Songs of Innocence downloaded 26 million times, 81 million 'experienced' songs

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Yes.

Aside from running a commercial on every single major american broadcast for 2 weeks, they did next to nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, to say the album was free.
Not getting people out to buy it.
Stores are stocking it sparingly, you can't buy it on iTunes, you don't see it up front with other big releases on sites like Target, or Best Buy.

Sam Smith, someone who has already sold a ton of records and done lots of TV appearances in the states, just got his album bounced up 53% because he did two TV appearances last week. Hozier charted because of SNL, and then stayed steady on the chart because of a Beats commercial.
 
Doing European promos first is smart. Outside of Ireland and so e of the UK, I get the feeling that Europe has a better appreciation for the whole heart-on-their-sleeves approach U2 takes, and if these spots mean a lot of positive clips of performances floating around, then that sets the stage for the US.. And let's the Apple release fervour die down.

It also makes me think a little as to why the release method was a success no matter the backlash. During 360, you could tell the band was frustrated that only a minority of the crowds were receptive to the NLOH songs they played. Most had come for the hits, and many had no idea what MOS or Breathe or Boots were. Sure, the diehards in the middle were jumping around, but when you look up and see tens of thousands of others sitting on their hands, it's discouraging knowing they probably never heard your new songs.

Now, next tour, there's more of a guarantee that those in attendance will be more familiar with the new album material.


Sent from my fingertips.
 
womanfish said:
Yes, to say the album was free.
Not getting people out to buy it.
Stores are stocking it sparingly, you can't buy it on iTunes, you don't see it up front with other big releases on sites like Target, or Best Buy.

Sam Smith, someone who has already sold a ton of records and done lots of TV appearances in the states, just got his album bounced up 53% because he did two TV appearances last week. Hozier charted because of SNL, and then stayed steady on the chart because of a Beats commercial.
Click to expand...

The lack of publicity is not why the numbers in the US are so low. They've gotten more publicity with this album then they've ever gotten with a release.

We can't have it both ways. There can't be the overwhelming opinion that all of the publicity, including negative, was great for U2... and then say that nobody bought the album because there was no publicity.

The free release is why the numbers were always going to be lower than you would normally expect with a U2 release. The numbers being even lower than expected is due to a lack of interest. Nothing more.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
The lack of publicity is not why the numbers in the US are so low. They've gotten more publicity with this album then they've ever gotten with a release.

We can't have it both ways. There can't be the overwhelming opinion that all of the publicity, including negative, was great for U2... and then say that nobody bought the album because there was no publicity.

The free release is why the numbers were always going to be lower than you would normally expect with a U2 release. The numbers being even lower than expected is due to a lack of interest. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that Netherlands, a country with 1/20th the population of the US, sold almost as many copies as in the US.
Are tastes truly that different? It's selling like crazy in France/Spain/Portugal as well...

The biggest difference I see is one area is getting tv and radio promotion and one isn't.

But it may very well be that no one gives a shit about them in the US anymore, and in that case, I'm glad they will start in arenas, cause stadiums could be ugly.

If they do a couple late night shows, SNL, etc.. and don't see an appreciable sales bump in the US. Then I'll have to admit, that no matter the promotion, they just can't pull it off here anymore.
 
it's really, really, really hard to make direct one-to-one comparisons between a massive country like the US and a small country like the Netherlands.
 
womanfish said:
If they do a couple late night shows, SNL, etc.. and don't see an appreciable sales bump in the US. Then I'll have to admit, that no matter the promotion, they just can't pull it off here anymore.
Click to expand...

See... the only people who really watch late night TV anymore are old people.

But the only people who still buy physical music are also old people! So win!

Except the only people who still have iPhones are old people. Damn!

U2 just can't win ;)
 
Irvine511 said:
it's really, really, really hard to make direct one-to-one comparisons between a massive country like the US and a small country like the Netherlands.
Click to expand...

It's not completely apples and oranges here though. U2 is a globally popular band. NLOTH opened big and at number one in Netherlands, US, France, Spain and Portugal.

iTunes in global, Apple is global, Twitter and Facebook are global, so the feedback and buzz about it are at least somewhat similar across the world.

The album was available for free to them there as it was in the US.

But the result is a Gold certified record in Netherlands, France, Spain and Portugal in the first week!! almost non-existent sales in the US...

