The King of Pop: The Case Against Sudden Death Pt. I

First off, this blog is speculative. It provides one reasoning path for the "facts" publicly reported. Obviously other paths exist and other information yet to be revealed could refute some or all of the reasoning here. I don't know anyone connected with this and I only know what I read in the newspaper.

Secondly, I'm not a star-struck, grief-stricken Michael Jackson devotee. While I continue to believe that his talent eclipses that of even the Beatles when performance is factored in, I'm not worshiping at any human altar.

I do believe that Mr. Jackson sought treatment for pain - physical, mental, spiritual and imaginary - in opiates.

But I do NOT believe opiates killed him. I believe humans did: humans who came to the realization that Michael Jackson would be more profitable, more manageable and more iconic dead than alive.

I believe that, for a final time, Mr. Jackson was a victim of Rollo Tomasi's need to use him for his/her/their gain.

If you're not sure who Rollo Tomasi is, click here.

For those who know that Elvis and Marilyn Monroe remain more profitable than many living artists this isn't hard to believe. For the others, let me express a few "advantages" of a dead icon:

[An Aside: The word "facts" is quoted to reflect the iffy nature of the reporting to-date. Reporters cannot yet determine who is telling them the truth, and more importantly, who is not. So all facts are taken with a grain of alcohol here.]

1. Living icons eventually lose their star power to age - aging bodies, aging talent, aging styles and aging return on investments. Why? Because everyone "waits" for the next great "thing" from them. And then they feel free to pass judgment and NOT pass money. With a dead icon, the only "next" is a rehash of before redone to make the public believe it's "newly discovered" or something "missing from their collection". Dead icons live forever ageless and timeless.
2. Living icons expect to be paid - particularly if their comeback is successful. Just think about Disney's live film comedy business plan. Find actors whose most recent films haven't kept them firmly on the A-list, offer them less than should really be paid (thus taking advantage of their current value to Disney's benefit) then watch the bucks roll in. Dead icons don't get paid; in fact, they often leave such complicated circumstances that the family is happy for anything.
3. Living icons can sue; so far none of the dead icons have done so. Want to make an artist really angry? Let them believe that promoters and agents and the like are making more from their talent than they deserve. I would speculate that nothing scares a handler/financial backer more than investing tons of money on a risky comeback, to have the comeback succeed and then to have to fight the comeback artist about who gets how much. Falling back on contracts doesn't work - study the lawsuits filed and eventually won by Little Richard. Juries generally have more fans than lawyers on them.
4. Living icons get embarrassed - and ticked off - about tasteless merchandising. Scratch your head and think about all the items you've seen with Marilyn Monroe on them. Some of them were pretty...tasteless? If Marilyn were alive (or had ever had kids who would be alive) do you think some of that would have been licensed and produced? If it had been produced, do you hesitate to believe that Marilyn wouldn't have implemented Item 3 in my list?
5. Living icons are somewhat limited by, and insist on controlling, their...physical existence. Remember when John Wayne kept appearing in commercials via the wonders of digital technology? Were he alive today, I'm betting he wouldn't do those commercials or allow them to be done unless he was dead broke, or just dead. For the most part, dead icons don't seem to mind being used for every purpose digital technology and marketeers can devise.

You see my point. From a risk mitigation standpoint there's a lot to gain by dealing only in dead icons - particularly those whose wills don't tie up control and licensing of their images, voices, likenesses (which aren't the same legally as images, I'm told), etc. How many of those wills really anticipated the personal and professional technology and Internet as threats to their estates?

So let's refocus on my assertion that The King of Pop provided greater return on investment dead than alive. A summary of the "facts" related to the financials of his comeback as reported by several news agencies:

1. Mr. Jackson's comeback was financed by at least two individuals.
2. The financial backers, alias Rollo Tomasi and friend, had invested a minimum of $400M US - the amount to deal with a substantial portion of Mr. Jackson's debt/commitments.
3. Mr. Jackson stood to make around $100M US - not enough to cover the $400M US already "invested" in his debt.
4. Some number of the venues on the comeback tour were owned/controlled by Rollo Tomasi or other backers.
   

The $400M is significant because it leads to two important considerations:

1. No matter how wildly successful the comeback, Michael Jackson would likely not regain control of most of his assets
2. These assets seem to include his Neverland Ranch and some portion of his song catalog - possibly including the Beatles catalog if it hasn't already been liquidated

Hmmm...

If my speculation is correct, Michael Jackson would end his comeback/final tour without regaining his house, his property or potentially the rights to use his own music. I'd say that's something to sue and become petulant over.

