ATYCLB Marketed to Teens... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2002, 01:10 PM   #21
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by NShaik:
Well, if this is their intention, it hasn't worked, because I'm a teenager, and not one of the people I know my age like U2. Most of them still see them as some 80s dinosaur band. Shame really.

Yes, you are right, that is a shame. I am glad that you are intelligent enough not to cow down to the trends of adolesence.

This is not to say that everything that teens listen to is bad or that everyone should listen to U2. To each his own.

My point is that I get the impression that many of the younger generation do not like U2 JUST because they are an older band(and maybe since they are old, they are not as cool as they would be if they were younger).
To discredit something just b/c of its age is ridiculous and lame. I am glad that you could see through that.

Although I may sound old here(only 24!) and I do think differently in every aspect including music now then when I was in my mid-teens, I always try to judge music for the music. NOT for the age. When I was 15 or 18 I would listen to older musicians and did not give a f--- what my peers thought. Floyd, Zepplin, Beatles, Dead, Doors, Dylan, Gaye, Who, on and on were all older bands. They are also great bands, some of the greatest of all-time(U2 were still fairly young and first coming into their "coolness" around this time--AB, ZOO TV era). If someone will IGNORE a band b/c they are older than shame on them. If they dont like U2 or any band that is older than 40, then fine. However, I bet that most of the older bands nowadays are producing more creative and original work than most of the younger bands(linkin crap, POD, Kid Rock, Papa Roach, etc....).

If the music is good, it is good. I feel fortunate that I hit my musical stride during one of the greatest periods in music history in the early 90's. U2, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Guns N Roses, Pumpkins, REM, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Peppers, Janes Addiction, NIN, Nirvana, STP....all produced some great material while I was in High school. I am sure that many people in their twenties back then thought that grunge and some of the other popular stuff was crap in the same way that I think rap-rock is crap today. Although it is all a matter of taste, the music from the early 90's has stood the test of time. Much of those bands and their work are copied, emulated, revered by those in the industry and written down for future generations to enjoy. I highly doubt that the same will be said for much of the contrived anger rock of todays generation.

__________________

MBH is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 01:21 PM   #22
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Foxxern:
I don't know, I mean, all my friends at least respect U2, and most of them like them as well (we're all between 20 and 22). I used to get a good ribbing for being such a huge fan when we first met, but not really anymore. I can say, however, that their awareness of U2 has grown a lot since ATYCLB. I'm not sure why, but I think overall this album was more "normal", and people picked up on it quicker. Pop was more of a grower, and those are the kinds people buy, and give up on after one listen.

My point is, I think that that yes there was more of an effort to promote this album to the younger crowd, especially by getting the songs onto radio more. No matter how much we hate it, the radio still is a very big part of our music scene. This album connected more with people who don't consider themselves music aficionados, and those casual fans constitute a large part of music consumers. These include kids, who may be more prone to buy the latest hot thing, rather than sticking with a few artists and following them. I think U2 wanted to be cool again with the crowd, not just with their hardcore fans, and they succeeded.

Why did they rib you about U2? If this was during POP, then maybe that is a rhetorical question...just kidding.

Actually, I have a similar experience. I was in college when POP was released. I did not relate to most of my peers b/c, unfortunatley, rap(biggie, 2pac, which is ok) was HUGE in early '97. U2 went wierd and even they admit they made some errors with POP. I remember stumbling into a dorm room and someone of my age had a POP poster on the wall and I thought that I had just found the holy grail!!!!

Maybe that is why we like it here @ Int. We feel that we have good taste in music and it is nice when other people share in those thoughts and feelings.

On another issue, ATYCLB is like a catch-22:
U2 became REALLY big again, attracted a younger crowd, and are considered by many young people to be "in" or "cool."

The bad thing is, I am sure that there are many who think that U2 pandered to the younger audience JUST to SELL records(hence the term Sell---; I have gotten in trouble for using the "S" word on this site b4!!!).

Whatever. I dont buy it. Sure U2 wanted to sell records. But they will sell many records and are rich even if the younger crowd doesnt buy their music. I think that U2 is really fed up with the shit that is filling the airwaves and, like Bono said @ the 2000 MTV awards, U2 "bit the arse of the pop charts!"

__________________

MBH is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 03:34 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
elevatedmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On a backwards river
Posts: 3,546
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Autumn454:
Oh, and I was 10 when U2 reached me in 1987. It's very unfair to say that someone has to be 'college age' to be 'sophisticated' enough to like U2. I have seen very intelligent and sophistcated teens on this list who appreciate U2 (Madonna's Child, Elevatedmole, Mona, Unforgettable Lemon, and more) while I know too many 'college agers' who don't like U2 and are jamming to Kid Rock, Disturbed, Godsmack and Papa Roach. It's not the age, it's the PERSON as an individual.