I just find it very perplexing and just wonder if the tastes or buying habits, iTunes usage, etc... is that enormously different.
 
Is there any retail retaliation involved? I was reading that an exclusive free release such or a release that is exclusively done with one retailer (alah Apple) tends to raise the ire of brick and mortar stores. Could there be anything to that in terms of the low sales in the US?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
womanfish said:
It's not completely apples and oranges here though. U2 is a globally popular band. NLOTH opened big and at number one in Netherlands, US, France, Spain and Portugal.

iTunes in global, Apple is global, Twitter and Facebook are global, so the feedback and buzz about it are at least somewhat similar across the world.

The album was available for free to them there as it was in the US.

But the result is a Gold certified record in Netherlands, France, Spain and Portugal in the first week!! almost non-existent sales in the US...

I just find it very perplexing and just wonder if the tastes or buying habits, iTunes usage, etc... is that enormously different.
Click to expand...



there's much more "noise" and a bigger population in the US -- it wouldn't surprise me if French sales were directly influenced by that single TV performance, whereas even a big performance on SNL or Fallon wouldn't have the same chart impact no matter how well received. it could help, sure, but not to the same extent as you'd see in a smaller country with more culturally cohesive populations.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Apple is actually much more widely used in the US than overseas, where Samsung dominates. So maybe there's an explanation. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Still, many people use iTunes for digital music purchases. Or as their digital music library on the PC/Mac. And when you see that you can get a free U2 album when you get that iTunes application/create an account, many who want it but don't have it might also install iTunes just to get that album. Or use other :shifty: means to get it.
Then still the situation remains that relatively speaking many more people in France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, etc. bought the album than in the US.
 
I've read a lot of reactions as most of you have as well. One point keeps coming up, that is people keep saying "oh this type of deal is going to hurt lesser known artists" but people making that claim aren't really expanding on that statement. Is it because they think this deal will give people the impression that all albums are supposed to be free? I highly, highly, doubt that. And to be honest, the concept of free music has been ingrained on the social conscience for well over 15 years beginning with Napster and the idea that if you have a computer you can get all the "free music you want".

What U2 did was smart. They found a way to actually put a value on their music and found a way for a large distribution deal. U2 had the benefit of being an established legendary act to get this deal. But they weren't the first to do something along the lines of what they did. Other established, older acts, also found exclusive distribution deals. The Eagles last album was sold through Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. And even Pearl Jam distributed Backspacer through Target stores for a while. Bands have just had to be savvy these last 15 years. Radiohead tested the pay-what-you-want method for In Rainbows.

Between illegal downloading and a music industry that sometimes does more of a disservice for the artists they're supposed to champion (remeber Wilco's fight with their old label to release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot?) it's no wonder why a band like U2 have to do what they did to get their music out there. I mention Wilco because their label didn't want to release the album they had ready. Wilco had to be one of the first bands to stream their music via their website in the early 2000s to just get the album heard before getting the rights back and finding a distributor to press the cds and even the vinyl.

I don't think U2's deal should freak out lesser known acts.
 
Those who are obsessing about the physical sales are silly at best. People got this album for FREE! Basically everyone that listens to MUSIC...got it FREE! And there are here who are trying to prove some point by being angry that 26 million people didn't go out and buy something they already have? And don't try to say it's because you want U2 to be successful at making money...they got paid. And they are still getting paid. So what is the point of saying OMG U2 isn't number one on some obsolete chart when you already KNOW they are? And the butthurt about the twitter? My best angel says that in someway you are trying to be constructive and guide the band to where you think they should be. But maybe you are wrong.
 
david said:
I've read a lot of reactions as most of you have as well. One point keeps coming up, that is people keep saying "oh this type of deal is going to hurt lesser known artists" but people making that claim aren't really expanding on that statement. Is it because they think this deal will give people the impression that all albums are supposed to be free? I highly, highly, doubt that. And to be honest, the concept of free music has been ingrained on the social conscience for well over 15 years beginning with Napster and the idea that if you have a computer you can get all the "free music you want".

What U2 did was smart. They found a way to actually put a value on their music and found a way for a large distribution deal. U2 had the benefit of being an established legendary act to get this deal. But they weren't the first to do something along the lines of what they did. Other established, older acts, also found exclusive distribution deals. The Eagles last album was sold through Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. And even Pearl Jam distributed Backspacer through Target stores for a while. Bands have just had to be savvy these last 15 years. Radiohead tested the pay-what-you-want method for In Rainbows.

