Strategy

Brief Summary

Blockbuster, once the king of video rentals, failed to adapt to the digital revolution and paid the ultimate price. In 2000, Blockbuster infamously passed on buying Netflix for $50 million, dismissing the then-small DVD-by-mail upstart as a niche play.

A decade later, Blockbuster went bankrupt as Netflix (and emerging streaming technology) stole its customers and rendered the video rental model obsolete.

This case is a classic cautionary tale of a market leader’s failure to innovate and put customers first, and it holds enduring lessons for modern marketers navigating disruption.

Company Involved

The brand at the center is Blockbuster. For years, Blockbuster was synonymous with home movie rental, operating thousands of video stores worldwide at its peak. Its story intersects with Netflix, the then-fledgling competitor that Blockbuster once had a chance to acquire – a chance that, in hindsight, could have changed the course of media history.

Marketing Topic

Strategy: business model innovation and failure to adapt.
Digital Disruption: technological change overturning an industry.
Customer Experience: convenience and removing friction like late fees.

Public Reaction or Consequences

Initially, many consumers remained loyal to Blockbuster, but frustration was growing. Late fees were a huge pain point – Blockbuster made $800 million a year from late fees around 2000, but that policy bred customer resentment. Netflix capitalized on this by offering no late fees and easy-by-mail rentals, winning praise from movie lovers who were tired of punitive charges. In response, Blockbuster launched a heavily advertised “No More Late Fees” campaign in 2005, but the fine print revealed sneaky fees (like restocking charges) that led to public backlash and legal action from 47 state attorneys general. The media lampooned Blockbuster’s half-hearted changes, and consumers increasingly saw the brand as out-of-touch. By the time Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010, the public narrative was clear: the once-dominant giant had failed to give people what they wanted – and paid dearly for it.

Why It Matters Today

Disruption can hit any industry: Blockbuster’s downfall shows how quickly digital innovation can upend market leaders, a warning that echoes today amid AI and other emerging tech upheavals.

Customer-centric innovation wins: The case highlights the importance of removing friction and focusing on customer experience (Netflix’s no-fee, on-demand model) in building loyalty.

Adapt or perish: In a fast-changing landscape, even big brands must continually reinvent their strategy. Blockbuster’s fate underscores that clinging to old models instead of disrupting yourself is a recipe for irrelevance.

3 Takeaways

1. Never stop innovating in the face of change. If you don’t disrupt your own business model, a competitor will – as Blockbuster learned the hard way.

2. Put customer experience over short-term profit. Profiting from customer pain points (like late fees) breeds backlash and opens the door for friendlier alternatives.

3. Don’t underestimate new competitors or channels. Dismissing emerging trends (online rentals, streaming) as “hype” can blind you to shifting consumer expectations and cost you your crown.

Notable Quotes and Data

John Antioco (Blockbuster CEO, 2000): Netflix was a “niche business” and “the dot-com hysteria is completely overblown.” (explaining his rejection of a Netflix buyout)

Marc Randolph (Netflix cofounder): “If you are unwilling to disrupt yourself… someone else will disrupt your business for you.”

$800 million in late fees (2000): the annual revenue Blockbuster earned from late charges, at the cost of massive customer frustration.

Full Case Narrative

In the 1990s, Blockbuster was an entertainment powerhouse. The chain had a ubiquitous presence – at its peak in 2004, Blockbuster ran over 9,000 stores worldwide, with $6 billion in annual revenue. Renting movies was a weekly ritual for many families, and Blockbuster enjoyed near-monopoly status in the home video market. However, by the end of that decade, storm clouds were gathering in the form of new technology and shifting consumer habits.

Netflix’s Emergence: In 1997, a small startup called Netflix began offering DVD rentals by mail. Netflix’s founders, Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph, pitched their model as a convenient alternative to driving to a store – a way to get movies without late fees or hassles. Initially, Netflix was very niche: early adopters of DVD players and cinephiles willing to wait for discs by mail. By 2000, Netflix was still unprofitable and relatively small, but it was growing. That year, Hastings and Randolph approached Blockbuster about a buyout. Famously, they offered to sell Netflix to Blockbuster for just $50 million – essentially inviting Blockbuster to absorb their online rental service and run it while Netflix would handle the digital side. Blockbuster’s CEO at the time, John Antioco, laughed off the idea. He and his team saw Netflix as an insignificant player and felt DVD-by-mail was no real threat to their lucrative storefront business. Antioco’s stance was summed up by his remark that “dot-com hysteria” was overblown hype. With the dot-com bubble bursting in 2000, this dismissive attitude wasn’t entirely crazy – but it was short-sighted. Blockbuster declined the offer, leaving Netflix to forge ahead on its own.