You made absolutely excellent points, Autumn. This is something I've been trying to make apparent to so many people for ages. It really is NOT the age group -- it's the person.
Just because I'm 13, everyone treats me weird when I tell them I like U2 and I hate Backstreet Boys and NSync and all that pop crap. That's why I have that quote in my signature -- I think it's brilliant and it points out what I am always trying to get across.
I personally only know of 3 people in my age group who like U2: Bono's Babe, Phuzzie, and Fly Girl. I'm from a dying race.
Anyway, I do understand that most people are just airheads who like mainstream pop groups/singers, but I just wanted to say that Autumn is right -- there IS smart teenagers out there who do like U2.

------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988
elevatedmole is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 04:31 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
madonna's child's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,567
Local Time: 07:18 PM
1. I saw Beautiful Day on mtv

2. I saw them perform on TRL

3. I saw them announce their tour on TRL

4. I bought their album

I think they did market to teens, and I think it worked.

------------------
Who's gonna ride your wild horses?

Won't you kiss me on that MIDNIGHT STREET, sweep me OFF MY FEET, singing 'ain't this life SO SWEET?' -David Gray

Love,
Emily


Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html
madonna's child is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 07:11 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Dr. Who,
English is my native language although I did take some Russian in college. Kind of funny though that you thought it was not. Perhaps its the rather unorganized and unedited nature of most of my post.
I'm sorry my views don't agree with everyones here on this topic, but because they do not should not suggest something hostile. I stand by my views. Yes I do look around me and notice what is going on. I have been following U2 for 15 years. Whats more I use statistics from billboard magazine to back up my conclusions.
So I'll briefly state again that I do not see a serious attempt to win 12-18 music buyers with the current marketing involved. Most marketing and promotion is done through radio airplay, music channel video play, and concerts. The exposure level in these area's has been roughly the same as with POP and POPMART. If you need statistics for proof, I have them from Billboard. POP got a similar level of promotion compared with ATYCLB, but simply failed to sale as much.
I understand they went on TRL once. But TRL did not exist before 1998 so this could not be used as an example of a new U2 marketing tatic not done in the past.
Teens love Linkin Park and buy their album not because they saw them on late night TV 4 months ago, but because they are played constantly on the radio.
I'll give you an example of when teens loved U2. Yes its a personal one and it was back in my senior year of highschool 1992. For the first date that was near my town in Philadelphia on March 10, 1992 nearly 1 out of every 4 people in my class went to that show! When it was announced that tickets would go on sale on a Saturday about two weeks before the show, thats all anyone at school would talk about. More people would have gone but the show soldout in 20 minutes. Plus we live about 2 hours from Philadelphia. Not everyones parents would let them travel to Philadelphia that was two hours away on a school night. By the end of 1992 with more shows in the general area plus the band staying in my town for a full week to practice for the outdoor leg, nearly 3/4 of my class saw ZOO TV. Another big thing was the PROM where ALL I WANT IS YOU was the theme song. Most of the music played at the PROM was U2 as well.
So to anyone in highschool or are now in college. Did or does your highschool have a similar level of devotion to U2? I think we'll find that, based on many of the answers by teens on here, they are the only ones besides one or two others who have bought the new album and maybe have seen the tour. But if I'm wrong I'd be interested to hear your story.
Back when I was in Highschool, U2 were the only band it seemed. Many of course left the following after ZOOROPA only to return with ATYCLB. I randomly saw 10 people from my highschool class, that I did not know would be at the June 14, 2001 MCI show in Washington. Kind of amazing to run into them there among 20,000 people.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 08:46 PM   #26
Ana
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Ana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Another Time, Another Place, in The Electric Co. ; behind the Shadows and Tall Trees
Posts: 4,229
Local Time: 04:18 PM
U2 hooked me at 17. Now I'm 19 and more in love than ever with the band.
Ana is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 09:04 PM   #27
Acrobat
 
