Did the "Best Of" and ATYCLB "Save" U2? - 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 03-27-2002, 12:39 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island, New York, USA
Posts: 208
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrPryck2U:
No, those albums didn't save U2. I'm not gonna spend 3 paragraphs explaining why. U2 don't need to have multiplatinum success to be able to continue. I mean look at Pearl Jam. They haven't had major success from an album since Vitology and that was back in '94/95.

*whack* as MrPryck2U hits the nail on the head

------------------
Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Zooropa FTP
__________________

zooropa16 is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 12:47 PM   #22
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene:
"I wonder WHY U2 made ATYCLB. Did they make it to be popular? Did they make it FOR the public? Did their intentions come from the heart or did they just wanna be big and make money?"

I think they simply did what they've always done: they've made a bloody good album they were proud of and they also wanted it to sell gazillions. They were millionaires many times over way before ATYCLB, I think it indicates pretty well on what they think about making money. It's not as if they earned all those millions accidentally. Anyway, it would be naive to think that they got to where they are now by simply following their hearts and making music just because they loved it. It took that -and- some clever business strategies and calculated decisions.

That is all well and good, I just thought some of U2's recent actions wreaked of $$$$ more than ever. The album is excellent and that is the bottom line for me.

Just wondering if you harbor any hard feelings toward U2 because of their reluctance to tour Australia(which certainly seems to be motivated by the lack of $ that they could earn)?

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-27-2002).]
__________________

MBH is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 12:49 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:
Just wondering if you harbor any hard feelings toward U2 because of their reluctance to tour Australia(which certainly seems to be motivated by the lack of $ that they could earn)?
Has anyone ever stopped to consider that they might be reluctant to tour some of those areas not so much for the lack of $$$ they might earn, but for the possibility that they might not be able to break even? Being a smart business person does not make one evil, imo, and I grow weary of people assuming the worst.
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 12:53 PM   #24
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by what a bomb!:
WHO THE FECK IS DAVE MATTHEWS??????

Interesting. This goes a long way in proving the theory that Dave Matthews is not extremely popular outside of the US.

I am very surprised by this. The Dave Matthews Band is one of, if not the most popular band in America(most of their fans are college-aged, 18-24) They are very jazzy and can be said that they are an ancestor to the Dead and Phish(with less jamming)

They are a quality band and I am a fan. I have seen them a couple of times and they put on a good show. However, their music can be VERY redundant and many people either Hate them OR Love them.


If you are just joking about this, then I apologize for my stupidity in advance. If not, I hope this helps you...
MBH is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 01:04 PM   #25
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
Has anyone ever stopped to consider that they might be reluctant to tour some of those areas not so much for the lack of $$$ they might earn, but for the possibility that they might not be able to break even? Being a smart business person does not make one evil, imo, and I grow weary of people assuming the worst.
Sula,
Yes, I always consider the fact that they might not be able to break even. I also DO NOT assume the worst and I realize that being a smart business person does not make you evil.

I am simply pointing out an observation which many people on this site agree with. U2 is fealthy rich. They DO NOT even get taxed in their own country for crying out loud!!!!

It would be a nice jester to put on a concert for free or to sell cheap ticket prices to the many loyal fans of Australia.
I think that even you would agree that U2's ticket prices(and most artists) have gotten out of control(no pun intended).

Being a smart business man is a quality trait to have. However, when you think in terms of business in such a FREQUENT manner, I question ones motives for making music in the first place. I realize that all of the members of U2 love music and it comes from the heart and all that good stuff. However, they have made some business decisions recently that, at the very least, straddles the line of artistic credibility(now more thatn ever, IMO).