The Missed Opportunity: Blockbuster’s decision not to buy Netflix has become legendary in business circles – a what-if scenario as iconic as any. At the time, Blockbuster was a giant and Netflix a minnow. Blockbuster’s confidence bordered on complacency. It’s worth noting that even Netflix’s founders didn’t fully realize how big their idea would become; they themselves had set a relatively low price on their company. Yet, they understood something fundamental that Blockbuster didn’t: customers hated late fees and loved convenience. Netflix’s subscription model (one monthly fee for unlimited rentals, no due dates or late fees) directly attacked Blockbuster’s biggest pain point. In 2000 alone, Blockbuster earned around $800M from late fees, but that revenue came at the cost of customer goodwill. By refusing to adapt their model (or buy a competitor that had), Blockbuster essentially handed Netflix a golden opportunity.

Blockbuster Strikes Back (Too Little, Too Late): As Netflix gained traction through the early 2000s, Blockbuster eventually realized this wasn’t just a fad. In 2004, Blockbuster launched an online DVD subscription service to compete with Netflix, and later a hybrid online-and-store program called “Total Access.” They even started advertising “No More Late Fees” in 2005, acknowledging the negative sentiment late fees caused. However, these moves were either half-hearted or costly missteps. The “No Late Fees” campaign became a PR fiasco – it turned out Blockbuster would still charge customers if they kept a movie more than a week or so (by selling the movie to them and charging a restocking fee on return). This fine print felt like a bait-and-switch. Dozens of state Attorneys General pounced, investigating the advertising as deceptive. Blockbuster ended up settling with 47 states and paying fines to cover refunds. The incident not only hurt Blockbuster’s reputation, but also underscored an important difference in philosophy: Netflix built goodwill by eliminating late fees entirely, while Blockbuster couldn’t quite let go of that crutch.

Around the same time, Blockbuster’s internal strategy was in turmoil. The company’s leadership and shareholders were divided on how aggressively to pursue the new online model. Blockbuster’s CEO John Antioco did push for the online platform and the end of late fees, recognizing the need to change. But these changes cut into short-term profits, upsetting shareholders. Activist investor Carl Icahn led a revolt over Antioco’s spending on new initiatives and what he viewed as the CEO’s high compensation. The conflict led to Antioco’s departure in 2007. The new CEO, James Keyes (formerly of 7-Eleven), took a much more cautious approach. Keyes believed Blockbuster’s strength was its physical presence and that many customers still preferred in-store browsing. In one interview, he even expressed skepticism about streaming and digital on-demand video, comparing it to people still preferring bookstores for new releases. Under Keyes, Blockbuster scaled back its aggressive online efforts – effectively relinquishing the nascent online rental war to Netflix.

The Netflix Ascendancy: Meanwhile, Netflix kept innovating. In 2007, Netflix introduced video streaming for subscribers, just as broadband internet was becoming common. This move proved prophetic: while still offering DVDs, Netflix prepared for a future beyond physical discs. Blockbuster, on the other hand, was hamstrung by its brick-and-mortar legacy. It did make a foray into streaming by acquiring a small service (Movielink) in 2007, but by then Netflix’s brand and user base were far ahead. Redbox kiosks also entered the scene, undercutting Blockbuster’s rentals with $1-a-night DVD vending machines. Blockbuster’s massive store network – once an advantage – became a liability as foot traffic declined. The company had long-term leases and high overhead costs that Netflix and Redbox didn’t bear.

By 2010, the situation was dire. Blockbuster’s revenue was plummeting and the company was burdened with nearly $1 billion in debt. Stores were closing by the hundreds. That year, Blockbuster’s stock was delisted from the NYSE, and in September 2010 the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It was an astonishing fall for a company that just a few years prior had been on top. In the bankruptcy auction, a winning bid of $320 million from Dish Network bought Blockbuster’s remaining assets in 2011 – a tiny fraction of Blockbuster’s former multibillion-dollar valuation.

