NLOTH Week 3

[KUEFC09U2]

Boots is gone from all airplay charts and there's no sign of Magnificent yet too. If U2's album keeps falling they could end up like Oasis, huge but unable to get played on the radio anymore

I hear U2 on the radio quite alot on radio 1, even on radio city here in liverpool?, infact it really doesnt look like mag has been released to radio over here, because if it had radio 1 would at least have it on one of their playlists.

 

[mikeuk]

Even if the album slips out, it will rebound due to the tour. And the U.K. has been friendlier - at least in terms of radio - than the U.S. to U2 over the years. So I do expect more hits from NLOTH. Those two combined will give the album staying power.

Spot on Dr ! the BBC loves U2 so expect Magnificent to get heavy rotation soon _ and for quite a while imo. After many listens of all the CD the `Summer' hit is probably Crazy - but hey if that helps sales ok by me Mike

 

[rihannsu]

poor relative to bomb and VLV in particular.


an iTunes advert would have made a big difference, maybe they didnt approach apple for one, maybe apple didnt want them?

i dont undertsand the blackberry sponsorship for the tour. they turned down millions $ offered from intel to sponsor the vertigo tour, perhaps trying to get as much money as possible with the recession on, the set certainly appears scaled back from Vertigo. had there been a recession 4 years ago would Vertigo have been so elaborate i wonder.

This is not scaled down. The report is that it will take 120 trucks just to haul the steel for the show. The sponsorship is the only thing that allows them to keep the ticket prices relatively low. Minimum of 10,000 tickets for $30, floor tickets for $55 and 85% of all tickets under $95 is pretty awesome. The Claw is going to be 164 ft. tall. This will be more expensive than Zoo and Popmart and those tours were only profitable because of merchandise sales and we know that those sales will likely be lower than normal on this tour because of the recession. They have turned down sponsorship in the past when the terms were not what they could live with. But they have never ruled out sponsorship completely just said that it had to be something that made sense to them. They have described this as the beginning of a partnership with RIM but we can't really make any judgements given we don't know how any of this will work. I would rather have sponsorship and low ticket prices than to have them charge Rolling Stones type prices.

Dana

 

[GibsonExplorer]

They have turned down sponsorship in the past when the terms were not what they could live with. But they have never ruled out sponsorship completely just said that it had to be something that made sense to them.

Revisionist history.

 

[fedeu2]

This is not scaled down. The report is that it will take 120 trucks just to haul the steel for the show. The sponsorship is the only thing that allows them to keep the ticket prices relatively low. Minimum of 10,000 tickets for $30, floor tickets for $55 and 85% of all tickets under $95 is pretty awesome. The Claw is going to be 164 ft. tall. This will be more expensive than Zoo and Popmart and those tours were only profitable because of merchandise sales and we know that those sales will likely be lower than normal on this tour because of the recession. They have turned down sponsorship in the past when the terms were not what they could live with. But they have never ruled out sponsorship completely just said that it had to be something that made sense to them. They have described this as the beginning of a partnership with RIM but we can't really make any judgements given we don't know how any of this will work. I would rather have sponsorship and low ticket prices than to have them charge Rolling Stones type prices.

Dana

Yep, and the Stones have sponsors too.

 

[Popmartijn]

Revisionist history.

Trollish comment.

"We've no sponsor on this tour, and it's not like we've taken some huge high and mighty position on this. I mean if we could get someone to give us a load of money, and not have to kiss ass, we probably would take it. But unfortunately we haven't been able to figure that out."

(That's Bono speaking on the finances of the Popmart Tour)
U2 quotes from Bono

 

[doctorwho]

Revisionist history.

Not really.

If U2 put on a JT type of tour, that is, four men on stage with a huge joshua tree design in the background, then there's no need for sponsorship. And ticket prices can be reasonable.

That said, I recall in 1988 or 89, radio here in the U.S. was giving U2 a hard time for charging $40 for tickets in Ireland. The comment was that most of U2's fans were students then and that type of money was tough to come by.

But this is what a lack of sponsorship can cause. Plus, back then, Ireland was having financial problems - it simply cost more to get the show going.

U2 limited sponsorship with ZOO TV (only have it as "MTV presents") and charged low prices. They almost lost $$ on the tour, and would have, if it weren't for things like T-shirt sales! How awful to tour for that long, sell out everywhere, yet have it be a financial loss!

Going back to the JT tour, people who saw it would complain how they couldn't see U2 unless they were really close. Given that most people weren't close, U2 appeared like ants.

