Iron Maiden's management: What went wrong?

[Mosh]

Iron Maiden’s success is undeniable, but when you compare their popularity to bands like Metallica and Judas Priest, it's clear they've never quite reached the same mainstream level. A big part of that comes down to the band's management, particularly Rod Smallwood, who has been behind Iron Maiden's operations for decades. While Smallwood has certainly helped keep the band’s core identity intact, his decisions have often held them back from achieving the kind of mass appeal that Metallica or Priest managed to capture.

One of the biggest issues is Iron Maiden’s branding. While they’ve got a killer image with Eddie and iconic album covers, they’ve never really pushed themselves into the mainstream in the way Metallica did with their more commercial sound and strategic media presence. Smallwood’s refusal to change the band’s image or embrace more modern trends in the '90s and beyond meant they stayed within a niche, never breaking out beyond metal circles. Metallica, for example, made key changes like working with producer Bob Rock for the Black Album and getting major radio airplay, which broadened their appeal. Judas Priest also made smarter moves by experimenting with their sound and staying relevant to hard rock audiences, while Maiden stuck to their formula.

Smallwood's management also failed to push Iron Maiden into the media spotlight as effectively as Metallica did. While Metallica was all over MTV and late-night talk shows, Iron Maiden stayed more reserved, often keeping their media appearances limited to the hardcore metal scene. This lack of mainstream exposure kept them from reaching new audiences. Even when their songs were radio-friendly, their management didn't make the necessary push for radio play or mass media coverage.

On the touring front, Iron Maiden’s approach was also more conservative. While Metallica and Judas Priest were constantly expanding into new global markets, Maiden stuck to the same formula, reaching their loyal fanbase but missing opportunities to grow in emerging regions. Metallica’s world tours, which included stops in markets like South America and Asia, helped solidify them as a global force. Meanwhile, Smallwood often kept Maiden's touring strategy limited, not always capitalizing on the right moments or new opportunities. It’s a shame, really, because Maiden had all the potential to be the Metallica of the ‘80s and ‘90s, if only their management had taken a more dynamic approach.

I'm curious what everybody else thinks though. Discuss!

 

[Nomadd]

Iron Maiden’s success is undeniable, but when you compare their popularity to bands like Metallica and Judas Priest, it's clear they've never quite reached the same mainstream level. A big part of that comes down to the band's management, particularly Rod Smallwood, who has been behind Iron Maiden's operations for decades. While Smallwood has certainly helped keep the band’s core identity intact, his decisions have often held them back from achieving the kind of mass appeal that Metallica or Priest managed to capture.

One of the biggest issues is Iron Maiden’s branding. While they’ve got a killer image with Eddie and iconic album covers, they’ve never really pushed themselves into the mainstream in the way Metallica did with their more commercial sound and strategic media presence. Smallwood’s refusal to change the band’s image or embrace more modern trends in the '90s and beyond meant they stayed within a niche, never breaking out beyond metal circles. Metallica, for example, made key changes like working with producer Bob Rock for the Black Album and getting major radio airplay, which broadened their appeal. Judas Priest also made smarter moves by experimenting with their sound and staying relevant to hard rock audiences, while Maiden stuck to their formula.

Smallwood's management also failed to push Iron Maiden into the media spotlight as effectively as Metallica did. While Metallica was all over MTV and late-night talk shows, Iron Maiden stayed more reserved, often keeping their media appearances limited to the hardcore metal scene. This lack of mainstream exposure kept them from reaching new audiences. Even when their songs were radio-friendly, their management didn't make the necessary push for radio play or mass media coverage.

On the touring front, Iron Maiden’s approach was also more conservative. While Metallica and Judas Priest were constantly expanding into new global markets, Maiden stuck to the same formula, reaching their loyal fanbase but missing opportunities to grow in emerging regions. Metallica’s world tours, which included stops in markets like South America and Asia, helped solidify them as a global force. Meanwhile, Smallwood often kept Maiden's touring strategy limited, not always capitalizing on the right moments or new opportunities. It’s a shame, really, because Maiden had all the potential to be the Metallica of the ‘80s and ‘90s, if only their management had taken a more dynamic approach.

I'm curious what everybody else thinks though. Discuss!

Judas Priest? Really. No, Iron Maiden achieved commercially a lot more!!! Stats don't lie!
No, Maiden since decades playing to way bigger crowds around the world, sold a lot more records and merch, and achieved something very special, which even K. K. Downing from Priest described in his book as something that Maiden should be proud and Priest has never achieved. Yes- Metallica is a way bigger than ANY metal band in history, but they are more commercially oriented and played different styles to achieve this point in their career. I think your post is pure provocation. Man, if you put in the same line Metallica and JP as the formula of being more successful than Maiden - no, it's a confusion or misunderstanding. I hope it's only a provocation to introduce people for discussion.

 

[Trevoire]

I agree on some points, but on what planet are Judas Priest bigger than Maiden???

 

[Nomadd]

I agree on some points, but on what planet are Judas Priest bigger than Maiden???

No, commercially they are a way smaller band. Iron Maiden are after Metallica, which is a media-friendly behemoth. As I said, the stats and figures don't lie.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Now, I'd say that I'd always put aside Metallica in these comparisons, because they had a lot of things working for them at once (their melodic sensibilities and the... "weightiness" that made them feel like metal's Beatles would be for naught if they haven't managed to cross over at the pefect moment in time - they simplified their sound and released their most mainstream album at the last time rock and metal became a mainstream-prominent genre), but as for Priest, let's just say that in Europe at least, Priest feel like much more a niche band than Maiden. Several of my classmates (even those who mostly disliked metal) were willing to travel across the country to attend a Maiden concet, no-one would think twice about visiting a Priest concert.
Anecdotical, true, but I feel that Maiden are "big" enough. At least from the classic bands without additional crossover appeal (like Nightwish who are ultra-mega-big, but also suck nowadays. Same for Kamelot).

 

[Nomadd]

Now, I'd say that I'd always put aside Metallica in these comparisons, because they had a lot of things working for them at once (their melodic sensibilities and the... "weightiness" that made them feel like metal's Beatles would be for naught if they haven't managed to cross over at the pefect moment in time - they simplified their sound and released their most mainstream album at the last time rock and metal became a mainstream-prominent genre), but as for Priest, let's just say that in Europe at least, Priest feel like much more a niche band than Maiden. Several of my classmates (even those who mostly disliked metal) were willing to travel across the country to attend a Maiden concet, no-one would think twice about visiting a Priest concert.
Anecdotical, true, but I feel that Maiden are "big" enough. At least from the classic bands without additional crossover appeal (like Nightwish who are ultra-mega-big, but also suck nowadays. Same for Kamelot).

Everywhere in the world, JP is a way smaller as band than Maiden, which on some markets is gargantuan.

 

[Azas]

I don’t know—Mosh’s first post came across to me like some level 99, tongue-in-cheek trolling. That said, a lot of it actually rings true. Like others here, I disagree when it comes to Judas Priest. Maybe in the '80s they had a solid strategy, but from the '90s onward, their management seemed really lacking. I think their current resurgence is more due to the strength of their last two albums than anything the management pulled off.

As for Metallica... man, those guys were gods, but they lost their way after the Black Album. That album is a mammoth—almost tailor-made for bandwagon fans. You can't underestimate the power of Nothing Else Matters, especially for drawing in girls and their “cavaliers,” so to speak. It's such a massive track—emotional, melodic, and powerful all at once. Then there’s Enter Sandman, Sad but True, The Unforgiven—those songs might alienate hardcore fans, but they bring in a tidal wave of new listeners.

In contrast, I don’t think Iron Maiden has a “Black Album”—by that I mean a mass-oriented, mainstream-friendly record that breaks outside the metal world. And I’ve always felt Maiden aren’t exactly masters of the power ballad. Wasting Love just doesn’t cut it (at least not for the masses). The only song I’d say has real commercial appeal is Wasted Years. Meanwhile, Metallica has Fade to Black, Sanitarium, Orion, One, Nothing Else Matters, The Unforgiven... even Judas Priest had more skill in crafting radio-friendly tracks like Before the Dawn or Beyond the Realms of Death. They’ve got plenty of easy-listening rockers with attitude.

