What does everyone think about that U2 IPOD commercial now!

[blueeyedgirl]

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.

Ok but why are U2 doing this NOW? Why haven't they been allying their name with other products in the past? To me it indicates a desperation to find a marketing tool for them now.

PS are you saying that Island (or whatever they're called now) are part of the Apple group? Otherwise I don't understand the point of your argument.

 

[financeguy]

Ok but why are U2 doing this NOW? Why haven't they been allying their name with other products in the past? To me it indicates a desperation to find a marketing tool for them now.

Yes but apparently after ZootV/Zooropa made losses (the tour, not the album), they decided to allow advertising at future tours, whereas previously they had declared advertising at concerts a big no no.

If there is an argument that U2 sold out, I suggest one would have to go a further back in U2 history than the I-Pod thing.

Paul McG. and the management crowd have always had a bona fide fondness for making money, and personally I see nothing in and of itself morally objectionable in that.

 

[Layton]

Ok but why are U2 doing this NOW? Why haven't they been allying their name with other products in the past? To me it indicates a desperation to find a marketing tool for them now.

PS are you saying that Island (or whatever they're called now) are part of the Apple group? Otherwise I don't understand the point of your argument.

U2 are doing this NOW because it's the cutting edge NOW to do it. There hasn't been any mp3 record companies in the past. The online part of the music industry didn't really exist until recently. Why wouldn't a band go into business with a company that can best represent that part of the band's business? It's no different than a band choosing a more traditional record company that best represent its interests through more normal distribution means. And no I'm not saying Interscope is part of the Apple group. I said many times that each one of them represents a different part of the distributory system within the music industry. U2 are covering all their bases within the music industry as it's currently made up. It took some real forward thinking to make this move. There will be many followers in the years to come if the online part of the industry stays strong and relevant.

 

[u2granny]

Paul McG. and the management crowd have always had a bona fide fondness for making money, and personally I see nothing in and of itself morally objectionable in that.

Yes, I believe there was money involved with all of their recording contracts.
I also think their legacy is safe.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I understand the music business is all about making money. I understand owning downloading is the way to make money. I understand U2 are into making money. U2 used to be able to hide that a lot better once.

 

[Yahweh]

The idea of pretencious bastards pretending they dont like capitolism is so cliche in the music industy. U2 havent really ever hid the idea that they wanted to make money nor be the biggest band in the world. Thats what really makes both elitist bands and elitist fans a piss off to me. Radiohead comes to mind as being one of these bands...but there are many others that like to pretend they arent in it for a profit and that is obserd.

 

[corianderstem]

I understand U2 are into making money. U2 used to be able to hide that a lot better once.

So you'd rather they be kind of sneaky and surreptitious about it? I kind of like that they're honest about it.

 

[financeguy]

I understand the music business is all about making money. I understand owning downloading is the way to make money. I understand U2 are into making money. U2 used to be able to hide that a lot better once.

Look at it this way. A lot of musicians got ripped off by managers, record companies, etc, especially in the '60s and '70s. Isn't it better that U2 have a good management team that looks out for them, as opposed to an exploitative manager that screws them?

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about the I-POD thing, you're totally entitled to your point of view, I'm just saying I'd rather U2 be financially secure than not.

And here's a thing, I read today that the estate of the late Michael Hutchence was declared, and it amounted to precisely zero. I'd hate to see that happening if any of U2 died prematurely, and thankfully it won't, because they have a good management team and are financially secure.

 

[MrBrau1]

The idea of pretencious bastards pretending they dont like capitolism is so cliche in the music industy. U2 havent really ever hid the idea that they wanted to make money nor be the biggest band in the world. Thats what really makes both elitist bands and elitist fans a piss off to me. Radiohead comes to mind as being one of these bands...but there are many others that like to pretend they arent in it for a profit and that is obserd.

Indie is the most shallow, fake, and judgemental of all "genres." It's all complete BS. Music is secondary to stance and pose.

