Latest on MJJC

Tommy Mottola talks about Michael Jackson in his book Hitmaker - Comprehensive summary

la cienega said:
Maybe I'm having a slow day, but by saying they merged it in 1995 after MJ sold half "for $90m which was a joke as it was worth a billion plus" - is he saying that they should have paid MJ a billion for it in 1995?
Click to expand...

You're not having a slow day, what he is saying is just false and mixed up, all designed to make himself look like the world's greatest dealmaker.

la_cienega said:
I'm guessing he's got the two different deals mixed up, I need to look over what happened in the 1995 deal again.

I wasn't sure if he misspoke or was being intentionally misleading.
Click to expand...

A pretty big deal to mix up. My take is that he was being dishonest. He actually corrected stern who said correctly that mj already had the beatles catalogue when this deal came about so i don't believe it was a slip of the tongue. For me, he was talking deliberate self-serving garbage on an issue that is easy to fact-check so it makes it hard now for me to take on board everything else he has to say. For example, did he really try to limit promotion for invincible because he was a just a nice guy and was concerned about mj's finances? If mj was paying for everything at the end of the day why should sony care, they'd just take it out of mj profits?
 
Last edited:
Bonnie Blue said:
My take is that he was being dishonest and making out that he was a fabulous business man, getting a billion dollar catalogue for $90m.
Click to expand...

Problem is what Sony purchased in 1995 wasn't worth 1 billion. It only became that worthy after there were more rights purchased and added to it. One for $157 million, another for $370 million and there were others.
 
^But only people like you know all the facts and know he's talking rubbish. Stern and all his listeners will be just sitting there thinking wow, he seems like a total business genius, i must buy his book. He wouldn't get such an easy ride here if there was a q and a, lol.
 
Bonnie Blue said:
For example, did he really try to limit promotion for invincible because he was a just a nice guy and was concerned about mj's finances? If mj was paying for everything at the end of the day why should sony care, they'd just take it out of mj profits?
Click to expand...

they would still care if they believed the profits would not be enough to cover the expenses. For example if we are to assume $40 M (recording costs) or $65 M (recording and promotion costs) were all Michael's responsibility with the $2.81 per album revenue it would require 14 Million to 23 Million unit sales just to cover the expenses.

If they believed 14 to 23 Million sales is not realistic they would be concerned and would want to control the expenses. Because it would mean that they would not be able to recover the money they spent from Michael's profits.

(note : that doesn't necessarily mean they cared about Michael's finances for Michael's own good or how much he got himself into debt. They probably cared about if he can pay the debt or not.)


ps: when I go home, I'll check what he says about the catalog in his book.

ps 2: from mathematical perspective this is not much different than TII deal. It required min of 18 concerts, AEG estimated Michael would have $2 Million profit each concert and they had around $36 Million in production expenses. So you can see that the "minimum of 18 concerts" is actually the break even point to cover the expenses.
 
ivy said:
they would still care if they believed the profits would not be enough to cover the expenses. For example if we are to assume $40 M (recording costs) or $65 M (recording and promotion costs) were all Michael's responsibility with the $2.81 per album revenue it would require 14 Million to 23 Million unit sales just to cover the expenses.

If they believed 14 to 23 Million sales is not realistic they would be concerned and would want to control the expenses. Because it would mean that they would not be able to recover the money they spent from Michael's profits.
Click to expand...

I guess i assumed that the advance mj had to pay back would be from the profits of all his albums, not just invincible. If it was just from this one album, then there is no question that sony had the perfect right to tell mj what was 'realistic' or not. They have a responsiblity to shareholders.


ivy said:
ps: when I go home, I'll check what he says about the catalog in his book.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that would be useful. Hopefully mottola is more accurate in print than on a radio show.
 
ivy said:
they would still care if they believed the profits would not be enough to cover the expenses. For example if we are to assume $40 M (recording costs) or $65 M (recording and promotion costs) were all Michael's responsibility with the $2.81 per album revenue it would require 14 Million to 23 Million unit sales just to cover the expenses.

If they believed 14 to 23 Million sales is not realistic they would be concerned and would want to control the expenses. Because it would mean that they would not be able to recover the money they spent from Michael's profits.

