Throwing Stones IV: The Unmanageable Manager

(For Part III, click Throwing Stones III: Write Yer Own.)

 In Part III, Andrew Loog Oldham, the Rolling Stones first manager, successfully badgered Mick Jagger and Keith Richards into writing songs, while  writing some masterful PR of his own.

Stoned

As Britain’s colonial empire vanished into history, a new empire built on entertainment appeared to be replacing it. Suddenly, British fiction, fashion, films, theatre, television and music were finding fans around the globe. Rolling Stones manager Andrew Loog Oldham was the new English entertainment industry incarnate: the hippest manager in the U.K., a hotshot record producer and a partner in an ever-growing string of showbiz entities. A closer look reveals the cracks in young Andrew’s fab facade.

Oldham loved movies. He was obsessed with one in particular, the 1957 American noir potboiler Sweet Smell of Success. In the film, Burt Lancaster plays J.J. Hunsecker, a nationally syndicated gossip columnist with his own radio and TV show. The all-powerful Hunsecker is a ruthless bully who enjoys nothing more than ruining lives and destroying careers. His creepy fixation on his adult sister, combined with his hypocrisy, self-importance and twisted delight in blackmailing corrupt cops and desperate press agents into doing his dirtiest work make J.J. Hunsecker one of the most despicable characters in screen history. In fact, he’s number 36 on the AFI’s list of the greatest movie villains of all time.

le_grand_chantage,5

Andrew Loog Oldham seems to have missed the point. Oldham fantasized about becoming the living embodiment of J.J. Hunsecker, and dreamed of a day when the entire entertainment world would bow before him or suffer accordingly. It was as if he had seen Shane and mistaken Jack Palance’s psychotic gunslinger for the hero.

Oldham’s business relationships tended to degenerate into grudge matches with astonishing speed. Oldham and Stones co-manager and booker Eric Easton fell out in short order. Oldham claimed Easton was a sneaky old fuddy-duddy who envied his youth and celebrity, cheated him out of his fair share of commissions and demanded kickbacks on the band’s live gigs. Easton’s defenders, who include Bill Wyman, saw Easton as an honest old-timer who quickly tired of Oldham’s inflated ego, erratic behavior, and focus on his own fame.

Rather than sort out matters with his partner, Oldham threw himself into another venture. And then another. A pattern soon developed. Whenever Oldham got into a dispute with a partner in one company, he found another partner and started another company, creating a trail of dysfunctional businesses and unresolved issues.

Ignoring Easton’s advice that a manager should never get too close to his clients, Oldham moved in with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. He stuck close to his lads, enjoying all the perks of a rising rock star. The young Stones were a magnet for sex, drugs and booze, and Andrew Oldham was in no mood to say no to any of the above.

Oldham started producing instrumental versions of  Stones’ numbers, employing his new roomies as session players.  Jagger and Richards appreciated the extra income, as did Oldham, who had no qualms about using his “Andrew Oldham Orchestra” tracks as B-sides of singles he produced for other artists. It was a trick Oldham had learned from his idol, Phil Spector. The fact that a B-side credited to a different act than the artist on the A-side might confuse young record buyers and would deny the artist the easy income gained from a flipside didn’t bother Oldham.

Oldham soon set about turning his Sweet Smell of Success fantasies into reality. Making matters worse, he added a dose of the droogs, the brutal young gang in Anthony Burgess’ 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange. Alex, the book’s narrator, enjoys committing random acts of violence to entertain himself and his friends. Once again, Oldham made a fictional fiend into a personal hero. (Oldham tried to option the book and cast the Rolling Stones as the gang, but someone else had the film rights sewn up. Stanley Kubrick would eventually direct, sans Stones.)

a_clockwork_orange.large_-e1354228296744Oldham hired a handsome sociopath named Reg to serve as his chauffeur. Reg’s real job was to intimidate or physically attack anyone Oldham imagined had crossed him. One of Oldham’s favorite past times involved instructing Reg edge alongside another car at a traffic light. When the light changed, Oldham would lean out and punch the stranger in the car beside his, then order Reg to speed them from the scene.

Oldham continues to lovingly recount the day he tired of a young music reporter’s remarks about Keith Richards’ pimples. Andrew and Reg burst into the reporter’s office, jammed the man’s hands beneath an open window and threatened to crush them if the writer ever typed another word about the guitarist’s acne.

Andrew’s amateur gangster antics would have been shut down with brutal efficiency (and most likely, efficient brutality) in the mobbed-up American music business of the 1960s. But the stuffy old sirs who ran English show business had no idea what to make of Oldham’s third-rate thuggery.

As his mania for drink, drugs and delusions of grandeur spun out of control, Andrew Loog Oldham failed to notice that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were growing annoyed with his behavior. Though they had once found Oldham’s shenanigans amusing, Jagger in particular was developing a keen sense of what it took to succeed in show business, and the singer began to regardi his band’s wunderkind manager/producer as more of a liability than an asset. Oldham should have re-read A Clockwork Orange and taken note of the scene in which the droogs finally tire of Alex’s high-handed self-regard and decide they’d rather run the show themselves.

(This concludes Part IV. To read Part V, click Throwing Stones V: The Uncanny Accountant.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Throwing Stones III: Write Yer Own

(For Part II, click Throwing Stones II: If You Sign Me Up.)

Part II covered the rise of the Rolling Stones and their PR whiz kid manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, along with the band’s branding as the anti-Beatles. But when the time came to record their crucial second single, the Stones found themselves without a song.

