CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP

[madonna's child]

If sponsorship means significantly lower ticket prices, then I'm for it. But if it's just to give U2 more money to play with gadgets, then, that's not so cool.

 

[Jamila]

I would really ask U2 to NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP - it goes against almost every anti-establishment bone in U2's body (remember Bono's comment - We're here to f*ck up the mainstream?).

U2 is best when they stay close to their roots - to their inner sense of INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE.

I don't want to see U2 bought and sold - they are much more precious than that.

Otherwise, why don't they just sell the rights to "Streets" to the highest corporate bidder?

I will keep an open mind and would ENCOURAGE U2 TO LET US KNOW THEIR RATIONALE on this matter.

But I still hope they don't do it!

YOU GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN FEEL....

 

[Bunbury]

Didnt Adam say one time they are willing to take corporate sponsorship as long as they don't have to kiss their asses??

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't like the idea of corporate sponsorship, but it depends on what form.

Apple (which would probably really be iTunes sponsorship I presume) would sit okay with me. Same with VH1 etc. It's all music related. If they just had a cola company or credit card company etc, then I'd be pissed off. If it's Apple flogging iMacs I wouldn't be happy, but if it's U2, a band, as a part of the music industry, working with another company based in music, in the distribution of music (iTunes, VH1) thats all good with me.

 

[shaun vox]

as long as they dont charge fucking 100$ a ticket its fine with me!

elevation anyone

 

[kennerado]

Shaun Vox appreciate the fact you live in the US, prices will be double that over here.

 

[shaun vox]

ok yyyyyyy

 

[U2girl]

This is just a rumor.
Besides it's not like they'll go with Coca cola or something, the article clearly said they're considering a high tech company. If this means lower ticket prices and going to more places around the world, I'm all for it

 

[wild honey 7]

I have to say as much as I don't like the idea of corporate sponsorship in general......to me it really is much more important WHO is sponsoring them and NOT that they MIGHT be sponsored.....I'd be absolutely ok with high tech companies....please just not anything food/drink releated......

 

[isabelle_guns]

I can understand everyone's anger but what is wrong with corporate sponsership? Maybe it'll mean cheaper tickets for us.

 

[isabelle_guns]

This would affect their credibility and standing, in my opinion..

why would it ruin their credibility? do you want to pay $200 for a ticket and if so....could you buy me mine please.

 

[isabelle_guns]

SELLOUTS

90% of the bands out there have corporate sponsorship, look at the ticket stubs. So I guess this means you're never going to go to a concert again right. And if U2 are such sellouts, what the fuck are you doing here? Go back to you local club and watch a garage band.

 

[isabelle_guns]

i think, before some people lose their heads, we all need to take a step back and remember that this is just a rumor.

Rumour or not, the ignorance of some people's comment regarding this subject irritates me.

 

[isabelle_guns]

I find a statement like this to be really sad. If they did have sponsorship this tour, don't you think that a band opinionated as U2 is would have a damn good reasoning behind it. And why would this make them sellouts? Why do some people have the idea that one cannot be successful and have integrity at the same time?

He wrote that statement with no backing for attention, he probably never sees any shows or gets out of the house much, let him be.

 

[isabelle_guns]

Ok I admit I wasn't exactly serious with that post, I knew it would light a fire under someone's ass.

Don't even fuckin' start with me. You meant what you wrote, you just took back your comment 'cause of the heat, now live with it....go troll somewhere else.

 

[isabelle_guns]

I would really ask U2 to NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP - it goes against almost every anti-establishment bone in U2's body (remember Bono's comment - We're here to f*ck up the mainstream?).

U2 is best when they stay close to their roots - to their inner sense of INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE.

I don't want to see U2 bought and sold - they are much more precious than that.

Otherwise, why don't they just sell the rights to "Streets" to the highest corporate bidder?

I will keep an open mind and would ENCOURAGE U2 TO LET US KNOW THEIR RATIONALE on this matter.

But I still hope they don't do it!

YOU GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN FEEL....

So I guess you didn't go to the elevation tour since it was sponsored 'cause doing so would mean that you didn't stay close to your roots.

 

[isabelle_guns]

Shaun Vox appreciate the fact you live in the US, prices will be double that over here.

It'll double 'cause of the australian economy, that has a part in ticket prices.

 

[jinn77]

U2 recently talked about an unofficial covenant thay had with their fans about calling it a day if they released two below par albums back to back. I personally always felt that no corporate sponsorshipwas another un oficial covenant U2 shared with its fans. Please don't sell out.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

why would it ruin their credibility? do you want to pay $200 for a ticket and if so....could you buy me mine please.

It would make them look like they are in bed with big business, and I like to see U2 as a band not a corporation..and also I find when musicians are associated with commercial product that it looks tacky and greedy. There is also the fact that U2 is a very wealthy band too, I hardly think they are going to need funding for a tour.

 

[Bono's shades]

I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does it had better be unobtrusive (name on the ticket stub and that's it), and we'd better get lower ticket prices out of it.