Reflection – Why Blockbuster Failed: There are many reasons often cited for Blockbuster’s demise. Some say it was simply outdated technology meeting new tech (VHS and DVD rentals giving way to streaming). Others point to mismanagement and missed opportunities. In truth, it was a combination. Blockbuster failed to anticipate how quickly consumer preferences were changing. The convenience and simplicity offered by Netflix’s subscription model addressed unmet customer needs (no due dates, no driving to the store, personalized recommendations online). Blockbuster did too little, too late to counter that. Strategically, Blockbuster was wed to a business model – retail storefronts – that had been hugely profitable, and it hesitated to disrupt that cash cow. Ironically, Netflix’s founders initially wanted to partner with Blockbuster to combine the best of both worlds (online + stores). Blockbuster’s rejection of that idea, and later half-measures, meant that Netflix eventually beat Blockbuster at both convenience and content delivery.

Crucially, Blockbuster’s marketing and branding strength (everyone knew the name and their blue-and-yellow tickets) couldn’t save it when the value proposition no longer appealed. All the Super Bowl ads and slogans (“Make it a Blockbuster Night!”) weren’t enough to overcome the fact that Netflix offered a fundamentally better customer experience. This case underscores that effective marketing isn’t just about campaigns – it’s about aligning to what customers want and where the market is headed. Blockbuster’s story has become a parable in business schools and marketing circles about the perils of complacency.

Timeline

1985: Blockbuster is founded and quickly grows into a video rental titan through the 1990s.

2000: Netflix offers to sell itself to Blockbuster for $50 million; Blockbuster’s CEO rejects the deal, viewing Netflix’s online model as trivial.

2004: Blockbuster reaches its peak with 9,100 stores and $6 billion in revenue worldwide. The company launches an online DVD rental service to compete with Netflix.

2005: Blockbuster advertises “No More Late Fees.” The campaign backfires when fine print reveals hidden fees; 47 states take legal action, forcing Blockbuster to modify ads and refund customers.

2007: Netflix introduces streaming video for subscribers, accelerating the shift to online viewing. Blockbuster’s longtime CEO John Antioco resigns under investor pressure; James Keyes becomes CEO and emphasizes store-based strategy while downplaying the threat of streaming.

2010: With revenue in freefall and nearly $1 billion in debt, Blockbuster files for bankruptcy protection. Its store count drops rapidly as outlets close nationwide.

2011: Dish Network acquires Blockbuster out of bankruptcy for $320 million and attempts to integrate the brand into its services. Blockbuster’s remaining company-owned stores continue to shut down.

2019: The once-mighty chain is reduced to a single independent Blockbuster store (in Bend, Oregon) still operating as a nostalgic holdout – the last relic of an era.

What Happened Next?

After bankruptcy, Blockbuster never recovered as a national brand. Dish Network initially kept about 1,700 stores open and experimented with using the Blockbuster brand for on-demand video, but these efforts fizzled amid heavy competition. By 2014, Dish had closed all remaining corporate-owned Blockbuster stores. The last store in Bend, Oregon – a locally franchised outlet – survived by embracing nostalgia and community support (it even became the subject of a 2020 Netflix documentary about itself). Blockbuster’s marketing today is essentially nonexistent, aside from occasional social media nostalgia posts and the odd “remember when?” viral content. In 2023, a cryptic revival buzz sparked when Blockbuster’s website briefly went live again, but as of now no real comeback has materialized.

On the flip side, Netflix grew into a streaming behemoth with hundreds of millions of subscribers worldwide, and it now produces award-winning original content. Netflix’s marketing emphasizes innovation and personalization – the very values Blockbuster had struggled to adopt. The contrast between the two companies’ trajectories couldn’t be more stark. For modern marketers, Blockbuster’s demise remains a vivid reminder that even legendary brands can vanish if they fail to keep up with consumer trends and tech disruption.

One Sentence Takeaway

Even a dominant market leader can fall when it stops innovating and ignores evolving customer needs – Blockbuster’s fate is a lesson to never grow complacent.

