Why an early 2009 release makes sense - commercially

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

u2search

War Child
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
596
Apart from artistic reasons, an early 2009 release also makes sense commercially. And not only that, it could also help boost U2's status.

(I started writing this yesterday, even before the 2009 news was official.)

This is not about artistic reasons. I have no reason not to believe Bono's comments. It's just that I was thinking that commercially early 2009 doesn't look too bad to me.


* Sales
January is still a good month. Sales draw consumers to stores who also pick up non discounted items. People come in to change gifts (double or unwanted cd's) etc. and come to spend their gift money / vouchers.

Hardcore fans will buy the album right away anyway, regardless of month. Q4 sales may compensate for the rest of the year, but that is for the total amount of the sales, not for every individual item. In November they're last in line and casual fans will already have spent their cd-dedicated money anyway by then. Even if they choose last minute, there is a lot to coose from.

Album sales may still be important according to Paul McGuinness, but they're nowhere near the ticket income they generate.

No new album by Xmas means that many who are looking for U2-related gifts for themsleves or someone else will buy one of the remasters or some merchandise.

The band seem to have a new contract with Live Nation beginning January 2009. Recording is not included, but merchandise and website are. Maybe this is a better deal than they had, who knows?


* Charts
A November release will have all fans run to the store in a short period of time. This will result in just a few weeks in the charts and then it's gone.
In January the harcore fans will still run to the shops. In January there will be no competition from other new releases. This will guarantee a top chart position even for a relatively low number of sales.

More casual fans and new audiences will not immediately run to the stores so the sales will be spread over several weeks/months. This means the album will stay much longer in the charts or even on top of the charts. Longer in the charts leads to more publicity which leads to more sales and will help sell the tour. Longer in the charts is also very ego/status boosting.


OK, I'm curious to hear what you think of this!
 
U2 ARE the competition, a ego boost would of been beating their rivals in the charts.
 
It doesn't really make any sense commercially, who release in a month were an album that reaches number 10 in the charts will sell less than the album at number 60 just a week or two before?

U2 will be a huge seller no matter when they release but they will sell probably twice as much if they release in November unless they have a string of hit singles that keep the album going for a year which I somehow doubt they will.
 
1. U2 will not get the album out in January.

2. January isn't half the sales month that November and December are

3. U2 will not get the album out in January. Period.
 
1. U2 will not get the album out in January.

2. January isn't half the sales month that November and December are

3. U2 will not get the album out in January. Period.

4. If they were able to release one in January the record company would rush release it for December
 
Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!

:down:

THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!
 
Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!

:down:

I don't want any more surprises. I just want the fucking album.
 
Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!

:down:

THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!

You do realise these guys are sort of working for a Record Label? And you know what...they like to make maximum money on each product. Point is if this album could come out before Christmas it would, if it's coming out after Christmas that means it's not finished yet, so don't expect something in January or February; March will be the earliest I think.

I don't want any more surprises. I just want the fucking album.

QFT
 
THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!

Unfortunately, U2 and its management are stuck in the 80's. Okay the decade wasn't so bad. But the problem is, they haven't changed their release methods since about 1980!

They don't realise that the year is 2008!, they can easily put a single out on iTunes....ummm.....they could pull a Bloc Party and release the album 2 MONTHS EARLY online , before the hardcopy is due. They could even pull a Racontures, but I guess they are too attention seeking.

This Is why, and its not because I dislike him, but a change in U2's management and get rid of Eno and Lanois to shake things up, and I'm willing to put my parents house on it, things would be better!
 
Oh geez! Do they have to look at it commercially all the time??? I know it's a business but you people will not even give them a chance to surprise us and simply drop an album in Feb or March!

:down:

THEY DO NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY! THEY DO NOT NEED TO MAXIMIZE SALES!

I totally agree with you!
 
they don't need the next disc to last till christmas 09.


disc 1 comes out in jan/feb/mar and then next nov disc 2 is released and of course you can buy the two packaged together under whatever clever "we had so much stuff and the reaction it got on tour prompted us to release the rest of the sessions" ploy.
 
The Strokes released their most recent album "First Impressions of Earth" in January of 2006.

What does this mean in relation to U2? I have no fucking clue, but I just wanted to say it. Thanks.
 
lol well I am just sick of seeing fans trying to do the business math for U2! As it is PaulMcG is all about tha $ :crack:

But it's not only U2's decision when to release the album even if they finish it and want it out in January if the record company says no, it ain't happening. We could easily not got an album to next fall because of the record company and nothing to do with U2
 
lol well I am just sick of seeing fans trying to do the business math for U2! As it is PaulMcG is all about tha $ :crack:
Oh lol I don't agree with you on *that*!

But I do agree they're probably not thinking about the money regarding this desision. And they don't "always want to make the most money out of it". It's just that I thought early 2009 isn't bad at all.
 
Oh lol I don't agree with you on *that*!

But I do agree they're probably not thinking about the money regarding this desision. And they don't "always want to make the most money out of it". It's just that I thought early 2009 isn't bad at all.

They might not but the Record Company will; these guys are paying U2 millions to make this album I think they might want that back
 
But it's not only U2's decision when to release the album even if they finish it and want it out in January if the record company says no, it ain't happening. We could easily not got an album to next fall because of the record company and nothing to do with U2

I don't believe that. U2 is very proud that they are nearly independent and have the final say in almost anything and everything. And since Jimmy Iovine and Bono were holiday-ing together (as some people over at Pleba pointed out) you don't have to worry about the record company going awkward :)
 
Back
Top Bottom