What if: POP released Nov.`96 and HTDAAB released Mar. `05

[jick]

POP was a moderate commercial failure in the US for U2 standards at 1.3 million copies. But POP was released on March and immediately followed by a tour the very next month. It did not have the benefit of holiday sales (Thanksgiving and Christmas), neither did it have time for a second single or lead time to hype up the tour.

HTDAAB made full use of a pre-holidays marketing blitz and was released on the perfect time to maximize sales during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons. Therefore, I think U2 maximized all the possible sales they could get with HTDAAB during this period.

So what if we turn the tables - what if POP was released on November `96 to take advantage of the holiday push, how much would it have sold and would people still call it a commercial failure in the US? And what if HTDAAB was released on March of this year with tour to follow immediately on April - would it still be well-accepted in America?

Try to think what would have been the sales of the two albums if they were released on those respective dates.

Personally, I think POP would have sold just a shade above 2 million when all was said and done while HTDAAB would be just a shade below 3 million by the end of the tour. I think in the music biz, timing is everything and POP was a victim of bad timing while HTDAAB had perfect timing.

Cheers,

J

 

[Axver]

If Pop were released in November 1996, U2 history would have been completely changed and I doubt there would have been a HTDAAB to release in March 2005.

 

[jick]

If Pop were released in November 1996, U2 history would have been completely changed and I doubt there would have been a HTDAAB to release in March 2005.

Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

Cheers,

J

 

[Seconds]

I don't think releasing POP in November would have made that big of an impact in U2 history.

They would have probably sold a couple of thousand more records but nothing else would have changed.

Wasn't The Joshua Tree released after the holidays also? If it would have been released in November, does that mean it would have been an even bigger hit? Doubt it.

 

[D'oh!]

if Pop was released in Nov. 96 it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever......it would still have been the dud it is today...

As for HTDAAB....im listening to Miracle Drug as i type this....i think sales would have been the same......Huge! ....figures Pop could never hope to reach.....

sorry Jick i don't think timing was a factor in Pop's failiure or HTDAAB's success......in the end i think the music of those two albums spoke for themselves....

i'm listening to SYCMIOYO now......nothing on Pop is half as good...
it's definetely the music!

 

[rjhbonovox]

POP was a moderate commercial failure in the US for U2 standards at 1.3 million copies. But POP was released on March and immediately followed by a tour the very next month. It did not have the benefit of holiday sales (Thanksgiving and Christmas), neither did it have time for a second single or lead time to hype up the tour.

HTDAAB made full use of a pre-holidays marketing blitz and was released on the perfect time to maximize sales during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons. Therefore, I think U2 maximized all the possible sales they could get with HTDAAB during this period.

So what if we turn the tables - what if POP was released on November `96 to take advantage of the holiday push, how much would it have sold and would people still call it a commercial failure in the US? And what if HTDAAB was released on March of this year with tour to follow immediately on April - would it still be well-accepted in America?

Try to think what would have been the sales of the two albums if they were released on those respective dates.

Personally, I think POP would have sold just a shade above 2 million when all was said and done while HTDAAB would be just a shade below 3 million by the end of the tour. I think in the music biz, timing is everything and POP was a victim of bad timing while HTDAAB had perfect timing.

Cheers,

J

It wouldn't have sold any copies cos it wasn't ready in November 1996.

 

[marshall faulk]

Pop didn't have enough "radio friendly" singles on it - especially one that could crossover different formats in the US. I think the band thought Staring at the Sun was that single, but it didn't have a traditional, radio-friendly chorus or "hook" to it. Timing of the release might have boosted first week sales modestly but Pop just did not connect with the broader (U.S.) audience as much as other albums.

HTDAAB had a widely exposed, more radio friendly 1st single and it definitely helped to have the holiday season sales (and iPod marketing exposure) to drive 1st week (early) sales.

HTDAAB long term sales trends will get another boost from the tour - but I think it will need a crossover single that hits the adult alternative stations in the US to push the album back into the top 10. Pop didn't have one, ATYCLB had Beautiful Day, JT had ISHFWILF/WOWY, AB had One. Vertigo/ABOY are a little too rocking to get much airplay on those types of stations in the US. OOTS, COBL, MD all could be that single (I'd vote OOTS). Listeners of adult altern. stations tend to be older and typically slower to go out and buy new CD's. They will be the next wave of HTDAAB buyers if one materializes.

Time will tell......

 

[U2Kitten]

Hey Marshall, I never knew you were a U2 fan! Welcome to the board!