[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-27-2002).]
MBH is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 01:06 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zooropa16:
*whack* as MrPryck2U hits the nail on the head


What nail? Who's to say that REM and Pearl Jam aren't in major jeopardy of losing their contracts as I write this?
doctorwho is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 01:12 PM   #27
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho:

What nail? Who's to say that REM and Pearl Jam aren't in major jeopardy of losing their contracts as I write this?
I think the point is that both PJ and REM have not had astronomical success recently and =yet they HAVE maitained a loyal following and a record contract with a major label. ANYONE can be dropped at any time. Although, I would not hold your breath waiting for anyone to drop REM or PJ(by the way, PJ is working on their final album under their current contract and I am sure they will not have a problem finding a new home with a major label, IMO)
MBH is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 01:36 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 262
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Interesting discussion. I just read the article below on youtwo.net and thought it might shed some light on the subject (or not)

It is an interesting article. I've been impressed with the marketing campaign for this album (even though I was majorly irked by the Best Buy and Target deals for various reasons). It is impressive how they've been able to reach a young audience with each record, although I think it's more the college kids rather than the teens who've come on board.

---------------------------------------
From Advertising Age Magazine:

Mar 25, 2002 issue

Iovine learns U2's all about el-e-va-tion to a new demographic
Wayne Friedman

U2 HAS BEEN one band looking for elevation.

The band, around since the '80s, wanted to attract a new audience--a 12-to-18-year-old
audience-for its latest release, "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and build sales from
that demographic to make the album a hit.

Enter Jimmy lovine, chairman of Interscope Records and producer of earlier U2 albums.
Mr. lovine had one clear idea how to achieve the goal: make believe U2 was a new
band--with absolutely no history.

"It was one of the rare times that you could actually feel a marketing plan in the record
business," Mr. Iovine says.

U2 and Interscope had to do it differently--specifically, have a long-term plan-vs. the quick
hits of other musical releases. "We realized that this was an 18-month plan," says Steve
Berman, Interscope's senior executive of marketing and sales. "The key was how Jimmy
set the tone for marketing."

That tone included a number of high-profile TV performances--including halftime at last
month's Super Bowl, the National Basketball Association All-Star Game, "The Tonight
Show With Jay Leno" and "Late Show With David Letterman."

Perhaps the key was Viacom's MTV. Not only would there be videos--four different ones--
but U2 would do special appearances, such as a rooftop concert, a la the Beatles, during
MTV's "Total Request Live."

Mr. lovine "had a lot do with the band trying to shed their credibility fears," says Paul
Kremen, head of brand marketing for Interscope. "It harder to take a band that's been
around as long as U2 and make them relevant to 12-to-18-year-olds."

To target teens further, U2 also got involved with another Viacom unit, Paramount Pictures,
by including the band's third single, "Elevation," in the soundtrack of the summer 2001
movie "Tomb Raider."

All efforts helped U2 sell a sizable 4 million records in the U.S. and 11 million worldwide.
The band released four singles with the new album-"Beautiful Day," "Elevation," "Stuck in
a Moment You Can't Get Out" and "Walk On." Last month it won four Grammys as well
u2utah is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 01:56 PM   #29
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Stateless
Posts: 342
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:
I think the point is that both PJ and REM have not had astronomical success recently and =yet they HAVE maitained a loyal following and a record contract with a major label. ANYONE can be dropped at any time. Although, I would not hold your breath waiting for anyone to drop REM or PJ(by the way, PJ is working on their final album under their current contract and I am sure they will not have a problem finding a new home with a major label, IMO)
I would have to agree. I don't think the BO & ATYCLB saved U2 from getting dropped by their record label. Pop did debut at #1. Sure, the album under performed, but U2 is one of those handful of bands that came out of the 80's that still sell records & concert tickets consistently. They have a core audience, obviously, that will buy anything that they put out. I don't think a record company will lose money on a U2 record...or on a REM, or PJ record for that matter. Even if the sales aren't what they used to be for these bands, there is credibility in having them on the label. They are modern classic rock bands at this point-what today's artist surely aspire to. Lou Reed & Iggy Pop have been on major labels for years, but neither act has had a chart hit in God knows how long, and never has sold in huge quantities. If POP failed to chart in the Top 100, then the scenario might be different. Soul Asylum was a band I thought might have longevity. They put out 3 albums for Columbia in the 90's. The 1st 2 went platinum & the 3rd I don't think even charted. I believe they were dropped...Shit, if Bon Jovi still has a major label deal, I think U2 can fart on their next record and Interscope will still put it out.