Sources and Citations

Fortune: Blockbuster “laughed us out of the room,” recalls Netflix cofounder on trying to sell company for $50 million

Vanity Fair: He “Was Struggling Not to Laugh”: Inside Netflix’s Crazy, Doomed Meeting With Blockbuster

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Blockbuster Form 10-K with store count table showing total stores as of December 31, 2004

Los Angeles Times: Blockbuster Settles State Probes Into Late-Fee Ads

California Department of Justice: Attorney General announces settlement with Blockbuster over “No Late Fees” advertising

The Guardian: Blockbuster files for Chapter 11 protection

Reuters: Dish expands its scope with Blockbuster win

Reuters: Dish Network to close all Blockbuster stores, lay off 2800

TIME: “It’s Just Us Left.” Meet the Manager Running the World’s Last Blockbuster

Brief Summary

Van Halen’s 1980s tour contract famously included an odd requirement: no brown M&M’s in the backstage candy bowl.

At first glance it looked like rock-star excess, but this quirk had a serious purpose. The band used the brown candies as a test for attention to detail. If a venue missed that line, they likely overlooked critical technical requirements.

In one incident, a venue that ignored the rule suffered tens of thousands of dollars in damage due to unsafe staging. This case became legendary, proving that a seemingly trivial detail can be a warning flag for bigger problems and a master class in quality control.

Company Involved

Van Halen – an American hard rock band formed in 1972 – is at the center of this story. Known for their flamboyant lead singer David Lee Roth and elaborate live shows, Van Halen was one of the biggest touring acts of the late 1970s and 1980s. Their massive concerts, featuring spectacular lighting and effects, set new standards for production complexity. The band’s insistence on professionalism and safety, as evidenced by the infamous M&M clause, became as much a part of their legacy as their music.

Marketing Topic

• Strategy
• Customer Experience

Public Reaction or Consequences

When news of the “no brown M&M’s” clause leaked out (notably after a 1980 concert in Pueblo, Colorado where the band found brown candies and trashed the dressing room), it quickly became music industry lore. At the time, the media portrayed Van Halen as prima donna rockstars – throwing a tantrum over candy. Headlines focused on the band causing up to $85,000 in damage after spotting a few brown M&M’s. This narrative of “spoiled rockers” reinforced the public’s image of outrageous tour demands and even had promoters shaking their heads.

However, when David Lee Roth later revealed the truth behind the clause, public perception shifted. What was once mocked as egotistical became praised as ingenious. Fans and business observers alike came to appreciate the clever safety measure hidden in plain sight. The story turned into an urban legend with a positive twist – a go-to example of why details matter. In the long run, Van Halen’s brand didn’t suffer; if anything, the tale added to the band’s mystique and demonstrated their commitment to delivering a safe, top-quality show. It also sparked widespread discussion, turning a backstage anecdote into a cultural touchstone for attention to detail in any industry.

Why It Matters Today

• Attention to Detail Is Timeless: In today’s complex marketing campaigns and projects, a minor oversight (like a broken link or a small print error) can snowball into a major issue. Van Halen’s candy test underscores how crucial it is to sweat the small stuff to prevent big problems.
• Trust and Compliance: Modern marketers juggle strict regulations (from data privacy to brand safety). A “brown M&M” test – a simple check embedded in processes – can verify that partners, platforms, or team members are following guidelines. It’s a clever way to ensure compliance before a campaign goes live.
• Customer Experience and Safety: Whether it’s a live event or a digital product launch, the audience only sees the end result. Hidden quality-control measures (like Van Halen’s clause) help deliver a seamless and safe customer experience. In an age of instant social media feedback, catching mistakes early safeguards a brand’s reputation and consumers’ trust.

3 Takeaways

1. Small Details, Big Signals: Never dismiss a seemingly trivial detail – it might be signaling a larger problem. Van Halen’s brown M&M’s were a tripwire indicating whether a venue read the entire playbook. Marketers should identify their own “tripwires” (for example, a specific requirement in a brief or contract) to quickly gauge if partners and teams are truly paying attention.
2. Embed Quality Checks in Your Strategy: The genius of this case is how a fun detail doubled as a safety check. Likewise, build checkpoints into your marketing projects – from test emails to preview environments – that ensure every requirement is met. A well-placed test (like a hidden instruction in a project outline) can save you from disaster by revealing who has done their due diligence.
3. Protect the End-User Experience: Van Halen’s ultimate goal wasn’t candy control; it was to prevent a technical failure that could ruin the show for fans (or even put them at risk). In marketing, every detail that affects your audience’s experience – no matter how minor – is worth controlling. Consistency and safety in execution uphold your brand’s promise. A campaign might have great creative, but if the landing page is broken or customer data isn’t handled properly, the whole effort can collapse. Ensuring all details are right means delivering on what you promised your audience.

