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

Big thanx to you Ivy. All the time and effort you put into here, I never take it for granted.

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.
I agree with the sentiment. Let me put it like this : even if the proverbial fly on the wall was telling the story and it watched the whole thing going down as the third party, I still wouldn't believe all of it. Anybody can put their own twist on facts, so...

Living in a delusional bubble permitted him to think these allegations and the press reports were not going to affect the way people thought about him.

The most outrageous claim quoted in the entire summary.
A person in his/her right mind wouldn't say stuff like this.
And this is from a man who says he cried hearing about Michael's childhood from the horse's mouth? SMH
 
I am wondering who made the decision to cut the promotion of Invincible after 4 months? Was it Mottola alone or were others involved? higher ups at Sony?
 
Whoever it was, it wasn't Michael. That's why it's easy for me to see who the bad guys are. The bad guys are Mottolla at that time. It seems like with time, people are valued less. I'm reminded of the city of New Orleans in the USA after Hurricane Katrina. The first thing everybody in the media said is that New Orleans needed cashflow to survive. So they brought events of all kinds into the town to bring money in. No entity can survive without money investment. That simple math has never changed. So for those who say it's good business to cut back..well...there you go..that doesn't make sense. Michael was always interested in delivering a good product. The media, of course is at fault, too. They're two-faced. On the one hand, they admit, New Orleans needs cashflow...but on the other hand, Michael comes out with the 'Scream' video, and his is the first video where the media makes a big deal out of a new record they decide to add to Michael's sterling world records...the world record for the most expensive video ever made. The tone in which the media presents this was designed to make people look upon Michael as an extravagant spender...and to make that look as if it was a bad thing. I really feel this was the beginning of the assanine thinking that led to Mottolla and his thugs taking away from Invincible. You can't create a delusional..yes i say it..delusional 'realtiy' out of two opposite schools of thinking. Pour money into New Orleans...take money away from Invincible.
Fortunately, Michael, who used to take all that money and create both the greatest music AND the greatest videos, now, given only half the money, decided to pour it all into the music, and avoid videos as much as possible. Smart business move on Michael's part. While fans maybe longing for videos....we have the better of two scenarios...We have the best music in the world, in Invincible..and he leaves videos to your imagination..or..he could have gone and made videos on a shoestring budget and his rep for the greatest videos in the world would have sunk to low levels. MJ chose the former. MJ did everything right, and secured his legacy, despite his enemies.

We're in an age where there are people who want a Mercedes for Volkswagen money. News flash...you're going to get a volkswagen. Since when does that change? Who in their right mind thinks like that?
 
Last edited:
^^That is another problem I have with Tommy's decision. He & Sony knew that Michael have big budgets for his videos, in the same way movies are getting more & more expensive to make & movie stars are getting millions for a movie. Why try to act as though Michael's requests are so different? Why was he so reluctant to find a more creative way to market Invincible as Michael wanted him to do? It seems that Tommy's head was simple caught in a Tour Zone time warp where he could think about no other way for promotion other than a tour.
 
tumblr_mdxt67va7v1qh7ov5o2_r1_250.gif
 
^^That is another problem I have with Tommy's decision. He & Sony knew that Michael have big budgets for his videos, in the same way movies are getting more & more expensive to make & movie stars are getting millions for a movie. Why try to act as though Michael's requests are so different? Why was he so reluctant to find a more creative way to market Invincible as Michael wanted him to do? It seems that Tommy's head was simple caught in a Tour Zone time warp where he could think about no other way for promotion other than a tour.

Probably due to the fact that MTV and other "music channels" are not playing videos anymore, so it didn't make too much sense to spend millions on music videos. And to give Marlon Brando 1 mio. (assuming that is true) to appear for a couple of seconds in a music videos to say something which, to this day, I couldn't decipher what he was saying, is total crazyness (the same goes for paying Mel Gibson big bucks to appear in a music video). Also really it's easy to tell someone to come up with creative ways to market something when that other person then is stuck with something that isn't so easy to accomplish.
 
We're in an age where there are people who want a Mercedes for Volkswagen money. News flash...you're going to get a volkswagen. Since when does that change? Who in their right mind thinks like that? LOL, good one 144,000

I still think they should have done the short film of Unbreakable and then have MJ perform as was planned st the Grammy's, etc. So if Scream cost 7 million--how much could this new film cost? They had Nick Brandt do Cry and MJ refused to be in it, so how much did that cost? Wouldn't it have been better to have Nick Brandt do Unbreakable instead? That way, they get a film, make MJ happy, and move forward instead of standing still (at best). I agree with 144,000, the whole thing makes no sense to entirely pull the plug. The MSG 30th wasn't really to promote Invincible--that was not the main focus and only one song from the album was performed. So if there is a Q and A we need to know what the 25M for promotion was spent on.
 
