But Salter’s plans must also overcome the collective sense of ownership many fans feel toward the man and his music. A backlash could potentially taint what the Marley name and image has come to stand for. We’ve seen such backlashes before, when musicians or their families have signed marketing deals that seemed to violate the principles their fans have ascribed to them. The sister of Janis Joplin was berated when she sold the rights to the anti-consumer song Mercedes Benz to the car company for use in a commercial.
Yet such criticisms are overly simplistic and all too easy to make when the artist in question is just a poster on the wall or a stolen iPod track, and not one’s own flesh and blood. “I can understand people viscerally saying ‘He’s ours,’ ” says Don Sexton, a marketing professor at Columbia Business School. “Well, yes, he is, but he also belongs to the family. We all try to do for our children whatever we can and you’d hope he would have liked his family to benefit from his immense talent.”
What’s more, the fact is much of the merchandise sold on street corners and in head shops isn’t the work of devout fans, but thieving knock-off artists in Asia and Latin America. And those Marley fans who balk at the idea of seeing his image merchandised, yet still wear unlicensed T-shirts, are essentially stealing from the legacy left for Marley’s children and grandchildren.
Rohan knows fans may be wary of the arrangement, but he encourages them to come to the family with any ideas for how to carry on his father’s memory and positive message. It’s just that, from now on, the final decision will rest with the Marleys and Hilco. “We’re bringing everything in-house, taking good care of the legacy and creating more opportunity,” he says. “We are growing and expanding what our father put in place, just like any other family.”
Pages: 1 2