(note : that doesn't necessarily mean they cared about Michael's finances for Michael's own good or how much he got himself into debt. They probably cared about if he can pay the debt or not.)


ps: when I go home, I'll check what he says about the catalog in his book.

ps 2: from mathematical perspective this is not much different than TII deal. It required min of 18 concerts, AEG estimated Michael would have $2 Million profit each concert and they had around $36 Million in production expenses. So you can see that the "minimum of 18 concerts" is actually the break even point to cover the expenses.
Click to expand...

According to Joe Vogel's Man in the Music (2010), Invincible had sold 11 million at that point, so it should be more now. The fact they stopped promotion IMO is not explained simply by math. If they had done more promotion, for ex. the Grammy performance of Whatever Happens, it would have boosted sales. They dropped the ball and I for one am not convinced it was all about #s alone. I am not saying spend another $25 million but to just drop it all makes no sense. Maybe there was something else going on that we are not totally in the know about, and that is what got MJ so mad he did the press conference?? Something happened or he would not have gone that far IMO. I mean look at MJ's Motown 25 performance of Billie Jean and how it boosted sales of Thriller. I am not saying that kind of amazing thing like showcasing the Moonwalk for the first time could be 100% replicated, but an amazing performance watched by millions does boost sales. That is a great song too, and it got buried.

(Bonnie Blue, no, I was not directing my comment at you--it was just a general comment.)
 
jamba said:
I personally want to wait for the Forbes book (by Zack O'Malley, I think) on MJ's finances before believing what TM says about it. MJ had debts from other sources, as well as for putting his own $ into Invincible. He had huge legal expenses for instance. It is estimated he did 500 depositions and had over 1,500 lawsuits thrown at him in his lifetime. When he died there were 38 different lawsuits thrown at him. His legal fees were astronomical. Also there was the "Michael Jackson Effect," meaning that when anyone knew they were billing MJ, they increased their fees a lot, just b/c it was him.

I am not saying he didn't make mistakes financially, but I think we need more info on this and not just from TM, who was not privy to the whole thing IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree ^^. We need a more complete picture. Based on the radio show, when we do a Q &A will have some more direct questions to ask.
 
Last edited:
I found this review on Amazon--the only one.

Ivy is this book mainly about Mariah. Since the review focused on her only I was curious.


By
Director "World Artist Yeah" (CA United States) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Hitmaker: The Man and His Music (Hardcover)
Tommy Mottola deserves major respect, not the kind of pressed silly questions asked by Matt Lauer on the Today show. Without Tommy Mottola's making Mariah Carey a PRIORITY ARTIST at Columbia records and investing all of his time into GROOMING her, POLISHING her GIFTS and PROMOTING her as the virtuoso that she is, there would be NO 5 CONSECUTIVE #1 SINGLES! No Matter how naive some will adamantly deny this. She also did not have a father figure and Mottola played the part for her, protecting her, grooming her and excelling her INTO Superstar Status.
And now to only care about Mottola apologizing to Carey (who I adore as an artist)is a JOKE! Just READ all of the heartfelt Thank you's Mariah wrote in the Columbia releases. They were not forced. Of course if you work with someone you're romantically involved with that ALWAYS ends up bad, but that is not the point of the story. Without Mottola's dedication to making Mariah Carey a world-wide artist, without his energy, she would NOT have the AMOUNT of success she has. PERIOD, DONE. Best Wishes and Love to both!
 
respect77 said:
@ Petrarose & Bubs

I don't think art can only be measured in sales and goals in art cannot only be set in record sales. So I would not compare it to sports.

But even if we do: if Usain Bolt said his goal is to run 100 under 5 seconds I'd call that an unrealistic goal too, even if he is the World Record holder. And if he'd spend all his money and more on achieving this impossible goal then I'd call that unwise too.

@ Bubs



I don't think supporting Michael means you have to agree with his every decision.
Click to expand...

in the end a child leaves a parent, because the child wants to make their own decision. The only person that is the truest supporter of a person is themselves. The only person that truly knows a person is themselves and that's the only reason why only they can be the true supporter of themselves. As long as a person makes the decision about themselves, that's all that matters, no matter what anybody says. After all..in the end, they're responsible for their own decisions. Everybody agrees on that. Besides, when you're a cash cow, people come up with all scenarios, and it really doesn't matter cuz the cash keeps coming in, anyway. Michael was a cash cow for his genius, a longgg time ago.