Probably due to the fact that MTV and other "music channels" are not playing videos anymore, so it didn't make too much sense to spend millions on music videos. And to give Marlon Brando 1 mio. (assuming that is true) to appear for a couple of seconds in a music videos to say something which, to this day, I couldn't decipher what he was saying, is total crazyness (the same goes for paying Mel Gibson big bucks to appear in a music video). Also really it's easy to tell someone to come up with creative ways to market something when that other person then is stuck with something that isn't so easy to accomplish.

I know I am not an avid tv watcher, but I am in people's homes every day & they look at channels with videos on all the time on cable, Optimum, Dish, FIOS. I see kids looking at them after 3 when they come home from school; I have seen kids put them on at 12:30; I have seen adults looking at them in the evening & during the day. I have seen them on Spanish language channels too. You are probably focusing on MTV & some other channels that you claim do not show videos anymore.

What does paying Brando 1m have to do with doing a video for Invincible? You can't pay an actor less than his worth. Even Michael would not accept something less than his worth unless charity is involved. It is not difficult to come up with some creative ideas to promote anything as you think. Ad companies, e.g., have been doing this for decades to bring us products in new & exciting ways. You put a group of heads together with some creative talent & you will quickly find great ideas flowing. Hey put 3 fans in a room & we could come up with something. The problem is that TM did not invest any time, talent, & effort in creating a plan that would help sales. He probably had the same defeatist attitude that you had in that post ^^. The attitude of: lets not do videos because MTV does not show them, let's not come up with creative ideas because they are hard to do.
 
Last edited:
MTV at the time of Invincible were still playin videos not has much as they did in the 80's and 90's but in the early 2000's they still were. But, not so much now though with all those scripted shows and reality TV. So gettin them to play a Video for Invincible back then was no issue. And if MJ were alive it still would be no issue because it's MJ and short films, which he was great at! MJ videos made MTV anyway so it's not like they would be stupid enough to reject it. Besides when YRMW came out they did in fact played it a lot and VH1 had it on heavy rotation as well, so yea! Sony/TM should had allowed more videos or at least one more that they could let MJ do his way with the single he actually wanted!
 
Last edited:
I'm getting tired of those people with agendas who try to justify their hypocrisy and evilness by saying Michael surrounded himself with "yes men". I think it's stupid but OK - So what if he did and what does it have to do with the subject? YOU did wrong regardless of Michael's alleged tendency to surround himself with yes men. It's a fact someone stopped promoting Invincible and surely it wasn't Michael's dream to release an album and not promote it. It's ironic how those people who always claimed they were only ones (the plurality of this is also very ironic. I know!) who told him no are those who tried to sabotage him at different points OR had yes men of their own. I'm sure Mottola has a handful of yes men. This is how it works.
 
I agree that everyone in a high position would have "yes men" around them whether it's Mottola or any other CEO for example. However you also need to account for some of the problems and even mistakes that happened around Michael.

For example we all know how Michael was worried that Sony and /or others were after his catalog. So here the question becomes how did that catalog become vulnerable and was in a position that other people could make a move to get it? Well it was due to debts.

So what I'm trying to say is you cannot ignore the effects of the not so good decisions or lack of proper counseling in regards to business matters. If someone had said "no it's not wise to get loans against your catalog" or stopped such actions, Michael's catalog would have never been vulnerable and Michael would have never have to feel some stuff he did.
 
And to give Marlon Brando 1 mio. (assuming that is true) to appear for a couple of seconds in a music videos to say something which, to this day, I couldn't decipher what he was saying, is total crazyness

I just read this in the book "Defending a King":

marlonbrandok.jpg


Marlon Brando being a good friend, I'm sure he would have accepted to make the appearance for much less, but I guess Michael really wanted to give him that kind of money.
 
Thanks for this. I hope you guys misunderstand me right now but I have, and I know some of you have too, for a long time had the feeling that MJ had "yes-sayers" around him and I do think that did not help him all the time.
 
Some of Michael's brothers didn't want to perform at the 30th Anniversary at Madison Square Garden because of how much Marlon Brando was receiving, it became a point of contention between Michael and his brother's.

Don't forget Miko Brando got to act with his dear old Dad, Marlon Brando, and Miko was a loyal friend to Michael to the end.

The taking out of loans did indeed put Michael in a precarious situation, where sometimes he seemed a little paranoid. He was juggling so much and Tommy Mottola came across as taking advantage of Michael. Did it bother Tommy Mottola that a black man owned the Beatles catalog and this is why Michael called Tommy racist?

I'm not sure if I thought Michael surrounded himself with 'yes men,' as much as he probably thought these 'yes men' had some good ideas, as that was what Michael was always looking for in business partners. Raymone Bain was dismissed because she ran out of ideas for Michael to help pay down his mounting debt.
 
I agree that everyone in a high position would have "yes men" around them whether it's Mottola or any other CEO for example. However you also need to account for some of the problems and even mistakes that happened around Michael.

For example we all know how Michael was worried that Sony and /or others were after his catalog. So here the question becomes how did that catalog become vulnerable and was in a position that other people could make a move to get it? Well it was due to debts.

So what I'm trying to say is you cannot ignore the effects of the not so good decisions or lack of proper counseling in regards to business matters. If someone had said "no it's not wise to get loans against your catalog" or stopped such actions, Michael's catalog would have never been vulnerable and Michael would have never have to feel some stuff he did.

Well, It's hard to assess whether or not it was a good idea to invest in his album Invincible b/c at the time he invested in it he did not know that the promotion was going to stop after 4 months. So we are back to the question of can we accept what TM says about the reasons--that the album was not selling? Or was there more to it behind the scenes? Why did MJ state TM was 'a devil' or 'devilish' on 2 different public occasions? I am thinking that the reason MJ put his own $ into the album was that he thought it would sell, do well. Thus is what Joe Vogel quotes him as saying:

"Invincible is just as good or better than Thriller, in my true, humble opinion. It has more to offer: Music is what lives and lasts. Invincible has been a great success. When the Nutcracker Suite was first introduced to the world it totally bombed. What's important is how the story ends."
 
^^

It's not just about the money he got on loan for Invincible. He reportedly had accumulated 200 Million in loans against his catalog before Invincible. His reasoning was he was believing in Invincible to sell a lot and to pay back the debt. But what I'm trying to say is why did no one stopped the debt to become $200 Million - even before Invincible?
 
I agree that everyone in a high position would have "yes men" around them whether it's Mottola or any other CEO for example. However you also need to account for some of the problems and even mistakes that happened around Michael.

For example we all know how Michael was worried that Sony and /or others were after his catalog. So here the question becomes how did that catalog become vulnerable and was in a position that other people could make a move to get it? Well it was due to debts.

So what I'm trying to say is you cannot ignore the effects of the not so good decisions or lack of proper counseling in regards to business matters. If someone had said "no it's not wise to get loans against your catalog" or stopped such actions, Michael's catalog would have never been vulnerable and Michael would have never have to feel some stuff he did.

First of all I have never heard of a great accomplishment in history that didn't have a risk/reward equation. The phrases 'no pain no gain' and the song line 'the one afraid of dying never seems to live' aren't for nothing.

Nobody gets a reward without risk.

Secondly, I believe Michael's paranoia about his catalogue was justified for reasons other than business.

Thirdly, Michael's track record would be considered Kingly if he was Steve Jobs, Elvis, or any respected executive, other than Michael, and people wouldn't mind going forward with them.
 
I think that part of Michael's "problem" was simply his unique situation. Sure, Elvis had some money... but even in context I think you'd be hard pressed to find an artist of his standing that had that kind of empire. Money always comes with a shoe that is about to drop - but industrial magnates are not artists which is why it's hard to say "well, see, there are all these billionaires out there and they don't seem to have these issues that Michael had". Steve Jobs has quite the reputation of having been ruthless... while most fellow artists who worked with him said that he 'worked them' until the were blue in the face - and yet they themselves will say that being kindly worked until blue in the face also pushed them to new artistic heights.

I still would like to see an artist of his standing and impact that lived a life as unique as his.

So I tend to think that Michael was quite right to say that indeed nobody knows what it is like to be him - despite people thinking that's just 'whining'.
Doesn't mean you have to applaud everyone of Michael's moves - it just irks me to no end when those that build entire empires on his back have the gall to lecture their favorite cash cow on how 'to do it better.' Yeah, the hindsight bias...never fails anyone.
 
Last edited:
How can some say it was "Yes men" who had control when it comes to his financial state. But, then "MJ was a grown man" when it comes to the stuff involving TII/AEG/Murray?
 
and i'm not going to excuse execs who think an artist can't do it as well as they can. That's their problem. They shouldn't have those positions if they can't handle the position. They shouldn't work in that capacity if they can't understand the artist. They are in the music business, and therefore, they should respect the music. Plain and simple.
 
How can some say it was "Yes men" who had control when it comes to his financial state. But, then "MJ was a grown man" when it comes to the stuff involving TII/AEG/Murray?

great post. you didn't have a thank you button in this one, or I would have clicked on it.
 
Ivy ^^probably because the people he had were not good business people who knew what to do, like Branca. They were probably people who claimed they could do great things, but were really more interested in getting something from the relationship with Michael & the deals that were made. There is this idea that because Michel had debt he surrounded himself with yes men, but how about the simple reason that these men were not there to do anything to help Michael's fortune in the first place, but to use his influence, opportunities, talents to amass money for themselves. Not all employees are there for the same ethical purpose.

Another thing about this debt you mention, the very rich have more debt than that, but the way they do not fall into any of these pitfalls, is that they have competent people who are trained in high finance, etc., & it is their responsibility to make sure these debts are acquired, monitored, & paid in a responsible way. They even look at more alternative ways to attract backing. However, Michael had none of these people, so I see it not that the people were yes men but that they were not the best qualified for the positions they hold. Few artists are financial wizards, & unscrupulous men it seems find ways to make Michael think they knew what they were talking about.

Look at Michael list of people around him, Bain, Cascio, Weisner, Thome, Muarry, & the long lists of names--how qualified are these people to do the job they claimed they are aces in? I remember reading the beginning of Aphrodite book where you have Michael's people speculating on how much money they will make. To me, that is the problem with all his staff. They were incompetent.
 
I find Michael to be even more of a financial wizard, in the face of this adversity, because anybody else who is surrounded by incompetent businesspeople is sunk, bankrupt, finished. Throughout his life those words never applied to Michael...just rumors in media trying to predict that they would. I've never heard any rumors of countless other entertainers being threatened with bankruptcy, but I was surprised to actually hear reports of actual bankruptcy filed by the likes of Barry Manilow, and one of Lisa Marie Presley's famous husbands, Nicholas Cage...two people that were always getting jobs, always busy, always performing, whereas Michael took a lot of time off from concerts, making albums, etc.
 
Last edited:
144,000 I began to hear the bankruptcy stories on tv since the 80s, so it seems even back then, there was a push to start saying that this man's financial power was crumbling. Since, then someone is always pointing out how much debt Michael has.
 
How can some say it was "Yes men" who had control when it comes to his financial state. But, then "MJ was a grown man" when it comes to the stuff involving TII/AEG/Murray?

At the end of the day he's a grown man that made his own decisions but how much information he had is another issue. Lack of information results in wrong decisions.

But there's another thing to consider. If you believe that no one dared to say Michael something that he didn't want to hear then it's a problem as well. It means unfortunately there was no one around Michael that cared about his best interests.

This is not much of a reach. For example before his death Michael's taxes weren't paid for 3 years. Do you think this is because Michael himself didn't do his tax forms or was it because the people who were supposed to do his taxes and file them failed to do so?

Similarly how much of Michael building a $200 M debt before Invincible was only his "grown man" doing despite the people warning him against it? or was it at least partly due to lack of sound business advice?

furthermore if the argument is that Michael did what he did and he took the loans because no risk no gain, then it's kinda meaningless to blame Sony (or anyone else) for wanting Michael's catalog. Then you have to admit that the only reason why would anyone be after the catalog is that because Michael's own decisions had caused a great vulnerability for the catalog.

so I guess the question is who are we blaming here?

was it due to lack of advice and/or wrong advice that Michael had that major debt that put his catalog at risk from creditors?

or

was it Michael's own grown decisions put the catalog at jeopardy?

Ivy ^^probably because the people he had were not good business people who knew what to do, like Branca. They were probably people who claimed they could do great things, but were really more interested in getting something from the relationship with Michael & the deals that were made. There is this idea that because Michel had debt he surrounded himself with yes men, but how about the simple reason that these men were not there to do anything to help Michael's fortune in the first place, but to use his influence, opportunities, talents to amass money for themselves. Not all employees are there for the same ethical purpose.

Another thing about this debt you mention, the very rich have more debt than that, but the way they do not fall into any of these pitfalls, is that they have competent people who are trained in high finance, etc., & it is their responsibility to make sure these debts are acquired, monitored, & paid in a responsible way. They even look at more alternative ways to attract backing. However, Michael had none of these people, so I see it not that the people were yes men but that they were not the best qualified for the positions they hold. Few artists are financial wizards, & unscrupulous men it seems find ways to make Michael think they knew what they were talking about.

Look at Michael list of people around him, Bain, Cascio, Weisner, Thome, Muarry, & the long lists of names--how qualified are these people to do the job they claimed they are aces in? I remember reading the beginning of Aphrodite book where you have Michael's people speculating on how much money they will make. To me, that is the problem with all his staff. They were incompetent.

