The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones - Rushdie & Rock & Roll & Russians

Salman Rushdie once wrote that a person will primarily be either a Beatles fan or a Rolling Stones fan, just as one will prefer either Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. This analogy isn’t terribly clear if you’re not a fan of Russian literature, but if you are, you’ll get that the analogy works because like The Beatles vs. The Stones, one author’s work tends to be carefully crafted and elaborate, while the other tends to be sharp and hard.

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones were the perfect yin-yang halves of mid-60s rock culture, and while it wasn’t necessarily by design, I believe their successes were rooted in effective marketing principles - each band presents a very straightforward brand promise that was based in these respective tendencies.

Smiles vs. Surly

Generally speaking, the Beatles were the fun, safe version of British rock ‘n’ roll. Their brand promised fun, high-energy, escapist pop music (especially in their early recordings), and was later supported by “artistic” leanings that were still more cerebral than visceral.

The Rolling Stones were the harder edge of British rock. From their earliest club dates, their music was earthy, physical, and sensual - rooted in (and lifted from) American Blues. They were somehow dirty and dangerous – and certainly more sexual. That was their brand promise: the darker, dirtier side of music with a sensual edge that early-60s America represented to England.

These brand promises were not entirely accidental. The Beatles chose a band name with an obvious pun built into the word’s misspelling, hinting at a sense of humour and fun. The name was inspired by Buddy Holly’s “Crickets” - a pop band. The band’s members were (relatively) clean-cut, and (publicly) innocent and fun-loving. The band even established consistent iconography – the trustworthy brand recognition that carried from the logo on Ringo’s kick drum through to every product with the Beatles name on it.

The iconic Ringo kick drum vs. Charlie Watts not giving a damn

On the other side, the Stones presented a dark, smoky impression from their very first recording, and a consistent non-smiling attitude. Their name was inspired by the title of a Muddy Waters song. The band members sported big ears, big lips, bad haircuts and acne scars - there wasn’t a “cute” one in the bunch. And again, their name supports the brand promise unambiguously: a rolling stone = rolling rock = rock’n’roll. The Beatles wanted to hold your hand. The Stones wanted to take you out in the alley behind the bar.

The marketing of each band’s brand promise is more evident when viewed through the lens of their pre-recording years: the Beatles first dressed in leather, while the Stones wore suits and crooked-toothed smiles. In hindsight, both images look put-on, and they probably were - which is why their later images worked so well once they swapped personas for the ones we now recognize. Their later personas were more genuine, and by all accounts pretty authentic.

Forced frown (Paul) vs. forced smile (Keith)

Once they settled into being the bands we know today, the clear brand promise of each band was supported by (and delivered with) great products - the music - and the rest is history.

The Tolstoy vs. Dostoevsky comparison holds true through their later work as The Beatles became increasingly acknowledged for masterful songwriting and studio work, while The Rolling Stones were acknowledged for capturing sparks of genius amid their chaos and debauchery. Crafted and elaborate, vs. sharp and hard.

The musical culture of the 60s was unique because everything was new - it supported the kind of brand clarity we see with both the Beatles and the Stones. Because of the culture’s newness, it’s difficult to imagine this kind of clarity ever happening again.

Regardless, the lessons for brand marketing remain clear because of their purity and simplicity. 

You have a few moments to establish a first impression, and a lifetime to develop repeat customers, which will happen best if you get everything right in the first place. You have to understand who you are, and where your authority lies. You must be genuine and truthful. You need a clearly-articulated and well-understood brand promise, and a carefully-considered brand strategy that reflects your clarity and authenticity. Well-communicated clarity and authenticity will still win the day, and it will win the test of time.

* Note: This story is a re-edit from a post I made to my “Sociable Blog” back in 2010. While I streamlined this article a little bit from the original version, I like how it captured my evolving views on the importance of clear, core messages - and it incorporates music, which is is the Dostoevsky side to my Tolstoy side of writing about brand understanding. Rushdie was right, at least about me - I also prefer both Dostoevsky and The Beatles.