 

[Jamila]

Actually. isabelle_guns, I didn't go to see the Elevation tour because I was unemployed at the time and couldn't afford a ticket!

I'm starting to notice a lot of defensiveness in the threads here that is starting to concern me.

Let's all post our ideas and voice our opinions without all the attacking on each other.

As a person who has followed U2 for longer than many of you have been born (23 years), I can tell you that a negative and attacking nature is something that is not associated with U2 and probably something that they would not be proud of to see in their "fans"!

So let's all try to be kinder and more patient with each other.

That's the U2 way.

WE'RE ONE, BUT WE'RE NOT THE SAME. WE GET TO CARRY EACH OTHER....

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

Let's all post our ideas and voice our opinions without all the attacking on each other.

So let's all try to be kinder and more patient with each other.

I totally agree with that. Let's tone down a little. This thread started civilized, let's not make it go downhill because we don't agree with someone else's opinion.

 

[anitram]

Awesome. A co-sponsorship by Tampax and Gillette would mean we'd all get useful freebies after the show is over.

 

[ramblin rose]

Awesome. A co-sponsorship by Tampax and Gillette would mean we'd all get useful freebies after the show is over.

I'd rather think it's apple, free ipods loaded with the U2 catalog for everyone

 

[Lisa71]

I wouldn't mind as long as we get cheaper tickets. I can't afford $260 for a pair of tickets to each show!(Like last time) That's like a couple of days worth of work for me.

As for them being sell outs.... all groups sell out the minute they get money for the music. I think that whole thing of people selling out is kinda crazy because people in the music business are in it to make money. (Well, that and artistic purposes). As long as it's something that they really can get behind and not just any product out there like "Dawn, dishwasing detergent for U2".

 

[isabelle_guns]

Actually. isabelle_guns, I didn't go to see the Elevation tour because I was unemployed at the time and couldn't afford a ticket!

I'm starting to notice a lot of defensiveness in the threads here that is starting to concern me.

Let's all post our ideas and voice our opinions without all the attacking on each other.

As a person who has followed U2 for longer than many of you have been born (23 years), I can tell you that a negative and attacking nature is something that is not associated with U2 and probably something that they would not be proud of to see in their "fans"!

So let's all try to be kinder and more patient with each other.

That's the U2 way.

WE'RE ONE, BUT WE'RE NOT THE SAME. WE GET TO CARRY EACH OTHER....

I wasn't attacking, just stating my two cents 'cause it is a discussion and I am always tolerable and accepting of others opinions at the same time voicing my own.

 

[iacrobat]

I wouldn't be too worried. If U2 ever did accept corporate sponsorship I don't believe they would ever let it compromise their artistic vision. Maybe that is why it is hard for them to find a sponsor!

I am pretty sure Bono has said that they would accept sponsorship, but they have never been able to reach an agreement. I think that was at the Popmart press conference in NYC.

 

[Jim]

They took corporate sponsorship on the Latin America section Popmart didn't they?

 

[klappie]

One of the main reasons U2 have such a high level of respect in the touring industry is their ability to put out high profile shows again, and again. The ZooTV shows, Popmart and Elevation were landmarks in their own way in the industry.
ZooTV was expensive for the vidiwalls used, Philips didn't want to pick up the tab for developing the sreens which left U2 putting their necks out in order to get the concept of the ground the way they saw best fit. They did a smart thing by presenting the rest of the stage really stripped down giving it a bare 'industrial' look
Popmart - somewhat similar, again getting out with a never before tested prototype of a screen nearly 10x larger than the surface used on ZooTV. In my opinion it hasn't really been acknowledged enough, but U2 once again set the standard in innovative sreens..This time with help of some great companies involved in the development of it.
ZooTV - little money was made, but there was some profit, I believe. Popmart was a nightmare, too costly and nearly ran out of control but the band and crew held up very nice. Whatever one might think of pop and the popmart shows, they WERE artistically a great succes ask anyone in the industry. So the reason to get it out despite making perhaps only £100, 000 profit on it? Just watch that show...and it makes you want to go out and tour the album.
Elevation was different, it was sharply produced and money was made as costs could be surpressed a bit, but still the show was brilliant in all its so-called " back to basics" approach..and PiGi projectors aren't cheap aswell

Whatever the band decide to go for next tour I'm sure it will be another feast as there is a great team at work there. If they decide to go with some companies to surpress the cost of technologies used (Sony would be best, Apple wouldn't participate as one of the main sponsors at the events itself, to much money involved), with perhaps MTV/VH1 helping out in advertisements...as always has been the case.

just my $0.02..!

 

[tkramer]

Michelangelo got paid to paint the Sistine Chapel by the church.
Gutenberg began a business arrangement with Andreas Dritzehn to create movable type.
Salvador Dali was a money sucking attention craving freak.
Andy Warhol made art from a campbell's soup can.
U2 charged 130.00 for half the seats on the last tour.

You don't want a see a "sell out?"
Stay home and play your piano for free.

U2 can put a sponsor on, so long as it's tasteful what does it matter?