100px-Rolling_Stones_1965Andrew Loog Oldham is bipolar, and had become depressed over the Stones’ lack of new material well before the session. Dejected, Oldham excused himself and took a brief walk, desperately trying to think of a solution. In perhaps the most incredible stroke of luck in pop music history, he bumped into John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The two songwriters stepped out of a handsome cab, having just left a Variety Club Luncheon honoring the Beatles. Full of free booze and good cheer, they immediately sensed their friend’s distress. When Oldham explained his dilemma, they responded with what can only be called Beatlesque enthusiasm. No song? No problem! They had a new number that was perfect for the Stones!

Lennon, McCartney and Oldham strolled back to the session. John and Paul decided their new tune needed a bridge, and knocked one out in no time. The two Beatles taught the Stones the song and were on their merry way. They had been there less than half an hour. The Stones were astounded.Lennon

It seems counterintuitive that the Beatles wrote the anti-Beatles’ first top twenty hit. But it made perfect sense. While “I Wanna Be Your Man” lacked Lennon and McCartney’s characteristic melodic inventiveness, it was loaded with rhythmic drive. That made it an ideal vehicle for the young Stones, and let the band to capitalize on fresh material from England’s hottest hitmakers. The song reached number 12 on the British charts. The Stones were rolling again.

Yet the last-minute save only deepened Oldham’s sense of doom. The odds of two Beatles appearing deus ex machina (literally!) to save the day a second time were nil. There was only one solution: Someone in the Rolling Stones had to start writing songs.

McCartneyOldham figured if Lennon and McCartney could write hits, so could Jagger and Richard(s). He floated the idea. Mick and Keith torpedoed it. They were performers, not song poets. Oldham pressed the issue. Bands that couldn’t come up with original material had no future. And they certainly couldn’t expect the petulant and increasingly unreliable Brian Jones to deliver. If the Rolling Stones wanted to hang onto their newfound fame, Jagger and Richards had better get started. The reluctant duo eventually agreed, but made little progress.

The ever-dramatic Oldham came up with a typically over-the-top solution. He locked the singer and the guitarist in a room and told them they could come out as soon as they had a new song to play.

According to Oldham and Richards, they didn’t finish until dawn. The title they came up with was “As Time Goes By.”  While that’s exactly the choice of subject matter you would expect from two guys you’d locked in a kitchen all night, it’s also the title of the classic song in the classic movie “Casablanca.” Oldham changed the title to “As Tears Go By,” cleaned up the structure, and polished the lyrics with help from his friend Lionel Bart, who had penned chart-toppers for British teen idols like Cliff Richard before moving on to the hit musical “Oliver!”

Jagger and Richards were somewhat embarrassed by “Tears,” which they felt was far too lightweight for the tough, bluesy Stones. That was fine with Oldham. He gave the song to his latest discovery, seventeen-year-old Marianne Faithful. After meeting Faithful at a party, Oldham took the inexperienced ingénue into the studio, where he lived out his Phil Spector fantasy to the string-soaked hilt. The result was a smash, reaching number 9 on the English chart and 22 in America. As soon as Jagger and Richard’s started receiving king-sized royalty checks, they realized Oldham had been right all along. Songwriting was the way to go.

Like Lennon and McCartney, the Jagger-Richards songwriting team got great fast. Their writing developed with astonishing speed, and quickly created the foundation of their band’s long-term success. And I don’t use the term “their band” lightly. The moment Jagger and Richards became the source of the band’s material, they became both the lifeblood and the leaders of the Rolling Stones.

The power shift hit Brian Jones like a bolt out of the blues. Jones had put the Stones together, named the band and led it since day one. He had a remarkable knack for adding just the right touch to the Stone’s records (the slide guitar lick on “The Last Time,” the sitar licks on “Paint It Black,” the marimba line on “Under My Thumb”), but was incapable of finishing a song–by himself or with a collaborator. As his authority slipped away, Jones comforted himself by  upping his already alarming drug intake.

Stones ShockWhile Jagger and Richards were busy writing songs, Andrew Loog Oldham was busy writing prose. Oldham’s PR masterpiece was the soon-to-be-infamous line, “Would You Let Your Daughter Go With A Rolling Stone?” Oldham fed his grabber to Melody Maker magazine, where a teen-centric editor changed “Daughter” to “Sister” and ran it as a headline. The stuffy Fleet Street editors who ruled the mainstream press weren’t exactly sure what “Go” implied, so they changed it to “Would You Let Your Daughter Marry A Rolling Stone?” and turned it into a legend. “The headline was a great example of everlasting meaning via product placement,” Oldham would write, decades later.

It’s hard to explain just how small the media world was in the 1950s and ’60s, or how easy it was to ignite a public uproar. Righteous indignation poured forth over an endless series of “outrages” that seem laughably quaint and incredibly non-newsworthy by today’s standards. Blue jeans, comic books, fast cars, television and rock ’n’ roll had all served time in the pop cultural hot seat as the great corruptor of modern youth. Now it was the Rolling Stones turn.

(This concludes Part III. Click Throwing Stones IV: The Unmanageable Manager to read Part IV.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Throwing Stones II: If You Sign Me Up

(To Read Part I, click Throwing Stones.)

Part I covered the excessive ticket prices for the Rolling Stones’ 50th Anniversary Tour, then time-tripped to 1960’s London to trace the roots of the band’s branding.

Sixteen months before Andrew Oldham began managing the Stones, the Beatles were the kings of the Liverpool scene and little more. Britain’s entertainment industry was based in London, and record companies had next to no interest in an act from a Northern city that, as Keith Richards would later say, “might as well have been Nome, Alaska.”

