So what did people think of the Target commercial featuring U2?

[MBH]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
It's really not that complicated. Target payed U2 13 million dollars to shill for them. U2 are doing advertisements for Target and Best Buy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either living in serious denial or doesn't understand how advertising works. Releasing a DVD that's only available in ONE store chain for two weeks is an advertisement for that store. That particular chain (Best Buy wasn't it?)paid millions of dollars to U2 to get them to do that. I have friends who own and work for independent record shops and this is the sort of thing that marginalizes them and puts them out of business. Not that U2 cares. They can't afford to pay them enough to make them care.
Next U2 released an album of rarities that was only available at Target and received 13 million dollars in return. Target, a store found in only one country, (the U.S.) and only in certain regions of that one country. That's called doing ad work for Target. This is not debatable. U2 could have released 7 through Propaganda if they wanted the real fans to get it. They could have released it worldwide if they wanted casual and new fans to hear it. But it had nothing to do with the music and everything to do with 13 million dollars.
Each of us can make up our own minds as to whether U2 becoming corporate shills after holding out for so many years is a good or bad thing. I think it sucks. I'm sure all of you are ecstatic. After all Bono did it and he's a saint, right?
I heard Bono's going to be doing adverts for a sunglasses company next. There's going to be a "Bono" line of shades. How wonderful. Is there any doubt that a McDonalds commercial is on its way?

MAP

One other thing which you failed to point out: the potential sunglass promotion that Bono may partake in HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH U2'S MUSIC. Bono is lending his name to the sunglass company. U2 IS NOT using their music to sell a product(like Sting and Jagaur or The Stones and Microsoft).

This actually is a smart business decision.

However, I do agree with you that it is a bit shady(no pun intended) and I do not like this

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe:
awesome post doctorwho!

MBH, no disrespect but how is it considered bad if a band's decision is profitable? You can't deny the fact that if not for the mighty buck there would cease to be a music industry. It's a business--how you handle that business is another story. I think U2 is handling it nicely, they are doing what they do best--pushing the boundary without crossing it. I love that about U2. The music is selling itself here.

I think they have crossed the line with some of these deals and money is ruining the music industry b/c record execs. now more than ever sign people generally based on SALES not TALENT. I respect U2's motives over the past year and a half: they do not like what is going on in the biz, they realize that most of the work out there is being done by someone other than the people who the public see's and they have tried to change that by exposing themselves and others(PJ Harvery, Stereophonics) and the music more than ever b/c it is necessary(I wish Pearl Jam and REM would follow; and no, that would not be selling out, it would be providing people with great, talented music and may set the industy on its heels again just as it did in the early 90's).

How can U2 criticize commercialism/materialism/consumerism as U2 has and then partake in it? These big corporations contribute to the problem of third world nations that Bono is supporting? Bono has been quite hypocritical lately.

The point is, U2 has over-exposed themselves and have steadily been walking that fine line of integrity lately....it is time to get out of the US for awhile(a summer '03 return to the stadiums would be fine + a GHits package this Christmas would also be good).

 

[sulawesigirl4]

great post, doctorwho.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Responses:

MBH
I still love U2's music. I haven't moved "away from" the band because I've never been naive enough to think U2 were saints. Shilling for corporations is just the latest distastefull step U2 have taken over the past five years. It's bad, but not nearly as bad as charging $130 dollars for Gold Circle seats. (I don't give a flying crap that it's market value--it's still a rip off.) Bottom line is that the music is still good so I'll keep listening.

U2LA,
I respect what you're saying and you've proven over and over again that you're a real fan but I think you're being daft. U2 themselves have admitted that it's distasteful for them when artists use their art to sell product. Didn't Bono say something about inviting fans to a show and then trying to sell them tupperware?

DoctorWho,
GLORIFIED 80's? I've been a fan since 1983 but my favorite era is AB/ZooTv.

The bottom line for me is that U2 aren't just another band. Their fans respond to them on a profoundly emotional level. That's not the case with a great band like the Stones. The Stones can get away with all sorts of crassness and money-grubbing. It's different with U2 and it pisses some of us off. Obviously most of you are fine with it. Each of us have different tolerance levels because our relationship with the music is personal.

I think a lot of U2's financial decisions lately have sucked. Why does it bother all of you so much when it's just my opinion?

MAP

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

I dunno. You don't see Radiohead stooping to this sort of shilling. I'm all for U2 advertising themselves. I don't mind the appearances on Leno, Letterman, Farmclub, Superbowl, SNL, TRL etc. They didn't have to do that sort of thing in the 80's or early 90's but Doc is right, in that times have changed. That doesn't mean that U2 have to do commercials for corporations.

MAP

 

[doctorwho]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
DoctorWho,
GLORIFIED 80's? I've been a fan since 1983 but my favorite era is AB/ZooTv.


MAP[/B]

I'm not glorifying U2's 80's music - rather, I'm rephrasing this "holier than thou" view that people had of U2 during that time. So many people thought that U2 had all these morals and ethics - that they were "saints." But, in truth, U2 were a business from the start. One doesn't go about becoming the biggest and/or best band in the world without being extremely ambitious.

U2 knew that to succeed, they had to market themselves. They learned how to market in the 80's and they eventually succeeded - but the times then were different. Marketing in 2002 is vastly different from what was acceptable 15 year ago and U2 must change with the times if they wish to have continued success.

In other words, U2 were never so "pure and righteous" to reject all notions of marketing and promotion. And *I* am O.K. with this because I realize that one must do promotion to succeed. However, in today's world, the slightly more subtle 80's promotion for music simply wouldn't work - hence U2 had to change with the times. That said, U2 aren't doing anything different (in terms of promoting themselves) than they did in the 80's. U2 promoted then, U2 promote now. It's just that now U2's promotion is more visible. And sadly, that's what's required in 2002 - more blatant promotion.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
That doesn't mean that U2 have to do commercials for corporations.

1. The commercial in question is a Target ad.
2. The ad features footage from a U2 DVD...a product which is carried by said store.
3. U2 has not done any special promotion...no soundbytes from Bono saying "Buy our DVD at Target"..no additional footage by the band for the specific ad.
4. Therefore, to call this "U2 doing" the commercial for anyone is a huge stretch by any measure.

Conclusion: Shockingly enough, we live in a free market capitalistic society in which businesses are prone to promote products that they think the public will buy. A DVD is a product. A CD is a product. If the seller of a product chooses to attempt to lure buyers to buy said product from their particular outlet rather than an alternative source, why does this reflect poorly on the manufacturer of the product? I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
I dunno. You don't see Radiohead stooping to this sort of shilling. I'm all for U2 advertising themselves. I don't mind the appearances on Leno, Letterman, Farmclub, Superbowl, SNL, TRL etc. They didn't have to do that sort of thing in the 80's or early 90's but Doc is right, in that times have changed. That doesn't mean that U2 have to do commercials for corporations.

MAP

I think it was more of the corperation advertising what they sell from what I think. They just played a clip from the DVD, it's not like U2 made a commercial for them. Did U2 want them to advertise it during the Grammys? Probably, even though I'm sure the Grammys themselves are enough of an advertisement for ATYCLB. I don't think it's much different than a Tower records commercial.