|
|
| Zeeta |
Rolled Gold for Stones Inc
By Stephen Evans
BBC North America business correspondent
Mick Jagger's wrinkled-rebel image still pulls the crowds
Rock legends can't win.
If they live out their old age in obscure poverty, it's a scandal and testimony to the rapacious music business.
If they get themselves accountants and lawyers and worry about tax rates, then they're accused of selling out.
So what should we make of the Rolling Stones?
Raw power
On one side, there's the wrinkled-rebel image. On the other one of the most astute business operations in a very astute industry.
Where most old rockers fade away to sad shadows of old greatness, the Rolling Stones remain vibrant - and very profitable.
They've just announced a world tour, starting in the United States in August and sweeping through South America, Asia and then Europe by next Summer.
At the New York press conference where they broke the news of the tour, they played three numbers which conveyed an undiminished raw power.
Pumped up
In their early 60s, Sir (as he now is) Mick Jagger and Keith Richards may be, but the energy thunders on.
The Stones are loud rockers, but discreet financiers
And they've got the off-stage business arrangements taped.
Their last tour three years ago took more than $300m in tickets, sponsorship, endorsements and accoutrements that accompanied the hoopla.
The 2005/6 tour should gross even more.
Ticket prices have risen. There are more venues and fewer appearances in each of them - one night per city instead of a run, so more places will be pumped up with enthusiasm and keen for souvenirs.
"We call them the Rolling Stones Incorporated," says Andy Serwer, who spent time with the Stones for Fortune magazine.
"They may be the greatest rock'n' roll band, but they're also the richest rock'n'roll band and they act that way.
"Financially they're run like a Swiss watch".
Score card
Mr Serwer likens it to a partnership, with the four Stones at the top, below them a small group of legal and financial advisors and a string of companies that perform different tasks and are based in Holland, which has tax advantages.
The Stones aren't driven by money, though money is important, according to Mr Serwer.
"The business model is to maximise revenue and for these guys to have fun," he says.
"They wouldn't do it if they didn't want to do it because they don't have to do it.
"But there are a lot of people on Wall Street in New York who haven't had to work for twenty or thirty years - rich people, buy-out kings, kings of Wall Street. They keep on doing it. The line is they're like sharks. If they stop swimming they die.
"And I think that's true of the Rolling Stones. They want to make as much money as they can, but they're not doing it for the money. The money is the score card."
Key people
Rolling Stones' key advisor is Prince Rupert Zu Loewenstein, a banker based in London who retains his old family title from Bavaria.
The prince is as shrewd as Wall Street's finest and has kept the financials tight and the millions flowing for thirty years.
The second crucial person is Michael Cohl, who promoted rock concerts in Canada until he got involved with the Stones.
Mr Cohl offered them a deal: serious money (about $40m) if he could organise the whole "Steel Wheels" tour in 1989.
Before that, touring was an ad hoc affair involving negotiating with promoters in each city the Stones visited, with each local promoter taking a cut.
Mr Cohl's involvement cut out the middlemen.
American dream
Mr Cohl also bumped up the sponsorship, bringing in Tommy Hilfiger, Volkswagen and Anheuser-Busch, brewers of Budweiser.
The "Steel Wheels" tour brought in more than $250m from tickets, merchandise and sponsorship, a record for a rock tour, so it became the template.
The American leg of the coming world tour will be sponsored by Ameriquest, one of the country's biggest mortgage lenders.
Brian Woods, the company's chief marketing executive, said the Rolling Stones would enhance its image as "proud sponsor of the American dream".
"In today's saturated marketplace", says Mr Woods, "the Rolling Stones break through the clutter to reach fans in a way that few iconic brands can."
Of course, the Rolling Stones don't acknowledge much of this.
If you ask them about leaving Britain for legitimate tax reasons, they call you boring.
But in truth: tax and finance are as much part of the Rolling Stones Inc as are drums and guitars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you make of Rolling Stones' behaviour? Please share your views.
The comments below reflect the balance of opinion received so far.
If they did it for nothing and lived in a council house, it wouldn't quite be the same would it? Where would the fantasy and glamour be then?
Keith Parker, Hull, England
Why should they give a heck what you or I think? If you don't like what they're doing, don't go to the concerts and don't buy the records.
Derrick Thatcher, Guernsey
I understand their greed, but its much nicer when you hear about Paul Simon giving a free concert because, as he said, he's already "made too much money". Acts of charity can go a long way in giving an act some respect. Whenever I hear the Rolling Stones now, I switch off. They're squeezing the little guys for every penny they can.
Sevaan, Japan
Well, they play very good music, so if they make a boot full of money out of it, good luck to them.
George Pierce, Dan Khun Thot, Thailand
Behaviour? They're a rock'n'roll band, perhaps the greatest the world has seen. Long may they continue.
Tony Dixon, Malvern, UK
The Rolling Stones are like Star Wars - a massive commercial franchise. I like their earlier music, but they should now be honest and write songs about what its like to be obscenely rich and privileged, since their lives no longer bear any relevance to "normal" people like us.
James Russell, London
They are in their 60's, singing, making millions and partying, I hope they keep on going for many years to come.
Richard, London, UK
They are greedy b******, and have sold out their fans many years ago, along with the music :-(
Rick Lund, West Point, Utah USA
It was nice to see an article validating the financial genius of the Stones. Mick is also renowned for being very intelligent, very investment driven and very shrewd over the years. Mick and Charlie have always been grounded intellectuals. So, what do I make of the Rolling Stones' behaviour? Impressive.
Sue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Fair enough, the Stones make a lot of money, but they also put on incredible shows, and consistently produce good albums - no matter what the critics say. To ask them about the financial side at the press conference, as Stephen Evans did, is a wasted opportunity. To find out more about their new album would have been better.
Tom Cavill, Leeds, UK
I'd rather they got the cash than Britney and the likes!!!
Seb Long, Bath, UK
I think the Stones are great ambassadors for Britain, both in the traditional sense and in the rock'n'roll, 'cool Britannia' sense. They show people all across the globe that they can rock their world but that they move with the times, run a very tight ship and they're nobody's fools. A British institution to be proud of.
Richard Clarke-Wilson, Sydney (Brit abroad)
"Priceless"
Sue, UK
|
|
|
| gimmekeef |
Finances run like a Swiss watch?..Can someone forward this article to Cher! |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Some very astute comments from the "people in the street". |
|
|
| Gazza |
Did you notice that most of the "pro Stones" comments were from Brits and the "anti" Stones comments from foreigners.
Kinda against the old stereotype a bit!
Something tells me the guy who wrote that article was the same guy that the band rubbished at the press conference for asking "boring" questions. It obviously got up his nose.
Good. |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Interesting comments and respectable points of view. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE
]
[
RESTROOMS
]