Bu200px-Decca_Records_logot Beatles’ manager Brian Epstein was nothing if not persistent, and as 1961 entered the history books, he had exciting New Year’s news for his unsigned band: They had a shot at a contract with Decca records. Decca would ultimately pass on the Beatles with the soon-to-be-infamous line, “Guitar groups are on their way out.” A year later, the Beatles were a chart-storming sensation, and Decca Records was the laughingstock of the industry.

The rap Decca took for turning down the Beatles was hardly fair. In truth, every major British record company had passed on the band. Decca simply had the misfortune of being the last to do so, and of doing so with such a memorably inaccurate turn of phrase. The Beatles eventually signed with Parlophone, the runt of the litter of labels owned by corporate big dog EMI. All of EMI’s other labels had already rejected them.

George Panel 2Lucky for Decca, George Harrison didn’t hold a grudge. While appearing on the TV show “Jukebox Jury,” Harrison told fellow guest-judge and Decca A&R Director Dick Rowe about a great new band. A rockin’ R&B outfit called The Rollin’ Stones. Having blown his shot at the Beatles, Rowe wasn’t about to ignore Harrison’s hot tip.

The Rollin’ Stones had officially appointed Andrew Loog Oldham as their manager on May 1, 1963. Oldham took the band shopping for new threads on Carnaby Street a few days later. Good timing. The next night, Dick Rowe caught the Stones at London’s Crawdaddy Club. They were even better than he had hoped.

Tired of being lampooned as a tin-eared boob in the teenybopper mags and the mainstream press, Dick Rowe was ready to do whatever it took to sign the Rollin’ Stones. Advantage: Andrew Loog Oldham.

Still too young to legally sign contracts himself, Oldham had formed a partnership with Eric Easton, an old school music biz manager who appeared to be (gasp!) “nearly forty.” While the flamboyant, controlling, egotistical Oldham wasn’t happy about having a partner, he and Easton seemed like a good team in the beginning.

Oldham knew rock and pop. He had press contacts, a vision for the band and a tremendous sense of style. More importantly, he had his finger on the pulse of an emerging market, and was one of the few people to realize that the music business was in the early stages of a revolution. Easton had industry experience, a no-nonsense attitude and the relationships required to shove a band up the showbiz ladder. More importantly, he had the cash to back Oldham.

Easton and Oldham negotiated a phenomenal recording contract for the Stones. The band got creative control, an impressive royalty rate, and the opportunity to eventually own their recorded masters. Decca got the band. It was an unprecedented deal for a new act.

Oldham added a “g” to the Stones first name, subtracted an “s” from Keith Richards’ last name, and booted beloved pianist Ian Stewart out of the band. Oldham believed the talented ivory-tickler lacked the requisite pop-star good looks, and besides, six was one too many members for young fans to adore. Why Bill Wyman’s hair wasn’t fired remains a mystery. The bassist is still the only performer to serve more than 25 years in a major rock band without a single good hair day.

Though he knew next to nothing about recording, Oldham dreamed of becoming England’s answer to Phil Spector. He declared himself the band’s producer and forged ahead. The Rolling Stones’ first single, a remake of Chuck Berry’s “Come On,”rolling_stones-gal-street made it to the middle of the British Top 40. It was a respectable showing, but the follow-up had Oldham flummoxed.

Record execs expected teen-oriented acts to fade quickly. Their strategy was simple: milk a hit-maker for as much product as possible before fickle young fans moved on to the next big thing. Bands were required to churn out a new single every three months and two LPs a year, plus EPs and promotional product. Grueling tour schedules, radio and TV commitments, and the constant demand for new material combined to create a distinctly Darwinian dynamic. Only the strongest bands would survive.

The Stones’ repertoire of blues, soul and rock ’n’ roll covers worked well in the clubs, but was unlikely to supply a steady stream of hit singles. When the recording date for the second single arrived, Andrew Loog Oldham found himself in the studio with a hot band and no song. It appeared that the Rolling Stones’ career and Andrew Oldham’s dream were both dead on arrival.

(This concludes Part II. For Part III, click Throwing Stones III: Write Yer Own.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Throwing Stones

The Rolling Stones have been around for so long now that I’ve begun to wonder if the Old Testament passage that mentions “a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together” is actually a reference to the band. It does, after all, perfectly describe Messrs. Jagger & Richards’ pattern of periodically setting aside their personal differences to cash in yet another stadium-filled swing through the land of merch and money.

They’re at it again this year, in celebration of the group’s historic 50th anniversary. Whatever.

20130506-rolling-stones-306x-1367856724Before you accuse me of being jaded, get a gander at the May 23rd issue of Rolling Stone magazine, which, to absolutely no one’s surprise, features the band on the cover. Again. Meanwhile, the article inside sheepishly reports that a ticket for the gang’s latest go ’round starts, that’s right, starts, at $150 and spirals upward to somewhere north of $2000. With prices like these, who needs scalpers?

A quick trip to the Ticketmaster website tells us that, to absolutely no one’s surprise, the usual fees are tacked on to all tickets in the $150 to $600 range. But as soon as you’ve leapt to the coveted $750 level, the Stones throw caution to the wind and generously waive those pesky extra charges. This is what passes for customer appreciation at the top of the rock food chain.

But wait, there’s more! Each $750 and up boomer-budget-buster also includes a laminated tour badge that gives you exclusive access to, umm, your seat! Plus a souvenir program! And an unspecified merchandise item! Now how much would you pay?

I’m guessing the mystery merch item is an adorable tank top that says, “Grandma Spent Two Grand To See The Stones And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt,” but have been unable to confirm this with the band’s management.