Notable Quotes and Data

• “If any brown M&M’s were found backstage, the band could cancel the entire concert at the full expense of the promote. (Van Halen’s contract rider put promoters on notice: a single candy could cost them millions.)
• “David Lee Roth was no diva; he was an operations master. In Van Halen’s world, a brown M&M was a tripwire.” (Authors Chip and Dan Heath, emphasizing the clever strategy behind the infamous clause.)
• At one show, the stage sank through the arena floor, causing about $80,000 in damage, because staff “didn’t bother to look at the weight requirements” in Van Halen’s rider. (The cost of not paying attention: a concrete example of the havoc a skipped detail can wreak.)

Full Case Narrative

Background: By the late 1970s, Van Halen had exploded into one of rock’s biggest acts. Their tours were massive productions – the band would roll into town with nine 18-wheeler trucks of gear when most bands used three. They pioneered bringing big-budget rock shows to smaller markets that had never seen such scale. The result? A 50+ page technical contract rider detailing every requirement, from electrical specifications to the size of doorways needed to fit their equipment. This document read “like a version of the Chinese Yellow Pages,” Roth quipped, because of its thoroughness. It had to be exhaustive – safety and show quality depended on every line.

The Clause: Buried deep in Van Halen’s rider, amid instructions about amps and lighting rigs, was Article 126: “There will be no brown M&M’s in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.” In plain terms, the venue had to provide a bowl of M&M candies with all the brown ones removed, or the band could cancel the show and still be paid in full. This bizarre demand sat quietly among critical tech specs – exactly where David Lee Roth wanted it. The logic was simple: if the promoter missed the M&M clause, what else did they miss? As Roth later explained, “Just as a little test” they included that odd line to make sure every detail of the rider was noticed. It was, as he put it, a canary in a coal mine – an easy-to-spot indicator of whether the venue’s team truly read the entire contract.

Why They Did It: Van Halen’s shows weren’t just pyrotechnic extravaganzas; they were logistical tightropes. A minor oversight (say, a ceiling beam that couldn’t bear the weight of the lighting rig) could mean catastrophe – collapsing stages, electrical fires, or serious injuries. In fact, many older venues simply weren’t built for the strain of a Van Halen showed. Roth knew that if he strolled into the dressing room and saw even one brown M&M in the candy dish, it was an immediate red flag. It meant the promoter might have skimmed over the safety precautions. As Roth said, “If I saw a brown M&M in that bowl… well, line-check the entire production. Guaranteed you’re going to arrive at a technical error. … Guaranteed you’d run into a problem. Sometimes it would threaten to just destroy the whole show.” In other words, finding brown candy was a signal to stop the music and double-check everything – from power supplies to stage supports – before any real harm was done.

The Pueblo Incident: The infamous proof of this system’s value came during a show at Colorado’s Pueblo arena in 1980. The venue was a small university coliseum that had just installed a new rubberized basketball floor. Crucially, the rider included weight requirements for the staging that this new floor could not handle – something the promoter either ignored or overlooked. When Van Halen arrived, Roth found brown M&M’s in his dressing room bowl, in direct violation of the contract. He knew immediately that the crew had not read the fine print. According to Roth’s retelling, he acted out a dramatic “Who spilled these?” routine and then went on a rampage – dumping buffet food, overturning tables, and even kicking a hole in a door. He caused about $12,000 in (intentional) damages backstage – partly to drive home the point that the contract hadn’t been respected.

The real disaster was waiting in the wings. As the crew inspected the stage, they discovered the oversight: the venue’s shiny new floor couldn’t support the weight of Van Halen’s massive stage setup. Sure enough, the staging sank through the floor, gouging a huge hole and wrecking the playing surface. The price tag for that mistake? Roughly $80,000 in damage to the arena floor. Media reports later (mis)attributed the entire $80k–$85k fiasco to Van Halen’s “tantrum” over brown M&M’s, not realizing that most of the destruction came from the venue’s negligence. As Roth wryly quipped afterward, “Who am I to get in the way of a good rumor?”. The band got its vindication – the brown M&M trick did its job by exposing a lurking danger before anyone got hurt onstage.

Aftermath and Revelation: For years, the brown M&M story was whispered in music circles as an example of outrageous demands. It added to Van Halen’s notorious reputation and was often listed alongside the wildest rock star riders. But behind the scenes, Roth’s strategy was a success: Van Halen avoided technical disasters by smoking them out early. The band continued to enforce meticulous standards and as a result, their tours ran like clockwork. Finally, in the mid-1990s, David Lee Roth decided to set the record straight. In his 1997 autobiography Crazy from the Heat, Roth revealed the true motive, explaining that the M&M clause was a deliberate safety test rather than a bout of vanity. This confession transformed the brown M&M tale from a silly rock anecdote into a teachable lesson. Business leaders, authors, and project managers seized on it as a perfect metaphor. As one analysis put it, “Roth was no diva; he was an operations master” who understood how to ensure quality control.

Legacy: Today, the “no brown M&M’s” rider lives on as a legendary case study in paying attention. Van Halen’s insistence on detail has been applauded in industries far from rock music – from manufacturing to software development – as an example of building tripwires to catch mistakes early. In the music world, the incident led many promoters to take contract riders more seriously, knowing that even a tiny omission could have big consequences. Van Halen itself continued to thrive; the band’s over-the-top shows in later years (and reunion tours) were successful and incident-free, partly thanks to the kind of rigor that little candy clause exemplified. What started as a misunderstood quirk is now almost folklore – a reminder that in any high-stakes venture, the devil is truly in the details.

Timeline

• 1980: Van Halen’s concert at Pueblo’s Massari Arena in Colorado becomes the “brown M&M” incident – the band finds brown candies, Roth destroys the dressing room, and the venue’s floor sustains ~$80k damage due to ignored stage specs. The story makes local headlines and contributes to Van Halen’s wild reputation.
• 1982: Van Halen’s exhaustive 53-page tour rider (for the Hide Your Sheep tour) explicitly includes the “M&M (Absolutely no brown ones)” clause in the catering section, warning promoters of dire penalties if breached. This hidden detail serves as the band’s quality assurance test at every show.
• 1997: David Lee Roth publishes Crazy from the Heat, publicly revealing the rationale behind the no-brown-M&M clause. He confirms it was never about candy preferences – it was a clever safeguard to ensure venues followed all safety and technical requirements. The revelation reframes the tale as smart practice rather than rock star excess.

What Happened Next?

After the truth came out, Van Halen’s brown M&M gambit became a textbook example for managers and marketers worldwide. The band itself moved on to new chapters (with Roth departing in 1985 and later rejoining), but their commitment to precision on tour persisted. They continued to include detailed requirements in contracts, and promoters – now wise to the brown M&M story – knew to take every line seriously. In the broader industry, other artists quietly adopted the Van Halen approach, embedding their own subtle checks to avoid nasty surprises. For Van Halen, there was no lasting damage; in fact, their brand was enhanced by the saga. Decades later, they could fill stadiums with a reputation not only for amazing performances but also for setting the bar on production standards. The no brown M&M’s rule has entered pop culture legend, ensuring that Van Halen will always be remembered not just for rock anthems, but for one of the smartest “gotchas” in business lore.

One Sentence Takeaway

Even the smallest detail can be a big safety net – Van Halen’s no-brown-M&M rule shows that meticulous attention to detail is often the secret to preventing disaster and delivering excellence.

Sources and Citations

Jones, Steve. “No Brown M&M’s: What Van Halen’s Insane Contract Clause Teaches Entrepreneurs.” *Entrepreneur*, Mar 24, 2014.

Gimbel, Tom. “The Significance of Van Halen’s Brown M&M’s Rule.” *Inc.com*, May 31, 2018.

Tharakan, Kurian. “No Brown M&Ms — The Hidden Genius in Van Halen’s Contract Clause.” *Medium*, May 30, 2023.

“Van Halen’s Brown M&Ms – Their Key To Rock and Roll Safety.” *Safety Dimensions Blog*, quoting David Lee Roth’s *Crazy from the Heat* (1997).

Wardlaw, Shauna. “David Lee Roth Explains Van Halen’s ‘No Brown M&M’s’ Rule.” *Ultimate Classic Rock*, Feb 17, 2012.