ATYCLB & Tour about Commercialism and Money...

[melon]

I do think that this is the reality after seeing the turn of events since this album was created. However, before you start getting either defensive or anti-U2 (the former being most likely) hear me out!

U2 took a big beating with the expense of Zoo TV and PopMart. While Zoo TV was popular, it was ridiculously expensive to make, and, as a result, didn't post too much of a profit for the band. PopMart was the same way. The expenses were less, because the video screen technology used a third of the space in shipping versus Zoo TV, but was not as successful in terms of ticket sales. Hence, U2 only posted a $3 million profit from that tour.

Then the reality was that since the end of Zoo TV in 1993, their fan base had eroded considerably. While still the biggest band in the world outright, no band will do well unless they can pander to American audiences, which--whether you like it or not--outspends the rest of the world. With "Pop," I think the band took it for granted that their fan base was still there, probably still on their high from the wildly commerically and critically successful JT tour and Zoo TV tours.

Reality hits. Before ATYCLB came out, Bono made a comment that if the album sucked, U2 would consider breaking up, as they didn't want to turn into one of those fading dinosaur bands, and you can tell they very much gave it their all, especially when they switched from Island to Interscope in North America, which has proven itself to be quite the adept marketing machine in the U.S.

Luckily, when the album came out, their hard work did pay off. Their return to rock was a well-filled vacancy in a country fed on pop, hip-hop, and country. The tour was meant to be one that was both easily profitable (hence, why they won't go to Australia, where the currency is weaker) and satisfying to the salacious media, which looks at small venue "sell-outs" more favorably than large statium shows that still had a few empty seats. The "Stuck" video in the U.S. is a natural extension of this, where U2 is purposely trying to pander to the MTV generation, which, honestly, couldn't care less about U2's past success.

My guess is that, with their heightened fan base, U2 will release a new album very shortly, relatively speaking. Maybe in another year? U2's follow-up, in my prediction, will still be very rock-oriented, but will be much more like their traditional 1980s fare--the archetypical Edge guitar sound being more prominent, deeper lyrics, etc. I think the success of "Beautiful Day," which was their most Edge-sounding song in years, not to mention their most successful single in years, will make the boys more eager to capitalize on this success.

So, now that I've finished, what do you think?

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[SkeeK]

and if U2 continue pandering to MTV and making records that sound like the 80s.. they will turn into exactly what Bono doesn't want... dinosaurs.

I hope they will use their popularity to do what they should be doing: fucking up the mainstream. and do something weird and daring.

 

[U2girl]

hmmmm...
in some ways you're right. true, U2 had to "come back" to the world as a rock band.
true, arenas are easy to fill (but i think U2 could fill up stadiums after the success of BD).
i agree that a new album will be released soon (next year?).
as to the sound of it-who knows?
we've heard B-sides from ATYCLB-and we can't say anything in particular: Summer rain is acoustic, Always is rocking, Big girls are best is, ummm, experimental.

but...

i don't think U2 intentionally made ATYCLB the way it is: radio-friendly. i really believe them when they say they were out to "write tunes" and concentrate on the music. and i believe they wanted the same for the tour.
after all, isn't it better go into arenas and fill it up then go to stadiums and not be certain about the success?


------------------
"touch me, take me to that other place,
teach me, love, i know i'm not a hopeless case" - Beautiful day

"be uncool, yes be awkward" - Always

"and you can find your own way out"-Acrobat

[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 09-03-2001).]

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

again and again, u2 fans are being proven as the hardest to please. no matter which turn u2 takes, they get praised by some and bashed by others. there is no fucking way that everyone can be happy, and this is just another thread proving my point.

------------------
-deathbear

 

[pop_mofo]

Ok, correct me if I am wrong (this is my first post, so be gentle) but with PopMart, didn't U2 sign a contract with the promoter (ie. Clear Channel Entertainment) that guaranteed them a fixed amount in exchange for the rights to the tour. Now as I said, I may not have understood this correctly. However, if I did understand this correctly, then it does kind of make the profitability point moot, doesn't it?

With regards to the initial comments about the 'Stuck' video I do agree in some part. Having seen it once, I feel that it is slightly 'poppy' if you will. It does feel a bit cheesy. In the same sense, however, I do feel that U2 wants to be the biggest band in the land. they have said it over and over. I think a slightly glossy video is an extension of this. However, I think what the band realizes, is that the video is a chance to have fun and relax. The message and the art is the song itself. The video is "the window dressing." Alright my friends, discuss amongst yourselves.