Perhaps I am being a little jaded. Okay, more than a little jaded. But being jaded about the Rolling Stones is like being wry about Randy Newman, juvenile about Justin Bieber, nostalgic about Sha Na Na or cynical about Milli Vanilli. It comes with the territory. So let’s all make like Keith Richards and come clean. Or at least pretend to.

imagesLike it or not, we live in an era in which the terms “band” and “brand” have become interchangeable. An era in which the Rolling Stones will continue to be awarded iconic status. Ironic might be more suitable. Because, contrary to the fundamental tenants of marketing, the longer the Stones continue as a band, the more they damage their brand.

Let me make it clear that I have no hippie-dippy illusions about the music business. Being a musician is a profession. Musicians give performances and create intellectual property, both of which have value. Whether you’re a singer-songwriter at the local coffeehouse or a Rolling Stone at the 02 Arena, you deserve to be paid. The last free concert the Stones gave in the U.S. was Altamont, and nobody wants to see that again, especially Mick Jagger. Incredibly, that concert was staged as a response to fan and rock press outrage over ticket prices for the band’s 1969 American tour. I suppose we’ll all get another chance to see the Stones at next summer’s “45 Years of Price Gouging” jubilee jaunt.

“But, Bill, if being a musician is a job, doesn’t that also mean that musicians get to charge as much as they want for a ticket?” you ask.

Yes, my still-wearing-tie-dye-yet-surprisingly-capitalistic friend, it does.

“So why you gotta’ be so down on the Stones, man?”

Because I’m talking about the big enchilada–the overall brand–as well as ticket prices and their impact on that brand.

“That’s where you’ve got it all wrong, you sellout advertising hack. The Stones aren’t a freakin’ brand. They’re rock ’n’ roll outlaws!”

Actually, “rock ’n’ roll outlaws” is the Rolling Stones’ brand, and has been since shortly after their canny first manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, caught them at a London club in 1963. Oldham had done publicity work for the Beatles, and saw the Stones on the Liverpool lads’ recommendation. Having fallen out of favor with Beatles’ manager Brian Epstein, Oldham needed work. So he talked the Stones into ditching their sort-of-manager and going with his new, and in reality, non-existent, management firm. Incredibly, it turned out to be a smart move for all concerned. Well, except for the old sort-of-manager, anyway.

Still shy of his twentieth birthday, Oldham was a teenager himself. But he made one of the most brilliant branding and positioning decisions in the history of popular music and modern marketing.

The Beatles were spearheading a British pop revolution that would go global in a heartbeat. Oldham instinctively knew that trying to create “the next Beatles” was a dead-end strategy. The fab four had the lovable mop-top angle locked up tighter than a BBC playlist. Oldham’s eureka moment arrived when he saw the previously unrecognized flipside of the new pop marketplace. And it was wide open.

The world needed a bad-boy band. A band that adolescent girls would love. A band that parents, politicians and the press would love to hate. A band that Andrew Loog Oldham could turn into a global brand.

CU M & KBy positioning the Rolling Stones as the anti-Beatles and relentlessly flogging their rebellious image, Oldham defined the Stone’s public perception for decades. The Stones, for their part, were more than happy to play along. They fancied themselves an authentic Chicago blues band—the kind of willful denial of reality that only teenagers in their first rock group or someone with a serious head injury can muster—and dreaded being sold as suit-wearing sunshine boys. Besides, just as being sly, witty and charming came naturally to the Beatles, being snotty, scrappy and scruffy came naturally to the Rolling Stones. Going with Oldham’s flow was an assignment they could handle.

The Rolling Stones were about to learn that, if you try sometimes, you get what you need.

(This concludes Part I of Throwing Stones. Click now to read Throwing Stones II: If You Sign Me Up.)

(B/W Photo: Wiki Commons/Brisbane City Council/Retouching by Miss Sophie)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Beer Brawl V: You Only Go Around Twice

(For Part IV, click: http://billsbrainworks.com/beer-brawl-iv-gusto-rides-again/ )

In Part IV, new “Classic 60’s Formula” Schlitz hit the shelves in 2008 and was hailed as a return to form. But the beer market had changed radically since the old days.

A final, unforeseen fiasco delivered a brutal low blow to the Schlitz re-launch. Just as the new-old brand was getting off the ground, the economy collapsed.

Twenty-somethings began graduating college heavy on student debt and light on job prospects. They moved back home in record numbers. When they arrived, many found an newly out-of-work parent. Suddenly, two key segments of the beer-buying public, including the one targeted by new-old Schlitz, were forced to see beer as luxury rather than a staple. And those nostalgia-driven online ads for rebooted Schlitz didn’t seem like much fun anymore. To some, it felt like you were having your nose rubbed in the prosperity of a previous generation. Gusto was back. But the paycheck was gone.

schlitztap_fullsize_story1

None of that was Schlitz’s fault, of course. The lords of finance who sank the world economy operated at a level of avariciousness that made the cost-cutting schemes of Robert Uihlein Jr., look like penny-ante poker. As beer sales sank, even the most sober of marketing plans began to look tipsy. Keeping that Gusto going was going to be a lot tougher than anyone could have predicted.

The economic meltdown held an even nastier surprise for Schlitz’s old rival. International behemoth InBev pounced on Anheuser-Busch after realizing that August Busch III’s obsession with being number one in America had come at the expense of an effective global strategy. Budweiser’s greatest strength was its greatest weakness–a turn worthy of Greek Tragedy.

Anheuser-Busch was America’s biggest brewing company and America’s last major family-run brewery. Bud Light and Budweiser were America’s most popular beers. In better times, the hostile takeover of Anheuser-Busch by a foreign entity would have likely generated tremendous press and a huge public outcry. That outcry could have been harnessed like a team of Clydesdales and used to power the PR side of the company’s takeover defense. But in a year filled with astounding corporate collapses and astonishing job losses, Budweiser’s story got downsized, and the Busch family got little sympathy. The toppling of their brewing dynasty undoubtedly hurt the Busch’s pride, but the buyout of their stock made an extraordinarily rich family even richer. Other American families were losing their homes and struggling to scrape by on unemployment. They could hardly be expected to pity the former beer barons of Saint Louis.