popsadie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hsinchu, Tawain
Posts: 461
Local Time: 11:18 PM
U2 hooked me when I was 18. I'm now 23 and they are still my favorite band. I became aware of them in the pop era, and at the time it seemed like being a u2 fan was not a "hip" thing to be, but now at the age of 23...and sadly still at the same University;p I see U2 t-shirts all the time. I am not saying that U2's popularity increased drastically with ATYCLB, but I do see a much larger appreciation of them at my campus now.
popsadie is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:19 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:18 PM
ATYCLB has sold twice as many copies as POP has worldwide and in the USA the number is could become triple by the end of the year. I would say that the exposure on radio, MTV and concerts is about the same as for POP though at least in the USA. I think the main increase of course for ATYCLB has been old fans coming back after having left after ZOOROPA. I think the number of brand new fans who are teens is small. That is interesting though that you feel that the presence on college campus your at is stronger for U2.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 07:25 AM   #29
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: PA, USA
Posts: 672
Local Time: 11:18 PM
I just had to get in on this one. Sting2, and english not being his native language? HAHA! That's a good one. Sting2 and I went to the same high school, though I'm several years older. C'mon Sting...represent!! This makes our education look bad.

Anyway, it's early morning, Good Friday, and I'm a little bleary eyed. I feel ATYCLB was marketed differently to a degree. U2 are masters at this marketing game and they've got the money, power and the well known brand name to do it. As for what the thread was started about, marketing to teens, rock bands have always done this, all the way back to Elvis and Buddy Holly. U2's not stupid. They know you GROW with your audience, but you don't GROW OLD with them. At least not yet. I agree with most here that sales are higher for ATYCLB primarily due to the 25-40 crowd that either hopped back on or possibly even realized how much they really like U2 for the first time. But I wouldn't discount the younger audience factor. I believe there's been a huge influx of younger fans(my sister is one of them). Heck, my cousin's only eight years old and he knows Beautiful Day and I had nothing to do with that.

EXPOSURE: I think U2's exposure has been enormous, much more than POP and Zooropa, for this album. With Bono's activities outside the band, Time magazine, etc., there's been almost an oversaturation of U2 outside just the regular rock spectrum. Part of why I think there's been a different approach has to do with the new American label association and Iovine's 18 month strategy, but factors like 9/11 certainly gave the album renewed life when it may have been ready to slip quietly away. The main thing I see that is different is the amount of TV the band has done. Bono breaking one of his own commandments, Beware of Television. I've filled up three times as much videotape for this album than in all of the 90's. U2 played SNL for the first time ever. REM did this when their career was starting to wane in the late 90's. U2 played almost every awards show they were invited to. They played TRL. In spite of it not existing prior to 1998, this is something I think U2 would have avoided at other times in their career. Where are the most young people going to see you: TELEVISION. It's the best way to reach the most young people. Lower priced tickets could be aimed at teens and poor college students...and that is only speculation on my part. However, regardless of whether or not that was the band's intention, it was still a wonderful thing to make these cheap seats some of the best in the house. I'm sure many fans, young, old, rich and poor appreciated that. The videos for this one also seem to be getting much more exposure than for POP. I still haven't seen Last Night on Earth or Please(damn, I really want to see them). I think a gig like Farmclub was an attempt to align themselves back in the alternative scene like they were able to do with Achtung after becoming the biggest band in the world in the 80's. Popular bands like REM and Radiohead are fiercely guarded about their underground roots and alt-rock status, whether it be real or not. U2, Bono in particular, has always been vocal about wanting to reach everyone they could and that means holding on to some of that underground cred. Saying things like "we're a punk rock band hearing mad tunes in our head" and playing small shows like Irving Plaza and the London club gig are ways of doing that. I don't fault U2 for doing these things; I think it's f***ing great. I applaud them and say thanks for being out there. But it's ok to question their reasons. Apparently, it helps kill some time. And though this may not be relevant to this post, I wanted to add that I've never felt that sales figures, chart positions, money data, etc., are good tools to refute someone else's speculation and opinion about a band's motives. These tools of industry are what they are. Business measuring sticks. I, for one, don't care because it's not how I personally measure a band. If Achtung sold only 50 copies, we'd still love it. It's about the music, man.

Finally(I hope), someone had mentioned certain things as being out of U2's control, specifically the Grammys and the Super Bowl. I politely and respectfully disagree. If you don't want to play them, you say no, thank you, and don't play. It's that simple. Being U2 fans, we know that is not the bands style. They don't turn down gigs when possible. They still act like an up and coming band sometimes and, although laughable, I think that's kind of cool. And they still make mistakes. The Target commercial. AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHH. Of course, I bought it, but I didn't like the fact that I had to get it at Target instead of my local independent record store. I also abhored the football themed "Stuck" video. Not only was it a bad video, but it seemed to take away from the original meaning behind the song, in my humble, ill informed opinion.

Well, I gotta get to work. Please be nice to each other. ROCK ON!!
__________________

barlowdog is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×