It's so easy for Mottolla to come up with all kinds of what if scenarios, because, we'll never know the out come of his what if scenarios, because all we have is what is actually happening. So his opinions are going to look good to somebody because it's convenient. Sony is sitting pretty right now, so it's fun, easy and convenient to say 'what if?'
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
her timeline is wrong. Mottola and Thalia were married before the feud between Michael and Mottola happened. So it's impossible the feud that hasn't yet started to end 2 weeks before their wedding date.
Click to expand...

Maybe there was another feud we didn't know about before her wedding?
 
Not much mention of the catalogs in the book.

First a quote about CBS / Sony and their catalogs

CBS very foolishly sold its own publishing company, CBS Songs, to Stephen Swid and his partners. CBS got $ 125 million in return for its 250,000 titles, in what was then noted as the biggest deal of its kind. Let me tell you just how shortsighted that sale was: just three years later, not long after I took the job with CBS/ Sony, that same catalog was sold to EMI for a reported $ 337 million. That’s a 170 percent profit that Swid and his buddies made on those CBS titles in just three years. And that’s not all. Worse, CBS/ Sony was slowed by a non-compete agreement that prohibited it from getting into the publishing industry for a certain number of years afterward. Here’s the ultimate irony: What started as CBS Songs grew into the world’s largest music publishing catalog called EMI Music. Sony recently paid EMI $ 2.2 billion to get its catalog back.

Mottola's only mention of Sony/ATV catalog deal is this

Six months after the release of HIStory, Mel Ilberman helped bring about what everyone saw as a great deal. Michael had paid $ 47.5 million in 1985 for the ATV Music catalog that contained most of the Beatles’ music up until the time of the split between John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Sony, as I’ve already mentioned, had foolishly sold its own catalog just before I’d arrived. We crafted a deal a few months after HIStory was released in which Sony paid $ 90 million to Michael to merge our catalog with Michael’s ATV catalog. It was a great deal for Michael. He basically had given up control of only half the catalog in exchange for twice the money that he’d paid for it. Plus, the way Sony/ ATV would market the overall catalog, it would be highly profitable and in Michael’s best interests over the long run. Further, Michael as a partner would participate in Sony’s publishing interests.
 
Petrarose said:
Ivy is this book mainly about Mariah. Since the review focused on her only I was curious.
Click to expand...

The book is about Mottola's life. Starting from him growing up & his teenage years to the time his firing from Sony + a very brief mention of what he has been doing since.

Many artists are mentioned ranging from Michael, Celine Dion, Gloria Estafan, George Michael, Ricky Martin and so on.

I would classify for example his mention of Michael very brief - only 1-2% of the book. However his interactions with Mariah is a lot more detailed - such as he explains how they selected each song for her first album and so on - but that's because he had a direct involvement & first hand knowledge in every step of her career and she was his wife.

So I would say that Mariah is extensively mentioned ( really a lot more than Michael) but I wouldn't call it as a book about Mariah either. To me the book was about his career and some people - such as Mariah- was a bigger part of his life than the others.
 
How ironic. All the people that whispered/hollared in Michael's ear to sell his catalogue and he wouldn't do it. After all the bad endings of people that sold catalogues, in the past. And some people say MJ wasn't a good decision maker? Ha. That one decision was enough to cover all the conservative decisions others would make in the future, and would be enough to make Motolla look good no matter what he did. But Mottolla sure doesn't deserve the credit. Michael had his kids set for life before he wrote Billie Jean and writing Billie Jean didn't do anything to hurt that. So, MJ did ok.

*on another note, i agreed with someone that i knew how Michael would feel about doing TII concerts. I don't know how MJ felt about that. Nobody did. I remember him saying in 2003 he didn't want to tour anymore. I would've settled for a performance in one place simulcast all over the world. I know there never was a time a MJ dvd didn't sell into forever.
 