Since then, U2 have had screens and TV's, allowing everyone the ability to see at any angle. They have had more elaborate set designs to add a visual element to the music. And some of those designs were adored by fans (like the famous "heart"). But all of this costs $$.

As was done with ZOO TV, U2 have often had sponsorship if it relates to music. But times are changing.

If Blackberry can help generate $50 ticket prices (which surprised some of my music friends who aren't necessarily huge U2 fans - they felt U2's ticket prices would be astronomical), then all the more power to them!

I've been debating about a new phone for a while. I've been leaning towards an iPhone. But ya know, maybe this Blackberry sponsorship will convince me otherwise. It's a win-win for everyone.

 

[ajax]

NLOTH sold 30,199 copies in UK this week.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

NLOTH sold 30,199 copies in UK this week.

To be fair thats a thumbs up from me

 

[mikeuk]

To be fair thats a thumbs up from me

and me too !!!! Mike

 

[GibsonExplorer]

For Popmartijn and Dr. Who:

U2 has never accepted corporate sponsorship—the dubious institution whereby a big advertiser picks up a lot of the money for a tour in exchange for being allowed to run ads (even on the tickets) that say, "Jovan presents the Rolling Stones" or "Budweiser presents the Who." Like R.E.M., Springsteen, and some other high-class rockers, U2 has always figured that—like selling songs to be used in commercials— sponsorship takes a bite out of the music's integrity and degrades the relationship between the artist and the audience. It's like inviting someone over to your home and then trying to sell them Tupperware.

--quoted from U2 at the End of the World by Bill Flanagan.

Granted, this book was written about the ZooTV era U2. Things certainly have changed since.

 

[phommel]

Yes I remember that!

I also remember that a huge (50 million dollar?) deal was offered to U2 for a car ad? they wanted to use the song "Where the streets have no name" The band did not want it! I think I remember Bono saying that he proposed to do it and donate ALL (!) money to a good cause, but finally they decided it was not a good idea for their integrity and the song's integrity...

I am wondering what they would decide if today they would get a similar offer...

about Tour sponsorships: I just do not believe that a sponsorship is necessary to get profit from a Tour. 70-80% of all money big artists earn comes from Touring. If they do 25 European dates with an average of 80,000 people with an average ticket price of 75 euros (estimations): 25*80,000*75=150,000,000 (150 million!; 4 legs=600 million!). European leg is 50 days. So that's 3 million/day! I believe the costs are high but no way they NEED sponsoring to earn money.

 

[vaz02]

A tour costs LOADS to put on the road. Im curious to know how much profit Vertigo made.

 

[Irishteen]

NLOTH sold 30,199 copies in UK this week.

Read my first post in the thread

I think this shows that U2's sales didn't drop during the week but that the other albums rose as the week went on, it's a good sign for next week

And in other news, I was still right

 

[maxpouliot]

Only 13,426 (36.20% in) copies so far on hits good for #7

 

[maxpouliot]

Now at 23,665 (#5) after 50.65%... better

50000 copies would be ok

Need more promo!

 

[Irishteen]

Now at 23,665 (#5) after 50.65%... better

50000 copies would be ok

Need more promo!

50000 would be awful based on predictions, if they're that much below predictions sales are falling fast DAILY,

Looks more like 60000 right now anyway, hopefully it increases again

 

[KUEFC09U2]

What where the predcitons?, lets not forget the last 2 weeks hits have been below on what the actual sales ended up.

 

[Irishteen]

What where the predcitons?, lets not forget the last 2 weeks hits have been below on what the actual sales ended up.

70-80 I think

 

[doctorwho]

For Popmartijn and Dr. Who:



--quoted from U2 at the End of the World by Bill Flanagan.

Granted, this book was written about the ZooTV era U2. Things certainly have changed since.

Yes, but my ZOO TV concert stub says "MTV presents" on it. So, sponsorship or not?

Given today's prices and given what U2 hopes to do with this tour and given the current economy, I think sponsorship now is good. Would I prefer none? Of course, but it keeps a big chunk of tickets at a low price ($50) and allows U2 to put on an extravagant tour, then I'm all for it.

Also key is that this isn't 1991 any more. When JT was released, Bono was just 26. He was 30 while recording part of AB. At that age, kids can relate. U2 was the "hip group". Now U2 members are nearing 50. Bono turns 49 this year. Back then, radio stations adored U2. Now, too many stations are controlled by one big conglomerate that features Top 40 hits. How does one get a hit without one's music being played? That's the ultimate Catch 22. Bottom line, without extra ads, U2's music - like so many other artists - simply won't get played. And even hit artists, like the Clarksons and Timberlakes, have to do additional promotion, appearing on various TV shows that sometimes have little to do with music. It's just to keep one's face in the public eye.