------------------
Achtung Babies!

 

[STING]

Melon,
Some corrections are needed as far as the cost/profit figures you have talked about for ZOO TV and POPMART. First with POPMART, the average cost per day was 250,000 dollars. The tour lasted 11 months and had a Gross of $171,000,000. The profit is about $93,000,000 and not 3 million. The band signed a contract with Michael Cohl(the Promoter) in which they recieved 100 million dollars. Michael Cohl took a slight hit to his profits because the tour just barely missed the 100 million dollar profit margin. The band was insulated from any losses before the start of the tour due to the deal with Michael Cohl. The tour turned out to be one of the most successful in history with 4 million in attendance. It yielded a profit of nearly 100 million despite a cost of 250,000 dollars per day.
All though the band switched to Arena's for Elevation uncertain what demand would be like, it is now clear the band could have easily done a Stadium tour closer to success of ZOO TV or Joshua Tree. Again, the band was paid up front, this time by Clearchannel(SFX)
As for the ZOO TV tour, seen by 5,400,000 people, it is difficult to say how successful it was. OF course the media speculation was that profit was low, based on a 30 dollar ticket price and 125,000 dollar cost per day, its easy to see the band did make a profit.
The info for POPMART and ELEVATION I obtained from Amusement Business and Billboard magazine. The info for ZOO TV is more of a guess. I know the arena part for ZOO TV only broke even, but the Stadium part I think posted a reasonable profit.

 

[STING]

Melon,
Another thing is that it is possible to be very successful without playing up to the American audiances. Just look at the huge Global success of The Corrs and Robbie Williams without really making a dent in the USA. Of course this is difficult, but it is possible.
ATYCLB is another perfect example. While the USA is 38% of the world market, only 28% of U2s global sales for ATYCLB come from the USA. 72% of ATYCLB global sales come from outside the USA. The USA has been a weaker market for U2 in recent years, which is why U2 is concentrating so hard on the USA this year. After the next album, U2 might do a worldwide Stadium tour, but not till 2003.

 

[melon]

Actually, U2 even stated that PopMart was costing over $1 million a day. That much I am sure about. The $3 million profit came from the radio, but you know how radios are...often wrong.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[U24me]

Well, I think that regardless of what any of us think, there is a backlash starting against U2 again. I don't really know how U2 could actually find middle ground, really. You either reach out and explore new ground, as they did with the 90's, or you hold back a bit and stick with what worked for you in the past, as with ATYCLB. Critics are going to cream you either way. It's a joke to see critics who originally praised POPMART turn the tables now and criticize it, while heaping praise on ATYCLB.

I am not going to disagree with melon. U2 has made much, much more money with this album and tour than with any of the last three efforts. Their relentless promotions and appearances - even appearing on TRL - was a testament to the fact that they wanted the crown they boldly threw away at the end of the '80's. They have announced to nearly everyone that they are "reapplying for the job", and nearly everyone has granted them that with glowing reviews and continuous praise. Until recently. Just look at some of the latest articles in Ireland papers. There are a few who are starting to really slam Bono and the boys. Why? Maybe they have a legitimate point. But maybe it's because of the very nature of journalism today.

Isn't it more fashionable, as a journalist, to take the opposite stand? And then, wouldn't you be pretty satisfied to watch other journalists jump on the bandwagon, and successfully "expose" something that everyone else was blind to? I mean, there is almost a very scary similarity between the music scene and journalism. With AB and the ZooTV tour, U2 took a big risk. They went against the grain - and it worked. The critics who bashed them for self-righteous rock and stadium tours now loved them again. Then, steadily, things began to decline with Zooropa and Pop. Not initially, mind you, but only after some journalist started to criticize U2, and the avalanche was on.

So U2 does an about face and puts out an album like ATYCLB. No irony, no flash, just good songs. The tour is wildly successful, they win 3 grammies, and Bono has made it into every newspaper in the world with his campaigns. Just as with the late '80's, it's time for the next cycle to begin. When U2 play the VMA's this week, and then announce a fall tour, look for more and more criticism. When they book some additional UK dates in December, it will be because "they are trying to go down in history with the all-time highest grossing tour."

Personally, I believe U2 is the best band in the world. ATYCLB, and the B-sides, are among some of my favorite songs ever. I don't care if the band makes a lot of money. I don't care if they barely made any money on ZooTV. I've seen them in concert at every stage of their career. I've never been let down. I've recently even been elevated. I've bought every album, countless singles, downloaded over 100 bootlegs, etc., and I keep reaching for their music when I look for something new to listen to. I don't care what the press thinks, what the sales are, how the singles are doing, etc. Maybe I shouldn't say I don't care - I find it interesting, but it does not change my opinion of the band and their music.

Now that my long ramble is over, I'll get back to the main point. A backlash is building against U2. I hope that the difference will be on how they handle it this time. They are older and more mature, and should be able to withstand the bandwagon that is coming. I hope they do, and continue to make the songs come first.

 

[STING]

I've never seen U2 state that the tour costed one million dollars a day, and business magazines that I have, Amusement Business and Billboard Magazine both list 250,000 dollars as the cost per day for POPMART. I have also seen this in several newspapers and a few U2 books.
I also have the K-mart Press conference where BONO states they will play anywhere in the world as long as they can pay the cost for the show. But in general, nearly all the shows are set up with profit in mind. U2 new ahead of time that the Stadium in Oregon only seated 30,000, but they booked it with profit in mind. So its easy to see that selling 30,000 tickets for a single show is well ahead of the break even point. Same thing with Salt Lake City where the Stadium only seated 33,000 and was sold out. If the band did not feel they would break even, they would cancel the show, 2nd show in Philadelphia that I bought tickets for is one such case. The shows that only had 20,000 to 25,000 posted a profit. I have all the stats from the POPMART tour and average attendance for the entire tour was 43,000 per night. The tour Grossed 171 million dollars. I posted the exact figure in the "Where The Album Has no Name" forum under the "Statistics" thread. The figure come from Amusement Business which has been tracking the concert industry for over 30 years. The top 10 Grosses each week are shown on Amusementbusiness.com and billboard.com websites, under the title, Boxscores.
I'm positive the tour did cost 1 million dollars a day because the cost would be 330 million. No tour has ever grossed that much and before POPMART was to start, the most optimistic projection had the band Grossing 250 million. The band Grossed 171 million at a cost of about half that.
Of course, the discussion is a moot point since the band was paid up front and insulated from any possible losses due to their contract with Michael Cohl. The bands single show in Reggio Emilia Italy yielded a profit of 4 million dollars for one show! Of course, the reason was 150,000 Italians in attendance for that single show!
Don't pay attention to various media outlets when trying to get exact statistics or figures. For music business, your reliable sources are the music business magazines, Amusement Business and Billboard. No flash, or crazy journalism, just cold hard facts,charts, statistics, usually only read by Music business executives and their staff.

 

[STING]

U2s "reign at the top" went from 1987 to 1994". During this time, the only real backlash came during Rattle And Hum, but from the numbers in terms of sales I never saw a backlash. Perhaps from some journalist, but not enough to impact their popularity at the time. POPMART was a different matter, because U2 at the start of 1997 couldn't really claim to be the sole biggest band in the world(although I'm not sure who could have at that time) and many people from the start were skeptical. Then the bad media that came in a couple of months after the release of the album, help to convince unsure people not to go to POPMART or buy POP. So you could definitely see a backlash at ever level from media to general population in 1997.
I really don't see a backlash to U2 at the moment, despite a couple of journalist in the Irish Independent. Most people love to have U2 around after being slammed with teen pop the past couple of years.
That said 2001 is the first year that U2 is unquestionalbly back on top of the music world for the first time since 1994. Still though, the margin by which they are on top I think is smaller than it was in 1987 to 1994. I think its going to take a little bit more for a backlash this time. If things keep growing at the current rate though, perhaps in a year or two.

 

[pub crawler]

All this PopMart talk prompted me to do a brief web search and although I didn't find anything to answer the profitability question, I did find a Paul McGuinness interview from '97 that is interesting..
http://www.narip.com/networknews/archives/mcguinness.htm

 

[Holy John]

It is a commercial album, and the tour comes with it (although the tour is much much much better than the album). I think U2 made a commercial album to find new fans and bring the others back (since the album is not about experimentation with mostly underground stuff and being "destroy our image").

Look at the 'Elevation' video... that is commercial for kids (all the 7 years old kids I know love U2 because of that video, because of Tomb Raider, blablabla). 'Stuck' is their most commercial effort I guess (Even though I think it's a good song, I could see a boysband playing it with all the little "virgin girls" going "omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg). That album was clearly made with an idea of sucking the people.. commercialism. But who could blame U2 anyways if they didn't want to fade away like dinosaurs...