Last edited:
jamba said:
According to Joe Vogel's Man in the Music (2010), Invincible had sold 11 million at that point, so it should be more now. The fact they stopped promotion IMO is not explained simply by math. If they had done more promotion, for ex. the Grammy performance of Whatever Happens, it would have boosted sales. They dropped the ball and I for one am not convinced it was all about #s alone. I am not saying spend another $25 million but to just drop it all makes no sense. Maybe there was something else going on that we are not totally in the know about, and that is what got MJ so mad he did the press conference?? Something happened or he would not have gone that far IMO. I mean look at MJ's Motown 25 performance of Billie Jean and how it boosted sales of Thriller. I am not saying that kind of amazing thing like showcasing the Moonwalk for the first time could be 100% replicated, but an amazing performance watched by millions does boost sales. That is a great song too, and it got buried.

(Bonnie Blue, no, I was not directing my comment at you--it was just a general comment.)
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. On face value it makes sense to cut your loses when you are not making the money back, but Invincible sold 7 to 10 mio out of the box. Even for that time a great successs. Michael's previous albums had a shelf life of at least 1 to 2 years. With further singles, videos, show appearences and maybe a tour (even though I'm pretty much convinced Michael didn't plan to tour... I mean, he already got 2 kids and Blanket got delivered in early '02) Invincible would have been a much bigger success. Knowing that they were dealing with Michael Jackson it doesn't make sens to stop supporting the album only 4 months after it's release. That certainly would be an interesting question for a Q&A.
 
Michael thought big. That's who he was and whether he succeeded or not he always kept trying. After everything he went through he still tried to the very end. I am sure Michael had people tell him maybe he should cut down things or lower his expectations but it's not how he was made. Whether you agree with his decision making or not he stuck by his beliefs and I respect him for that.

I think some people are driven by what's in their heart and soul. Michael dreamed big so he could help people. Nobody was a generous as Michael was. People say he was doing This is It to get out of a financial situation. Probably that was a factor but it was not the main factor for him anyways. Maybe for others it was but not for Michael. I also believe that he thought big because he wanted to be the best artist and entertainer the world had ever seen. When he said he wanted to make the world a better place, he really meant that.

That's why there will never be anyone like him and how he worked and how he thought. I miss him.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Mottola thought that if Michael doesn't get enough money from Invincible, he'd have to give up the catalogue because he used it as a collateral?

This story is far from being objective and fair. I wouldn't consider it a good source for understanding the dispute. Back to ground zero. Thanks but no thanks, Tommy.
 
^^Yes, that's what Michael said and thought. But just because he said and thought that doesn't nessesarily mean that it's true. But at the same time, just because Motolla says it isn't so, doesn't mean Michael was wrong. The bottomline is, we will never know.
 
marebear said:
Michael thought big. That's who he was and whether he succeeded or not he always kept trying. After everything he went through he still tried to the very end. I am sure Michael had people tell him maybe he should cut down things or lower his expectations but it's not how he was made. Whether you agree with his decision making or not he stuck by his beliefs and I respect him for that.

I think some people are driven by what's in their heart and soul. Michael dreamed big so he could help people. Nobody was a generous as Michael was. People say he was doing This is It to get out of a financial situation. Probably that was a factor but it was not the main factor for him anyways. Maybe for others it was but not for Michael. I also believe that he thought big because he wanted to be the best artist and entertainer the world had ever seen. When he said he wanted to make the world a better place, he really meant that.

That's why there will never be anyone like him and how he worked and how he thought. I miss him.
Click to expand...

I agree. Now who was it who said if you came to Michael and said let's do a show and you will make a lot of money he would not be interested, but if you said something like it would be the biggest thing, bigger than (and you name some artists), then he would get interested. This means that he really will not do something only for the money. There has to be some larger picture.

About we will never know:^^ There has to be someone who knows the whole story. Michael must have spoken in-depth to someone about what was happening. Maybe he talked to Sharpton, even though we find out that Sharpton was trying to be friends with both sides. However, Michael may not have known that Sharpton was stabbing him in the back & may have said something to him about the dispute. I may be wrong, but I always feel in such situations, there is someone who knows both sides of the story.
 