 

[financeguy]

Indie is the most shallow, fake, and judgemental of all "genres." It's all complete BS. Music is secondary to stance and pose.

Well, yes and no. I can respect someone like Jello Biafra who put's his money where his mouth is, so to speak, but I agree that there is a certain amount of pretension involved in the 'indie mindset'.

 

[MrBrau1]

Well, yes and no. I can respect someone like Jello Biafra who put's his money where his mouth is, so to speak, but I agree that there is a certain amount of pretension involved in the 'indie mindset'.

I can't stand it. And I'll make no apology for that. It IS compete horse shit. Attutide 1st, music a distant 2nd.

 

[Chizip]

So you'd rather they be kind of sneaky and surreptitious about it? I kind of like that they're honest about it.

i dont mind a band trying to make money when it doesnt screw their fans. this IPod thing, while after a while became annoying because it seemed like it was played during EVERY commercial break, did nothing to screw the fans.

ive said this in another thread, but the one thing that does bug me a bit is how they released all of the good b-sides for this album as part of the complete u2 collection on itunes. before, you used to be able to get the bsides by spending a few bucks for the singles. but now, to get them legally, you have to spend 150 bucks. thats kind of a slap in the face to the diehards fans, because only the diehards are the ones whod want those b sides, yet they already have all the other songs. so they are forcing them to pay 150 bucks for just the few songs they dont have. i dont like that.

 

[MrBrau1]

i dont mind a band trying to make money when it doesnt screw their fans. this IPod thing, while after a while became annoying because it seemed like it was played during EVERY commercial break, did nothing to screw the fans.

ive said this in another thread, but the one thing that does bug me a bit is how they released all of the good b-sides for this album as part of the complete u2 collection on itunes. before, you used to be able to get the bsides by spending a few bucks for the singles. but now, to get them legally, you have to spend 150 bucks. thats kind of a slap in the face to the diehards fans, because only the diehards are the ones whod want those b sides, yet they already have all the other songs. so they are forcing them to pay 150 bucks for just the few songs they dont have. i dont like that.

But on the plus side, I got every track, no quality loss, for $0. So did my brother, sister, Chelsea, buddy from work, Mark, Mac, 90% of this board. They knew what they were doing. They were selling U2 to a new generation. The ones that don't buy cds.

Beautiful Ghost
Levitate
Smile
Love You Like Mad
Xanax And Wine
Flower Child
Yahweh (Alt. Version)
ABOY (Alt. Version)
Native Son
SYCMIOYO(Alt. Version)
Fast Cars
Mercy

 

[MrBrau1]

It's also a good thing The Beatles aren't around today. For all their wonderful songs, they wouldn't meet the standards of millions of indie music fans, thus being dubbed "shit" because they wrote songs that got stuck in your head, and they had no shame when it came to selling their tunes.

 

[martha]

Selling out is allowing Nissan to use Bargain for a fucking truck ad, and Tommy for Claritin. Selling out is someone allowing the Clash to sell Jaguars and Pontiacs. That's selling out.

Doing a commercial and not taking a thin dime for it, using to to get your music into the hands of new fans? That's not selling out, that's brilliant marketing.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Indie is the most shallow, fake, and judgemental of all "genres." It's all complete BS. Music is secondary to stance and pose.

Some of the best music I've ever heard has been from bands who were on indie labels. Some of them would never have got a major label deal and would never have been heard otherwise. That used to be the role of indie, to take a chance on what the mainstream didn't want. But this is a spurious argument because real indie doesn't exist anymore, all those channels seem to have been swallowed up by the, what is it, 4 major corporations who cover music these days.

I'm going back to my rocking chair now.

 

[U2DMfan]

U2 used to be able to hide that a lot better once.

So you're talking about an image problem, right?

 

[david]

It would suck seeing a commercial for a product like a hamburger and hearing a U2 song being played in the commercial just to sell the hamburger.

The greatness of the IPOD commercial was that it was the perfect context with U2 appearing in the commercial. It was like a U2 music video that got played many many times in regular TV. It was brilliant.