I think their next album will definitely be more rock-like. As long as they don't become Aerosmith II, making silly love songs for movies and singing Jay-whatever... or Bon Jovi "It's my life"..

cheers

------------------
" I still believe all you need is love, y'know. But I don't think that by just saying it that things will change..."
- John Lennon

 

[DebbieSG]

I think on ATYCLB the emphasis was on the idea that good songs will sell. That's not necessarily "commericialism" but it is good business. I was reading on a lycos opinion board mostly good comments from people who bought the new CD and an approval rating of 86%. Then by pulling back into small venues and using a bare bones set, U2 maximized their profit on tour as well.

What I sense is that fans old and new are generally pleased. Even though it has gotten a backlash, it's kind of nice that the band has stirred all the hullabaloo in Ireland...still a hot ticket! It's just the cynics who would love to find in all the success an ulterior motive or streak of corruption. It's the same old U2 doing what they have to to get the music out to the public.

What's next? I hope something as innovative as each U2 album always is. Something we've never heard before!

 

[STING]

What Backlash? I don't see this at all. I don't see two writers in one Dublin newspaper as being a sign of a backlash. 99.99% of news I have seen worldwide has been really positive. Especially in Ireland. U2 has 5 albums in the Irish top 17 this week. ATYCLB is at #1, Joshua Tree at #5, Best of... #10, Achtung Baby #11, Rattle and Hum at #17!

 

[MSU2mike]

There's no backlash. There have been a few negative articles, but on the whole U2 is being viewed in a wholly positive light right now. Those who are saying negative things fall into one of two categories generally.

1) Fans who were a little disappointed by this or that. Be it the album or the "static setlists" or whatever. So they rag the band some on various boards, but ultimately they're still fans.

2) Those people who just don't like U2, primiarly because they find Bono to be arrogant and pretentious. Regardless of what U2 does they aren't going to like it.

The mainstream media is on U2's side today, and frankly it won't be easy for that to change. See, U2 has something on their side that they didn't have ten years ago; age. That's not to say they couldn't possibly have the media turn on them, but simply that it doesn't happen as often to older artists than to those in their 20's or 30's.

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by STING:
What Backlash? I don't see this at all. I don't see two writers in one Dublin newspaper as being a sign of a backlash. 99.99% of news I have seen worldwide has been really positive. Especially in Ireland. U2 has 5 albums in the Irish top 17 this week. ATYCLB is at #1, Joshua Tree at #5, Best of... #10, Achtung Baby #11, Rattle and Hum at #17!

I also would not consider this the start of a backlash. I do think, however, that U2 has to get cautious and be aware of over-exposure. That was the message I got from these two Irish articles. They wrote negative/critical articles because U2 was everywhere, mostly in a jubilant/uncritical way. So I don't think there's a backlash, but it would be better if U2 could step a little back from the spotlights.

C ya!

Marty




------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[Popmartijn]

I also looked around a little bit on the Internet and found the following article:
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=010904001552&query=u2

This is an interview with Paul McGuinness. There are still no revealing figures about tours and profitability (esp. the Popmart Tour), but it's a nice read anyway. (According to McGuinness the band did lose money during Popmart when they toured the Southern Hemisphere.)

C ya!

Marty

P.S. In Bill Flanagan's book is stated that Zoo TV/Zooropa made a small profit of $20-$30 million solely because of the tour merchandising.

------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

The point a lot of you seem to be missing is that U2 ALWAYS want to sell a lot of albums. The idea that ATYCLB was meant to be a "commercial" album unlike Pop is just plain wrong.
On the eve of the release of Pop in 1997 both U2 and Island records believed it was going to sell like hotcakes. Frankly so did the music industry. Remember all of the "U2 to save the music biz" articles in 1997? Remember Polygrams frustration with U2 for delaying the release of the album? Yes, U2 were trying to make innovative music as they nearly always do but the also believed that dance and techno music were about to become huge in America. They honestly thought that they would be just ahead of the curve and that they would be lauded both critically AND commercially.
I remember a number of quotes from Bono about how he thought Pop would be received like JT and AB were. I also remember a quote in Billboard from an official at Island or Polygram indicating that everyone expected Pop to be the the U2 album to "crack" the 20 million ceiling in sales.
Alas, it wasn't to be. But the idea that U2 were coming from a pure artistic place with Pop and a cold, shrewd and calculated place with ATYCLB is crap.

MP

 

[Zoocoustic]

U2 is in the business to make money first and foremost. I'm sorry, you can say they do it only for the fans or the love of the music, but at the end of the day, if they're not bringing home cash, they wouldn't keeping working the way they do.