Between illegal downloading and a music industry that sometimes does more of a disservice for the artists they're supposed to champion (remeber Wilco's fight with their old label to release Yankee Hotel Foxtrot?) it's no wonder why a band like U2 have to do what they did to get their music out there. I mention Wilco because their label didn't want to release the album they had ready. Wilco had to be one of the first bands to stream their music via their website in the early 2000s to just get the album heard before getting the rights back and finding a distributor to press the cds and even the vinyl.

I don't think U2's deal should freak out lesser known acts.
Click to expand...

The point I make to the people that say these stupid comments (Sharon Osborne, Iggy Pop, The dude from the Black Keys, etc...) is this -

U2 led people to iTunes. To a place where they will most likely BUY more music from people like Ozzy, Iggy, Black Keys, etc...

Thom York led people to Bittorent where they will TAKE more music for free from people like Ozzy, Iggy, Black Keys, etc...

The band in my opinion helped lesser bands by bringing iTunes to the forefront as the worlds largest music seller.
I'm sure tens of thousands of new accounts were probably opened just to get the free album, which will turn into a revenue stream for not just Apple, but all the artists on iTunes.
 
Im loving the different spins on the amercian sales

Some articles are saying how its amazing how people are buying something that theve had for free and how the albums done well.

Other articles put a different spin on it ,they say that the albums under performed sales wise and flopped

?
 
rennowba said:
Im loving the different spins on the amercian sales

Some articles are saying how its amazing how people are buying something that theve had for free and how the albums done well.

Other articles put a different spin on it ,they say that the albums under performed sales wise and flopped

?
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I haven't read anything negative yet. Seems like most people are fairly impressed they got a top 10 album around the world (top 5 and #1 in 6 countries around Europe) after giving away the album for free and has been sited as being downloaded 26 million times...

Are these negative ones media sites? or just regular people posting their opinion?

Both Hits and Billboard seemed pretty impressed.
 
Just the negative stuff I've read online is from other music forums in threads about the new U2 album. Most people just don't like U2 or the new album but wont stop posting in the threads. Oh well.
 
ImNotSleeping said:
U2 has done nothing to promote SOI in the US. Nada, zip. Many stores have no inventory of it. None! Very odd, but you know what? The radio stations around here, ultra self-important in this major market, are beginning to play the songs. The big rock station is starting to play Miracle and tonight played Every Breaking Wave! The small indie station plays Miracle, Song For Someone and lately is playing my favorite track This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now, several times daily.

We shall see, but it is completely ODD that there is no physical inventory of SOI. It wasn't on my big independent record store's emails of new releases or vinyl last week or this week. :hmm: :down:
Click to expand...

Outside of that massive Itunes release, yes, nothing.

It is true radio's playing different songs. Over here it's mostly Miracle but also This is where you can reach me now, and Invisible.
 
So Bono has stated in Rolling Stone that the release was NOT supposed to go the way it did... that the songs were not supposed to go automatically to anyone's iThing, and that it was supposed to be in the cloud where people could have it for free if they wanted it.

He's also saying that they'll be going outdoors after Experience is released, and yes, he's even saying that Songs of Ascent will be the third part of this trilogy.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
So Bono has stated in Rolling Stone that the release was NOT supposed to go the way it did... that the songs were not supposed to go automatically to anyone's iThing, and that it was supposed to be in the cloud where people could have it for free if they wanted it.

He's also saying that they'll be going outdoors after Experience is released, and yes, he's even saying that Songs of Ascent will be the third part of this trilogy.
Click to expand...


I thought it did just go into everyones icloud? It showed up on your device without taking up any storage becasue it was on the icloud. Then you could download it if you wanted it.Am i wrong?
 
There were some people who didn't go over their iTunes settings. They didn't turn off automatic downloads, they didn't hide their iCloud content (which meant that whatever was in their iCloud appeared in all of their devices and could be played automatically), etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
M
Have U2 Pissed It All Up Against The Wall?
Replies
1
Views
1K
pacemaker
pacemaker
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
MrsSpringsteen
Bono Wants One Campaign To Be NRA For The World's Poor
Replies
2
Views
613
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom