U2 LP13 Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
new thought: if it is tied in to Beats.. I wonder if the Beats service will have the album available to stream before it hits the shelves?

ie CD/LP is released on march 31/april 1, but Beats will have it streaming in the weeks leading up to the release
 
I guess I kinda just don't like the idea that they're sort of giving off this impression like "oh, hey, it's this new single FOR RED" and then come Super Bowl time it's gonna be more like "oh hey, it's the new single FOR OUR NEW ALBUM." Sort of like they're using an AIDS charity to play promotional games.
 
corianderstem said:
Why is so hard to understand that it makes no sense for them to spend upmteen zillion dollars on a Super Bowl ad, with an album coming out within the next few months, and use a song that is not on the album?

Does it not follow actual logic to think that they are using the Super Bowl ad to a) announce the album; b) tie in to the Beats service; and also c) have proceeds from perhaps a download of what might logically be the first single go towards (RED)?

Does it not also follow actual logic to assume that the Super Bowl ad is going to announce a new album, and therefore since they just spent umpteen zillion dollars to make a Big Announcement about the album, they would not give away any album information in a Facebook post weeks before the Super Bowl?

Please tell me where in all of this any of you are following any logic whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that Invisible is not only NOT the first single, but not even on the damned album?

Not even this "distraction" theory makes one lick of sense. Why is it in any way surprising that U2 is doing something related to (RED)?
Click to expand...
I'm with you on some of your points, but I really don't think U2 spent "umpteen zillion dollars" on this Super Bowl add. They obviously have corporate sponsorship (possibly with Beats, we'll see), and they are likely donating the song for "free" (ie, the RED tie in). In the end, it's U2 that gets paid (advertising and promotion) without having to spend much money at all, if any. This band never ceases to amaze me....
 
pocketmerlin said:
I guess I kinda just don't like the idea that they're sort of giving off this impression like "oh, hey, it's this new single FOR RED" and then come Super Bowl time it's gonna be more like "oh hey, it's the new single FOR OUR NEW ALBUM." Sort of like they're using an AIDS charity to play promotional games.
Click to expand...


...but their not if they give all proceeds from the single to the actual charity.....
 
mikal said:
So you really think the band dropped 4 million on a single that doesn't support their new album that is coming out in March/April?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY think that U2 dropped 4 million dollars on the add? Absolutely not. Their sponsor will, though. U2 will likely pay by donating the song for "free" (ie, they won't be making the money off the single - the proceeds will go to RED).
 
The Slow Loris said:
I'm with you on some of your points, but I really don't think U2 spent "umpteen zillion dollars" on this Super Bowl add. They obviously have corporate sponsorship (possibly with Beats, we'll see), and they are likely donating the song for "free" (ie, the RED tie in). In the end, it's U2 that gets paid (advertising and promotion) without having to spend much money at all, if any. This band never ceases to amaze me....
Click to expand...

Wasn't there something yesterday about the $$? $4 million for the ad space? I don't remember if that was in an article or just scuttlebutt, but yeah, it could have been in conjunction with the band and Beats, or even just Beats (as it wouldn't surprise me if they did the song donating thing).

But that doesn't really impact my points or the logic within.
 
Agreed with corianderstem's points. No surprise about charity proceeds tied with a proper single. Especially since U2 and charity are all in one since a loooooong time ago.
 
Thinking more, it's amazing that Invisible is the first single, and for that.

See, Super Bowl is huge in US. Millions watch, and brands pays millions to be watched. And here it goes U2, making everyone see the people who are "invisible", people who really need us in some instance. And bam, drops the new single, and the profit goes to (RED), using this space to promote not only the album or (RED), but also this idea
 
corianderstem said:
Wasn't there something yesterday about the $$? $4 million for the ad space? I don't remember if that was in an article or just scuttlebutt, but yeah, it could have been in conjunction with the band and Beats, or even just Beats (as it wouldn't surprise me if they did the song donating thing).

But that doesn't really impact my points or the logic within.
Click to expand...
Of course the Super Bowl add costs huge dollars. But I can GUARANTEE you it won't be U2 footing the bill! Not in a million years....
 
The Slow Loris said:
Of course the Super Bowl add costs huge dollars. But I can GUARANTEE you it won't be U2 footing the bill! Not in a million years....
Click to expand...

Maybe not the entire bill, but enough where mine and Cori's points don't lose any value.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
purpleoscar said:
And I'm sure that it's easier to play smaller venues technically than big ones. The sound is shitter in large venues and you have to push it more.
Click to expand...

Actually usually the reverse although when you get into stadiums it gets crazy. Anyways, Bono wears in-ears. He doesn't have to push it any more in an arena than he would in a bar. Everything else in the house is up to Joe.
 
Isn't it just damage control? They didn't expect recordings to leak online this early, so they downplay it by only mentioning the (RED) part of whole deal?
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Maybe... it is weird that they'd be doing another one off single, like Ordinary Love, without anything being attached to the new album which is clearly coming.
Click to expand...

Unless - unless! - the new album is so wicked they don't even need Ordinary Love or Invisible on it...just for the sheer awesomeness of having 14 new U2 songs, that'd be amazing!! :rockon:
 
gvox said:
Ok, so I wasn't the only one who heard a Big Country vibe in there huh? I love it!
Click to expand...

I'd like to listen to the part you guys are talking about.. which clip are you referring to? one of the U2BR vids?
 
Registered Dude said:
I really think it's this simple
Click to expand...

I reread the U2.com post and it's pretty evident in the language:

U2.com said:
"There's been some online buzz this week about what the band have been up to in LA.

Here's the scoop:"
Click to expand...

It's sounds like they're trying to save the surprise for Superbowl (not that they can, but it won't stop them from trying)
 
mikal said:
And I'm sure you can provide the proof?
Click to expand...

The band could afford to pay for the whole thing if they wanted. But I have a hard time believing they wouldn't kick in for this at all. They probably had to haggle with Larry to get him to sign off on putting in $100 grand each.
 
mikal said:
And I'm sure you can provide the proof?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Did U2 pay to use their song, Vertigo, in the Ipod add? Did U2 get paid for that add? No. The proof is in the history of U2's business decisions. And who would pay 4 million for a Super Bowl add if they didn't need to? That's what sponsors are for. That's what "free advertising" is for (U2 showcasing the sponsor).
 
lazarus said:
The band could afford to pay for the whole thing if they wanted. But I have a hard time believing they wouldn't kick in for this at all. They probably had to haggle with Larry to get him to sign off on putting in $100 grand each.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree 100%. In no way do I believe that U2 paid for the entire ad. I do believe they paid for some of it though. How much? In not in position to speculate.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
New Album Discussion 9 - Larry needs new arms, ba rum pa pum pum
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
57K
clerks
clerks
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
D
Other bands/artists who've worked with as many great producers as U2?
Replies
4
Views
513
lazarus
lazarus
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
17 18 19
Replies
563
Views
17K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
783
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom