Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
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.
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?
One thing you are forgetting is that non-U.S. fans HAVE the songs on "7" already. This is because CD singles with those songs were released in countries around the world. In another topic I
posted, I referenced an article talking about the demise of the single - at least in the U.S. It's this demise of the single that prevented U.S. audiences from hearing these gems (unless you were a die-hard). "7" gave U.S. audiences the opportunity to hear those songs - and at an affordable price (no spending $10 per each imported CD single).
Seeing as how the tracks on "7" were b-sides and remixes, would it even be worth releasing this item to every store? Some stores wouldn't even bother having "7" as it wasn't a new album. And, given the cheap price (these days, the CD singles you can find are $5 and up), many stores might not carry it as they couldn't make a profit. These "little Joe's" that everyone discusses as the ones who are really losing out are the very people that drive costs up - because these stores aren't big enough to diversify. These small stores must charge more to make $$. Something like "7" just wouldn't be profitable.
Could U2 have thrown "7" in with Propaganda? Sure - but again, non-U.S. fans already had access to these songs. While U.S. fans would have loved the free CD, non-U.S. fans would have complained about getting a CD of tracks that they already bought on the CD singles.
In other words, while there clearly was some promotional hand-shaking between U2 and Target, I thought it was well-done. Small stores couldn't afford to sell the CD this cheaply. Some stores might not carry it as it wasn't a new album. Plus, U2 might not have wanted to give the impression that this was a new album (like Jennifer Lopez's new remixed album). By making this deal, U2 was able to release those great b-sides to U.S. fans without charging them a fortune or causing a lot of "hoopla." In exchange, Target did a bit of promotion for the album. As I wrote above, I have seen MANY U2 ads over the years - including during the "glorified" 80's. I see no difference between the hand-shaking marketing done in the 80's ("oh look, there's a U2 ad in Rolling Stone magazine - right after the U2 article!") vs. U2's activity now.
As for the Best Buy promotion - perhaps that was a bit over the top. However, this was necessary and was a marketing ploy. The rather horrid sales of the "PopMart" videotape is what caused the Interscope/U2 marketing team to come up with this idea. By making the "Elevation" DVD more exclusive for those first two weeks, demand increased - so much so that many Best Buy stores ran out of the DVD! First week sales of the DVD topped 20,000 copies! Typically, the #1 selling DVD is around 5-10,000 copies.
Now, did this partnership with Best Buy hurt other businesses? Maybe just a bit at first, but once the DVD became available, even complaining businesses were quick to purchase it. Why? Because the video became a "hot" item - and those businesses wanted to cash in on it as well.
I do not view these marketing actions naively. There's no "Bono did it so it must be good because Bono is a saint" attitude here. Not everything U2 does is brilliant. However, I feel that it's many of you who are being naive. Marketing has changed since those "glorified" 80's. If U2 or any other artist were to reject too many marketing ploys, they would fail to sell anything. While U2, the band, has more than enough $$, there is also U2 the business, which employs many people. If that business fails to sell, it hurts far more than just U2 the band.
Lastly, these type of marketing strategies also gives U2 exposure. Many times I hear people say how they weren't even aware that a certain artist had a new album, single or video released! This is because the marketing efforts for that artists failed. U2's current marketing has allowed them to remain on people's minds since September 2000. U2 changed with the times - and I think, we as fans, must as well.
Oh, and as for Bono promoting sunglasses - Larry did a Harley ad in the 80's. Once again, so much for your "glorifed" notions of the "old, respected" U2. That said - if U2 were to start doing KFC or Chili's commercials, I would change my stance and agree with many of you as that would be a classic example of "selling out." It is one thing to make efforts to promote one's music. It's another to sing about ribs or a cola product.