Maiden, by contrast, feels like a nerdier band—and I don’t mean that in a bad way. They read books and write songs about them. And honestly, they succeeded on that path.

Some of you say Maiden is second only to Metallica in ticket sales. That’s debatable. Guns N’ Roses and Rammstein are massive draws too.

 

[Nomadd]

I don’t know—Mosh’s first post came across to me like some level 99, tongue-in-cheek trolling. That said, a lot of it actually rings true. Like others here, I disagree when it comes to Judas Priest. Maybe in the '80s they had a solid strategy, but from the '90s onward, their management seemed really lacking. I think their current resurgence is more due to the strength of their last two albums than anything the management pulled off.

As for Metallica... man, those guys were gods, but they lost their way after the Black Album. That album is a mammoth—almost tailor-made for bandwagon fans. You can't underestimate the power of Nothing Else Matters, especially for drawing in girls and their “cavaliers,” so to speak. It's such a massive track—emotional, melodic, and powerful all at once. Then there’s Enter Sandman, Sad but True, The Unforgiven—those songs might alienate hardcore fans, but they bring in a tidal wave of new listeners.

In contrast, I don’t think Iron Maiden has a “Black Album”—by that I mean a mass-oriented, mainstream-friendly record that breaks outside the metal world. And I’ve always felt Maiden aren’t exactly masters of the power ballad. Wasting Love just doesn’t cut it (at least not for the masses). The only song I’d say has real commercial appeal is Wasted Years. Meanwhile, Metallica has Fade to Black, Sanitarium, Orion, One, Nothing Else Matters, The Unforgiven... even Judas Priest had more skill in crafting radio-friendly tracks like Before the Dawn or Beyond the Realms of Death. They’ve got plenty of easy-listening rockers with attitude.

Maiden, by contrast, feels like a nerdier band—and I don’t mean that in a bad way. They read books and write songs about them. And honestly, they succeeded on that path.

Some of you say Maiden is second only to Metallica in ticket sales. That’s debatable. Guns N’ Roses and Rammstein are massive draws too.

Yes, but they aren't a metal bands in the classic sense. Maiden are mostly about epic, powerful tracks, and they can share the ballad formula with hard rockin' power, progressive harmonies, and narrative vocals just in ONE song; they can do this as second to none. IM is not just metal, they are sophisticated metallers who make things different.

 

[Mosh]

Iron Maiden has a massive, dedicated following but Judas Priest has undeniably had more mainstream success, particularly in the U.S. with hits like Living After Midnight and You Got Another Thing Comin’. Maiden, on the other hand, has missed opportunities for broader commercial success. Tracks like Run to the Hills and The Number of the Beast are popular yes, but they focused more on shaping the band’s identity than breaking into wider radio play.

In the long run, Rod Smallwood’s management approach has been a key factor in holding Iron Maiden back from achieving the global superstardom they could have reached. Unlike Judas Priest, who found a way to balance their metal roots with radio-friendly singles and broader appeal, Smallwood’s focus on maintaining Maiden’s niche identity prevented the band from expanding their visibility beyond their loyal fanbase.

 

[Smither]

I agree with most of your points overall but like people already said here, Iron Maiden is much, much bigger than Judas Priest everywhere in the world except the US even without mainstream hits like those you said (and I think they're also bigger in the US this century at least, despite not reaching the heights that Priest reached in the 80s). Hell, I'd say Maiden is also bigger than Black Sabbath in Latin America and most of mainland Europe.

I checked some YouTube statistics and they point to what I've been thinking, at least for their popularity nowadays.

Views last year in the US:

Black Sabbath - 102M
Iron Maiden - 56.6M
Judas Priest - 53.2M

Views last year on the whole world:

Iron Maiden - 372M
Black Sabbath - 354M
Judas Priest - 189M

 

[Nomadd]

Iron Maiden has a massive, dedicated following but Judas Priest has undeniably had more mainstream success, particularly in the U.S. with hits like Living After Midnight and You Got Another Thing Comin’. Maiden, on the other hand, has missed opportunities for broader commercial success. Tracks like Run to the Hills and The Number of the Beast are popular yes, but they focused more on shaping the band’s identity than breaking into wider radio play.