 

[marshall faulk]

Thanks. I need something to do in the offseason and as I edge closer to retirement.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if u2 had released staring at the sun as the first single, pop would have done better... in fact, if they had released ANY single besides discotheque first, it would have done better...

the hype was that u2 was doing a "dance," "electronic" album... which really wasn't the case at all. but by releasing a song title discotheque with that silly village people video as the first single, it only played right into that thought that it was an electronic dance album. if they would have released staring at the sun or last night on earth or gone... everything woulda been different.

 

[Lancemc]

I still think Gone would have made a fine first single. Give it a great video and POP and follow that with Staring at the Sun, and POP might have even been viewed as a great rock album of the year, instead of the cold reception it did recieve here in the US.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

The Media killed POP even before it went out! I remember being so mad at radio stations and newspapers after Discotheque was released as the 1st single. They all said that U2 had turned into techno..... I was sick to hear that, cause it's not true at all..... just some special beats....that's all!

The album itself has great songs, probably 3-4 of the finest U2 songs ever.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Oh, I don't think it was the media who killed Pop, U2 had a big hand in that themselves. Bringing in Howie B just punctuated the point that this was delving into uncharted territory for U2. However, in the end, I just don't believe they pulled it off.

 

[Balfron]

if pop had been released later they would have had time to finish it and it would have sold more

 

[barrett]

Release time of album had nothing to do with it. Any follow up to Zooropa labeled as "brit-hop dance music" was going to have trouble in the US.

First US expsoure to POP- U2 pretending they are the Village People in the Discotheque video.

Second US exposure to POP- U2 in lingerie section of Kmart announcing tour.

 

[starsforu2]

Ack! 8 years on and you believe that better marketing would have helped Pop become a better album?
Does anyone remember that the critics loved this album? RS gave it 5 stars and if you want to blame the album description on anyone, blame it on U2. They advanced the idea of making a more danceable album, not the press. The press only knew what the band fed it until the album hit the streets. The band were trying to tap into the zeitgeist of the moment because it's where they were at that moment. But even if they did catch the dance wave, it wouldn't have mattered. It's just not that strong of an album. The songs are all pretty good, but most songs lacked that anthemic musical quality that U2 have brought to their other albums. As odd as Zooropa sounded to some people, it still sounded like U2, and it was still big music in all the right ways. Pop missed out on that big music when they picked Howie B to produce. If you listen to Hallelujah and Elvis Ate America (both products of his work) they are both empty. Meaning, they don't use all the space that's available to them. He encouraged U2 to do that in Pop and as a result most songs don't sweep you up and take you away like Streets, or Pride or Beautiful Day did.
Instead they are shells of what they could have been, relying on whispering or space junk noises to set it apart, and it just didn't work.
In terms of marketing, they got 6 out of 12 songs onto the radio in 8 months! They tried like hell to market it and no one was buying. At the end of it all, they have redone half the tracks from the album and if they released it today, it still wouldn't sell any better.
I applaud the band for giving it a go, but they picked the wrong guy to produce... if anything your premise in this thread should be, if Pop had been successful would U2 have dumped their producer a year into HTDAAB or would they have released it as is last year. I bet the lessons during Pop were really instructive on this album. Finish the album, then set the tour. Don't make the mistake of releasing an album that lacks magic.
Pop, for me, lacks magic. Good songs, but not great songs. And better marketing wouldn't have helped it sell another unit.

 

[LeafsNation]

Pop, and excellent album, had two things that made it sink....a horrific album title ("Pop" is generally a dirty word in Canada and the States for fans of Rock and Alternative Rock), and the release as a first single of Discotheque which made many people falsely conclude that it was indeed a pop or disco album.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

If Pop were released in November 1996, U2 history would have been completely changed and I doubt there would have been a HTDAAB to release in March 2005.

you're right. pop would've sold better and they wouldn't have had to sell out and make two radio friendly albums.

i'm being cheeky here, guys! i'm kidding...........sort of.

 

[rjhbonovox]

you're right. pop would've sold better and they wouldn't have had to sell out and make two radio friendly albums.

i'm being cheeky here, guys! i'm kidding...........sort of.

You may only be kidding but what you say is true. Anyway who cares if POP didn't sell well in the USA. As Bono said in the documentary about Larry "Passengers was a chance for Larry to get out of the left side of his brain". Well POP was a chance for Americans to get out of the left side of their brain!

 

[jick]

if u2 had released staring at the sun as the first single, pop would have done better... in fact, if they had released ANY single besides discotheque first, it would have done better...

Agree.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

Let's not try to turn this thread into another discussion of POP's merits and demerits. Let's just try to speculate had U2 released POP earlier (or later) to go with the Christmas season.

I think POP would have sold better with a November release date (whether 96 or 97, and if tour would start only the feb or march thereafter) simply because it could garner better first week sales and get through the holiday push. When shoppers buy albums during the holidays, many don't listen to them but just give them as gifts anyway. So POP would have gained ground on sales based on external factors (anticipation, promotion and marketing).

HTDAAB on the other hand would still probably have its strong debut even if released during March because of its slick promotional campaigns (iPods, etc.) but it will not maintain its 4 week run over 300,000 sales because there would be no Christmas season during March so no holiday push or massive shopping spree.

But at the end of my hypothetical scenario, while POP would be able to get to 2 million in the US, it still wouldn't match HTDAAB's sales under my different timeline.

Cheers,

J

 

[Nube Gris]

Hey wait a second, wait a second.....
Pop is a great album, it has some extraordinary songs, Gone, Please, Staring, Mofo, Discotheque

The reason Pop didn't sell as well in the U.S was:
1. Selling the tour instead of focusing in finishing the album. That denied the fact for U2 to listening more to the songs, maybe extra arrengments were necesary (i think the album is great as it is)


2. Lack of comunication by the Band: Promotion was not the best, there were no pre-shows, and the stuff that U2 has been doing recently before tours.
Im sure the band thought: " We've never done that before, we are the biggest band, its not necessary, the tour in enough" Well it was not.

Also explaining a bit the "Pop concept", explaining the meaning of the songs, opening up a little more
The times were changing. Mid 90's. They had to use that strategy in the ATYCLB period. The "Pop concept" left a lot of people confused. People didn't get the K-mart stuff.
The concept was brilliant, but was not well explained. All people knew was that "U2 is building the biggest screen in the world and a weird arch.....what the fuck is that? "



3. Pushing the release date and no rehearsal time- the band was not familiar with the songs live and couldn't play them properly.

Why do you think U2 starts a tour in the U.S?
Because its the biggest market in the world, and its the best way to PROMOTE THE NEW MATERIAL. TO TRY AND PUSH ALBUM SALES.
If the songs dont work live, and then you have to drop them of the set........ well there is no way to promote the songs at all.

U2's set list should have been:

Mofo
Discotheque
Do you feel loved
Staring at the sun
Gone
Last night on earth
If God will send his angels
Please

Then:
I will follow
Even Better than the real thing
then
All i want is you
then
i Still havent found

By having that extra months to rehearse the songs and work on them for the live shows im completely sure an extra couple of million copies would have been sold
Maybe not A.Baby status, maybe no Joshua..... o.k.
But sounds diferent if Pop would have sold at least Triple platinum.
Pop stolled at 1.5 million.


Get this clear. It has nothing to do with the village people video or Discotheque as a first single, or Bono's yellow shades, Edge's baldness and mexican clothes, or The stupid theory "Pop was not a good name" C'mon wake up!!
PROMOTION was not good enough.
The Album was Good enough to sell well

It didnt happen, but that is very very distant in being a crap record as a lot of people are pointing it

Rolling Stone magazine gave it 4 out of 5 stars and said:
"Pop sounds absolutely magnificent. The songs are going to sound great in the summer.
U2 has made some of the best music of their lives"



Pop is an extraordinary album. Im sure that if a new or other artist had released that album it would have sold 20 million and considered a Masterpiece

why? Because the "New artist factor"
U2 were not new anymore, they were not the U.S darlings anymore........SO THEY SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON A GOOD PROMOTION the way they are doing it since the last 2 records

The results: More than 20 million copies already in 5 years.
Amazing.


Salud!

 

[Seconds]

Pop is an extraordinary album. Im sure that if a new or other artist had released that album it would have sold 20 million and considered a Masterpiece

20 millions albums? Come on. Be realistic. Do you really think people would buy 20 millions copies of "Miami my mammy" just because it was written by a different band?

If anything, it would have sold less than the 1.5 mill that u2 got.

 

[namkcuR]

All the Pop-bashing is making me upset. Pop is about 100 times better than ATYCLB and about 50 times better than HTDAAB. There are a multitude of reasons of why Pop didn't sell.