Hawkmoon1021 is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 11:59 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:53 PM
First, I don't see any new marketing strategy here, especially to people between 12-18 years of age. U2 has done plenty of TV promotions in the past. I currently keep on getting many of these from the early 80s on video tape. The whole TV and MTV thing is obviously nothing new for the band. The Superbowl and Grammy's were things that happened to the band that were out of their control and cannot be considered part of any marketing strategy. 12-18 years don't vote on the Grammy's and that demographic watches the American Music awards heavily over the Grammy's. U2 did not perform at the American Music awards.
More importantly, most of U2s airplay in the USA came from Adult top 40 this time around rather than Modern Rock or regular top 40. What has sold this album in the states are old fans from 1987-1993 jumped off the bandwagon after Achtung. There is a massive U2 fanbase in the USA from ages 25-40 and that is where the majority of U2s album sales have come from for ATYCLB. Winning back these old fans who made the band so incredibly huge from 1987 to 1993 has been the real key to success this time in the USA. Certainly if you can get the 12-18 year olds to buy your product thats great, but I do not see the major effort in that direction and nor has a large number of them bought the album. I'd say less than 10% of sales of the album came from that demographic.
To sum up the band has basically marketed themselves as they always have and while they have certainly drawn in some new young fans, capturing the old fan base has been the key to this albums success. Same goes for the concerts as well. I did not see a special ticket price for the 12-15 years of age.
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 02:01 AM   #31
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2utah:
Interesting discussion. I just read the article below on youtwo.net and thought it might shed some light on the subject (or not)

It is an interesting article. I've been impressed with the marketing campaign for this album (even though I was majorly irked by the Best Buy and Target deals for various reasons). It is impressive how they've been able to reach a young audience with each record, although I think it's more the college kids rather than the teens who've come on board.

Thanks for the article, Utah. That is excellent and it explains some of the marketing ideas that I have been wondering about for quite some time regarding ATYCLB.

However, I still think some of these marketing ideas are a little shady and make U2 look somewhat hypocritical.

The album is great, the music gets better and better and they still do it on their own unlike a band like Aerosmith who looked like buffoons as they pandered to the crowd at the Super Bowl by performing w/N Shit and others and placing movie stars like Silverstone in their videos(no, the Tomb Raider video is not the same idea, it is for a movie; although that was silly as well)

I think BD and Walk On were the only good videos from ATYCLB...but the songs are fantastic for all of them...I sense a serious thread about to explode here.
MBH is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 02:04 AM   #32
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
...Shit, if Bon Jovi still has a major label deal, I think U2 can fart on their next record and Interscope will still put it out.


LOL, LOL, LOL....

MBH is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 02:14 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 11:53 AM
In the financial world that makes the lights go on and gives us food on our table, U2 are a business. Basic fact. And it's not fun or fuzzy-feeling to think of it like that, but they ARE a business in the world that we live in. So yes, to survive, they have to produce good albums. (although lol @ mbh's remark.. this should be another indication that the reason U2 do make the music they make is for themselves and for us, NOT for the Businessess.)

However, I don't think that they were in any danger of being dropped. No danger at all. (And if they were for some lame brain reason, I don't doubt they'd have no trouble finding another record label.) Therefore ATYCLB didn't "save" U2, because they didn't really "need" saving. It did, however, boost people's confidence that they were still big and marketable and moneymakers for them. In the businessworld, this is a very good thing.

My views on the whole TV shows and stuff: The media plays U2, and U2 plays them. It's a means to an end, and even if it's sort of an uncomfortable means, I enjoy their end much more than Radioheads or REM, who won't do go out and "sell themselves."

------------------
Well you can bump and grind If it's good for your mind
Well you can twist and shout Let it all hang out
But you won't fool the children of the revolution


U2 Take Me Higher


[This message has been edited by oliveu2cm (edited 03-27-2002).]
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 02:38 AM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Posts: 262
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:
...Shit, if Bon Jovi still has a major label deal, I think U2 can fart on their next record and Interscope will still put it out.


