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."

Comments

Longevity (not the mummification variety;)

[Observer]

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.

Success as has-beens

[Animats]

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.