blueeyedgirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Layton said:
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.
Last edited: