What does everyone think about that U2 IPOD commercial now! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-20-2005, 12:24 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 21,021
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Same as I did then - a good way to touch a new medium and get exposure to a new audience, embracing rather than rejecting the digital era.
__________________

U2girl is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 12:46 AM   #17
The Fly
 
Exit thru Wire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 290
Local Time: 02:11 PM
I didnt have a problem with it then or now
__________________

Exit thru Wire is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 01:04 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog
U2 legacy...in 2004/05...can't be touched. The only people who bitch about it are those who are fanatics like us. I think it was just another medium that U2 conquered.
Not exactly true, because i know a lot of kids from school who were non-U2 fans who became U2 haters because they couldn't stand Vertigo because it was "everywhere," especially in that commercial.

But you're right that U2's legacy can't be touched, that I-Pod commercial caused them to slip a little, but overall their legacy is great.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: the overpromotion of Vertigo has caused so many people to hate U2/Bono. Of course these people are idiots cause they haven't even heard any of U2's other songs and they don't know anything about Bono (God among men), but nevertheless it has not helped U2. And it's such a shame that Vertigo is the only song that'll be popular from this album when there are classics on the album such as COBL, Miracle Drug, Original, just to name a few. In the ATYCLB era 4 U2 songs became popular, not just 1: Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Stuck. None was too overpromoted, and they each got their time in the limelight. Frankly, I don't see that happening for HTDAAB.

I wandered off-topic.
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 01:20 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 11:41 PM
As a long time fan of U2, I was frankly pissed off when I saw the ipod commercial. During the 80s and 90s when concert sponsorship was more common, like Stones etc being sponsored by Pepsi etc, U2 mentioned often in interviews how uncomfortable they were with the practice and said they would not do that themselves.

What concerns me about the ipod ad, whether they got paid or not, is it was a purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly, as a lead in to their album release. It was a quite cynical move to tie themselves in with the latest fad, a kind of "hey what are the kids into? ipods? Sure why not"

If they had paid for their own commercials ie "here is our album, buy it" there would not be a problem.
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 08:58 AM   #20
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl

What concerns me about the ipod ad, whether they got paid or not, is it was a purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly, as a lead in to their album release. It was a quite cynical move to tie themselves in with the latest fad, a kind of "hey what are the kids into? ipods? Sure why not"
They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.
Layton is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 09:04 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by discothequeLP



i had nosebleeds, way in the back, but dead center stage, and the sound was great. Edge's guitars were really LOUD, and on some parts (like the Zoo Station main riff) you'd get high, thin, tinny sound, but as a gutiarist i loved it. the piano sounded awesome too, real sharp and bright, awesome!
that's good. that's about where my seats are for my show in November, so hopefully I'll have the same experience. (I know it can vary with arena but hopefully it'll be about the same.)
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 10:20 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.
I feel the same way. I think is shows how smart they are. Bruce said it perfectly:

"Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."

U2 got as much out of Apple, as Apple got out of U2. Turning the tables as they say.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 10:35 AM   #23
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,819
Local Time: 09:11 AM

I loved the iPod ad. I always got excited whenever it came on.
__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 12:02 PM   #24
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,453
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Loved the ad then, still dig it now. And agree with everything MrBrau1 said above.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 12:42 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,527
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Maybe the sound was sucky at Anaheim because I was way the hell up on Adam's side. Or maybe I was just tired.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 02:26 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1

"Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."

Bruce even added a pun, he put a "Think" in front of the "Smart." It was awesome how he just slipped it in. It took me a few seconds to realize it was a pun.

"Think Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."
Infinity is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 05:24 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.
I think you miss my point. U2 have been making commercials for their albums forever, as do every other artist. I don't have a problem with them publicising their music via commercials, music videos and so forth.

I have an issue with them allying themselves to ipod. That is was a cynical move to tie themselves with in the "youth market", the market that would probably ignore their videos and their commercials ("ugh, those old guys again")

Doing an ipod ad is no different to doing a Pepsi ad, wearing Nikes and doing a Nike ad. They were using ipod to broaden their buyer group into the youth market. To make themselves cool by proxy.
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:11 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
shaun vox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: LA.cal ROCKnRoll city!
Posts: 3,192
Local Time: 01:11 PM
dont forget that TARGET only u2 cd(it was during atyclb)!! talk about giving up!!
shaun vox is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:19 PM   #29
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl


I think you miss my point. U2 have been making commercials for their albums forever, as do every other artist. I don't have a problem with them publicising their music via commercials, music videos and so forth.

I have an issue with them allying themselves to ipod. That is was a cynical move to tie themselves with in the "youth market", the market that would probably ignore their videos and their commercials ("ugh, those old guys again")

Doing an ipod ad is no different to doing a Pepsi ad, wearing Nikes and doing a Nike ad. They were using ipod to broaden their buyer group into the youth market. To make themselves cool by proxy.
I'm not missing your point at all. If you think of Apple as U2's record company it all makes more sense. What's the difference between Apple using a U2 video to cross promote one of its products (Ipod) and Interscope/Island using U2's name and reputation to cross promote one of its products (another band)? This stuff has been happening forever. Back in the day, Sony used to use it's artists to cross promote its Walkman. You don't think Interscope would like to market U2 to the "youth market"? They just don't have the resources that Apple has to be as effective at it. Like it or not, bands are business entities. That automatically happens when they sign a record contract. At that point they're in business with that company. Which means that they will now be affiliated with other aspects of that company's business, for good and for ill. Apple is a cutting edge record company, at the moment. Traditional record companies are still dealing with CD processing plants, etc. (Remember U2 represents Interscope's versions of those, too). Apple deals with the burgeoning mp3 side of things and has created an innovative music delivery system to facillitate their side of the business. As usual, U2 has positioned themselves at the forward edge of the industry. More impressively, they are still in complete control of their dealings with their 2 record companies.
Layton is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:22 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
smurf_sista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: in the TARDIS
Posts: 400
Local Time: 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bonochick
I loved the iPod ad. I always got excited whenever it came on.
i have a theory... it must be on a hell of a lot more times over in the USA or the UK or where everyone here lives coz, i've seen it maybe once or twice here in Aus.

as for the iPod being ugly... it's not! but it would look better if it was an old one... the one with the buttons! that would look cool, in black and red!
__________________

smurf_sista is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com