In the long run, Rod Smallwood’s management approach has been a key factor in holding Iron Maiden back from achieving the global superstardom they could have reached. Unlike Judas Priest, who found a way to balance their metal roots with radio-friendly singles and broader appeal, Smallwood’s focus on maintaining Maiden’s niche identity prevented the band from expanding their visibility beyond their loyal fanbase.

If JP had/has so big support from wideo auditories/listeners why don't they play stadium instead of Maiden and why don't they headline the biggest festivals around? Even when they played PowerTrip festival in Indio just because Ozzy invited them to stand in. And maybe you talk about American market. Priests have been in American record label, they tried a lot breaking ground there and be more Radio- friendly. But Maiden has Never been like that. Iron Maiden in terms of real sales and Market status is globalny a way bigger band, even they stated so! Maiden phenomenon is about being non mainstream and stylusticaly niche Band with an enormous commercial success witho no compromise. That's completelly different approach which works for them very good. Iron Maiden released over 40 singles with niche style of Music and many of them were charted high around the world and bring them many certificates in different countres. What about Priests? I know you are an American and probably try to judge the situation focusing on that particular market. Ok, but that's a part of the truth. In Latin/South America Maiden is so big, they use to fill enormous stadiums for decades. Only two metal bands can do that: Maiden and Metallica, not mentioning Europe. As I said many posts before, the stats don't lie.

 

[Azas]

To summarize this whole discussion: I think we’ve all read in Metallica’s interviews how they approached The Black Album. They chose a well-known rock producer and deliberately aimed to make the songs simpler and catchier. In other words, they actively wanted to become more accessible and attract a wider audience. They made a conscious effort to change and adapt—and they succeeded.

Similarly, Judas Priest was always vocal about their desire to break big in the U.S. They have plenty of radio-friendly songs, and the entire Turbo album is clear evidence of the band trying to step out of their comfort zone, become more accessible, and appeal to a broader audience.

Of course, the Iron Maiden guys also wanted to succeed in the U.S., but they tried to do it within their own creative framework. They never really stepped outside of their established style. Steve Harris wrote the music he wanted to write—he didn’t start composing songs about partying or love, so to speak—and Rod Smallwood seemed fine with that. He was one of them and never tried to change the band’s direction, or at least there’s no evidence that he did.

In my opinion, there’s one exception to this rule: No Prayer for the Dying and Fear of the Dark. That’s where I feel Maiden gave in, at least somewhat, to the pressure to go more mainstream. But it didn’t really work out, they shrugged it off, and eventually returned to doing what they truly enjoy. That’s how I see it.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Hell, I'd say Maiden is also bigger than Black Sabbath in Latin America and most of mainland Europe.

Yeah, also true, I mean, Sabbath are rather well-known, but mostly by name only and yes, Ozzy himself is significantly more recognisable than anyone in Maiden or, in fact, metal as a whole, but that's a special case and it's based on his solo career and public persona (and the aforementioned name recognition). And even then my country has a very rockist attitude, even all these years later, because there are still many people who remember the Communist regime and therefore still remember and cherish the forbidden "classics" from the west. I mean, in my country, some of the biggest bands are rock bands and you could consider Deep Purple near mainstream.


Besides that, reformulating the original question "why aren't Maiden as big in the US" - well, remember that the American market is notoriously fickle (like the famous story of Hendrix not managing to break through until he was marketed along with the British invasion) and many bands do have very different hits in the US (which also used to have really weird chart logic, I could never make head or tails of it), sometimes it feels that a certain album was a hit in the US because the previous one was and some of the bands that were successful on the American market are nonetheless very uneven otherwise in their output.

Besides the fact I don't much like the more simplistic music and image of Priest (I like me some of the albums and music, but they're less... well, they feel less "significant", if you get what I mean), their discography is really spotty and I'd take Maiden consistency over that any time of the day. Maybe these two are not connected, but when I look at the trajectories of all three bands in the original post, Maiden are clear winners anyway, even if Tullica were once the next thing in line after sliced bread, stars and stripes, the eagle and the right to open carry.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Of course, the Iron Maiden guys also wanted to succeed in the U.S., but they tried to do it within their own creative framework. They never really stepped outside of their established style. Steve Harris wrote the music he wanted to write—he didn’t start composing songs about partying or love, so to speak—and Rod Smallwood seemed fine with that. He was one of them and never tried to change the band’s direction, or at least there’s no evidence that he did.

