Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most US airlines are profitable frequently flier points companies that also operate airplanes to justify the program. Freakonomics Radio had a series about airlines. They claimed this was not true and that frequently flier points only accounted for 5% of profits. https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/freakonomics-radio-take... WSJ said it was true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTW8RDJUEE I don't know who to beli…
The version I've heard is that airlines are credit card companies that also fly passengers on airplanes. Also the one about Target being a real-estate company I've also heard about McDonald's.
The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
211–220 of 232 posts
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to support the band, but feel like only a fraction of the money spent on merch goes to the target. Maybe you don't have any friends that are in a band, but if it's the band members or friends of the band selling the merch, they are getting 100% of the profit. They design the shirts, they pay for the printing of the shirts, they then sell the shirts directly with their own hands. There's no middleman taking c…
I guess they are technically not middle men because they sit one the start of the value chain, but the company making the t-shirts, the one selling it and the one printing on it are still making good profits. On top of the actual costs of making those printed t-shirts. I imagine it's not hugely expensive at the volumes bands need, somewhere from $3-10 per t-shirt depending on quality, and maybe double that for hoodie…
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#213I was reading an interview with the band "Agriculture" recently and they had a really interesting take on this. From this interview https://www.treblezine.com/agriculture-interview-quiet-viole... : "DM: We exist as a band because we sell t-shirts. Our job is that we sell t-shirts and the way we promote those t-shirts is by playing music. If we were talking strictly economically, that’s just a fact. LL: Weirdly, it’s…
As far as this interview: I mean, that's every band ever; the music is an ad for their shows and merch, which is the product. Some, like these folks, come to grips with this easier/quicker than others!
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, they, like many other companies, were doomed by the constant chase for growth. Once they had a large share of "have a milk-coffee drink in a nice lounge" market, growth slowed. But having a large market share, good margins and growth that is the same as population/gdp (+/-) is just not acceptable. So they try to find a way to get more growth, even if it changes and perhaps kills what the business was.
There's more to the story than that. Around 2000 the founder stepped away, and MBAs brought in automated machines. They were more efficient and consistent at making the drinks than the baristas, and business tanked. The founder came back in 2008, got rid of the machines, and brought the baristas back. Business took off again. It really is the experience that is being sold.
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, the naming of Blockbuster[1] makes more sense with that context. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
Because Blockbuster Video played a pivotal role in early-1900s segregation in the United States? I think it's much more likely it's just a reference to extremely popular and economically successful movies but happy to be proven wrong.
edit: ah, but wiki disagrees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)>
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very smart of them to recognize that. The world is full of these weird business cases where people aren't aware of the actual product, like how Starbucks US morphed from a coffee shop into an iced dessert drinks company that also incidentally sells hot coffee. Edit: Other fun examples - In the mid-2000s, Porsche was an incredibly successful hedge fund that also sold cars who tried to acquire VW using a short squ…
> Most US airlines are profitable frequently flier points companies that also operate airplanes to justify the program. Freakonomics Radio had a series about airlines. They claimed this was not true and that frequently flier points only accounted for 5% of profits. https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/freakonomics-radio-take... WSJ said it was true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTW8RDJUEE I don't know who to beli…
I thought it was also, so I looked at United Airlines 2024 Annual Report to confirm or deny my position. [^0]
If you look at their revenue sheet, you'll see that UAL made ~$51B from passenger revenue (tickets sold * available seats across their entire fleet) while they made ~$24B from "other revenue", which includes, amongst other things, annual fees from credit cards.
Same with Delta, though they made ~$10B from their "other" revenue. [^1]
However, it's a bit of a positive feedback loop situation. The "other" revenues in these 10-Ks don't tell the whole story.
Airline frequent flyer programs have tiers with minimum flight and spend requirements per tier. This benefits both frequent flyers and VFR customers (visiting friends and relatives).