Five years after its introduction, new-old Schlitz has expanded its territory, but does not appear to have spread as far and wide as its makers had hoped. The official Schlitz website seems to have lost its enthusiasm. The news page shows no updates since the fall of 2009, the calendar of events peters out a year later. The site link doesn’t match what seems to be the official Twitter feed. The retail locater fails to provide business Yeng Finalnames or street addresses. As “Classic 60’s Formula” Schlitz struggles, Yuengling has become the cool American lager of the moment, siphoning off the buzz that Schlitz had hoped to call its own.

Perhaps it’s simply too late for consumers to care. Economic upheaval and changing tastes have been sucker punching the big box beer brands for years. After decades as the undisputed champ, even the seemingly invincible King of Beers was forced to abdicate. Most Americans don’t realize it, but Budweiser lost the title of America’s top selling beer to its upstart younger brother, Bud Light, over ten years ago. What’s more, Budweiser has suffered an astonishing 30% slide in sales since its purchase by InBev. The former champ currently finds itself grappling with Coors Light in a no-holds-barred cage match for the title of beer number two. Talk about a royal pain.BudBow

Budweiser’s graphics and packaging got a makeover recently, complete with a nifty new bowtie. A-B InBev has also introduced Bud Light Platinum and Budweiser Black Crown, two higher alcohol content lagers aimed at the college and craft brew crowds. Whether or not these line extensions will help alleviate a crippling case of flagship fatigue remains to be seen.

Schlitz A Brick 4Meanwhile, my calls to Schlitz have gone unreturned. Still, if I can find a bottle of their new-old formula, I’ll gladly give it a go. The folks who brew Schlitz have tried to do the right thing, and for that alone, the brand deserves a shot. Who knows? Decades after it disappeared, now may be the time to give Gusto another chance.

(This concludes the five-part “Beer Brawl” series. To begin the series, click here: http://billsbrainworks.com/beer-wars-the-birth-of-the-brands/).

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Beer Brawl IV: Gusto Rides Again

(For Part III, click Beer Brawl III: Drink It Or Else.)

In Part III, a reformulated Schlitz led to the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company’s implosion, and the brand was sold. Bud ruled, while Schlitz survived as a bottom shelf bargain brand.

Schlitz Old LogoFast forward to 2007. Pabst Brewing had been sold several times, eventually morphing into a holding company that owned several beer brands, including Pabst Blue Ribbon, Schlitz, Stroh’s, Old Milwaukee and more. The company contracts out the production of these beers, operating no breweries of its own.

Having seen Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR) become an unexpected favorite of the young and the hip, the folks at Pabst had a special announcement. They were resurrecting Schlitz. Though the original recipe had been lost, brewmasters had teamed up with former Schlitz staffers and created a taste profile that matched the glorious Schlitz of old. They called it “Classic 60’s Formula.” The Gusto was back!

In contrast to Richard Uihlein Jr., the makers of new-old Schlitz decided that time was their friend. Their beer would be rolled out slowly on a city-by-city basis. “Classic 60’s Formula” Schlitz would only be sold in bottles, distinguishing it from any previous stock that was still on the shelves.

The tactics and target market would differ as well. There would be no gigantic national ad campaign aimed at the twenty-somethings so sought after by Bud, Miller, Coors and other big brands. Schlitz’s efforts would zero in on baby boomers who remembered the beer’s glory days. Low-cost new media would do the heavy lifting. An army of enthusiastic supporters, dubbed “Gusto Guys,” would go forth and spread the word.

New-old Schlitz was hailed as a marked improvement when it hit the shelves in 2008. Cheered as fresh, crisp and light in the tradition of mass-market American lagers, this was a solid entry, or rather, re-entry. You had to hand it to the Pabst people for setting things right after all those years. Now when you reconnected with your college roomies on Facebook, you could catch up over the brew you used to drink back in the day. This was a beer you could root for.

Generalists were roundly pleased. But America’s new legions of craft brew connoisseurs were, unsurprisingly, not quite as impressed. Most admitted that new-old Schlitz was better than the swill it replaced. Still, they dismissed it as just another lackluster American lager.Imps 4

The makers of new-old Schlitz never intended to win the hearts and minds of self-styled microbrew snobs. But they knew that this breed of beer drinker–essentially non-existent in the ’60s and ’70s–could cast a long shadow, especially in the digital age. In a knotty contradiction, Americans were drinking less beer per capita, but had grown both pickier and more adventurous in their beer drinking. New imports kept appearing. Small, entrepreneurial breweries were popping up everywhere. Flavors once thought far too bold, complex or exotic for the American palette were becoming favorites. Added together, imports, microbrews and craft beers were bottling up more than 10% of the market and growing their share every year.

Schlitz Beer Delivery PhotoOther things had changed as well. Wine had gone mainstream. Hard liquor was back, inspiring expensive, super-premium products and a cocktail craze. And all of the famous American breweries founded by German immigrants in the 1800s had been swallowed by conglomerates.

Anheuser-Busch was the last to go, gulped down by international giant InBev in a particularly prickly hostile takeover. Family names that had become iconic brands–including Hamm’s, Stroh’s, Coors, Blatz, Miller and Schaefer–held no intrinsic emotional value for cool, calculating corporate types.