This is true as a whole, but especially the underlined. Maiden may pretend they're just these down-to-earth blokes who hang out in a pub and watch footy all day long, but their shtick is rather high-brow - they write songs about history, about mythology, about literature and old films, they have multi-part songs that take obvious inspiration from the 70s British prog and in general they stand out between the NWOBHM to such a degree, I just don't see them fitting the mold of what might have been expected from bands in the 80s, when metal was really big. They were never a "biker band", for example.
Even their alleged only power ballad Wasting Love (see the other thread on this) is certainly no Every Rose Has Its Thorn.

In this regard - and I mean no offence - they are inherently continental, to a degree that's probably inescapable. When Americans are high-brow, it is usually in the post-modern fashion (see Dylan or Zappa), Maiden are definitely Romantics at heart, which is why I expect them to vibe with Europeans more.

 

[Mosh]

Let’s be real—the core issue with Iron Maiden’s ups and downs over the years falls on Rod Smallwood. His mismanagement, especially during the early ‘90s, nearly wrecked the band. Bruce’s departure? That wasn’t a band decision—it was Smallwood failing to manage the situation and causing a massive identity crisis. When Bruce left, Maiden lost their spark, and Smallwood didn’t do enough to smooth the transition. Blaze was never going to fill those shoes, and it showed.

Even after they got back on track, Smallwood’s inability to adapt the band to changing times kept them stuck in a rut. While other bands were evolving, Maiden was playing catch-up, stuck in the same old formula. Smallwood’s short-sighted approach kept them from reaching their full potential. They’re legends, sure, but they could’ve been even bigger with better management.

 

[BludBrutha]

I agree on some points, but on what planet are Judas Priest bigger than Maiden???

Priest were more popular in the USA than Iron Maiden. See my next post I’ll post the stats.

However both bands were running on fumes by the mid 90s, then both brought in a much younger singer and did two studio albums that were total disasters sales wise, and then both reunited with their most popular singers. The trajectories are very similar. However Priest was never able to recapture the market after their reunion in the same way Maiden were after theirs. Maiden somehow managed to keep getting young fans while Priest (and KISS, and Van Halen, and Sabbath and just about every metal band that did reunion tours and then continued) were far less successful at that. Look at the audience at Maiden shows and there’s a lot of younger people. KISS and Priest and Alice Cooper and Whitesnake etc are 95% guys in their fifties and sixties. It’s incredible Maiden kept growing their audience. Why? I don’t really know. Maybe the dorky songs about Egypt and Alexander the Great and the Battle of the Light Brigade and all that stuff naturally appeals to teenage guys in a way that the themes other bands sing about don’t. Maybe the historical subjects have dated better than, say, KISS singing about love guns and meet you greet you in the ladies room, et al.

 

[BludBrutha]

Also see :

Gold & Platinum - RIAA

www.riaa.com

Gold & Platinum - RIAA

www.riaa.com

Maiden has five platinum and three gold albums in the US.

Priest has one double platinum, four platinum and seven gold. They’ve sold more albums in the USA than Iron Maiden.

Someone else can post the UK stats.

Neither group really sold jack in Australia, NZ, Japan, South America etc.

 

[Kalata]

Idk if this thread is serious, but Maiden are one of the most successful bands of all time. And Rod is a big part of that. Achieving success without being mainstream - now that's what a call something to be proud of! Not to mention Eddie, who is incomparable. And who wants a talented band like Maiden to be mainstream? More than that. With a massive fanbase.

Maiden have never chased the trends/mainstream (okay, they did a bit in the early 90's, but in their own way and style). Steve writes what he likes and thinks suits Maiden, especially back then. We knew every band wanted to break in the US and Bruce wanted that in 1983 (Flight Of Icarus), which is normal, but the early-to-mid 90's was the opportunity to do that. After NPFTD they tried with FOTD, but that wasn't their thing. They just write more complex, interesting (especially lyrics) music. They could have tried something completely different (like Bruce's solo albums style, for example), but I will always admire them/Steve for staying true to themselves. And that helped them to be where are they are now. I like their evolving, to say.

