Why an early 2009 release makes sense - commercially

[Irishteen]

I don't believe that. U2 is very proud that they are nearly independent and have the final say in almost anything and everything. And since Jimmy Iovine and Bono were holiday-ing together (as some people over at Pleba pointed out) you don't have to worry about the record company going awkward

But the Record Company would never allow a January release; I'd say March would be the earliest; and even then they'd try to convince the band to push it back more.

 

[Zoots]

Oh lol I don't agree with you on *that*!

But I do agree they're probably not thinking about the money regarding this desision. And they don't "always want to make the most money out of it". It's just that I thought early 2009 isn't bad at all.

I'm sorry I don't mean to dictate what fans should or should not talk about but I was just trying to say something along the lines of... "guys! don't worry about how u2 will make money now if the album comes out in march! maybe they're not worried about making the maximum money!" I could be wrong like Irishteen said if the record company controls everything but.. I dunno let's see.

 

[Screwtape2]

* Sales
January is still a good month. Sales draw consumers to stores who also pick up non discounted items. People come in to change gifts (double or unwanted cd's) etc. and come to spend their gift money / vouchers.

If that was true, why weren't there many really big sellers in January of this year?

 

[Irishteen]

I'm sorry I don't mean to dictate what fans should or should not talk about but I was just trying to say something along the lines of... "guys! don't worry about how u2 will make money now if the album comes out in march! maybe they're not worried about making the maximum money!" I could be wrong like Irishteen said if the record company controls everything but.. I dunno let's see.

I don't think the record company will be able to control everything about the release, U2 are a big enough act that they won't want to annoy them a lot but they're most likely going to try to convince U2 to push it back; and between the Record Label and Paul McGuinness it won't surprise me if it falls back later into the year.

 

[u2search]

But the Record Company would never allow a January release; I'd say March would be the earliest; and even then they'd try to convince the band to push it back more.

I don't think the record company can stop them. And back in the day Island tried to dispute U2's decisions but even in 1981 U2 won (October cover, anyone?). No chance the record company has the final say in this. Try to persuade them maybe, but not decide.

* I'm off to bed now, back after work tomorrow

 

[Irishteen]

I don't think the record company can stop them. And back in the day Island tried to dispute U2's decisions but even in 1981 U2 won (October cover, anyone?). No chance the record company has the final say in this. Try to persuade them maybe, but not decide.

U2:"We want the album in January"
Record Company: "We're not releasing it"
U2: "But we want it!"
Record Company: "No"
U2: "Pleaseeeeeee"
Record Company: "Sorry no"
U2: "Fine we're releasing it ourselves!"
Record Company "We're suing you"

But seriously the Record Company do have the final say, they order the cds to be produced, they get them distributed; Of course they're not gonna refuse the band all their bands but they won't give the band a January release.

 

[poptv]

I really don't care when it comes out as long as U2 continue to strive to makeTHE ALBUM, the one they were destined to make, the one that when we here it we will say "Thank you guys for taking the time to create this masterpiece"

U2 are more interested at this point in making musical history not sales history.

 

[PowerSurge]

Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!



THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!

Listen...I hate to put you on the spot here. I understand your obvious frustration towards the postential 2009 release, which mirrors mine....

..but....


...to make this comment is to make it known that you are very niave towards how the music industry works and completely unaware of whats been going on concerning music record sales in the past couple of years.

The fact that U2 would consider such a tactic...even if it were to boost sales is a GOOD THING!!!! If they were to increase sales and throw a little punch into the arm of record sales it would not only be beneficial to THEM but the music record industry as a whole. In a time when music pirating and the downloading of SINGLES completely dominates the market place, having any artist come in a make people get off their arses and go out and buy an entire CD is a GREAT thing.

So altough I hate the idea of waiting til 2009 for NEW U2 I kind of support their potential promotional tactic. I think its very very smart and good for the entire industry.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

what's a CD?

it's a circle...

 

[PowerSurge]

it's a circle...

Actually...

...its more like a donut.

 

[Rob33]

so I guess no apple stuff...and I guess the album release will not coincide with the RED store opening or whatever also....

I am so fucking frustrated right now.

 

[indra]

and I'm willing to put my parents house on it

Will you bet your neighbor's car on it too?

 

[bono_man2002]

Will you bet your neighbor's car on it too?

Perhaps

 

[coemgen]

Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!



THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!

They don't NEED to, but they're just as much a business as they are a band. Or as Paul M. says, a "corporation." That's why they release three different versions of an album and do all kinds of other things. They don't NEED the money, but they do want to continue being relevant and the biggest band. Sales help with that.

 

[U2DMfan]

If there is one musical act left on planet Earth that can control it's own release date it's U fucking 2.

What makes sense commercially for U2 and their label?
Release the thing a month before Christmas with heavy promotion.

Oh, they aren't doing that?

Then, sorry, anything else is just making excuses on their behalf.

They can't agree on the songs, people! Simple as that.

 

[The John Tree]

I think hating Paul McGuinness is juvenile. He's doing his job.

"He's only concerned about money!"

No, he's doing his job. He's trying to make sure his band's music reaches the maximum amount of people as possible. You might focus on money, but that's because the two are directly related.

A change of management? You want a manager that says what? "Hey, let's just drop the album on iTunes on Thursday, September 18, 2008 and who gives a shit who knows about it? It's about the music, duuuuuude. Pass the bong."

McGuinness is doing his job. The band has explained the delay as for artistic reasons, not commercial ones. And if McGuinness does indeed get the album pushed back to November of next year, then God bless him. That's his job.

 

[zoopop]

St. Patricks day is on a Tuesday in 2009!?!? That could be a little extra promotion for U2.

 

[last unicorn]

I think some of you are overestimating the importance of Paul McGuiness and the record label. U2 are independent and they should release the album whenever they feel it's ready, be it January or March. The Joshua Tree was released in March, and as far as I know it didn't fail. We don't know what's going on in the U2 camp or in the heads of the band members, so let's not speculate about reasons or be over-analytic about dates and stuff.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Actually...

...its more like a donut.

*munches* ouch, this isn't tasty at all

maybe if it comes out in march, we'll have another pop on our hands! (take from that what you will - either best album evar or something unfinished)

 

[U2girl]

A Spring release would make sense if they plan to tour in 2009. It would also coincide with Bono saying we will get something new very early next year.

 

[Zoots]

I think some of you are overestimating the importance of Paul McGuiness and the record label. U2 are independent and they should release the album whenever they feel it's ready, be it January or March. The Joshua Tree was released in March, and as far as I know it didn't fail. We don't know what's going on in the U2 camp or in the heads of the band members, so let's not speculate about reasons or be over-analytic about dates and stuff.

 

[U2_Guy]

The real money is made off of LIVE CONCERTS... you ppl overestimate the sale of CDs...

 

[An Cat Gav]

If there is one musical act left on planet Earth that can control it's own release date it's U fucking 2.

What makes sense commercially for U2 and their label?
Release the thing a month before Christmas with heavy promotion.

Oh, they aren't doing that?

Then, sorry, anything else is just making excuses on their behalf.

They can't agree on the songs, people! Simple as that.

Totally true.
The album will be out in 6 months, March 09.

 

[slimongi]

...Just this question :

.....so the Album is delayed for 2009 but when the Single will be heard?? (any chance for end 2008?)

 

[bedouin fire]

if you were back in 87 before knowing that JT would come out, you would never say that an album released in march with a cover made of a B&W image with 4 depressed guys on a desert, antecipated by a strange single that you can't be sure if it has a chorus called with or without you, would sell 16 millions or whatever...

the fact is that when the music makes people move, people will go after it to the stores, to itunes or to wherever it can be reached, no matter the month, year or decade.

 

[Irishteen]

I think some of you are overestimating the importance of Paul McGuiness and the record label. U2 are independent and they should release the album whenever they feel it's ready, be it January or March. The Joshua Tree was released in March, and as far as I know it didn't fail. We don't know what's going on in the U2 camp or in the heads of the band members, so let's not speculate about reasons or be over-analytic about dates and stuff.

I love how people say the record label isn't important

Who prints and distributes the cds? Last time I checked it wasn't U2, so the Record Label (even if they do whatever U2 say) have the power to easily delay the album if they were hell bent on it. U2 are under contract to them, they can't just release the album whenever they fell like it, they have to be at agreement with the Record Label.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

They will find a way of releasing the album or the 1st single that will surprise us. It might be before March 09. I suspect something special. Mc Guine$$ said they were thinking about a new way of releasing an album and Bono said 09 will be their year.... so no worries about a November 09 release....it will not happen.

 

[schnumi]

If they really wanted to maximize the money result they would have went with a 2008 pre christmas release simple as that.

 

[LemonMelon]

...Just this question :

.....so the Album is delayed for 2009 but when the Single will be heard?? (any chance for end 2008?)

I would say no chance of an '08 release for anything, but I could see a single coming out in January, or at least a date for it, to coincide with New Year's.

 

[BVS]

I would say no chance of an '08 release for anything

I don't know, it depends... I think if the backlash is loud enough U2 may throw us a bone, a download only christmas single, something they've already decided to take off the album.

Or at least a "real" U2.com video something with real snippets not just a bass line or drums.