likely-to be infected. So if you engage in risky behaviors, just because you are 65 doesn't mean you aren't going to get AIDS."
Stressing the need to broach the subject of HIV infection with patients during a routine visit, Wooten-Bielski told GT that health care workers should not make the topic taboo, but should approach the discussion very matter-of-factly, as part of a normal health history.
The importance of introducing the subject of HIV infection is underscored by statistics indicating that AIDS is a greater health concern for people over 50 than for youngsters. "There is a lot of emphasis on pediatric HIV; but, at least in the United States, there are at least 10 times as many seniors with HIV as there are children with the infection," said Bender. "Numbers alone do not tell the whole story, however. A 2-year-old with AIDS seems much more tragic than a 62-year-old with AIDS, but it still doesn't mean that the 62-year-old with AIDS doesn't require attention and care."
In "AIDS in Older Persons," a chapter in The Medical Management of AIDS, 6th ed. (1999; W.B. Saunders), Bender described a 66-year-old male who had experienced a 25 lb. weight loss and chronic diarrhea; was admitted and discharged from the hospital twice in a three-month period; then readmitted within several days for dehydration. It was only on the third admission that an infectious disease physician was consulted, and a recommended HIV test was found to be positive.
Bender told GT that the patient was a widower who visited a prostitute monthly and that he was alive and well three years after treatment for HIV was started.
"Old age is not a contraindication to therapy," Bender said. "Old people should be treated the same as younger people and they should be treated with the same drugs." Bender said that currently there are about 15 antiretroviral drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of HIV. The standard of care is a combination therapy that consists of a cocktail of three or more drugs. This therapy, known as HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy), is aimed at restoring the effectiveness of the patient's immune system.
Bender said, "As best as we can tell, older people respond as well as younger people in regards to immune reconstitution."
He noted that older people have a more rapid progression of HIV infection, which suggests they might require a more aggressive approach to therapy with earlier use of combination therapies. Bender added, "Drug toxicities and drug interactions are more common in older persons," indicating the need to carefully monitor these patients.
Discussing the impact on an older person of an HIV diagnosis, Ory pointed out that the health care team can provide crucial assistance in helping patients cope.
"Older people who are infected feel very, very isolated and stigmatized," she said, explaining that they are less likely than younger patients to know others with the same condition. "There needs to be special sensitivity," Ory stressed, "because these people often feel as though they have no family support, no social support. Physicians can help patients not feel ashamed and can help them get in a track that is positive and set them up with appropriate networks."
$1.5 billion? Son of a bitch!
Mick, I will NO LONGER TOLERATE hearing you talk about not getting any satisfaction.
Yay!
Well.....Mick *did* attend the London School of Economics.
http://www.mick-jagger.com/bio.htm
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
...that Rock And Roll's most active senior citizens (they're STILL touring?!?)are the first major act to try and take the online music plunge? Isn't it kind of weird that Keith Richards (who's senior class includes Moses, the Sphinx, and Strom Thurmond) is explaining an online music business model? As a long-time Stones fan, I hope it works out for them and other artists follow suit.
Speaking of Keith, where do I sign up to get some of that man's blood?
Wild. One of the oldest active bands trying out the semi-latest technology/business ideas. Sorry Alanis, but it is a little too ironic. Yeah, I really do think...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Studies show that only 10 percent of male homosexuals were born that way.
The rest were sucked into it.
They got the numbers mixed up! The Stones have made $1,989 since they began making music...
;)
in 1 billion b.c.
cheers,
1) Sing
2) ???
3) Profit!
At least someones got it right...
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
They have a bavarian Prince named Loewenstein? Is that a normal Bavarian royal surname?
Yes, see The History of the royal house of bavaria for information about this family.
That much money must involve Sympathy for the Devil ;-)
"It pisses me off that the stones have a business model and we don't."
Of course, it wasn't just the taxman's pinch that forced the Rolling Stones to focus on the bottom line. They also got screwed by record labels. "In the early days you got paid absolutely nothing," recalls Jagger. "The only people who earned money were the Beatles because they sold so many records."
By the mid-'60s the Stones had reportedly sold ten million singles, including "Satisfaction," and five million albums, but the band was still living hand to mouth. "I'll never forget the deals I did in the '60s, which were just terrible," says Jagger. "You say, 'Oh, I'm a creative person, I won't worry about this.' But that just doesn't work. Because everyone would just steal every penny you've got."
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Interesting article, not least for the information that Charlie is involved in the merchandising side of the operation - not that it's a particularly big earner, but it's an indication that the original founding Stones like to keep things in the family, so to speak.
Just one point: the article didn't mention it, but the Stones (and the Beatles, and The Who, and Bob Dylan, and... ) hit the top in the mid to late '60s when the trailing edge of the post-WW2 baby-boom had reached adolesence, which hasn't harmed the longevity of the respective brands... Keith Richards once remarked apropos his love for R&B, that people tend to remain attached to the music that was popular at the time of their first significant interpersonal relationship.
Well, he may have put it a little more pithily than that, but you get the idea.
No mention in a Slashdot article of the Stones' stance on P2P and file 'sharing' ??? Sounds to me like, as astute businessmen and musicians, their opinions would be highly relevant.
1. Eat mars bar out of vagina
2. ???
