schnumi
Refugee
I agree, a U2 album will sell wheter it will release in january, march or august doesnt matter.
Why an early 2009 release makes sense - commercially
- Thread starter u2search
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
A U2 album has never been released any earlier than February. I don't think they're gonna start now.
Moser
Refugee
Wow, the commotion Bono causes is remarkable.
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Totally agree unless they have 2 albums to release at each end of the year.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I really like this idea
(even though I'm still fighting feelings of let down.
I was so looking forward to this )
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Wow...
CD sales - yes, old-fashioned CD sales - can still be huge for certain artists. Granted, this isn't the 80's or 90's where the top 10 albums all sold at least 50,000 copies, even during a "slow period". However, 2008 showed that artists can still sell 750K to 1M copies in their first week even if it's not the holiday season. Coldplay showed this and I imagine U2 will as well.
However, holiday sales easily add to this. During that 7/8 week period, from about mid-November to the first week of January, an artist can easily sell far more than they did during the rest of the year. This is why there are SO many releases at that time. Trouble is, with so many releases, some can get lost - only the really big ones stand out. U2 is one of those groups that can count on big holiday sales. U2 is also one of those groups that providing the album is strong, will see the album still in the Top 100 the following holiday season (as was true for AB, ATYCLB and HTDAAB). Having an album in the Top 100 for two Christmas seasons shows not only initial strength, but good legs - that means the album was very well received by the public.
With iTunes, U2 can do a lot. I often feel artists still haven't grasped the full potential of iTunes. U2 have done more with their "box set", which is a great start. However, I often think that an artist could really drum up business by having the main hit song along with a "free b-side" thrown in. Or, if that's "impossible", then charge $1.49 (U.S.) for this extra song. For 50 cents, fans would love it and it would generate even more sales and exposure.
As for releasing the actual album on iTunes 2 months before the CD - this is illogical. What's to gain?
In the 90's, Pearl Jam released a vinyl only version of their album a week or so before the CD version. Fans rushed to buy it, but also complained as record players were fading and they wouldn't have a great way to listen to the music. Likewise, not everyone uses or wants to use iTunes (or other online sources). Why force fans to do this? Why not have the album on iTunes and on CD at the same time?
Plus, if the album isn't ready, the album isn't ready. An early iTunes release is moot.
Ideally, the best time for U2 to release this album is about 2 weeks before Thanksgiving. They'd have the big first week, then the whole holiday season to enjoy. If the album is strong, it will linger in the Top 100 for quite a while (as U2's past few releases have done).
But if the album isn't ready, then a March release is most logical. No one releases albums in January - period. That's the worst time for a release. But a March or April release is feasible. The competition will be less and U2 will be able to dominate the charts for a while (even if they take a bit of a hit in sales).
If a U2 album or any other album has such long legs, why does it matter how many they sell in the first week or even month? I've read somewehere that even the Joshua Tree sold more albums after its first year. If people don't rush out to buy it the moment it arrives, they'll buy it later if the album is strong enough. Like I said before, this will keep it higher in the charts for much longer.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I agree. Plus, it would jive with Bono's claim that they want 2009 to be their year; it certainly will appear to be their year and nobody else's when they're on top of the charts for weeks.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I agree. Plus, it would jive with Bono's claim that they want 2009 to be their year; it certainly will appear to be their year and nobody else's when they're on top of the charts for weeks.
2008 is supersaturated with product. 2009 will certainly be their year. Of course the one thing the album needs to sell no matter what period is if it is a rival for their best album. That alone will make people want to buy the album.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Whoever said that St. Patricks Day being on a Tuesday this year- you might be onto something there.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Just received an email from HotPress and they are saying Feburary.
New U2 album provisionally slated for February 2009
but inside source?
New U2 album provisionally slated for February 2009
but inside source?
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Band insider? How specific! 
This is still hilarious and I wish I'd called it out in the other announcement thread...
It's almost like a dictionary definition of hyperbole and bullshit!
This is still hilarious and I wish I'd called it out in the other announcement thread...
It's almost like a dictionary definition of hyperbole and bullshit!
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
OMG! It was printed on the INTERNET!!! IT'S A FACT NOW GUYS!
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Just received an email from HotPress and they are saying Feburary.
New U2 album provisionally slated for February 2009
but inside source?
Fuck, atu2 was right about the delay with their "multiple sources". Who knows about these things anymore? They could be exactly right with that date. At least it fits with what Bono is saying at the moment. I'll give them credit for that.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
Wow. The Slow Loris is everywhere.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
by the way, now that I've gloated, i think February is a good time. things are generally quiet then, so i think this will be good for their sales and exposure.
February will be a good month. New U2 album and Packers Super Bowl victory!
February will be a good month. New U2 album and Packers Super Bowl victory!
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Were you one of the sources?
Dammit, you cheated!
I'm Bono.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I'm a Redskin fan, but my best friend is a big-time Packer fan, so I can support that.
At least he wouldn't be whining about how booting Favre off the team was such a horrible idea. February has got to be the most boring month of the year for music. At least January tends to have interesting news about future releases.
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
So much negativity on here. Stop! Please!?
U2Fanatic4ever
Blue Crack Addict
PowerSurge
New Yorker
Just received an email from HotPress and they are saying Feburary.
New U2 album provisionally slated for February 2009
but inside source?
Thanks a bunch for the link, I really appreciate it...
...but I'm calling MAJOR bullshit on this source.
That would mean that they'd be releasing the single to radio sometime in the beginning of January, and even that would only yield MAYBE a month between
a single release and an album release. Total bullshit.
Most major artists give ATLEAST 6-8 weeks or more to allow the single to marinate on the radio before letting the album go public.
I think we'll see a mid to late March or early April release like we did with POP.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Yeah, probably, but the February release wouldn't surprise me all that much. With U2, nothing really does anymore. I could see U2 releasing the single at the end of January, definitely.
PowerSurge
New Yorker
So when do you think they'd release the single?
Did I read it right that there won't be ANY new U2 music in 2008? If so then that also means no new single. So do you really see them releasing it in the beginning of Jan? I just don't see it.
Not sure why, but it seems really odd for them to do it. If you want 2009 to be your year then why in the hell would you release anything at the very beginning of the new year that will easily be forgotten by the time the Grammies come 10 months later, know what I mean?
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I can see it, but I wouldn't bet on it. If Bono is to be trusted, I'm going with early February for the single, late March for the album. And let's not twist his words; he did say that he wanted 2009 to be their year. They want to DOMINATE 2009, which means starting early and touring all the way through.
However, this is just what he wants. Larry may have different wishes.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
No matter what U2 want to dominate commercially and critically. They already won Album of the year twice in the Grammy awards. I want them to ignore them this time. It's all about the music.
U2 will get some awards for certain songs but probably Album of the year will be left out just like with Achtung Baby because they want to spread the wealth to other artists. How many other artists got album of the year twice in their careers? Frank Sinatra? Bob Dylan? I don't think anyone won 3 times.
Duffy and Coldplay will probably get nominations for album of the year. GO DUFFY!
BWU2Buffs
War Child
Backlash from who? They have the most dedicated fan base going these days so the fact that some are disappointed that the album will be delayed a few more months seems unlikely to inspire a reaction to appease a fan base that will be lined up for the disc and downloads once the official release date is known.
The John Tree
War Child
I'm a Redskin fan too, and hopefully this new album is out in February so I can get over the mass depression that will inevitably be this season.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