Imagine, if you will, that Mr. Jackson actually completed all 50 concerts (which I don't believe his health would have allowed - but that's another blog). At the tour's successful end Rollo Tomasi et al would have:

1. Whatever their profit was from the concert dates
2. Whatever their merchandising profit was from the programs, t-shirts, etc.
3. Whatever assets Mr. Jackson lost to their $400M

So what would Mr. Jackson have? $100M US. That's a LOT of $$$ and nothing to sneeze about. But even I would ponder the unevenness of the result. I know it's high finance, but to me, this looks like Little Richard all over again.

Now add in three small "facts" reported by multiple news agencies (if they can be believed):

1. Mr. Jackson had his tour delayed repeatedly, more than once the reason stated was the backers' inability to get insurance on him against the chance of NOT completing the tour
2. The backers finally found an insurance company and a doctor to certify him
3. Rollo Tomasi et al were instrumental in finding the doctor who attended Mr. Jackson and was present at his death
   

Here's how I've been told this works: The insurer charges a premium against the possibility that the artist can't complete the tour. But here's what I didn't know - the more dates completed on the tour the less the policy pays. Some common ones pay $0 once the tour is 2/3 to 3/4 complete.

So here's the dilemma - Rollo Tomasi et al controlling effectively all of the "valuable" parts of Michael Jackson's career - his iconic home, his physical property for the most part, whatever remaining debt he owed to whomever and quite probably his song catalog - have to get this aging, medication-dependent pop star through 50 dates alive and with sufficient appeal to see a return on the $400M they just invested in his debts (not counting what it cost to stage the tour).

Would you make this investment under these circumstances? Probably not, unless you had a plan B, right?

Well logic says that the most likely plan B's include:

1. Reduce costs - hard to do if Mr. Jackson's spending habits were accurately portrayed
   
2. Find a way to increase profit to the Rollo Tomasi et al while reducing it elsewhere - again, there's that petulant-star-won't-sing and keeps-suing-the-backers thing
3. "Lay off" some of the cost (and therefore the risk) to other investors - again, would YOU take this investment without some kind of ace in the hole?
4. Find a way to cancel the tour but keep the insurance money - yes, I know; I'm possibly talking about insurance fraud. I'm sure no business person has ever used fraud to save their business or themselves or to profit unreasonably from a bad investment, right?
   
5. Find a way to...remove Mr. Jackson. Permanently.

With control over Mr. Jackson's assets and no Mr. Jackson to complain, Rollo Tomasi et al could take a page from Priscilla Presley's strategic business plan and turn Neverland Ranch into Graceland West Coast location.

When the former Mrs. Presley inherited Graceland, The King's finances were in shambles. Documents dating from the period shortly after Elvis' death indicate she stood to lose Graceland and to lose control over The King's song catalog. Through hard work and gritty determination she turned what assets she had into a multi-MILLION dollar enterprise for a dead icon.

Let me repeat that: a multi-MILLION dollar enterprise for a DEAD icon.

So what would Rollo Tomasi need to execute a revised version of this business plan?

1. Mr. Jackson - dead.
2. Control over the Neverland Ranch so that it could be made into a museum like Graceland. Note I didn't say ownership. Rollo Tomasi might only need to have the strongest financial claim when the estate is settled, not ownership. In fact, having a strong but partial claim could be even more beneficial. It would allow Rollo Tomasi to make the argument that letting them run a tribute museum is the only means to satisfy all of the financial claims against the estate.
3. A deal to keep the family from making it messy. So far this hasn't surfaced; but the family could find themselves having to go against their own desires to provide money for Mr. Jackson's children.
4. The catalog.

The catalog - whose status ownership-wise I haven't heard about - is key. With the catalog, the new Neverland Museum could actually publish to souvenirs CDs, mp3's etc. right from the museum gift store(s) (brick&mortar and online). The catalog allows them to bypass the original record company (and their distribution and publishing fees) and get more profit directly from consumers - it cuts out the middle men (or women, as this is the 21st century). It clinches the museum as a money-maker in the same way the Elvis catalog does.

Imagine a Neverland Museum iTunes store; it's the gift that keeps on giving.

All this only works if Mr. Jackson is dead, preferably before touring increases the cash leaving the building.

In my next blog I'll explain why the events surrounding Mr. Jackson's medical care during the 48-72 hours before his death concern me greatly. How did a 50-year old man reported to have lupus, vitiligo, debilitating spinal pain and a known medical dependence on opiates get a medical clearance to perform those 50 concerts?...