What does everyone think about that U2 IPOD commercial now! - Page 3 - 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, 06:38 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Layton


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.
__________________

blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:41 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl
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.
__________________

financeguy is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:52 PM   #33
War Child
 
Layton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 750
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl


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.
Layton is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 06:52 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
u2granny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pious Aires, WA
Posts: 15,191
Local Time: 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy




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.
u2granny is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:14 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 04:31 AM
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.
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:30 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,477
Local Time: 06:01 PM
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.
Yahweh is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:34 PM   #37
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,453
Local Time: 10:01 AM
Quote:
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.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:40 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:45 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Indie is the most shallow, fake, and judgemental of all "genres." It's all complete BS. Music is secondary to stance and pose.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:48 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBrau1
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'.
financeguy is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:57 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


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.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 08:09 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,902
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by corianderstem


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.
Chizip is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 08:16 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip


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
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 08:40 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 01:01 PM
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.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 10:12 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,526
Local Time: 10:01 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 01:01 PM.


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