Today's reality is not the same as 1987 or 1991. The 'net is proof of that. U2 are simply adapting to the changes. You can bemoan the fact - which you are - or appreciate what sponsorship and some commercialism brings. The former is lower ticket prices, the latter is public exposure to good music (IMO).

 

[doctorwho]

What where the predcitons?, lets not forget the last 2 weeks hits have been below on what the actual sales ended up.

Actually, I think they were either spot on or a bit low.

They were low for week 1 (estimated 400-450K, actual was 484K).

They were on for week 2 (estimated 100-150K, actual was 134K).

So if they are estimating 80-100K, then I would hope for at least 70K. U2's albums always have a big Day 2 push (must be how HITS monitors the stores - Day 1 may favor rap or R&B, for example).

 

[KUEFC09U2]

But can they add another 33k onto that with only 32% to come in?

 

[Irishteen]

Does hits not work by doing certain stores first? I find it weird how certain genres benefit first and then drop off while others do better later on, doing it by day wouldn't explain it

 

[Irishteen]

But can they add another 33k onto that with only 32% to come in?

It's at 50% right now, the rate of their increase has jumped largely so it's likely to be much higher than double the current level

 

[KUEFC09U2]

It's at 50% right now, the rate of their increase has jumped largely so it's likely to be much higher than double the current level

Really? says on mine 68.46% with 37,592 sold.

 

[GibsonExplorer]

Yes, but my ZOO TV concert stub says "MTV presents" on it. So, sponsorship or not?

If it is sponsorship, then U2's hypocrisy is undeniable.

As for sponsorship being acceptable now, that comes as no surprise because everyone's values seemed to have taken a dive since the "good ol' days". Just don't pretend that U2 didn't loudly proclaim at one point in their career that corporate sponsorship is wrong.

 

[Irishteen]

Really? says on mine 68.46% with 37,592 sold.

Oh I didn't notice it updated. Looks on course for 60+ hopefully it'll hit the 70,000 projection

 

[GibsonExplorer]

New line of U2 defense: "Can YOU sell 70k records in a week?"

 

[dopper]

Not really.

If U2 put on a JT type of tour, that is, four men on stage with a huge joshua tree design in the background, then there's no need for sponsorship. And ticket prices can be reasonable.

That said, I recall in 1988 or 89, radio here in the U.S. was giving U2 a hard time for charging $40 for tickets in Ireland. The comment was that most of U2's fans were students then and that type of money was tough to come by.

But this is what a lack of sponsorship can cause. Plus, back then, Ireland was having financial problems - it simply cost more to get the show going.

U2 limited sponsorship with ZOO TV (only have it as "MTV presents") and charged low prices. They almost lost $$ on the tour, and would have, if it weren't for things like T-shirt sales! How awful to tour for that long, sell out everywhere, yet have it be a financial loss!

Going back to the JT tour, people who saw it would complain how they couldn't see U2 unless they were really close. Given that most people weren't close, U2 appeared like ants.

Since then, U2 have had screens and TV's, allowing everyone the ability to see at any angle. They have had more elaborate set designs to add a visual element to the music. And some of those designs were adored by fans (like the famous "heart"). But all of this costs $$.

As was done with ZOO TV, U2 have often had sponsorship if it relates to music. But times are changing.

If Blackberry can help generate $50 ticket prices (which surprised some of my music friends who aren't necessarily huge U2 fans - they felt U2's ticket prices would be astronomical), then all the more power to them!

I've been debating about a new phone for a while. I've been leaning towards an iPhone. But ya know, maybe this Blackberry sponsorship will convince me otherwise. It's a win-win for everyone.

I think MTV was considered more of a national promoter like Live Nation than an actual sponsor. I don't think MTV gave U2 any money, rather I believe they received a cut of the gross in exchange for hyping the tour.

 

[manicmarc]

Lets face it, Ronan Keating is number one with an album full of covers and a blatant cash-in on mother's day.

It's the same reason The Sun sells more than The Indy or The Times, most people have poor taste. We should be grateful it was number one for two weeks!

Of all my most recent album purchases, it's the only one I have kept playing. Usually I go back to other stuff in the car, but I can't put NLOTH down...