ATYCLB is a great album, and it was a brilliant move. In fact, everything they've done since it came out has been genious from a business standpoint.

-They launched their official (although pretty disappointing) website with audio clips shortly before the album was released
-They have promoted themselves and the album in every way possible: TRL, SNL, mini-concerts, award shows, radio shows, tv shows, etc, etc, etc.
-They put out an album filled with radio-friendly, positive tunes right before the holidays started.
-They decided to not release any singles in the US and push the album sales.
-They went on tour after a few months so the album could be hyped.
-They booked smaller venues so as to sell out most shows and avoid the embarassing half-filled stadiums they had during Popmart.
-They booked multiple nights in a city only when they knew the demand was there.
-They remixed Elevation and released it with a highly-commercialized summer movie.
-They will be back to the US in high-demand cities only.
-They will be releasing a DVD right before the holidays of 2001.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of the other brilliant business decisions they've made, but the point is that they have done everything possible to make this album a commercial success. And they needed to. They really did have something to prove after the way Pop and Popmart were received. Thankfully, this promotion has paid off big time and I'd bet that because of the above list, we'll see more albums and tours from the boys over the next few years.


[This message has been edited by Zoocoustic (edited 09-05-2001).]

 

[STING]

Here are the exact Attendance figures and GROSS figures for the 93 date POPMART tour from Amusementbusiness.com that tracks the concert industry, Billboards sister publication.
GROSS: $171,677,024
ATTENDANCE: 3,935,936
Only 15 shows of the POPMART tour were down in the Southern part of the world and Japan. The other 78 were in Europe and North America. There is an on going court battle about the 7 South American shows, because the promoter has yet to pay the band! It is the main reason U2 will not go to South America on this tour. Another 6 shows in Australia and Japan had low attendance, not one show in Australia or Japan had over 40,000 in attendance and 3 fell bellow 20,000 in attendance. The two South African shows had strong attendance though, and I think just sort of got lumped into other area's that clearly lost money i.e. because of funds withheld or lower than expected attendance.
This part of the tour only represents 15% of the POPMART tour. In Carter Alans Book, "Outside Is America", the printed cost of the POPMART tour is 250,000 dollars a day. POPMART went from April 25, 1997 to March 21, 1998. It Grossed $171,677,024 over 93 shows. Non payment of 7 South American Shows and low attendance for Japan &
Australia caused this small part of the tour to lose money. The money lossed there would not really make much of a dent in the total profit figure which is rather large considering the figures.
I have attendance figures for all ZOO TV shows, but only Gross figures for the American shows. Carter Alan's "Outside Is America" gives a 125,000 per day cost for ZOO TV. Figures given for the cost of these tours in a USA TODAY article the week of the opening Vegas show are the same as Carter Alan's book.
As far as U2 being involved in it just for the money, I think this is not really so. If you already had hundreds of millions of dollars, would a hundred million more make any difference. 2nd, at this point, the band makes more from investments than they do from album sales or going on tour. McGuinnes is considered the richer of the 5 because he has had more time to invest his money while the band work in the studio or are on a world tour.
What the band is doing, is trying to expose their art to as many people as possible. They want to be the BEST BAND and the BIGGEST BAND. They want street credibility and popularity. Perhaps a contradiction but BONO has often said that contradictions are part of what U2 is about.
Oh, Zoocoustic, most artist signed to label do most if not all the things you list. Most bands not signed to a label want to be. The difference with U2 is, they already have money, while most other artist do not.

 

[STING]

One more thing, WHERE THE ALBUM HAS A NAME forum has a thread called U2sales/statistics. It has a large number of chart info, sales info, and concert stats!

 

[follower]

STING,

First, thanks for all the info you provided about the Popmart concerts, its gross and losses. I just want to say something about the Brazilian concerts. In fact there is a court battle going on here, involving the band and the promoter of the 3 Popmart concerts in Brazil, Franco Bruni. He claims he did payed the band, but as far as we know he didn't pay the rights to the official copyright bureau (ECAD), it's related to the Brazilian support acts and the laws on copyright here. (I hope you can get what I'm saying, I don't know the especific terms I should use) When the band came to perform their showcase in Rio last year, Bono and Larry stated some things about the problems with Mr. Bruni and the terrible situation that happened in Rio in 1998, when lots of people payed the tickets but couldn't see the show, due to Mr. Bruni incompetence and amateurish. He then decided to sue Bono and Larry.
But I know nothing about these kind of problems on the other 4 concerts they played in South America, 3 in Argentina and 1 in Chile.

