This is a guest post from
Bill Stainton
, a multiple Emmy Award-winning TV producer, writer, and performer; a professional speaker; and the author of
The 5 Best Decisions the Beatles Ever Made: A Handbook for "Top of the Charts" Success
.
I recently read a wonderful book called Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead by David Meerman Scott and Brian Halligan. Since I’d written a book extolling the business virtues of the Beatles, I was curious to see how these two iconic bands stacked up in the world of corporate smarts. In some areas I found that their methods (whether conscious or not) were similar; in others, they were miles apart. Here are three.
Embracing Technology
Scott and Halligan talk about the Dead’s state-of-the-art, 26,400 watt concert sound system—the Wall of Sound. It was a system that truly left other bands in the dust. The lesson, of course, is that businesses need to learn what is state-of-the-art in their industries, and embrace these new technologies to keep themselves ahead of the competition.
The Beatles, by contrast, didn’t have the luxury of a Wall of Sound. Most of their concerts were played through a meager 500 watts of amplification—less than some home theater systems today. Still, the Fab Four embraced what early technology they could. It was, for example, at their insistence that EMI Studios (now Abbey Road Studios) finally upgraded from four-track to eight-track recording capability. But more importantly, the Beatles readily embraced whatever technology was best for the job, whether it was new or not. Part of the background instrumentation on the song Lovely Rita consists of all four Beatles playing combs wrapped with toilet paper!
So yes, embrace technology…but remember that technology itself is just a tool, not the goal .
Free Your Content
The Grateful Dead were famous for not just allowing bootleg recording of their concerts, but actively encouraging it. They knew that the more widely disseminated their music was, the bigger their fan base would become. The parallels to social media and Internet strategy are unmistakable: giving away content—which may seem counterintuitive—ultimately results in more customers and more profits.
Contrast this with the Beatles, who have just as famously kept a very tight leash on their music distribution (witness the almost Herculean efforts it took to get their 40 year old songs on iTunes). Pretty much the exact opposite of the Dead’s strategy, and yet both bands are immensely successful. What gives? What’s the difference?
The difference is that the Dead and the Beatles were selling different products. Although in a general sense both bands were in the music business, the Dead were selling concerts while the Beatles were selling records . The Dead’s product was the next live concert, and they figured (correctly) that if fans could hear previous concerts (which were always different), they’d be inspired to buy a ticket to the next one.
Not so with the Beatles. After 1966, there were no concerts. If you got a free copy of the Sgt. Pepper album, you wouldn’t be inspired to go out and buy the product, because the album was the product. Instead, they put giveaways inside the album itself. Sgt. Pepper came with a series of cardboard cut-outs, and the subsequent White Album included glossy photos of the individual Beatles as well as a full-size poster.
The lesson is to understand what your real product is, and to not give that away. Instead, give away services and products which will lead to further sales of your real product.
Experiment, Experiment, Experiment
The Grateful Dead were the ultimate jam band. In concert, their songs would become lengthy improvisations—sometimes brilliant, sometimes not so much. But that willingness to experiment kept it fresh, for both the band and the fans, and it made each Dead concert a truly unique event.
Nobody would mistake the Beatles for a jam band. Their concerts were short (around 30 minutes) and virtually the same, night after night. But it was in their recordings (particularly from Rubber Soul on) that the Beatles’ experimentation shined. Each album was unlike the one before; each was a risk (most of their fans didn’t want them to change); and each left the competition in the dust.
So although the Beatles and the Dead manifested their experimentation in different ways, they both understood the importance of shaking it up, of stretching the boundaries.
It’s as true in the rock world as it is in the corporate world: if you keep doing the same thing you’ve always been doing—even if you’re the best in the world at it—eventually the competition can catch up. And if you wait for that to happen, it may already be too late.
One band was together fewer than ten years, the other was around for thirty. One band thrived primarily in the recording studio, the other was the ultimate stage act. Different bands, different styles. But they both have one thing in common: they are unbelievably successful. And isn’t that a great model for us all?
Free Website Redesign Kit
|
Learn how to redesign your website for marketing results
Download the free kit to learn how to turn your website into an internet marketing machine. |
Inbound Marketing Blog Feed
Horace Moning 5:24 PM on February 09, 2011
I need help enroller in my gold business.
Lori Turec 5:28 PM on February 09, 2011
People remember stories better than rules and fact. Bill - nice story telling to make your points.
R.Gallagher 6:30 PM on February 09, 2011
This was highly enjoyable! Having read both books, the comparative never entered my cranium, now I can't stop thinking about it! Thanks for the cerebral impetus!
Trish Fischer 6:14 AM on February 10, 2011
Creativity=good ideas. Innovation=having the focus and determination to actually do something different. Both bands had these two qualities. More businesses need to think this way -- especially in today's digital world.
Susan Becker 7:41 AM on February 10, 2011
Great post, but one comment, the Dead didn't make much money particularly from the bootlegs. They did gain fame and a reputation like none other. I suppose that was worth it for them. At least, I along with millions of other Deadheads, enjoyed hours of listening tremendously and they will go down in history. But I wouldn't call it a business model to be exactly imitated.
David Meerman Scott 5:42 AM on February 11, 2011
Bill - I love this post. Many thanks. It was great to meet you a few weeks ago - I enjoyed your presentation! David
Craig 8:11 AM on February 11, 2011
Terrific post -- I've long wanted to do a Springsteen-related business book (article here: http://www.phillycreativeguide.com/guest/guest_columnist_20100601.aspx) ... I think the salient point is: Whatever it is you're passionate about as a fan, there's a lot of understanding you can derive from the dynamics of that passion that, in turn, you can apply in your professional life
Shawn Perry 4:38 PM on February 11, 2011
@Susan Becker...
You say, "the Dead didn't make much money particularly from the bootlegs. They did gain fame and a reputation like none other. I suppose that was worth it for them..."
Actually Susan, the Dead didn;t set out to make money off "bootlegs," hence the reason they encouraged taping. However, they were one of the most successful touring bands of the 20th century. They also did a lot of things in-house (i.e., sold their own tickets, merchandise and recordings) Between touring and cutting out the middle man, the Dead did very well financially. The lesson here to other artists whining about downloading is that you can find success in the music business if take DIY approach.
Josh Patrick 9:37 AM on February 12, 2011
I'm sorry but comparing the Beatles and the Dead as it relates to business practices is like comparing Apple (The Dead) to Microsoft (The Beatles.
The Dead broke ground on almost everything they did. Yes, the Beatles had raving fans, but the marketing was not unique. On the other hand, the Dead was completely unique and counter intuitive.
In my opinion, there are tons of lessons to learn from the Dead, but few that can be learned from the Beatles.
Josh Patrick
www.stage2solution.com/blog
Ron Shevlin 1:04 PM on February 15, 2011
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for putting this on the site.
I do have one quibble, though. You write:
"Scott and Halligan talk about the Dead’s state-of-the-art, 26,400 watt concert sound system—the Wall of Sound. It was a system that truly left other bands in the dust. The lesson, of course, is that businesses need to learn what is state-of-the-art in their industries, and embrace these new technologies to keep themselves ahead of the competition."
Not sure why would conclude that this was "the lesson, of course."
As far as I understand the story (having been a Deadhead for the past 34 years), the Wall of Sound was a logistical nightmare to put up, take down, and get to the next location. In addition, the nightly issues they had with the equipment, in terms of glitches and bugs, was a headache, and you can hear this when listening to the tapes from that era.
If anything, what the Dead learned -- and what "the lesson learned, of course" is -- is that "more is better" is not always the case. Leading edge MIGHT be good, but bleeding edge is almost never good.
There are plenty of companies around today that are succeeding with "old" technologies like email and the Web. Everyone does NOT have to "embrace new technologies to keep themselves ahead of the competition."
Nala 1:24 PM on February 15, 2011
I think you hit it on the head with knowing what your product is. I'd write more, but my soul needs to recover from reading wherein Josh lumped "Microsoft" and "Beatles" within mere characters of each other. :)
Jon Trebilcock 1:33 AM on February 27, 2011
@Ron Shevlin: Speaking as a Deadhead with just as much time invested, I think it is quite clear what the lesson learned from the Wall of Sound was - Don't depend on others to come up with the innovation you require. Granted, from a logistical POV, it was (as you said) a nightmare. However, it pushed concert sound forward in a way never seen before or since. Seeing as sound quality of the performances was paramount for the Dead, they were always at the forefront of the paradigm. Whether it was Bear behind the controls at the Acid Tests, or Healy using FM technology for satellite speakers, they never "settled" for what was available. Ultimately, the Dead learned that you didn't need to own the equipment to push the boundaries. But they didn't rest on their laurels either. The sound systems from 1976-on (post Wall of Sound) were still state of the art. They just outsourced the R&D costs. Now that WAS smart!