LOL, LOL, LOL....

LOL

Actually, Bon Jovi is still extremely popular in Europe and Asia.

MBH I agree with you about the videos, although I'm not even crazy about Walk On. It will forever mystify me why they used Joseph Kahn again after Elevation. Cheesy was okay with Elevation, but Stuck deserved better. (I noticed that it wasn't long before the live video replaced the stupid one) I wish the US could get the European videos for Stuck and Walk on.

I think they needed to have a good promotional plan this time around, and what they've accomplished really is impressive. They are the oldest band getting any air time on MTV. Most of it was fine as far as I was concerned. (I was sooooo relieved when the Super Bowl thing was done reasonably tastefully)

Like I said, the only things that really bothered me were the Target, Best Buy, and Microsoft deals, mainly because I hate to see them supporting corps that aggresively seek to control most of the market. On one hand U2 gripes about the state of music, then they turn around and support the very forces that cause it to be the way it is. I know they have to play the game, but that seemed a bit too much and for no apparent benefit.

I don't know about why they're not touring in the rest of the world. I know in a recent interview Bono said something about how they had several times in the past paid money to play (meaning they lost money on specific parts of tours) and they didn't want to do that.

The big business side of the music industry is very interesting and, apparently, is having a very hard time recently. Technology is getting to the point where it could make a lot of what record companies do obsolete and that's scaring them. Naturally, instead of figuring out how to change to fit the new reality they are trying to stop/outlaw/regulate technology to protect the status quo. I read an article in Newsweek (maybe it was Time, I can't remember, I was in a bookstore reading it ) Anyway, in the article Moby said that his 14 year old cousin had never purchased music and didn't see why anyone would. He just downloaded it from the internet I think it's gonna be a bumpy ride for the music industry in the next few years and I hope good comes from it.

u2utah is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 05:47 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 03:53 PM
"Just wondering if you harbor any hard feelings toward U2 because of their reluctance to tour Australia (which certainly seems to be motivated by the lack of $ that they could earn)?"

Well, I am disappointed that they won't be coming over to Melbourne, but I can't say I have any hard feelings towards them because at the end of the day, they don't owe me anything. As for your suggestion for a free or cheap concert especially for Australian fans, well that would be nice, but I can't think of any good reason why they'd single out Australia when there're plenty of countries all around the world with no less loyal U2 fans. If I rememember correctly they didn't even play their POPMart concert in Sarajevo for free.

And I don't really agree with the argument that just because you're filthy rich you shouldn't mind whether you're getting paid for your job or not. I love -my- job but I sure wouldn't do it for free no matter how rich I already was, especially if it took me away from my family and made me feel like a squeezed lemon after a few months.
Saracene is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 06:10 AM   #36
War Child
 
Autumn454's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: dream beneath a desert sky- with Bono!
Posts: 852
Local Time: 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
First, I don't see any new marketing strategy here, especially to people between 12-18 years of age. U2 has done plenty of TV promotions in the past. I currently keep on getting many of these from the early 80s on video tape. The whole TV and MTV thing is obviously nothing new for the band. The Superbowl and Grammy's were things that happened to the band that were out of their control and cannot be considered part of any marketing strategy. 12-18 years don't vote on the Grammy's and that demographic watches the American Music awards heavily over the Grammy's. U2 did not perform at the American Music awards.
More importantly, most of U2s airplay in the USA came from Adult top 40 this time around rather than Modern Rock or regular top 40. What has sold this album in the states are old fans from 1987-1993 jumped off the bandwagon after Achtung. There is a massive U2 fanbase in the USA from ages 25-40 and that is where the majority of U2s album sales have come from for ATYCLB. Winning back these old fans who made the band so incredibly huge from 1987 to 1993 has been the real key to success this time in the USA. Certainly if you can get the 12-18 year olds to buy your product thats great, but I do not see the major effort in that direction and nor has a large number of them bought the album. I'd say less than 10% of sales of the album came from that demographic.
To sum up the band has basically marketed themselves as they always have and while they have certainly drawn in some new young fans, capturing the old fan base has been the key to this albums success. Same goes for the concerts as well. I did not see a special ticket price for the 12-15 years of age.
!! You said 25-40 age group! I'm 25, so have I now become an 'old' fan?! And old age, it sets in...