 

[TheQuiet1]

I was just happy to see U2 on TV
The U2 Ipod was perhaps more questionable than the advert itself but even that some would exhort as marvellous because it gave people the chance to get together U2 B-sides, rare tracks and albums that previously would've taken years to culminate.

If people want to complain about U2 'selling out' etc then I think the service charge for U2.com should be the main point of evidence. Yes, it allows you watch all of U2's videos (I believe the stereophonics website does so for free, you don't even have to be registered) but U2 are multi-millionaires, would it really bankrupt them to put the videos up for free??

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

The commercial annoyed me then and it annoys me now.

It seemed like it was on constantly. I hated Vertigo b/c of it.
Oh yes, it's true.

But I don't even own an ipod yet. The fact that both my brother's and my friend's ipod broke within 3 months of purchase is making me wary.

I am also disgruntled that I have to pay $150 bucks for the cool b-sides.

 

[TheQuiet1]

But I don't even own an ipod yet.

I don't either, which probably says a lot about the success of the U2 ad in terms of persuading me to buy the product, which was, after all, its main intention!

 

[financeguy]

I am also disgruntled that I have to pay $150 bucks for the cool b-sides.

Assuming i-Tunes is available in your country, you can download i-Tunes onto your PC and purchase most of them for $0.99 or €0.99 each, apart from a few of the very early demos like the Fool and Street Mission and the B-Sides of HTDAAB and the live stuff, which are only available to people who purchase the whole package.

But all the other stuff, you can pay for and download on a track-by-track basis without buying the whole package.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I don't see anyting wrong with the IPod commercial. It's just a new way to advertise the band's product, which is their music. The medium for their product has changed, so it is smart for U2 to embrace it.

 

[financeguy]

You know, I never even saw the damn commercial.

I don't watch much TV and also whenever there is an ad break I just switch channels.

 

[Yahweh]

Nobody joins a band that doesnt want their material heard so what is the problem with selling your music and affiliating it with a product that you like. Apple has had U2 in their commercials before this wasnt the first time.

Any band that tells you they dont want to make a profit and have their music heard is lying. U2 have been put in this position "it is their duty to abuse it".

 

[starvinmarvin]

Once I heard Gene Simmons (yeah, I know....) speak at a music conference and he made a really good point about this issue. He said that "anyone who signs the dotted line on a record company contract automatically becomes and entertainer, and their music becomes a product that is bought and sold. The music business is a business, and that's why it's called the music business" He said that anyone who turns their noses up at busines side of the music is either lying or is a hypocrite. Everyone joins a band to get their music heard, and very very few of these indie bands would turn down a record contract if they were offered one. It's easy for an indie band to say they're "keeping it real" because thy've never had to make any tough choices.

 

[cypress]

I did not have a problem with the ad then or now. Living here in "hip-hop-land" it's difficult to even SEE a new U2 video on any of the numerous MTV channels (since they're 80% hip-hop/rap). I still have not seen a non-streamed version of either the "City of Blinding Lights" video nor the entire original (non-MTV version) of "Vertigo".

My point is, the I-pod ad was one way, particularly in the States, for U2 to get their music out to a wider audience. The song soared up the charts here and that had to include a significant number of younger fans who probably got their first exposure to U2 so I think it worked well.

And, btw, "Hello hello" to everyone here.

 

[TheQuiet1]

Hi Cypress.

Looking at the reaction it has got this Ipod ad has certainly been a gamble for U2. On the one hand it has raised the profile of U2 (thus perhaps reaching new fans) but on the other it has perhaps alienated some longtime fans who were unhappy about the ad.

 

[Tech]

Haven't seen the ad so can't comment. Although I would love to get the u2 ipod edition my siblings didn't go for it (asking as a b-day gift.....instead just got an ipod mini) So can't complain I guess.

 

[martha]

but on the other it has perhaps alienated some longtime fans who were unhappy about the ad.

I'm sure these alienated fans still went to at least one show.