3. Profit!!
Except for them it seems to work.
He wasn't there for very long (less than 2 years, IIRC) and didn't do all the much even when he was there (lots of gigging, etc)
creation science book
And because the business is built so closely around him and his close associates, his position is rather secure.
All those paparazzi must play hell with any exit strategy, though... unless he takes the Brian Jones route?
deus does not exist but if he does
They probably finally started making a profit when they got Keith Richards off of drugs. That man looks half in the grave anyways. I cant help but think the rolling stones will someday have to be wheeled up to the stage to perform.
This isnt a troll I just think that these guys were way past their prime years ago. Most bands realize there is a time to just quit and go out with dignity.
I'm sure Mick would be the first to say "Nothing in life is 'FreeJack', you gotta work for it".
(Heh, could not resist the movie ref, I just got the DVD a few weeks ago for $6 )
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Listen - what you have there is an economy car and will always be an economy car. What you wanted was a sports car. No amount of exhaust work, computer chips or pine tree air fresheners is going to make your econo-p.o.s. into a hot-rod.
Deal with it.
Barry?
I find the double entendre of the name of the tour pretty creative. Mick's mouth with his tongue sticking out is a clearly associated logo for the band and licks, of course, refers to the same thing as a riff.
page 2.
Keith, for his part, just shakes his head: "It's a mom-and-pop operation," he laughs. "Mick is the mom, and I'm the pop, and then we have these offspring that need feeding."
Perhaps Keith sums it up best: "With our business, who really knows what's what. You go and look at Lake Superior, and you say, 'Look at all that water, and that's just the top!' "
I'd go on, but they're much funnier in context, so go read the article.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Why is everyone so surprised that Jagger and co. are interested in business? After all don't rock stars want to be "*Rich* and Famous". And like most things in life it helps to be talented *and* hardworking.
There was a cool profile of Puff Daddy in a recent New Yorker in which it was revealed that he spends more time at the office than in clubs. But no one ever made it in the hip hop world by shouting about how they are a suburban catholic school educated grind.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
They copied their name from *my* rock group:
The Trolling Stones
The $1.5 Billion in revenue isn't particularly impressive since Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (the babies from Full House) had $500 million in revenue JUST LAST YEAR and are on track for another $1 billion next year
(Fortune article).
The $1.5 Billion in revenue isn't particularly impressive since Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (the babies from Full House) had $500 million in revenue JUST LAST YEAR and are on track for another $1 billion next year
(Fortune article).
This could go on for a long time. Elvis dead makes more money than Elvis did living.
I don't know if I'd want to say such good things about Mick Jagger's business skills after he had to have a tribute concert to make up for the losses of the abysmal sales on his last solo record.
Or maybe it is good that he did that, so he didn't lose money?
But it still looked pretty sad from my end of things.
You're almost as bad as those business plan comments.
Shit, I clicked it.
yes, that's right
nuf
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I know its a troll but wtf, its sunday. Its only illegal drug profits that go towards terrorism [unless you include taxes which support a fair bit, but thats another issue]. Solution is obvious: legalize all drugs.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
For instance they made 42 albums and sold 38 million copies of them. Iron Maiden has made 17 albums and as of 1998 before their latest Top 10, 2 other CD releases and 2 DVD releases came out, hit over 50 million copies sold. Means more of each album sold, and more total sold. They also sold out the entire 2000-2001 World Tour - often in record time (like Madison Square Garden in NY). They headlined Rock in Rio 3 and sold that out. No band (including the Stones) that I have checked concert information on, other than them, has sold out to a quarter of a million people.
Quite simply, if you have the time, read Fortune. It's mostly ads (very) thinly veiled as articles - or written by people who know nothing about the industry - or perhaps in this case are subdividing the music genres to get the results they want.
Heck, Metallica sells more CDs and has done more concerts. The Olson Twins make more than them as was already posted. And N'Sync (as much as I hate them) even make more according to the figures posted a few months ago. Now, if you remember the article (not Fortune article though) then, it stated N'Suck had sold more albums than anyone (except a list of at least a few bands with twice their sales like Maiden - that the record companies, and hence the press, wont touch).
Regardless of the journalistic abilities of the Fortune Crew, they only have what Sony, the RIAA et al feed them to use in their articles. This makes them very biased. And usually very very incorrect.
On a side note, for all you Maiden fans, EMI, baffled by yet another Top 10 album and sold out concert series, decided they can maybe see the point in actually (for the first time in my memory of listening to them - 1985) advertising them. Maiden TV commercials this coming month. Maiden, btw, is very frank on their site - it's a compilation of all their stuff that Maiden fans probably already own, so dont go run out and buy it unless you just really want to. It's geared to grab new audience.
Duhhh.....Popular music is fundamentally a business like any other economic activity. You deliver the value,product or service..if you like it...you pay for it. If no one buys it does not continue to get created/produced...Pretty basic..Though it took dot.com owners 4 years and billions of wasted dollars to figure that out(ie, software solutions looking for problems to solve)
Anyone responsible for "Happy Christmas" deserves to get shot.
'89. Their first, maybe second, farewell tour. That is, they've booked a bil and a half since they *quit* touring. And they still suck.
illegitimii non ingravare
When I think of the Stones' busineszs model, I think about selling bicycles on Mars and flatcats in the asteroid belt.