In the brand’s heyday, ads for Schiltz proclaimed, “You only go around once, so grab all the gusto you can!” With a second go around at hand, Schlitz was finally the same. But the landscape was dramatically different.

(To read the exciting conclusion of this series, click Beer Brawl V: You Only Go Around Twice now!)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Beer Brawl III: Drink It Or Else

(For Part II, click Beer Brawl II: How Gusto Lost Its Mojo.)

In Part II, Schlitz was reformulated, sacrificing taste, quality and shelf life  for bigger margins. Sales collapsed and the brand went into free fall.

Schlitz A Brick 4Schlitz’s self-inflicted defeat included one more surprising twist, brought to you by a world famous advertising agency. Like any good corner man, Chicago-based Leo Burnett realized that their client might be down for the count. The ad men decided that aggressive marketing was the only way to save the brand. Thus was born the legendary “Take Away My Gusto?” television campaign. Calling it aggressive proved to be an understatement.

A milquetoast voiceover nervously suggested that an actor portraying a Schlitz drinker try some other brand. The suddenly irate suds-sucker addressed the camera as if he had caught the home audience breaking Cougarinto his fridge and stealing his last six-pack. Thunderstruck viewers felt like the town bully had gone on a bender and busted into their living rooms in a beer-fueled rage. The nerve! After all, they hadn’t messed with this psycho’s Schlitz; Schlitz had messed with his Schlitz!

The most obnoxious spot featured a handsome lumberjack type chopping wood in the company of his (no kidding) pet cougar and a frosty mug of Schlitz. Incredibly, nobody at the ad agency had the sense to realize that combining alcohol, an axe and a mountain lion is never really a good idea. By the time the Brawny Paper Towel Man’s evil twin was ordering the big cat to eat the audience for lunch, the last, tattered remnants of Gusto had drifted away on a bitter wind. Advertising wags quickly declared the disastrous ads and their devastating impact on remaining sales the “Drink Schlitz or I’ll Kill You” campaign.

The battered brand rolled under the ropes and out of the ring. Milwaukee’s landmark Joseph Schlitz brewery closed. The Schlitz name was sold to Stroh’s. The champ had become a chump.

Budweiser reigned. Historically speaking, Pabst Blue Ribbon should have slid comfortably into the number two spot. But Pabst had problems of its own. In the early 1960s, Pabst had lowered the retail price of its flagship Blue Ribbon beer. Intentionally or not, that repositioned the brand, moving it from the “premium” to the “popular price” category. Sales rose initially, then began to decline. The American middle class was riding high in the ’60s, and preferred “premium” beer. PBR was soon seen as the cheap stuff, and the public perception of the brand was neatly summarized in the 1973 country smash, “Rednecks, White Socks and Blue Ribbon Beer.”

RN BS BRB Final Unlike Schlitz, PBR had not been reformulated. But its image had. As Schlitz self-destructed, Blue Ribbon’s decline took a steep turn for the worse. The brand never recovered. Tellingly, the “popular price” beer category eventually came to be known as the “sub-premium” category.

The clock struck Miller time, and there was a new number two in town. Following its purchase by Phillip Morris in the late 1960s, Miller® High Life™ relied on a war chest stuffed with tobacco profits and cigarette marketing savvy to become America’s second-most-popular beer in record time. Miller also introduced Miller Lite™, the first light beer and, to the surprise of brewers everywhere, a huge hit—with massive implications for the American market.

Working budBlue Ribbon’s dive and Schlitz’s suicide had Miller looking like a sure thing. Certain that Anheuser-Busch’s golden boy was on the ropes, Phillip Morris execs moved in for the win. They didn’t realize the easy part was over.

Budweiser countered every punch, dazzled the crowd with clever marketing campaigns, and spent the 1980s and ’90s knocking the wind of Miller. As Bud developed an aura of invincibility, the once-mighty Schlitz haunted the lower shelves at rock bottom prices, a pathetic shadow of its former self.

(This concludes Part III. Click now to read Beer Brawl IV: Gusto Rides Again.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Beer Brawl Part II: How Gusto Lost Its Mojo

(This is Part II. To read Part I, click Beer Brawl: The Birth Of The Brands. )

At the conclusion of Part I, Budweiser and Schlitz had spent some seven decades battling for the title of America’s bestselling beer. Bud took the title in the 1960s, but the 1970s brought unexpected challenges and change.

cu schltzThe baby boomers lack of enthusiasm for hard liquor was a boon to America’s beer makers. But while both the Joseph Schlitz and Anheuser-Busch brewing companies were hugely successful, neither was outrageously profitable. Brewing is an expensive process that requires a unique combination of high quality ingredients and time. Shortchanging either is risky business.

As the supercharged economy of the 1960s sputtered into the slumping ’70s, the cost of the grains used to make beer rose dramatically–while President Nixon’s wage-and-price controls prevented brewers from hiking their own prices. Exasperated executives at the best-known brands pored over the numbers and searched for ways to shore up sagging margins.

Schlitz Chairman Richard Uihlein Junior decided that he had the answer. Unlike the Uihleins of old, Richard Jr. messed with the recipe. Uihlein decreed that cheap corn syrup could stand in for a high percentage of pricy malted barley. He demanded that low-cost, processed “hop pellets” replace hops on the ingredient-shopping list. And he dramatically shortened the brewing schedule of his flagship product. Uihlein was warned that the taste and quality of Schlitz would suffer, but he was having none of it. This was a man who prided himself on his Harvard degree and his polo playing abilities. As far as he was concerned, the average beer drinker wasn’t sophisticated enough to tell the difference between old Schlitz and new. Besides, the changes would be made incrementally, ensuring the public would never catch on. Executives who dared to disagree were quickly canned in one of the chairman’s endless Untitledre-orgs.

