MERGED ----> U2 compensated for ABC/ESPN commercials

[BVS]

Who gives a fuck?

Do we think about a paticular product?

Or an idea?

 

[U2DMfan]

It's advertising entertainment mediums. Sports are entertainment as much as going to a movie. U2 are payed royalties when their songs are used in a film, what's the difference?

U2 is an entertainment medium, there is no conflict of interest.

Those who usually have problems with it, are when bands allow music to be liscenced for products.

Besides all this, they freakin appeared at halftime of both the NBA and NFL championsips, you couldn't get more of an outright "sponsorship" than that. But the question is, what are they aiding the sale of? Entertainment.

 

[U2DMfan]

Two questions:

Who or what reported that they were never paid for this in the first place? I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

What is the offending prinicple here?
If they take no money that's okay? Still allowing their music to sell something. But take money and it somehow crosses some imaginary line?

The Ipod deal was the exception to the rule, in almost every case (in America) a royalty fee is paid for using copyrighted material that isn't yours. Also, permission, one way or another is given. HBO and CBS used Beautiful Day numerous times, nobody said anything about that.....

 

[blueyedpoet]

I don't mind U2 being compensated for a live performance whether it be during a half-time show or when I got to a concert.
Currently, I am uncomfortable with the notion of selling their art to another corporation to use to sell another product (or, getting people to watch their tv channel).
As far as movies are concerned, one can argue that movies are an art-form. As such, borrowing other art to further you're own art isn't problematic.
It's a much bigger stretch to argue that Espn's coverage of the World Cup is art.

 

[Canadiens1131]

It's a much bigger stretch to argue that Espn's coverage of the World Cup is art.

It's hard to call 'Million Dollar Hotel' art, either.
Man that film was a piece of crap.

 

[ntalwar]

Re: U2 compensated for ABC/ESPN commercials

Now, they've been compensated for the use of their songs and they've sold Streets. Do they want us to be thinking about the World Cup when they play the song? I know they say they believe in selling soccer (or football) but then why couldn't they just let ESPN use the songs for free?

Anyone have any thoughts?

My theory is that by doing voiceovers U2 went from being (legally) musicians to actors. As such, they are probably members of the Screen Actors Guild, and are required to take wages.

According to Wikipedia:
"The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is the labor union representing over 120,000 film actors in the United States. The guild guarantees members safe working conditions, a minimum wage on union productions ("scale", currently $1,620 per week), and handles payment of residuals."

Now, one may question whether U2 is part of this union. Personally, I was shocked to learn that Tiger Woods is a part of this union and was fined $100,000 by them for filming a commercial during their strike several years ago.

 

[LJT]

^that is why I think they were compensated, much more than the music was used, they leant their voices to the adverts.

 

[Bonochick]

U2 can do whatever they want with their songs. I don't care.

 

[YBORCITY]

When you come right down to it - who really cares if they were compensated for this. In the grand scheme of things - it doesn't really matter.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

as long as they don't start showing up in Gap or Pepsi ads, then i don't really care... the world cup, the iPod... a global event and a technological innovation that deals directly with music... these two things aren't exactly stretches for U2, and don't exactly go against what they've always stood for.

the whole "u2 didn't get paid for the iPod ad" thing is a bunch of bull dinky anyways... true, they did not get paid royalties for the actual Vertigo advertisement... but they most certainly got paid for every download of the song that was tied directly to the ad, and they also got a chunk out of every $350 u2 special edition iPod sold. so yea, they didn't take money for it... but they certainly profited from it.

 

[blueyedpoet]

^but that's just like them getting paid for every album sold.

If it's the voiceovers they're actually being paid for, I can easily understand why they were paid.

 

[Utoo]

I know I've been out of town for a week or so, but did I miss an announcement of them getting paid for the commercials?

When I left, the official word was that they traded the commercials & songs for free for some exposure in return. Official word was that there was no money exchanged. Has that changed?

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Oh My Gawd!! U2 sold out!!

Now that U2 has this done this they will get popular and rich!! And then they'll be like Journey and Styx and Led Zeppelin. People will like them, and they'll become celebrities and the music they make will get marketed to the masses and that will cheapen everything about them!!!