I dont believe Michael seriously though he would sell 100 mio of Invincible.
That sounds more like TM trying to construct the myth of MJ being delusional in that matter.
It might have been Michaels goal for the BAD album (we've heard the mirror story from many people),
but after knowing the actual sales number of BAD and then Dangerous and then HIStory, why would he
seriously think it would be possible for Invincible. If MJ ever said this to TM, then it probably was meant
like a fictional goal to go for... like "give it a 120%!!".

I remember Michael in some interview (i think HIStory era) where he said something like "i can't even outdo my own (past) albums anymore"... so i think he was aware of reality.

To say that Michael was serious about 100 mio in that case is the real dillusion i'd say.
It just fits to TM's story well... just like the HIStory album's success (for example Earth Song
and TDCAU beeing the first No.1 MJ singles in Germany ever, Scream and YANA getting highest ever entries in the US Billboard charts etc) never gets a mention when the press draws the picture of
the never ending downwards spiral after Thriller.
 
Last edited:
If theres a Q&A with TM... please ask him about any shelved promotion plans.
Were there really ever plans for an Unbreakable video with Mel Gibson, or was that fan fiction?
Any other plans for singles? If they were serious about this album at least at the beginning, they must have had plans. Any remixes already made?

And was the Invincible album tracklist changed by Michael at the last minute? As some of the involved producers said that Michael kept "the best" material aside because he knew what was going to happen. (Which to me always sounded more like producers egos talking...). Did TM ever hear any of the existing outtakes / tracks that didn't make the album?
 
Last edited:
Ashtanga said:
Yes we will never know and that's a fact. Michael is not here to clear things up and say what is true or false. Michael is and always will be the only reliable source about anything related to it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well... that is not really what I meant. Michael can believe that the reason for stopping support was to make him loose the catalog, while in reality it might have been strictly the reasons Motolla mentioned. Michael doesn't know Motolla's reasoning to stop support. He can only believe it's one way or the other, but he can't know for sure.
 
Last edited:
Prometheus77 said:
Hmm, well... that is not really what I meant. Michael can believe that the reason for stopping support was to make him loose the catalog, while in reality it was strictly the reasons Motolla mentioned. Michael doesn't know Motolla's reasoning to stop support. He can only believe it's one way or the other, but he can't know for sure.
Click to expand...
How can you claim to know the strick reality of what TM motives were, but then state Michael can't know for sure. Lets repeat your own words for Michael back to you and that is also the reality "Prometheus77 doesn't know Motolla's reasoning to stop support. He can only believe it's one way or the other, but he can't know for sure." :)
 
^^I already stated that we will never know the real reason for Sony or rather Motolla to stop the support for the album (reading through my second post I realize though that a "it might have been" is missing.... so I'm editing that) and as I'm pretty much convinced that Michael Jackson was not a mind reader, I can state that he did not know Motolla's thought process that lead him to stop support. Either it was for the strict business reasons he stated in the book to cut their losses or to make Michael bleed fiancially so he would be forced to give up on the catalog.

Michael is not the one to shed light on this. He thought it was the latter, but I doubt it was more than a gut feeling (or people whispering in his ear) and the way everything was going down at the time rather than concrete and solid proof (what proof could there be?? A letter from Motolla stating, "We will stop support for the album, because we want the catalog"? I'm sure if that was Motolla's reasoning, there won't be any proof for that and he would never admit it.).

And with that I do not say that his gut feeling was wrong and that Motolla in his book is right. I just all goes back to what I was previously saying, which is, we will never know the real truth.
 
You can expect the sales of Invincible were going to be disappointed since Sony promoted the album for only four months which then included three singles (You Rock My World, Cry and Butterflies), two short films where Michael himself only appeared in one of them. There were no performance of any of the Invincible songs at any award show and no World Tour which otherwise appeared in Michaels earlier albums.

History+Blood On The Dance Floor was promoted for like two and a half year (June 1995-Jan 1998) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, 7-8 singles, with corresponding short films and the Ghosts Film.

Dangerous was promoted for two years (Nov 1991-Dec 1993) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, the Super Bowl show, 9 singles, with corresponding short films and the Oprah Winfrey interview.

Bad was promoted for two years (Aug 1987-July 1989) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, 9 singles, with corresponding short films, the Moonwalker film, the game for the Sega Genesis and the arcade and the book 'Moon Walk'.

Thriller as well where it was promoted for two years (Dec 1982-Dec 1984) with the Victory tour with The Jacksons, award performances of new songs, 7 singles, 3 short films and the album 'Victory' as well.

So how would Invincible reach to 100 million sold copies at all if it didn't have this kind of promotion that would endure so many years? Did Tommy Mottola expect that this were possible with that kind of severe limited promotion for a few months? Who is he trying to fool?

And isn't it ironic that when Michael had the opportunity to perform at special awards shows like American Bandstand and Democratic Benefit Congress, he chose to perform over 10 year old hits like Dangerous, Black or White and Heal The World?
Why didn't Michael perform new songs that surely would boost up the sales?

Why is there also a rumor that Invincible would in fact been released in Nov 1999 but where Sony said to Michael the planned songs to be on the album were not up to the standard? When you can listen to the songs released in 'The Ulimate Collection', 'Number Ones' and 'Michael' like 'Fall Again', 'Another Day', 'One More Chance' and 'Beautiful Girl' that were recorded during that year and that are in my opinion better than most of the tracks in Invincible.

Man, it still boggles me even today regarding the whole album production and the whole promotion turmoil story behind it. Who knows, if Sony had promoted the album as they did with his earlier albums by releasing several singles, short film and not to mention a world tour he could've spent the year 2002 by performing concerts all over the world instead of sitting in front of camera and being manipulated and followed by that creep Bashir for that devastating documentary.
 
qbee said:
How can you claim to know the strick reality of what TM motives were, but then state Michael can't know for sure. Lets repeat your own words for Michael back to you and that is also the reality "Prometheus77 doesn't know Motolla's reasoning to stop support. He can only believe it's one way or the other, but he can't know for sure." :)
Click to expand...

Ha I like it ^^.

John love your points. Maybe we can speak to the producer of Invincible to see what his take on the situation is. I did not even thing about your point--why during that period Michael did not perform songs from that album? One wonders if he felt that the lack of promotion for the album would make it a waste of time? Did he lose interest in it? Did he feel too much bad vibes/publicity was attached to it & did not want to use it in shows? I mean he seemed happy when he did the signing. He did not look as though he thought the album was a piece of crap.
 
Last edited:
john13th said:
You can expect the sales of Invincible were going to be disappointed since Sony promoted the album for only four months which then included three singles (You Rock My World, Cry and Butterflies), two short films where Michael himself only appeared in one of them. There were no performance of any of the Invincible songs at any award show and no World Tour which otherwise appeared in Michaels earlier albums.

History+Blood On The Dance Floor was promoted for like two and a half year (June 1995-Jan 1998) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, 7-8 singles, with corresponding short films and the Ghosts Film.

Dangerous was promoted for two years (Nov 1991-Dec 1993) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, the Super Bowl show, 9 singles, with corresponding short films and the Oprah Winfrey interview.

Bad was promoted for two years (Aug 1987-July 1989) with a world tour, award performances of new songs, 9 singles, with corresponding short films, the Moonwalker film, the game for the Sega Genesis and the arcade and the book 'Moon Walk'.

Thriller as well where it was promoted for two years (Dec 1982-Dec 1984) with the Victory tour with The Jacksons, award performances of new songs, 7 singles, 3 short films and the album 'Victory' as well.

So how would Invincible reach to 100 million sold copies at all if it didn't have this kind of promotion that would endure so many years? Did Tommy Mottola expect that this were possible with that kind of severe limited promotion for a few months? Who is he trying to fool?
Click to expand...

Yep. That's what I said before and that would be a great question for a Q&A. But then again, whatever his response is, that would lead to follow up questions, so a live interview would be great. But whatever, I'm pretty much sure, that Michael wouldn't have done a tour either way.
 
^^Someone said we could ask him what were the promotions planned. To me that would be a good test because it would show if there was any serious thoughts about promoting this album. However, TM could make up any story about all the things they had planned, & how are we going to fact check it? It is a pity we do not have people who worked for Sony who can give good rebuttals on the facts of TM's claims in his book. Usually there is someone who can say that is not the way it happened, or they could add some other fact to the mix. Then we could have a really great debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top