I think that no effort to attract extra young audiences should never be done at the expense of alienating other fans because, though it is great to get the young teenagers, not that many are going to like U2 no matter what. There will always be ones with good taste and an appreciation for quality that will come anyway. Look at this site, there are many teenagers who have just started liking U2 because of ATYCLB even though it was alleged by some to be aimed at 'older' fans. With anything, some people will like it and some won't. There is no age requirement for liking U2, only good musical taste!
BTW I do agree with doctorwho's original idea.


------------------
~Burned by the fire of love~
Autumn454 is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 06:16 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 03:53 PM
"On one hand U2 gripes about the state of music, then they turn around and support the very forces that cause it to be the way it is."

Well, no one is more responsible for the state of music than the record companies themselves, so doesn't that automatically make U2 hypocrites because they're signed on to a major label which is partly a cause of those hard problems that good, creative music faces today?
Saracene is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 05:14 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,808
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Doc,

The short answer to your hypothesis is: NO.

The long answer I'll give tomorrow (or more accurately, later today) as it is now past midnight here, I just got off a plane from Switzerland and I have to get up in a bit more than 6 hours. But in the meantime, think a bit more about U2's record deal and about the fact that if a label drops U2, they'll also lose the right to distribute U2's entire back catalog. (FYI, The Joshua Tree sold about 3800 copies last week in the USA, 15 years after it debuted, extrapolated to a yearly figure this would mean 175-200K for this album in the USA alone).

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 is online now  
Old 03-28-2002, 10:44 PM   #39
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn:
Doc,

The short answer to your hypothesis is: NO.

The long answer I'll give tomorrow (or more accurately, later today) as it is now past midnight here, I just got off a plane from Switzerland and I have to get up in a bit more than 6 hours. But in the meantime, think a bit more about U2's record deal and about the fact that if a label drops U2, they'll also lose the right to distribute U2's entire back catalog. (FYI, The Joshua Tree sold about 3800 copies last week in the USA, 15 years after it debuted, extrapolated to a yearly figure this would mean 175-200K for this album in the USA alone).

C ya!

Marty

Popmartijn,
Very interesting stats regarding JT! I am curious as to where I can find some of these stats. By the way, does this include sales from those discount services straight from the record label that offer you 10 cds for the price of 1 such as CDHQ, BMG, etc... I know that Sting produces some quality stats from Billboard mag...I am wondering where you find your info. in the Netherlands.

Any info. would be appreciated.

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-28-2002).]
MBH is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 03:29 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,808
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:
Popmartijn,
Very interesting stats regarding JT! I am curious as to where I can find some of these stats. By the way, does this include sales from those discount services straight from the record label that offer you 10 cds for the price of 1 such as CDHQ, BMG, etc...
These stats can be found in the Peel Off Those Dollar Bills forum, in the thread for week 72. They are in the post with the Soundscan statistics of the catalog charts (ironically, those stats were posted by the Doc ). If you want to look, The Joshua Tree is #81 this week. As these are Soundscan stats, they do not include sales by record clubs, etc. (AFAIK, that is).

Speaking of all of these figures, I think this thread should have been placed in the Peeling Off Those Dollar Bills forum, as they talk about the business side of U2. Why didn't ya, Doc? (Cue, carrot-eating rabbit)

Quote:

I know that Sting produces some quality stats from Billboard mag...I am wondering where you find your info. in the Netherlands.
I have one online source for the charts, which I also mention at the beginning of the weekly discussion (and as I mention it every week I don't need to remember it by heart so I can't tell you now what the exact URL is ). Unfortunately, I cannot find any information regarding exact sales, so I have no idea how much ATYCLB is selling each week.

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 is online now  
 

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 10:53 AM.


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