Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Rolling Stones' Business Model

Posted by michael on from the gathering-no-moss dept.

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."

3 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Software, songs and smoking keiths ashes by madmarcel · · Score: 1, Interesting

    < /. >>
    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 ;^D Here goes...

    <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 :) Then we can smoke his ashes! (to quote Dennis Leary)

  2. Longevity (not the mummification variety;) by Observer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  3. Success as has-beens by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The really funny thing about this is that the big money came long after they were has-beens. The big breakthrough seems to have been when they dumped Bill Graham Presents in 1989, and started producing their own tours. It's not that they're any more successful as musicians, it's that they got their business model under control.

    This could go on for a long time. Elvis dead makes more money than Elvis did living.