(08-29-2005) U2 Fans Angry at Band's New Web Charge -- Sunday Independent*

[dsmith2904]

U2 Fans Angry at Band's New Web Charge

U2 DEVOTEES have accused the band of exploiting vulnerable fans after the band's website introduced an entrance levy on the fan forum.

Until last week, those who logged on to U2.com could exchange opinions with other fans online free of charge, but now they must pay up the full $40 (€32) subscription charge to do so.

Now the band's supporters are so incensed that they have come together and organised a petition to save the U2.com fan forum called Zootopia.

U2 fan Declan O'Reilly told the Sunday Independent that the hundreds of fans who access the forum were hugely disappointed at the abruptdecision.

Mr O'Reilly, who runs a tribute website to U2 called Hanoverquay.info, said he was only made aware that the forum had been restricted to paid subscribers when he saw an emailed petition from a fan on his own website.

The fan explained that the website masters claimed that the charge was to cut out troublemakers on the forum. When Mr O'Reilly tried to access the forum, he was denied, but given no explanation why.

He said: "I am not a paid-up subscriber myself as while I attend U2 concerts and purchase the band's CDs, I don't believe in paying for the privilege of going on the website."

Mr O'Reilly added: "I am sceptical of the reasons why they introduced this charge and feel it is just a ploy to play on fans' vulnerabilities. I think that fans deserve a full explanation."

It is not the first time U2 have been accused of greed by irate fans. In January, the band's website message board bristled with complaints about the price of the Vertigo tour tickets.

One fan wrote: "They tout themselves as a benevolent band, and yet they charge top dollar." A spokesman for the band's management did not return calls for comment.

--Sunday Independent

Thanks Niamh_Saoirse!

 

[Schmeg]

Wow, that's ridiculous.

 

[ponkine]

I can´t believe U2.CON is getting even worse every day

How long...how long must we sing this song?

 

[L03VIk]

Who needs U2.com, when we have this place????
Why not make interference the official fan site, mr Bono?

 

[DaveC]

Why not make interference the official fan site, mr Bono?

Because then they'd charge us 40 bucks to come here too.

 

[Zoomerang96]

dave speaks the truth.

u2 is all about the money. and i do mean ALL.

 

[U2Man]

Because then they'd charge us 40 bucks to come here too.

LOL

 

[financeguy]

dave speaks the truth.

u2 is all about the money. and i do mean ALL.

rumour has it Thom Yorke is not poor....

sorry that's blasphemous isn't it

 

[doctorwho]

I highly doubt U2 sees one cent from these online memberships. Someone else runs the site and that management felt the need to either charge more or eliminate free forum memberships. Either way, U2 is not making $$ personally from their website membership fees. It's all going to those who work on the site (for better or worse).

But need I remind people that you don't have to pay anything. Don't like it, don't join. I paid this year (just the $20) because I was curious. Whether I pay the full $40 next year to renew is very open for debate right now. I'm leaning towards "no".

 

[Bono's Doll]

I have already given U2 so much of my money what's $40 more.

 

[-macphisto-]

Because then they'd charge us 40 bucks to come here too.

DaveC how does the division bell rank of best floyd albums?

 

[digsy]

how long do you think a thread titled "u2.coN fan site" would last on zootopia???
it's tempting to give it a go....

 

[AtomicBono]

rumour has it Thom Yorke is not poor....

sorry that's blasphemous isn't it

KILT IM!

I never go on U2.com anyway. I'd rather be here.

 

[Shade]

I highly doubt U2 sees one cent from these online memberships. Someone else runs the site and that management felt the need to either charge more or eliminate free forum memberships. Either way, U2 is not making $$ personally from their website membership fees. It's all going to those who work on the site (for better or worse).

Dude, how do you know for sure that U2 doesn't see ANY money from that website? Why would the U2 Corporation sign a contract with a with a web company for a pay website if they weren't going to see a dime from it? Even if you can't accept that Bono likes money, do you think a shark like McGuinness - who gets a fifth of the band's take - would seriously allow that to happen?

But need I remind people that you don't have to pay anything. Don't like it, don't join.

And this is the point where Brainy gets thrown out of Smurf Village on his head.

 

[Hawkfire]

How the mighty have fallen...

U2.com has sucked hard since day 1, it is below avg for a band website.

The propaganda bait & switch confirmed my suspicions it was cash-in time for the Rolling Sto...err, U2.

 

[HelloAngel]

Ah well - luckily U2 fans have built such great websites for other fans that things can still be copacetic even if things at the official site are not.

 

[Doppelgang]

as some have said already...U2.com is posted by a company that is a business itself that buys the right to special discounts for marketing (eg t shirts seell to us for $20.00 and t the web host's cut of the profit maybe 5$ or so)

if you go through to sign up (pay your 40) you'll see a link or name of the actual company that posts and hosts the "official" website and here you'll see its other clients that they host "official" sites for, ...some big names

that said, u2 definetly sees a profit through ticket, shirt album sales ect that flow through the website but i,m not sure they get a cut of the membership fees

and as was said already its good we have low cost / no cost option sites like INTERFERENCE where the water still seems fine...c'mon in

 

[Bono's shades]

This is ridiculous. If you have a problem with toublemakers on a Web site, you ban them - don't start charging for what was once a free message board and penalize everyone, including the innocent posters who weren't causing problems - especially when it's on the official site for a band of multimillionaires. Doesn't U2 realize how this looks to people? Or do they even care anymore?

I don't want to believe U2 have become just another bunch of greedy musicians gouging their loyal fans, but lately they just make it harder and harder for me to keep my cynicism at bay.

 

[Doppelgang]

This is ridiculous. If you have a problem with toublemakers on a Web site, you ban them - don't start charging for what was once a free message board and penalize everyone, including the innocent posters who weren't causing problems



yes i agree

about the part about the band not caring or knowing, i hope its is a case of not having had time to address the issue

 

[frozenmuze04]

I want to believe that the band cares, too, and I've believed in them for fifteen years - but they do keep making it harder. And if they're so swamped that they can no longer keep a careful eye on their own organization, it's time to evaluate how the whole thing functions.

 

[ramblin rose]

There's a thread right now there started by one of the moderators about what happened with the free forum and the question was asked if the band was aware of what happened. Here is the answer given by the moderator:

"A major decision like this won't be carried out without the band and/or managements input and blessing.

Anyone who thinks U2 don't care for their fans welfare and protection whilst visiting their official site obviously doesn't know the band well at all "

 

[Hawkfire]

The band does care - about getting more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, that's quite evident.

PoP was the worst thing that ever happened to U2...not so much because it was a flawed record, but due to U2's 180 degree reaction to the reaction. 2 questionable Best Of's, 2 watered down contemporary AOR albums, enough "product" to choke a pig, $90 T-shirts and even more money after that for website access to their dogsh*t site.

Look at how HOW TO was marketed - exactly like a cheapo horror film...get everybody to buy in during the first week when there's no negative word of mouth, get the bad reviews to hold off printing until it's out there, and slash prices to inflate the sales.

For a band whose win percentage was around .950 from 1984-1997, I could never have foreseen such a precipitous quality control decline.

 

[Slipstream]

I'm really disappointed and feeling really cynical by this whole thing. I was wondering why I couldn't log on a few days ago.

Does U2 really have to charge $40 to access a forum that used to be free? And is that a yearly charge??? Holy f*ck if it is. Way to attract younger fans chaps! I don't care what anyone says, they DO have a say in matters such as this. It's their bloody website! And they do this after the whole ticket fiasco earlier this year. Nice one guys.

You know, after hearing from critics all the time about U2 becoming sell-outs like the Stones it's hard to argue with them anymore is it? And I'm the biggest fan in the world. I've defended them in every which way. I'm just really pissed off.....anyway....we'll have to see what happens I guess.

I like it better here anyway.

 

[U2dork]

Before everyone gets their panties completely bunched up, I think it should be noted that the mod also said the free forum's deletion might not be permanent.

 

[2Hearts]

The 1 thing we could ALWAYS count on was Larry's integrity. He is no crook. I still believe that. And for that matter, HTDAAB does not sound 'greedy' to my ears. It sounds genuine. I don't know what the deal is with this particular incident, but I do not like U2.com at all. I have never and will never give money to that site.

I did send them an email though:

I am very disappointed at the removal of the free fan forum. Younger fans (i.e. teens) cannot and will not pay $40 to express their opinions on U2 and their music. This is not a good move on U2.com's part. Hopefully, the kids will go to a free U2 fan site instead of giving up on the band. If teens mean anything to U2, the pricing of tickets, T-shirts ($90!, gimme a break!), and Zootopia needs to be reevaluated ASAP. Free U2 fan sites have mods that are able to regulate the forums w/o charging a membership fee. Besides, $40 is too high of a price. I'm a U2 fan and I'm simply letting you know that U2's image takes a beating every time a young person sees U2 merchandise that is too expensive for them. Merchandising, ticket prices, and U2.com are making the band look like money-hungry crooks (or worse, like KISS). I do not like that, and neither should you. Thanks.

 

[Zoomerang96]

rumour has it Thom Yorke is not poor....

sorry that's blasphemous isn't it

radiohead don't charge anything for their website.

but radiohead are a huge enterprise, i'm well aware.

and they're certainly not above scrutiny. i'm sure they're hypocrites in a lot of areas.

 

[jacobus]

don't forget:
U2.COM is the crappiest site of any group on the web

they are greedy assholes
and U2 are responsible for that shitty site and though they are responsible for the greed...but hey maybe they give away the money to Africa???

 

[ramblin rose]

Well, the free forum is back. Let's see if the members can act like normal people and the troublemakers have learned their lesson.

 

[Elvis]

I highly doubt U2 sees one cent from these online memberships. Someone else runs the site and that management felt the need to either charge more or eliminate free forum memberships. Either way, U2 is not making $$ personally from their website membership fees. It's all going to those who work on the site (for better or worse).

But need I remind people that you don't have to pay anything. Don't like it, don't join. I paid this year (just the $20) because I was curious. Whether I pay the full $40 next year to renew is very open for debate right now. I'm leaning towards "no".

I recall at one time reading that U2.com had well over 100,000 paid memberships at $40. Do the math.

Thats $4,000,000.

It doesnt cost $4,000,000 to run this site, and it surely doesn't cost u2.com $4,000,000. If you don't believe that U2 see profits from their ventures... you're completely in the dark.

 

[DonoMan]

They took down the free forum because some people were stirring up trouble, tempers flaring, etc. Call it a "cooling off" period. It had nothing to do with the band's "greed". The people who are fast to jump to conclusions are the same people who are largely responsible for dragging the U2 name through the mud. I'd be happy to see it stop any time now.