For the briefest of moments, it appeared that Uihlein was right. Output exploded. Profitability skyrocketed. The share price soared. Wall Street hailed Schlitz as a model of efficiency and innovation. Anheuser-Bush was dismissed as a tradition-bound dinosaur. But who cared about boxing with Budweiser for market share with fat new margins like these? Incredibly, the suits didn’t see that they were punch-drunk with self-delusion.

It only took beer drinkers a few sips to realize that Schlitz suddenly tasted funny and spoiled quickly. And they let Milwaukee know it. Uihlein dug in his heels. Refusing to return to the old recipe, the company tried to solve the new brew’s issues with a series of unappetizing chemistry tricks. Each had more disastrous consequences than the last. By the time new and improved Schlitz included unexpected extras like snotty mystery strands and creepy floating flakes, it was too late.

Sales tanked. Market share evaporated. The stock price went down the drain. Tens of millions in profits became tens of millions in losses. Quality sank so low that even Uihlein could no longer deny it. Word leaked out that the brewery was secretly destroying millions of bottles of defective product. Betrayed by their beloved brand, heartbroken Schlitz drinkers found other beers to call their own.

Then, while he was in the midst of shipwrecking his family’s business, the downside of tragedy doubled-down on Richard Uihlein Junior. Doctors discovered he had leukemia. Days later, he was dead.  Astonished industry watchers shook their heads and wondered how soon they would be reading the obituary of the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company as well.

(This concludes Part II. Click now to read Beer Brawl III: Drink It Or Else.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Beer Brawl: The Birth Of The Brands

Schlitz BottleFor three-quarters of the twentieth century, two great brands stood toe-to-toe and slugged it out for the heavyweight title of America’s most popular beer. Then, to the astonishment of its loyal fans, one took off  the gloves and pounded itself into oblivion in a few short rounds.

Nearly four decades later, an admirable effort has been mounted to restore lost quality and resurrect a classic. But re-entering the ring has proven to be a difficult struggle, and the long term appears to be in doubt. Despite the selling power of baby boomer nostalgia, the move may have come too late–and the market may have changed too much–for most beer drinkers to give a Schlitz.

So pull up a stool. Pop open a cold one. And imagine yourself in a ringside seat for the fight of the century.

In this corner: Budweiser, the self-proclaimed “King of Beers,” brewed by the now legendary Anheuser-Busch of St. Louis, Missouri. Funny how times change. In the beginning, Anheuser-Busch looked like it would amount to little more than a short-lived, foamy flop.

In 1857, the son of a prosperous wine merchant left Germany for America. Eighteen-year-old Adolphus Busch was just another drop in a tidal wave of new immigrants from the Fatherland. Busch eventually settled in St. Louis, where invested his share of a family inheritance in a brewing supply company. One of Busch’s best customers was a successful soap manufacturer and fellow German immigrant named Eberhard Anheuser. Having received a failed brewery in lieu of repayment for a start-up loan, Anheuser was busy giving beer the old German try. Unfortunately, Anheuser’s acquisition had come with its own recipe. That recipe produced a brew so foul that Working budbartenders knew to step aside after serving a glass, the better to the avoid the spray as the customer spat it out.

Adolphus Busch married Eberhard Anheuser’s daughter, Lilly, and took charge of the family’s snakebitten beer business. When Busch discovered that a family friend had the formula for a beer brewed by monks in the Bohemian village of Budweis, his company tweaked the recipe slightly, but kept the product’s original European name.

First brewed and sold by Anheuser-Busch in 1876, Budweiser was a trend-bucking light lager and the first mass-produced beer to be pasteurized. Those two characteristics significantly extended Bud’s shelf life, expanding its shipping range. Other brewers carped that pasteurization, which involved heating the product, degraded the taste of the beer. Customers disagreed. Budweiser enjoyed impressive growth, and Adolphus Busch emerged as one of America’s first, and most successful, turnaround artists.

And in this corner: brand Schlitz. “The Beer that Made Milwaukee Famous.” The only beer with “Gusto.” In an incredible coincidence, German immigrants Joseph Schlitz, Adolphus Busch and Frederick Pabst all married into the beer business. Schlitz acquired his Milwaukee brewery in the 1850s, after he wed the widow of its recently deceased founder. Having learned to turn tragedy into opportunity, Schlitz donated numerous kegs of his now-namesake brew to the beer-starved citizens of Chicago following the great fire of 1871. The flames had reduced many of the Windy City’s once-mighty breweries to rubble, and Schlitz lost no time turning Chicago into a major distribution center.

Like Missouri’s Busch family and his Milwaukee rival, Best-Pabst, Joseph Schlitz ignored the American tradition of brewing heavier beers for local consumption and set his sights on a far more ambitious goal: building a national brand with a far ranging, lighter lager. The bell sounded, and the bout was on.

The downside of tragedy caught up with Joseph Schlitz shortly thereafter. He died in a shipwreck in 1875. Ownership of the Schlitz brewery passed to the Uihlein brothers, nephews of the operation’s original founder. The Uihlein boys knew better than to mess with a good thing. By 1902, they were brewing a million barrels of beer a year. That made Schlitz the country’s top brewery, pushing former champ Pabst to number two. Though still fiercely competitive, Pabst slipped into third as Bud vs. Schlitz became the ultimate beer brawl. Bud took the title, only to have prohibition put everything on ice for over a decade.

By the time prohibition ended in 1933, many of America’s breweries were gone for good. But Budweiser, Pabst and Schlitz came out swinging, and Bud regained the championship. All three brands landed huge military contracts during World War II and enjoyed soaring popularity when the boys came home. Pabst emerged as the immediate post-war sales champ, but soon lost out to Schlitz. Bud launched a relentless comeback and squeaked ahead on the scorecard in the early fifties after Schlitz suffered through a long strike. Schlitz doggedly slugged its way back to the top, winning the title after Bud initiated an ill-advised price hike. Bud reversed the increase and edged ahead again, but Schlitz landed a powerful blow in the mid-60s with the introduction of the pull-tab. Round after round, it was a battle royal in every sense of the term. And then, somebody got greedy.

(This concludes Beer Brawl I: The Birth Of The Brands. Click here for Beer Brawl II: How Gusto Lost Its Mojo.)

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A Rye Eye On Tennessee Flavors

Last week, Nashville State Community College (formerly Nashville Tech) held its second annual Tennessee Flavors fundraiser, benefitting the school’s Culinary Arts Program. Having recently survived a nasty bout of the flu on little more than club soda, crackers and Kleenex®, I wasn’t about to let the rain falling as I entered the White Bridge Road campus dampen my appetite. Billed as a chance to “Sample the Latest Creations from Local Food & Drink Artisans,” the event did not disappoint.

TN FlavorsA wide-ranging array of restaurants offered a taste of their wares, including old favorites like Sunset Grill, Tin Angel and Merchants, more recent arrivals like Table 3 and The Pharmacy, and corporate big guns like Aquarium and Rainforest Café. The list is far too long to mention all of them here, though not quite long enough to have kept me from stuffing myself with samples from nearly every station.

And so, filled with the foods of Tennessee, it was time to visit the beverages of the Volunteer State.

The gang from Yazoo® Brewery was offering sips of two very different selections. A beer named “Sue” took its cue from the Shel-Silverstein-penned Johnny Cash smash. This unique, robust brew was as dark as French roast, as smooth as sweet cream and walloped the tongue with the huge flavor of smoked malt. I don’t usually care for darker beers, but the next time I’m in a joint that serves Sue, you might actually hear me sing “Hey, Porter!”

HH_LagerMy hopes that Sue would have a sister along were answered by “Hap & Harry’s® Lynchburg Lager.” This isa refreshing entry with a slight sweetness and a crisp finish, brewed by Yazoo in partnership with Tennessee distributor R.S. Lipman. It’s a beer that every Yuengling lover could love, and one whose local charm could easily end a romance with the pride of Pennsylvania.

Wines and moonshines were both well represented, but while eating too much and waddling home was an option, drinking too much and wobbling home was not. I skipped the vino and the white lightning, limited myself to three whiskey tastings, and was pleasantly surprised to find rye in unexpected places.

I am far from the only person to think that George Dickel® is the sleeping giant of American whiskey brands (or as they spell it, “whisky”). Like Jack Daniel’s® line-up, Dickel’s products are Tennessee Whiskies, and undergo the Lincoln County process of charcoal filtering prior to being barreled for aging. While that’s nothing new, a George Dickel Rye is.

Dickel RyeA forgotten American favorite, rye whiskey is distinguished by a mash bill in which rye, rather than corn, is the dominant grain. Typically viewed as bourbon’s bolder, spicier cousin, rye whiskey began making a comeback in the early 2000s. Today, stores that once struggled to scrounge up a bottle of Old Overholt® offer an ever-growing list of ryes in a range of prices. Though announced last fall, George Dickel Rye has just started showing up on many stores’ shelves. It’s a welcome addition, combining the spice and citrus notes one expects in a rye with a sweet smoothness that makes for easy sippin’, even at 90 proof.

Dickel Brand Ambassador Douglas Kragel explained that, unlike other Dickel drams, the new rye goes through the Lincoln County Process after it comes out of the casks. That no doubt accounts for some of its signature smoothness. Kragel further clarified that George Dickel Rye is actually distilled in Indiana and undergoes the Lincoln County Process in Illinois with charcoal shipped from Tennessee. While it would be nice to say this new Dickel is distilled in Tullahoma, the Hoosiers at Indiana’s LDI/MGPI facility have got ryes down, and it shows. As whiskey authority Chuck Cowdery recently wrote about Dickel’s latest addition, “If the people who claim to primarily like rye aren’t all over this, there’s something wrong with them.”

CM LabelCollier and McKeel® Tennessee Whiskey, meanwhile, was being made just a few miles from where westood. A taste quickly revealed that Collier and McKeel is no Dickel or Daniel’s knockoff. Though corn dominates its mash bill, a helping of rye gives this small batch upstart a spicier taste than other Tennessee Whiskies, while charcoal filtering keeps things smooth. If you like American whiskies, but have a hard time deciding between bourbon, rye and Tennessee whiskey, Collier and McKeel may be the ideal resolution to your dilemma.

When a gentleman from the Prichard’s® distillery in Kelso heard me discussing the rye in Collier and McKeel’s flagship product, he insisted I give his Prichard’s Rye a try. (He didn’t have to insist too hard.) This is one of the most interesting ryes I’ve ever tasted. It started off like a bourbon, and then seemed to transform into a rye in my mouth. A neat trick—and one that would lead me to drink it neat.

I left Tennessee Flavors well feted and well fed, musing on how much the food and drink scene in our state and our city has changed over the last two decades. In some cases, change is good. In this case, it’s delicious.

Notes: The folks at Tennessee Flavors were kind enough to offer me a complimentary ticket to this event. I have only touched on a few of this year’s numerous participants. You can learn more about Flavors and the participants at www.tnflavors.org. Drink Responsibly–Beer, wine and spirits were offered in sample-sized portions, not full servings. Refills were readily available, but since I was driving, I chose not to have any.

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail