Woulnd it great...

[Peterrrrr]

if they changed strategy and just send the new single(when its ready) to the radio stations without warning, that would shock everybody... Instead of preparing that the new singles name is, and is going to be played...

 

[edurban]

The emotion of hearing a guitar riff that rings a bell and then a voice... put the volume up and cry out: "s**t"....
It happened like that with HMTMKMKM (at least for me, I was a bit more out of the loop back then).....

 

[Sicy]

Just curious, do you ever proof read your threads before you post them?

/Just curious

 

[t8thgr8]

raawwrrr hissssss

 

[the tourist]

Actually, that's not a bad idea. But they should do it like Radiohead. Post the songs as soon as they're done, then release them to cd later so that the cd comes out right when the new tour starts.

 

[ponkine]

U2 would never have the balls to do like Radiohead.

 

[PookaMacP]

U2 would never have the balls to do like Radiohead.

Nor the freedom of having no record deal!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

nor do they want to be like radiohead. nor should they want to be like radiohead. i think they've done ok for themselves being like u2.

 

[the tourist]

nor do they want to be like radiohead. nor should they want to be like radiohead. i think they've done ok for themselves being like u2.

Way to twist things around.

As for the Radiohead "no record deal" thing, U2 wouldn't have to do it exactly like Radiohead. U2 could have a digital download which you have to pay a specific amount for.... I'm sure the record company wouldn't mind.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

would you prefer i just state that it's a terrible idea, and was a terrible idea when radiohead did it as well?

 

[the tourist]

Why is it a terrible idea? Because they're getting the music to the fans before it leaks?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

ok, to clarify further.

it's a terrible business move, that a band like u2 would never do but a band like radiohead can do because their global popularity doesn't touch the level of u2.

even still, radiohead's decision did not revolutionize anything. all it did was cost them a few million bucks.

 

[the tourist]

Why would it cost U2 a few million bucks? If there was a digital download for $10?

Radiohead allowed the downloader to specify a price. But they didn't have to. They could have just put a price tag on it and that's that. That is something U2 wouldn't do, of course.

But even if they did, how many more million do U2 need to make, anyway?

In all actuality, it would probably be a good move. Why? Because a lot of people would wind up spending $20 to get both the digital download and the cd....

 

[U2girl]

but they did price it later

Radiohead allowed the downloader to specify a price. But they didn't have to. They could have just put a price tag on it and that's that. That is something U2 wouldn't do, of course.

There was also the same album available later in CD format, and a special 80 dollar set (2 LPs, extra material).

 

[the tourist]

Re: but they did price it later

There was also the same album available later in CD format, and a special 80 dollar set (2 LPs, extra material).

Exactly. That's why in all actuality it would be a GOOD business move for U2, inc. Not only would they make more (because of many, many double purchases), but they'd keep the fans happy by getting us the material quicker.

 

[ludvic]

U2 would never have the balls to do like Radiohead.

Sooo sad.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think the key difference is in the nature of the fanbase. I think U2 would have more to lose. I think it would attract more people to the 'free' download than would have been paying attention to any illegal leak. With Radiohead, the difference wouldn't have been quite as massive. I think the free download of a U2 album would, in a sense, make it U2's highest 'seller'. I think more people would download it than any U2 album has actually sold. I don't think that would pass on as well to physical sales as it would with Radiohead. Radiohead are a far, far smaller band than U2, but still one of the biggest bands in the world. There's a huge gap though, and it comes from U2's widespread casual appeal. There's a higher % of dedication in Radioheads overall base. In U2's, it's size and strength comes from a base where the majority of which isn't that dedicated.

I think, therefore, it would impact physical sales of U2's album later on from that casual base. I think it would be a stunning success in pure download numbers, but U2 would have a hard time translating that to anything real. Concerts would probably benefit, but only so much.

What I mean is, say for example:

Radiohead album leaks illegally - 100 people download it.
Radiohead album releases legally a month or two later - 80 people buy it.
Radiohead album is offered for free legally - 300 people download it.
Radiohead album releases legally a month or two later - 70 people buy it.

Higher % of Radiohead fanbase is more dedicated, hardcore, more likely to pay for download, more likely to 'purchase' multiple formats. They make some gains in the area of attracting new fans, but do lose some physical sales from their casual base. They control an inevitable leak and get some people to actually pay for it. Overall tips in favour of 'success'. It did debut at # 1 in the US and UK. It was one of the 2 or 3 most talked about releases of the year. It likely did attract many new people to the band for the first time, even if they got no direct benefit from it right now.

U2 album leaks illegally - 150 people download it.
U2 album releases legally a month or two later - 300 people buy it.
U2 album is offered for free legally - 600 people download it.
U2 album releases legally a month or two later - 200 people buy it.

Lions share of U2 sales made from casual fans, a demographic far more likely to download for free or next to nothing and then not back it up with a physical sale. A free U2 album download will attract many more people to it than a normal physical release would, or a free download from virtually any other band or artist on earth would. Their overall download stats would absolutely bury Radioheads. However, the % who pay would be significantly less. The % who then go on to buy a physical copy would be significantly less. The loss of sales from those casual fans that U2 rely on so much for their usual huge sales would probably drop of dramatically.

Point being: Overall what Radiohead did was control the inevitable leak, generate massive attention, expose new people to their music. They're a band that can do that without generating *too* much attention, and without tempting their core fanbase away from a sale proper somewhere in that system. U2, simply, would whip up too much attention, and take too much away from the casual sale they rely so much on.

I DO think there is something there for U2 to consider though, and that would be perhaps a free download of the initial single, but definitely an early download at a fixed (and cheap) price of the entire album. Arrest the illegal leak and make some money off it. Grab some casuals that otherwise wouldn't buy the physical copy. Make up for a % of those who have gone off the physical sale all together but would return to the 'legal' sale with a far cheaper option available. I still think they'd lose a few sales off the physical album this way, but they're going to anyway. The market has recently entered a free fall stage. By the time the new U2 album comes out in, I guess, November, the industry will be well and truly on it's knees. U2 also own their own digital rights, it's got nothing to do with Universal. They have their separate deal with Apple for this. Offering up their album at $5-$6 on iTunes is more lucrative to them than the $20 they'd be selling the physical copy for via Universal. It makes a lot of sense for them.

 

[the tourist]

Hmm. Who cares if they lose out on physical sales if they make download sales? It's all money, isn't it? I'm betting most of Interference would buy it twice. Once just to have it early. And again for the cd and packaging. And I'm betting lots of casual fans would BUY it as a digital download. And lots of other casual fans would BUY it as a cd.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if you're saying that they should offer the album up for download at a price, well, they already do. it wasn't early, but it was still available. they'd never release it early, without notice... u2 needs to go into uber hype mode. that's just who they are now. the only thing that would change that is a few poorly recieved albums.

 

[ponkine]

I think U2 are still stucked in the "biggest band in the world" moment, therefore they must live according to that stupid, childish thought.

If I were U2, I'd really have ZERO fears about doing the craziest commercials moves. They have enough money for ensure a comfortably life for their children, grandchildren, etc, etc

Every U2 album is an hysterical, absurd excersise of hype, overplaying, overexposing, etc. What for?. U2 name alone can sell millions!

If Radiohead could release an album for free, a brilllant move that controled the album leak, and laughing at the record companies' dictatorship, and a couple of months latter the physical album has been number 1 in UK and US, why on earth U2 can't do it?. It will be #1 anyway!. With no videos, no singles, with NOTHING Radiohead were #1.

I'd like them to release a physical album without ANY canned advertisement, promo videos, singles, radio specials, etc. At least the album would be judge FOR THE ALBUM itself, not for being "THE NEW U2 ALBUM!, GET IT NOW!" and all that bulls***

Moreover, I dare them to release it as Led Zeppelin IV, without ANY damn lyric on the front and back cover.

There's nothing like being the first one on something. Hands down Radiohead. Surely many lesser known acts will try to copy, but they'll fail, because Radiohead had the balls to break the rules, to make record companies'worst nightmare true!


Sadly, U2 won't do anything new or revolutionary. They're still blinded by the ATYCLB success. Just read U2 by U2. Edge thinks HTDAAB is their best album!. That's insane!.

Just think it, if Edge, the band's musical director, believes the Bomb is their best album, would they dare to make something radically different on the new album?. HELL NO!. What we'll have?. Maybe a few colors here and there. A bit more programming, some crazy effects. JUST THAT!...

... and of course, the iPod jingles, MTV and Grammies, etc, etc

 

[Hibbyface]

There's nothing like being the first one on something. Hands down Radiohead.

Were they the first artists do this?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Were they the first artists do this?

nope..
first major artist, but hardly the first ever

 

[the tourist]

Were they the first artists do this?

Tons and tons of artists have free-download albums online. Hell, if anyone wanted my former band's album, I'd e-mail it to them. I can say that openly since it's my own music and not available for purchase.

 

[roy]

So basically when ponkepine states:

"There's nothing like being the first one on something. Hands down Radiohead."

What he's said is absoutely incorrect bullshit?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Just curious, do you ever proof read your threads before you post them?

/Just curious

Don't be mean, you gangsterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

R

 

[LemonMelon]

all it did was cost them a few million bucks.

Hmm? Radiohead themselves stated that they made a larger net profit from In Rainbows than all of their other albums combined.

 

[the tourist]

Hmm? Radiohead themselves stated that they made a larger net profit from In Rainbows than all of their other albums combined.

Probably because the money was going all to them. No record label to dip their hand into the pie first.