As for the stage show, Maiden are synonymous with attractive stage shows. Some bands need lots of pyro and an empty stage (with a few screens) to make the US crowd go wild, but for me that's not exactly spectacular. The ''Maiden stage'' works for them perfectly, probably more than for any other band. It blends with their approach to their music just great. And they are traditionalists, for better or worse.

Metallica changed their style in the early 90's to have this success, but Priest are not bigger than Maiden. Their mainstream streak in the US was because of their background (culminating with BS, 6 years are a lot of time in the music) and then with SFV album. They write more single-friendly rockers (like Saxon and Accept), but at the same time I wouldn't call Turbo that different from BS. The mainstream bands nowadays (from the old/er bands) are not pure metal, we know them.

All in all, Maiden could have been bigger (if possible) in the US, if they wanted to. Stage, songs, etc. Selling out stadiums (the band is huge in SA!), sold out shows everywhere (yes), generation of crowds fill every tour, success of singles, tours and (new) albums. Tours almost every year, Europe ofc.

Sales of albums, merch, tickets - Maiden are on the up front, overall.

 

[Azas]

I don't know why, but I have a strong feeling that Mosh is trolling us. If we’re pointing fingers, I’d say Steve is at the core of the issues, not Rod. The band is Steve’s baby—his vision.

Like all creative people (and people in general), sometimes Steve was right, and sometimes he was wrong. Think of the early clashes with Bruce, the creative rift with Adrian, the decision to bring in Blaze as the new vocalist, various production choices, and so on.

I believe it was actually Rod who first tried to bring Bruce back, while Steve hesitated at the beginning.

That doesn’t mean Steve should be fired—he’s a founding member and the soul of the band. Everyone makes mistakes. And let’s be honest: Rod can’t command Steve. He can only advise him.

Even if Mosh is trolling, I think this is still a legitimate discussion. No one is denying that Iron Maiden is one of the biggest bands in the world—but it’s fair to hypothetically ask whether they could have been even bigger.

Edit: Haha, and even if they hypothetically did become even bigger, there’s no guarantee we’d still like the band. It could’ve easily turned into a total cringe fest or a complete disaster.

 

[Ben Beast]

Maiden somehow managed to keep getting young fans while Priest (and KISS, and Van Halen, and Sabbath and just about every metal band that did reunion tours and then continued) were far less successful at that. Look at the audience at Maiden shows and there’s a lot of younger people. KISS and Priest and Alice Cooper and Whitesnake etc are 95% guys in their fifties and sixties. It’s incredible Maiden kept growing their audience. Why? I don’t really know. Maybe the dorky songs about Egypt and Alexander the Great and the Battle of the Light Brigade and all that stuff naturally appeals to teenage guys in a way that the themes other bands sing about don’t. Maybe the historical subjects have dated better than, say, KISS singing about love guns and meet you greet you in the ladies room, et al.

I don't believe historical subject is the reason Maiden keeps attracting younger generations, otherwise Manowar (and Sabaton etc) would be attracting also loads of young people. I think it's about music or more specifically melody of the songs (as Dave once said Maiden are heavy but they are also melodic). Maiden's music isn't radio friendly but it is accessible, it is heavy but also soft - all those slow intros (Fear, Hallowed, FTGGOG etc) are gateways to get into songs. Also I think parents are playing huge role in bringing their kids to show. I was around 10 years old when my father played Brave New World album - I remember I liked Ghost of the Navigator, Brave New World and Blood Brothers, all with beautiful intros and from that moment I was hooked. Years later my little brother was 7 when we took him to his first Iron Maiden concert. And now I'm playing Maiden songs to my daughter (2,5 yo) - just yesterday while driving we listened When the Wild Wind Blows and Hell on Earth. In August we will be going to Warsaw show - me (34yo) my 2 brothers (33 and 16), father, mother (around 50s) and my grandmother (around 70) (who became fan on Future Past tour, because on of my brother couldn't make it, so Maiden attracts older generation as well ). Maybe that's just me and my family but I would like to think there's some truth on there why Maiden keeps attracting younger generations.