Filed under: Comment
In their bid to keep earning an income, bands – especially old bands – have been licensing their name to all manner of inappropriate things.
Jimi Hendrix’ family sold his name to a vodka brand.
Queen sold their name to a bunch of terrible ad soundtracks.
Elvis’ estate flogged his name to literally everything.
And now this.
The Beatles watch. With Raymond Weil.
Why?
Seriousy, why?
Do they need the money?
Do they need the fame?
Do they need their ego stroked?
And what about the person who buys it?
Do they think owning a watch that has no real connection to The Beatles other than a licensing agreement makes them feel like they’re are a member of the band?
Do you think owning a watch that has this on the back of it …
… makes you look cool to your friends?
I appreciate that in commercial terms – where there is demand [though in this case, I wonder if that is really the case] there is money to be made, but I wonder if the guys who agree to this sort of thing realise that ultimately, they’re damaging their legacy rather than securing it.
As I wrote a while back, sometimes stubborness is a virtue.
30 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
All you need is cash.
Comment by Billy Whizz September 6, 2016 @ 6:40 amBuy this watch and immediately look like your watch is running 30 years slow.
Comment by DH September 6, 2016 @ 6:42 amalmost funny. well done.
Comment by andy@cynic September 6, 2016 @ 6:51 amThere once was a Qantas flight officer who announced as the plane was coming into Adelaide:
“Ladies and gentleman, we are now landing in Adelaide, please put your watches back 20 years”.
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 8:26 amI don’t understand this product. But then I don’t understand why expensive watch brands pay to “sponsor the time” at airports. The worst are the ones who make clocks that look like their watches. What’s that do for them? Watch makers are nuts.
Comment by DH September 6, 2016 @ 6:43 amyouve got too much fucking time on your hands and that wasnt meant to be a shit pun either.
Comment by andy@cynic September 6, 2016 @ 6:52 amThat’s a good point. I often see super exclusive watch brand names shoved onto horrible looking clocks throughout airports.
Maybe they think flying is only the domain of the wealthy or maybe they think the poor are so amazed at being allowed to get on a plane, that everything they see inside an airport is basically the epitome of sophistication and craftsmanship. Guess they’ve never spent a lot of time in Pudong International Airport then …
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 8:28 amYou forgot a 3rd category of air traveller. The blagger. Surprised about that when you created it.
Comment by DH September 6, 2016 @ 8:59 amqueen have fucking sold themselves out for more than just a few fucking ad soundtracks. what about that fucking tie in with fucking shit boy band five. even elton john wouldnt stoop that low and hed whore himself to a fucking packet of wotsits if he thought hed get some exposure for it.
Comment by andy@cynic September 6, 2016 @ 6:50 amWotsits. Now that is a blast from the past.
Comment by George September 6, 2016 @ 7:06 am“Music is everybody’s possession. It’s only publishers who think that people own it.” John Lennon
Comment by John September 6, 2016 @ 7:08 amWho made quite a lot of money from music publishing.
Comment by John September 6, 2016 @ 7:09 amI believe Freddie Mercury had a similar opinion. I am sure I read somewhere that he said they could do anything with his music as long as he wasn’t made to look boring. Am I correct Robert?
Comment by George September 6, 2016 @ 7:11 amWow, I’m seriously impressed:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/27/freddie-mercury-great-enigma
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 8:28 amwho the fuck cares.
Comment by andy@cynic September 6, 2016 @ 7:15 amI would love to know the thinking behind these deals. Is it purely money or some additional motive. It would be hard to work out what that would be for some of the products licensed under the Elvis name.
Comment by George September 6, 2016 @ 7:09 amI’m guessing it’s to keep the name out there given that the music is way past its point of peak revenue.
Comment by John September 6, 2016 @ 7:12 amProbably … except Elvis, Jimi and Queen all had years where they earned more revenue than when they [read: Freddie] were alive.
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 8:30 amBottom line. Heirs can’t spend legacy, but they can spend licensing fees.
Comment by John September 6, 2016 @ 7:18 amOf course they used a photo of The Beatles where they could be mistaken for business men.
Comment by Pete September 6, 2016 @ 7:37 amIf heroes are becoming whores, then it’s because their managers are pimps and marketers are their johns.
Comment by Bazza September 6, 2016 @ 7:50 amGiven I just bought 7 tickets to see Queen in Asia later this month, I’m a serial offender.
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 8:31 amI think you’ll find that’s a Queen tribute band.
Comment by John September 6, 2016 @ 6:36 pmI love The Beatles and I like Raymond Weil watches but some things should never be put together. Like chocolate and mint.
Comment by Lee Hill September 6, 2016 @ 8:53 amHow long before there’s a fake version at Pearl City, Rob? I’d give it a couple of weeks …
Comment by Ian Gee September 6, 2016 @ 9:13 amThey probably did it first …
Comment by Rob September 6, 2016 @ 1:53 pmso i looked up that shitty watch and found out it’s a fucking fraction of the cost of your watch campbell, so who is the fucking more money than sense twat now.
Comment by andy@cynic September 6, 2016 @ 11:20 pmTo be fair satellite dish sized watches don’t come cheap.
Comment by DH September 6, 2016 @ 11:39 pmAnd it was probably a freebie. Or expensed as research.
Comment by John September 7, 2016 @ 5:34 amThis makes sense.
Comment by The Irascible Tulip September 9, 2016 @ 2:01 am