Comments

i like the "yesterday" story.
makes you look at porsche's cayenne strategy from a different angle.
personally i never felt it could hurt the porsche brand - on the contrary in fact...

we'll see.
...

Posted by jens at June 30, 2005 1:14 PM

Wow. An exellent post. I think they saw there was a risk. But they tried, not in the UK but in the US. And that´s important.

On the other side, how can we explain the expansion of the brand by breaking the identity?

I think The Beatles brand was so rich that nobody thught of them just as a R´n´R band but as a groudbraking phenomenon. When you reach that level of brand trust and emotional engagement, it is no surprise that people follow your steps if you give them a pretty good product.

Something similar happened with the Yardbirds. When Jimmy Page took the lead, he transformed the band into the most powerful r´n´r band ever, Led Zeppelin (with some staff changes, it´s true). It was the quality, the talent that made a rough transition possible.

I´d love to hear more opinions about this.

Posted by felix gerena at June 30, 2005 1:14 PM

I'm not sure the Beatles are the best example. They weren't exactly known for their business savvy. I think Epstein deserves all the credit for establishing them. Even the cleverest of them, McCartney, still smarts from being outsmarted by of all people Michael Jackson. Musically talented? Without a doubt. Businessmen? I don't think so. Mick Jagger was a businessman, and from a business perspective, we could definitely learn something from him.

It was a sort of English tradition in the 50's for people in English pubs to sing and the songs they sang had a kind of catchy, vaudeville quality to them so that everyone could join in. To my ears, a lot of the Beatles tunes have the same characteristics. As they went on, they started to grow up a little (though Lennon didn't. I think he stayed a child his whole life) and some of their songs were more poignant, but I still trace their sound to the times they grew up in. It's amazing that it held such universal appeal, even with an excellent manager. That's what I find interesting about the Beatles.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 30, 2005 1:53 PM

Sir Michael Philip Jagger and the Rolling Stones - it is true that in the 1960's the Stones were taken advantage of because of their lack of business prowess - as were most 60's musical emerging world class acts I imagine. Rupert Loewenstein, their finance advisor radically changed that very early in 1971 - they formed their own label and business models - and became "residents of nowhere" for tax purposes - citizens of Britain.

Since 1971 ownership has more than made up for the 60's and they have fully developed their business models, cash flow, corporate tie ins, revenue streams - you name it. Michael attended the London School of Economics, and his dad had a career as a fitness instructor - so Mick is smart businesswise and physically [to survive the drugs/decadance/long tours] - and happy 62nd to him this July 26th.

The Elton John/Michael Jackson "business model" NOT, Nyet, Nada. TALENT = the TP story and Beatles and Rolling Stones :>) ...

Posted by Sean at June 30, 2005 6:04 PM

Fair enough. I suppose I could have been comparing ripe bananas to less ripe bananas! Most of those 1960's rockers were off their rockers when it came to business in their early years, but some definitely did pick up some business sense as they went along. David Bowie for example floated himself on the stock market and in fairness to Paul McCartney, last I heard he was the richest person in England after the Queen so he must be doing something right!

There was something I read in an interview with David Byrne of Talking Heads years ago. He said that he wanted to write commercially popular songs as much as the next person but that it wasn't his first priority. If they sold well, so much the better, but he didn't sit down to write commercial successes.

I suppose in a business your eye is very much on what will sell, but I think with many great musicians this isn't true at all, one example being Pink Floyd and Dark Side of the Moon which is one of the most successful albums of all time and was not put together primarily with the thought of sales in mind. There are many other examples, but regrettably, they are the exception to the rule which might explain why so much rubbish has come forward in the intervening decades. I blame the record companies, but that's all changing. If you've got talent for music, there are avenues of distribution opening up like never before.

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 1, 2005 3:17 AM

McCartney, Bowie, Jagger-Richards are finance professionals - even Elton is making a comeback. I remember when Jerry Hall was dating some new guy and she said he could "buy out Mick 10 times over...". So I feel they do keep track of each others 100's of millions as an elite team "scorecard" if you will - the artistic legacy matters most but the scorecard/tax havens do too.

To me it is fascinating that the UK has such entertainment "mega business model" success for so long - U2/Stones this summer - almost impossible to get a ticket already! Here in the USA Forbes just did a thing on how Michael Jackson, MC Hammer, Donna Summer, and now almost all the rappers = totally blow through their 10's of millions [posse waste addiction]and end up with nothing but coked out memories.

Posted by Sean at July 1, 2005 4:24 AM

I've learned lots about rock in reading these lit-up replies. I'd also love to hear each blogger reply succinctly and exactly to John's question so that I could see the potential impact of their thinking on their business.

I don't know much about rockers and my work is pretty solitary. Still, what I learned from John's Beatles story applies to me. But I'll frame my somewhat simplistic answer in terms of a larger company:

If I were a manager, I'd scrutinize the creative climate of those in charge of generating new stuff. Whether my product is a thing, a relationship or an idea, I'd look at what's driving my people and ask a few questions. Are they operating at the effect of external pressure? Or are they creating from the inside out, as an expression and celebration of their creativity? These answers would then have me noticing the environment in which they work. Does it fire up and free people to identify and celebrate their unique talents? Or does it impose the restrictions of production deadlines or of guidelines as to what ideas are acceptable? In short, I'd look for what in the operation is holding people back.

Posted by Holly at July 1, 2005 7:19 AM

Fascinating posts. I think the Beatles DID attain a high level of "brand trust and emotional engagement" - and to their loyal customers they weren't just another R&R band. But to the world at large (like my parents!) they were just a shaggy haired band of medium talent (until "Yesterday" was released, followed by other gems in the years to come). Some consider the Beatles manager, Brian Epstein, to have been a dreadful businessman (he virtually gave away merchandising rights which can be 25% of a band's revenue stream). He WAS very inexperienced and made many early blunders, but I still think he had pretty good business instincts overall. I believe the 4 Beatles did have good marketing savvy though they had little business experience. (I'll come back to that later.) As for their songwriting, Lennon/McCartney are considered by most critics (and other top songwriters) to be most innovative songwriters in rock music history. And, yes, the Rolling Stones are now among the savviest businessmen in rock (though even in the 60s, thanks to their manager, Robert Klein, the Stones were out-earning the Beatles on record royalties). Rock business trivia R us.

Posted by John O'Leary at July 1, 2005 2:56 PM

It would be pretty simple to evolve as the Beatle's evolved with any large corporation... in fact, I believe that most of them do... here are a couple of notes:

1) collaboration, collaboration, collaboration:
The Beatles were 4 guys (and a bus-load of handlers–– sure–– but basically four guys). Even with that small a number to work with, they still had a rough time forming consensus and were often openly and publicly nasty to each other. But they did, ultimately "Come Together"... mostly over John... but hey... consensus is consensus even when one person typically takes the lead. The big companies that are smart do this all the time. The apparent difference is rate of evolution. My business partners and I get to consensus quickly because we've intentionally stayed small and that size has facilitated our ability to navigate any kind of water be it still or rough. In this regard, our growth (rate of evolution measured in terms of inertia) is rapid. A large company has much more mass to haul. It takes a while to get a group of folks with specific marching orders (a General and Foot Soldier management style that is not without its merits) to change directions. I watch 18 wheelers navigate corners by me... slow and steady... unlike my friend Tom who drives little European convertibles–– zip, zip, gone. Sometimes, I wonder if the problem is with the rate of innovation from within the corporation, as it is with human impatience outside of the mechanism in place.

There is, can't remember exactly where–– I think it's Madagascar–– a sloth that moves so slowly that it gathers moss. And yet it's moving and gets where it needs to get.

2) which brings me to caution. In a high risk tolerant gimme-now world, caution has become a sign of weakness–– around which the jet-packers believe they smell the distinct scent of fear (by the way... my appreciation of slow and steady both as a corporate paradigm and as a marker of evolutionary stability, doesn't mean it's my modus operandi... nope. I'm a creative director, my decisions are immediate and gutteral... I throw it out there and see how it works. After hitting a recorded 600 brick walls at the speed of sound, I've finally allowed room for other modalities to inform my choices. This isn't because I'm afraid of walls... quite the contrary... I've just gotten smarter about them... wiser, not more chicken). Corporate checks and balances slow things down to where evolution is a choice and a plan and not a whim or a shot in the dark. If I were to stumble, I would skin my knee... if G.M. or Microsoft, or Sony stumbles... the thump would be heard around the world and Johnson & Johnson would make a KILLING doling out band aids. "Slower" is like a shin guard on your business plan... it affords you the opportunity to fall and fall and fall and learn the old fashioned way: by making mistakes and living to try and try again.

3) know your market: when "Yesterday" was released, the radical climate had moved away from the head-bopping "yeah, yeah, yeah" chants of the early British Invasion. Something was coming over the young Americans and the dazed Europeans (note the political climate of Paris Burning at the time). Resisting the inevitablity of change would have been detrimental to the Beatles survival (and ultimately, sacrificing the Beatles was necessary to the survival of 2 new species: namely John and Paul). The music industry takes its cue from the times and never the other way around... so I would suggest that the Fab 4 made an educated, informed decision to move wwith the times. I suppose the Beatles dilemma in releasing "Yesterday" was less about being themselves, true to their art, etc... it was the opposite: can we be so daring, arrogant or complacent that we will thumb our collective noses at what the folk poet Bob would come to label times that are a-changin"?

4) External versus internal perspectives. I've spoken impattiently, and with a lot of snooty holier-than-thou attitude about this. I regret it. Truth is, it's a cycle... you can't get to the external perspective without going through the internal conflict, self-examination, self-obsession or self-sacrifice as the case may be. And you can't learn about what you want as a corporation, the ideals you stand for, the success that you are willing to sacrifice for the greater good, without having been out in the world. outside-in, inside-out. It's a ying and yang thing, Man. Just a ying-yang, thing. Me? forget Yesterday... I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round.

5) Moderation. Take a risk, don't take a risk. Listen, speak. Follow your bliss, sell-sell-sell. Maybe there's a place where we as corporate, entreprenueural or radical beings will get where we find out that it's all one and the same. Maybe not. Until then, to paraphrase another musical prophet: Too much of anything's no good for you, Baby.

rH

Posted by rich hollant at July 1, 2005 3:22 PM

by ying and yang... I meant yin and yang. sigh.

Posted by rich hollant at July 1, 2005 3:31 PM

I just loved the Beatles and can remember very well well them bursting on the scene when I was 10 years old in 1963!!

I like the Kinks better actually but back to the point. viagra mastercard online pharmacy

The Beatles were the first mass promoted band - thanks to Brian Epstien - and they still retain a unique place in the hearts of most Brits of my age - the Beatles legend will live on for ever.

Money can't buy legend status - talent and hard work does that :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 1, 2005 5:20 PM

I'm with Trevor on this one. I like the Beatles too, but the Kinks really did have balls and original minds. Apeman, Plastic Man, Dedicated Follower of Fashion and Sunny Afternoon to name a few.

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 1, 2005 5:35 PM

Sunny afternoon is one of my favorite pop songs. You can listen to it ten times and you will not get bored.

Posted by felix gerena at July 1, 2005 6:05 PM

The Kinks were certainly one of the greatest R&R bands of all time and would have made a bigger commercial splash in the US in the 60s had they not been banned from re-entering the country (for several years) after their 1965 tour. I always felt the Kinks belonged in the pantheon of the UK rock gods of the mid-60s (along with the Beatles, Stones, and Who). The Kinks had a songwriting genius in Ray Davies. But we might argue that the Beatles, Stones, and Who developed more distinct brands, yes?

Posted by John O'Leary at July 2, 2005 12:05 AM

The Kinks were definitely distinct and had a distinct brand; it just wasn't as well known as that of the Beatles who rose to become the GE of music!

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 2, 2005 3:46 AM

John and Noel, I´d like to make a remark here. Probably Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks had all very distinct brands but their impact was different. Why? In my opinion what is different in them is their myth. Beatles built a myth that has made a difference beyond what we can call brand distinction. This is what I call corporate mythics. I remember reading the personal musical preferences of musicians such as Brian May and other hard rock guitarrists and all of them told their favorite band were the Beatles, something I would never imagine according to their own careers. That was the magic of the Beatles, their myth.

Posted by felix gerena at July 2, 2005 5:51 AM

Rich, good point: John & Paul were willing to blow up the Beatles in 1970 to start something new for each of them - and both did very well as a result (although their post-Beatles songwriting wasn't as consistently hot). Interesting business lesson there, eh? Felix, one thing that helped the Beatles create their "myth" was the fact that they were the first to break out of the pack commercially - and then the first to break new ground artistically. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that their competitors were forced to react to everything the Beatles created FIRST, visually and musically. (E.g., the Stones became the Un-Beatles: scruffy, surly, bluesy, edgy, dark, raw, etc.) By the summer of 1967 - less than 2 years after the release of "Yesterday" - the Beatles had changed the entire pop landscape with their Sgt Pepper album. I was playing clubs in Greenwhich Village, NY, that summer and the impact of the release of Sgt Pepper was sudden, dramatic, and palpable. Talk about "game-changing innovation!"

Posted by John O'Leary at July 2, 2005 3:00 PM

The amazing thing about the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper to me was the way university women reacted to it - a time of high energy to say the least. The Beatles' meltdown was as fast as their rise - I give John "credit" for that - Yoko?

The Stones though were blues oriented, projected more working class, and with Brian and Rupert had better business savvy - and their 40 year brand marches on raking in tens/hundreds of millions at a time - revenue streams full speed ahead.

Posted by Sean at July 2, 2005 5:51 PM

Phew ... memories are flooding back ....

The first vinyl 45 rpm record I bought in 1964 or 5 was Waterloo Sunset - absolute magic.

The Kinks were ahead of their time and had it not been for there non-confirmism they would have been bigger than any rock band of the last 40 years.

Ray Davies is probably the greatest pop song writer ever.

Posted by Trevor at July 3, 2005 3:38 PM

It is remarkable that all these bands started playing versions of the classic american r´n´r singers, such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard or Bo Didley. They were quite similar at the beginning if we attend to the style of the songs. It was later when they developed a more distinct brand.

I´d like to say one more thing about the musicians of that time. There were awesome session musicians that played for these bands, without being credited. Some of them created their own bands like Jimmy Page or John Lord but they contributed to that special sound of the mid-sixties.

John, if you played in NY perhaps you will remember an american band contemporary of yours. They were The Sonics. I must say I love their music. It can be a bit rough sometimes but they really had a distinctive sound.

Posted by felix gerena at July 3, 2005 4:08 PM

Sean, John Lennon was the first to announce to the others (privately) that he was leaving the Beatles, but Paul was ready to walk too (long story there) and was the first to quit publicly (a shrewd business move). George, who had already quit once, was halfway out the door also. Trevor, it's interesting (and unfair) that Ray Davies is often left off the list of great R&R songwriters - at least in the US. ("Lola" is one of several of his masterpieces.) Felix, thanks for remembering the Sonics. VERY big in the Pacific Northwest in the 60s, following in the footsetps of the Kingsmen ("Louie, Louie"). Yes, studio musicians are often underappreciated in popular music - especiallly the Motown session players, until they got their due in the movie "Standing in the Shadows of Motown." But what was refreshing about the British invasion of the mid-60s was its raw, "un-studio-like" sound & energy. Voices cracked, high notes were missed, wrong chords were played, tempos were sped up (mistakes that studio singers and musicians rarely made) but the passion triumphed. In fact, now that I think about it, that was a critical element of the collective brand of British R&R in 1964-65! BTW, I discovered a website that delights in discovering MISTAKES in Beatle recordings: http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/wgo.htm
Who'da thunk?

Posted by John O'Leary at July 4, 2005 11:03 AM

John, it´s an interesting document for all the Beatle maniacs. I think what you mean can be condensed in a word, "freshness". I also liked the freshness of blues bands like the Yardbirds or the Animals, with those live concerts where you could hear the audience whistling.

The Kingsmen were really awesome too, and the Zombies, Chocolate watch band and... So many. I am 32 but i like listening to those records because they´ve got a very special sound, a sound that with the improvement of technology disappeared. I really love it.

Posted by felix gerena at July 4, 2005 1:57 PM

I just can remember one band from NY, The blues magoos. They were so psychedelic!

Posted by felix gerena at July 4, 2005 2:08 PM

To elaborate on an earlier point, I think the Beatles had instinctive brand awareness and were able to define part of their "saleable distinction" early: exuberantly creative rock & rollers who wrote their own songs. Then they stumbled on a unique hair style which raised their brand to a new level. (Some might argue that the brand was actually the "scene" the Beatles' created including hysterical, screaming girls.) All of this made it easier for a "business sponsor" like Brian Epstein to discover them and further refine the package (with considerable help from producer George Martin and others). But give credit to the Fab Four for being brand savvy to begin with. Interesting footnote: 35 years ago I spoke to a Capitol Records executive who told me that Capitol signed the Beatles ONLY because of their hair—and of course the hysteria it generated. Their music was irrelevant.

Posted by John O'Leary at July 6, 2005 11:36 AM

John, it was Brian Epstein who insisted they cut their hair, stop smoking their non filter tipped cigarettes (Woodbines) and dress in suits and ties. It was Epstein who made their 'brand' presentable understanding that they would have a better chance of being accepted by the public if they came across as cleaner cut types than for example, the Stones. Combined with the Beatles' natural charm and obvious talent for music, it was a winning formula for the times.

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 6, 2005 2:07 PM

John, your point reminds me one idea i have repeated many times. Success is also a matter of chance. I mean, in the case of the Beatles, Capitol Records didn´t care much about their music, but they gave them an opportunity. They had something, or to say it other way, they had many things: they sang well, they were attractive boys for the teenagers, they had a rocking hair cut, they were fresh... One person could put her eyes on the hair cut, the other on the music and other one on the lyrics, but it was evident the package was highly attractive. What element of the package would sell better? That´s where chance enters.

Posted by felix gerena at July 7, 2005 11:42 AM