If you travel a lot for work (frequent flyer), there are very heavy incentives to get to that top tier. Customer service at the highest tiers is eons better than what you'd get at lower tiers. You also get priority boarding, first-crack at upgrades, upgrade certificates that move you to the top of upgrade lists, and more. These benefits make air travel, which many people don't like doing, much more tolerable.
If you're an infrequent flyer, getting to that airline's mid-grade tier usually gets you more free checked bags and priority boarding. Checked bags are EXPENSIVE after the first freebie (thanks, Southwest!) which is usually enough of a draw to get people to chase that status. (If you live near a hub, you can gamble and hope that the gate agent offers to check bags gate-side for free to speed up boarding, but that's not foolproof. Anyway, checking baggage is a fool's errand; one-bag for life!).
Getting the airline's co-branded card usually provides bonuses that make it easier to hit those tiers. So you get the card and put all of your personal (and corporate, if your company allows it) expenses on the card.
Airlines also have gotten very aggressive about pushing the card onto gen pop. You're almost certainly going to get hit with a 60-80k mile offer on every flight you take in the US for spending ~$3k on that airline's co-branded card, no matter the airline. (It's almost always enough for a round-trip ticket to some coveted location in the US, on an award flight, which are harder and harder to come by, but that's another topic for another post.)
United flew 173M customers in 2024. $3k card spend from even 10% of those customers is $52M! And that's before you consider that most people will continue spending on credit cards after earning the spend benefit! (However, at $0.01/mile earn rate, the $14M worth of flights United would be beholden to is recorded as a "frequent flyer deferred revenue" liability. But, again, the chase for status and benefits would generate more revenue that's hard to forecast, though I'm sure the airlines have forecasting models in place.)
If this interests you, and if you like math, "The Global Airline Industry" by Belobaba et. al. is a fantastic book that explains this and other peculiarities of how airlines work. This was recommended to me by an old colleague that ran a small airline. It's excellent.
[^0] https://ir.united.com/static-files/d4c854c7-427c-49a9-8129-d...
[^1]: https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/doc_financials/2025/q4/...
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#217If the Ramones put their name on all sorts of merchandise does that make them sellouts? I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.
>I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians. This makes me to wonder why do you and other people like them and why were them influential? Isn't a band's purpose to produce good music and aren't peopl…
There are two definitions of "good" here, that are different.
1. "good musician" means a musician who is skilled or adept in their instrument. I'm separating this from if a musician is good at writing music.
2. "good music" means music that is entertaining or enjoyable.
The Ramones were not incredibly skilled in their instruments. They wrote music that many people found enjoyable. They were not good musicians, but they created good music.
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's more to the story than that. Around 2000 the founder stepped away, and MBAs brought in automated machines. They were more efficient and consistent at making the drinks than the baristas, and business tanked. The founder came back in 2008, got rid of the machines, and brought the baristas back. Business took off again. It really is the experience that is being sold.
I'm assuming you're talking about those Clover machines. They were really, really good and well designed IIRC. Trying to automate the barista with them; well, that's where they messed up!
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to support the band, but feel like only a fraction of the money spent on merch goes to the target. Maybe you don't have any friends that are in a band, but if it's the band members or friends of the band selling the merch, they are getting 100% of the profit. They design the shirts, they pay for the printing of the shirts, they then sell the shirts directly with their own hands. There's no middleman taking c…
I guess they are technically not middle men because they sit one the start of the value chain, but the company making the t-shirts, the one selling it and the one printing on it are still making good profits. On top of the actual costs of making those printed t-shirts. I imagine it's not hugely expensive at the volumes bands need, somewhere from $3-10 per t-shirt depending on quality, and maybe double that for hoodie…
Re: The truth that haunts the Ramones: 'They sold more T-shirts than records'
#220Well, Brian Eno said of Velvet Underground's first album that it didn't sell many copies but everyone who bought it started a band.
Yeah, thinking the same with regard to the Ramones. They are name-dropped so often by bands that came since—pretty sure it is not because of a t-shirt.