Have I made my point? That and I don't believe they took money for the music anyhow...but if so WTFC?

 

[ntalwar]

Have I made my point? That and I don't believe they took money for the music anyhow...but if so WTFC?

As long as they don't become like Madonna and the Stones and charge $350-400 a ticket...

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Ah, and that's where we all are "NOT" jaded enough. It's only a matter of time before U2 "truly" sells out and starts charging $250 and above for the "best seats in the house". How can they not? They usually tour with one of the most expensive sets/road crews in the business.

You get what you pay for and sooner or later U2 will charge this exorbinant amounts to make ends meet...and to make a little $$$. It's inevitable...sorry to say. Doesn't mean they'll be the majority of the seats, but a few will be very expensive for sure.

 

[U2girl]

I don't really care if BD is used for Olympics, or Bad and SBS and UTEOTW for NFL, or One (Mary J Blige version anyway, so she probably had a say in it too) for the TV network, or their songs being used to promote World Cup or if they play in the NBA finals halftime. I still won't think any differently on any of their songs or their music.

 

[Ifeelnumb84]

Bad was used for the NFL?
When?

 

[MrBrau1]

Bad was used for the NFL?
When?

2001. Same year they played the Super Bowl.

They probably got a check for the Super Bowl performance as well. Which means Beautiful Day, Streets, and MLK are all tainted songs which were written with only 1 thing in mind, $.

 

[JCOSTER]

No, No, No, until I see a check, I don't thinks so, I heard the ESPN commercials where done in exchange if the ONE campaign was used as a sponsor and some of the red products such as the Aramni glasses. If I remember correctly they were also not paid for the Superbowl given the tone of the half time show right after 9/11.

 

[toscano]

No, No, No, until I see a check, I don't thinks so, I heard the ESPN commercials where done in exchange if the ONE campaign was used as a sponsor and some of the red products such as the Aramni glasses. If I remember correctly they were also not paid for the Superbowl given the tone of the half time show right after 9/11.

From the NY Times:


"With record companies decreasingly able to spend money on paid advertising, these kinds of hookups are more attractive," McGuinness said. He said the band's compensation from ESPN was "nothing extraordinary, but we did get paid."

 

[JCOSTER]

From the NY Times:


"With record companies decreasingly able to spend money on paid advertising, these kinds of hookups are more attractive," McGuinness said. He said the band's compensation from ESPN was "nothing extraordinary, but we did get paid."

Paid: maybe it could be a donation to ONE, or they got paid by having the usage of ONE and the red products. Stretching a little here.....

 

[Utoo]

.

 

[MrBrau1]

Paid: maybe it could be a donation to ONE, or they got paid by having the usage of ONE and the red products. Stretching a little here.....

That may be true. But Paul, Larry, Edge, Bono, & Adam got a check with at least 5 or 6 numbers on it for their voices and their song rights. Same thing in 2001 with the NFL.

What they did with that check is anyone's guess. Bank it? Pass it on to a charity? New furniture? New car?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

as long as they don't start showing up in Gap or Pepsi ads, then i don't really care... the world cup, the iPod... a global event and a technological innovation that deals directly with music... these two things aren't exactly stretches for U2, and don't exactly go against what they've always stood for.

the whole "u2 didn't get paid for the iPod ad" thing is a bunch of bull dinky anyways... true, they did not get paid royalties for the actual Vertigo advertisement... but they most certainly got paid for every download of the song that was tied directly to the ad, and they also got a chunk out of every $350 u2 special edition iPod sold. so yea, they didn't take money for it... but they certainly profited from it.