------------------
Please sign our petition to bring U2 to Latin America, we deserve to be into the heart:
http://www.petitiononline.com/elevate/petition.html

[This message has been edited by follower (edited 09-06-2001).]

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Red Ships of Scalla-Festa:
again and again, u2 fans are being proven as the hardest to please. no matter which turn u2 takes, they get praised by some and bashed by others. there is no fucking way that everyone can be happy, and this is just another thread proving my point.

I agree

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[karl]

Very interesting thread.

To me the fundamental question about U2's latest strategy is: Can U2 weld good business practices with tasteful/artistic marketing decisions in the tradition of U2?

U2 very much runs the risk of losing its artistic credibility by being perceived as overzealous in its efforts to woo new, younger fans. U2 also runs the risk of being entirely irrelevant to new, younger fans.

The band must exercise sound judgment in making decisions regarding what they should back and what isn't worthy of their support. Obviously, everyone has different tastes and will disagree on their tactics. However, if U2 is perceived, and maybe rightly so, as throwing their name around to all sorts of movies, award shows, projects, causes/issues there will overexposure (like R&H) and people may wrongly disregard the artistic merit of their work (similar to Popmart).

The fact is times have changed. It is not the late eighties and early nineties. U2's approach to marketing at points during that time was less rather than more (with some exceptions, i.e. R&H). U2 didn't have to as aggressively go out and bring in new fans and didn't need to be that innovative in their marketing efforts. Fans came based upon the sheer appeal of their work.

U2's music deserves to be heard. Today, for many reasons excellent music never becomes widely known and bought. For U2 to ignore the TRL fanbase would be a bad move commercially and it would be a shame to not have this powerful, large demographic to get to know U2's music. However, you're not going to market to that group well supporting Wim Wenders' films, doing videos with the look and feel of the eighties videos and not doing popular tv show appearances. Hence, U2's marketing efforts have significantly changed.

At what point does U2 cross the line from marketing this younger demographic using advertising that will appeal to this group and being perceived as greedy, tawdry, and ultimately overshadowing their artistic merit of their work? Maybe, inherently, the type of marketing that appeals to this demographic is tawdry and unworthy of U2?s message and it?s not worth losing integrity to win a lot of these new potential fans? I think it is an issue of creativity and sound judgement.

 

[STING]

Thanks FOLLOWER for correcting me on that point. The Argentina and Chile shows did very well. In fact 4 of the highest Grossing and attended shows of the tour. Since this court battle is only in Brazil, I don't see how the band could have lost money in Argentina and Chile.

 

[follower]

That?s okay STING, although I really prefered that this dirty story involving U2 and my country wasn?t true in fact, but oh well...f**k the past, kiss the future, right?
They still love us, I know.
Just one more thing...the 3 concerts here were sold out also, in each S?o Paulo one there were more than 80.000 people in the audience, the capacity of the Morumbi stadium. As for Rio, the show was moved from Maracan? stadium to Jacarepagu? racetrack just a few days before the date, and that bad move originated all the problems. I think nobody knows exactly how many people were there in fact, because it was a mess. But I doubt U2 really lost money with those 3 concerts.

------------------
Please sign our petition to bring U2 to Latin America, we deserve to be into the heart:
http://www.petitiononline.com/elevate/petition.html

 

[STING]

I agree FOLLOWER! I think U2 made a lot of money in Brazil! Guess will have to wait for the court battle to finish before it will be determined how much they really made there. A question for you: Do you know if the cost of moving a large operation, like U2s POPMART tour in Brazil be more expensive than in North American or European countries? Are Hotels, food, gas, labor, parking, storage, more expensive in Brazil?

 

[scatteroflight]

I don't think U2 has done anything particularly tasteless or incredibly commercial around this album. Frankly, I thought there was less hype before this one than there was before Pop, where the hype level was massive because there had been no U2 album since 1993. However, as far as people saying "sell out" because ATYCLB is a very accessible and generally radio-friendly album--I'll take GOOD SONGWRITING every day over something "daring" and "weird" and "non-mainstream" that also simply isn't very good. I know that a lot of people disagree with me on this one, but I don't think originality should always be number one. I think good craft should go ahead.



------------------
In time you'll see that some things travel faster than light
In time you'll recognize that love is larger than life
And praise will come to those whose kindness leaves you without debt
And bends the shape of things that haven't happened yet

-Neil Finn