 

[david]

I agree with the other person in this thread that said the promotion wasn't that great, it really wasn't. U2 were virtually non existent in the US from the end of 93 until Dec of 96 the only reminders that people had that U2 were still around was Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill and the song Larry and Adam did for the Mission Impossible soundtrack. I wont even mention Passengers since I am pretty sure that flew over and under the radar.

 

[Leebonoman96]

Promotion? Lets face it, U2 Had to promote ATYCLB and HTDAAB because of the failure of Pop. Where were the Pre shows for Achtung Baby? I do believe that if U2 had waited and released it in November 1997 it might have been different. If the songs were finished who knows but in all honesty what song off Pop is played on the radio today. I don't hate Pop, I listen to it every now and then, but there isn't one song even close to Beautiful Day or Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own. U2 need radio friendly music and sadly nothing at all on Pop was, therefore the album bombed. And Jick if the album came out in November 1996 I think U2's career would have been almost completely destroyed. They lost so much popularity with Pop I give them all the credit in the world for getting it back with ATYCLB.

 

[namkcuR]

I don't hate Pop, I listen to it every now and then, but there isn't one song even close to Beautiful Day or Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own. U2 need radio friendly music and sadly nothing at all on Pop was, therefore the album bombed.

No no no no. Every song on Pop is better than Beautiful Day. The only songs on HTDAAB that are on equal ground with Pop's songs are 'Sometimes...' and 'City Of Blinding Lights', and MAYBE 'Miracle Drug'. The idea that U2 NEED radio friendly music is totally ridiculous. Achtung Baby is arguably their most celebrated record, and AB isn't really all that radio friendly, is it? You think 'The Fly', 'Until The End Of The World', 'So Cruel', 'Zoo Station', 'Love Is Blindness', etc are extremely radio friendly? Joshua Tree's songs were much more radio-friendly. Yet, of the songs I just mentioned, one was a single and another is one of U2's most celebrated live numbers. U2 does not NEED radio friendly music. They've CHOSEN to make radio friendly music this decade.

 

[Leebonoman96]

Every song on Pop is better than Beautiful Day? Are you bonkers? Achtung Baby is very radio friendly. I'm always hearing One, Mysterious Ways and Even Better Than The Real Thing on the radio. You chose to select songs that were not released as singles besides The Fly. The reason U2 choose to make radio friendly music now is because of Pop. Like I said I don't hate Pop but it's common knowledge that the album didn't connect. Even the band admit that.

 

[Saracene]

I don't see why people need to single out US as the place where POP didn't sell. It wasn't exactly crash-hot in many countries around the world.

The reviews thing is a tricky one. On one hand the media is definitely prone to making 180-degree turns when an album doesn't sell well, especially when it concerns a commercially successful band like U2. On the other hand, the critics are human like anybody else and sometimes are oh-so-eager to heap praise on the latest release by a long-established, respected artist.

And Achtung Baby, not radio-friendly? One, Mysterious Ways, Who's Gonna Ride... are all easy on the ear and very radio-friendly. The songs you've mentioned mostly aren't, but only because they're "album" songs rather than "single" material. Every mainstream album imaginable has them.

 

[namkcuR]

Every song on Pop is better than Beautiful Day? Are you bonkers? Achtung Baby is very radio friendly. I'm always hearing One, Mysterious Ways and Even Better Than The Real Thing on the radio. You chose to select songs that were not released as singles besides The Fly. The reason U2 choose to make radio friendly music now is because of Pop. Like I said I don't hate Pop but it's common knowledge that the album didn't connect. Even the band admit that.

The band admitted that starting during the ATYCLB promo. They did that to re-enforce the idea that they were 'back to roots'...to in fact boost sales for ATYCLB. I've heard stories from people that were at Popmart concerts that say that in the Tour Programme booklets, U2 talk about how proud they are of the new album(at the time, Pop). They re-invented their opinion of Pop for this decade to coincide with their records now.

And yes, every song on Pop is better than Beautiful Day. I like Beautiful Day, I like it a lot, but every song on Pop is edgier, more complex, and just better. I don't need the radio-friendly-ness. I can listen to Mofo and hear all the layers there where a lot of people think it's U2 trying and failing at techno. It's a beautiful song and a brilliant record.

And yes, One, Mysterious Ways, Even Better Than The Real Thing. Add that to Who's Gonna Ride and maybe Ultraviolet. That's five radio-friendly tracks vs seven not-so-radio-friendly tracks. I think AB is one of the greatest records ever recorded, and I don't care about how accessible it is. I'm just pointing out that U2 succeeded hugely with this record and the majority of its tracks are less than radio-friendly. They don't NEED it like you say they do.