U2 always have, and continue to today, to own 100% of the digital rights to their music. Universal has absolutely no say in how, where, when or for what price U2 sell their music when it is not in hard copy form, nor do they receive any money when it is sold that way. Essentially what U2 did with the Apple deal was in a sense sign Apple up as their secondary record company. Don't fall for all the "iPod is art" "Sexiest thing in music since the guitar" or whatever all those quotes were. There is no overiding sense of it being someting greater or a higher whatever. Don't believe Bono. It's a simple business deal where both parties get a lot out. Entirely about money, and shitloads of it. Apple needed U2 - or someone similar - on board. They needed credibility and respect to go along with the cool technology, and they needed to bust it mainstream and away from being a 'high tech toy'. They signed up U2 right before iPods jumped from being something every late teen/twenty something was aware of and maybe owned, to be something that everyone from your Grandmother to the President to a 5 yr old kid absolutely needed feeling it was a necessary techno-purchase, like a DVD player or digital camera, not just a brand of one of those items. They needed to legitimise iTunes, gain a music legend thumbs up for credibility, and push the iPod into every pocket on the globe. Signing up a band at the level of U2 was a big part of that.

For U2, Apple & iTunes best fit as a digital home for their music. They could sell it all on their own website and get 100% on every sale, but with Apple & iTunes they reach far more people, get free global advertising thrown in, get the whole thing branded from start to finish. Not unlike any other record deal. I could make and sell CD's from my home and get every dollar from evey sale, but a multinational record company pushing my product on radio stations, paying for tv commercials, sending sales reps with my product into every major store in the country, will most likely make me more money. U2 have chosen the same path with Apple. You'd better believe they would have been wooed with an excellent deal on the split from the sale of each track - I'd bet U2 are still getting in the 90's for every dollar.

It's a straight up business deal, not an endorsement, not a placement. U2 and Apple both saw a way they could make a shitload of money so they went for it. Thousands and thousands of suckers bought little black and red iPods at 10% or more above the cost of the exact same product in white, then instantly spent a bomb buying up U2 tracks. Sometimes every U2 track. Probably many bought every U2 track despite already having them on CD. The commercials became the best known of all the iPod series. Apple pretty much got themselves a theme song called Vertigo. U2 halved or quartered their advertising costs. Everyone won. A very smart deal that had it's origins back in the late 80's when a very smart manager made Universal (Polygram then I guess) scratch their heads in confusion and sign over the rights to any and every U2 sale that occurs outside of hardcopy transactions. Couldn't figure how you could buy something without, you know, being handed it. In a few years time the U2/Apple partnership will mean lightyears more than the U2/Universal partnership, and it will make U2 far more money than the Universal partnership ever did. Excellent deals.

 

[BVS]

I never understood why rock music is the only "sacred" art form that is concerned with "selling out".

Painters, comedians, movies, directors, athletes, writers, non rock musicians; no other form of art or entertainment is still held to this "holier than thou" platform.

There's a difference between being a whore and a smart business person, why is this so hard for some to see?

 

[MrBrau1]

There was a really funny interview with Dylan after he appeared in that Victoria's Secret ad.

The interviewer brough up the ad, to which Bob replied:

"What, was I not supposed to do that?"

 

[BVS]

There was a really funny interview with Dylan after he appeared in that Victoria's Secret ad.

The interviewer brough up the ad, to which Bob replied:

"What, was I not supposed to do that?"

Exactly, getting paid to hang out with VS models, who's going to say 'no'?

Just like when Ryan Adams was asked about his Gap commercial. He said who isn't going to take $30,000 for 4 hours of hanging out with Willie Nelson?

 

[zepher25]

OH MY GOD. THEY GOT PAID TO DO A STUPID ADVERT GET OVER IT!!!!! ITS NOT A BIG FRIGGIN DEAL, BESIDES WHAT U2 CHOOSES TO DO WITH THIER TALENTS IS THERES AND NOONE ELSES BUSINESS

 

[U2girl]

Does their label get any money in the downloads/Ipods sold or do they only get the money when U2 sells "hard copy" - albums and singles?

 

[U2girl]

U2/ESPN link possibly explained in further detail

Found this on atu2.com, as stated by Mat McGee:

"Word on the street is that ESPN paid less than $50k for the use of up to 11 songs. So McGuinness was right when he essentially called it "peanuts."

Word on the street is also that this payment is in the form of a donation to the ONE campaign, but ESPN will never admit to that because the corporate people (ABC) don't want to be seen as supporting a "political" issue."