Exactly Petrarose. I made a very simple calculation on this thread. Go to any business school , find a Junior - not even a graduating senior and give them the info that the sales trends have been 45-32-20 Million and each unit brings a $2.81 profit and ask them to do a sales estimation and break even analysis.

I'm sorry but at a time period when there's outstanding $200 M debt, when there's a decreasing trend in sales numbers it's unbelievable another $50 million debt would be added to the mix.

I don't put the responsibility on Michael because he's the artist and not the accountant or the financial expert. I'm thinking this is either a problem of incompetent people around Michael (such as how his taxes weren't paid for 3 years) and/or people not talking/advising in Michael's best interest. (people were paid 10-15% for every financing they brought - similar to Tohme being paid for %10 finders fee at Neverland deal)

This also have created a domino effect don't you think? Why did Michael agreed to do TII? Well because he needed money to pay the maturing loan otherwise he would have lost the catalog. If there had been a better financial management perhaps Michael would have been still alive - because he wouldn't have the pressure to perform.
 
At the end of the day he's a grown man that made his own decisions but how much information he had is another issue. Lack of information results in wrong decisions.

But there's another thing to consider. If you believe that no one dared to say Michael something that he didn't want to hear then it's a problem as well. It means unfortunately there was no one around Michael that cared about his best interests.

This is not much of a reach. For example before his death Michael's taxes weren't paid for 3 years. Do you think this is because Michael himself didn't do his tax forms or was it because the people who were supposed to do his taxes and file them failed to do so?

Similarly how much of Michael building a $200 M debt before Invincible was only his "grown man" doing despite the people warning him against it? or was it at least partly due to lack of sound business advice?

furthermore if the argument is that Michael did what he did and he took the loans because no risk no gain, then it's kinda meaningless to blame Sony (or anyone else) for wanting Michael's catalog. Then you have to admit that the only reason why would anyone be after the catalog is that because Michael's own decisions had caused a great vulnerability for the catalog.

so I guess the question is who are we blaming here?

was it due to lack of advice and/or wrong advice that Michael had that major debt that put his catalog at risk from creditors?

or

was it Michael's own grown decisions put the catalog at jeopardy?



Exactly Petrarose. I made a very simple calculation on this thread. Go to any business school , find a Junior - not even a graduating senior and give them the info that the sales trends have been 45-32-20 Million and each unit brings a $2.81 profit and ask them to do a sales estimation and break even analysis.

I'm sorry but at a time period when there's outstanding $200 M debt, when there's a trend in sales numbers it's unbelievable another $50 million debt would be added to the mix.

I don't put the responsibility on Michael because he's the artist and not the accountant or the financial expert. I'm thinking this is either a problem of incompetent people around Michael (such as how his taxes weren't paid for 3 years) and/or people not talking in Michael's best interest.

This also have created a domino effect don't you think? Why did Michael agreed to do TII? Well because he needed money to pay the maturing loan otherwise he would have lost the catalog. If there had been a better financial management perhaps Michael would have been still alive - because he wouldn't have the pressure to perform.

There's a line in your post where you say Michael's not a financial expert. There's no way we're ever going to agree then.
Some people in high profile places, we never hear about, until they actually get into trouble. Michael, we always heard about, mostly in a negative sense, whether he was in trouble or not. As has been stated many times in this thread, many billionaires acquire debt. Michael's the only one where it was looked upon as a negative...for no reason.
If a person doesn't respect Michael, financially, they can't be convinced otherwise, even if there is reason to see otherwise.

You can't prove a negative. You can't prove hypothesis.
If a person was actually bankrupt like Manilow and a cautious attitude was taken toward him, I could understand your argument. But when a person like Michael has never actually been bankrupt, and a cautious attitude is taken toward him, it's hard to see eye to eye with your argument. Impossible, as a matter of fact.
 
I didn't know that there was a requirement that we have to agree. We can agree to disagree but do you seriously think that Michael knew sales estimation methods or break even analysis or risk statistics? Do you think that he knew how to do book keeping, journal entries or file his own taxes? Do you think that he knew how to balance a checkbook or personally followed all of his bank account balances or 30+ entities profit and losses?

Pay attention : I didn't say he wasn't a businessman, he was and a very good one at that. But realistically I don't expect Michael to know all of those details about finance, accounting and so on. and that to me says incompetent advisers around him - especially in the later years.
 
You still speculated that he as 'a grown man' might have made bad decisions. So I am paying attention.
Donald Trump was bankrupt once..I never heard any negative things about him.
 
Back
Top