U2 and corporate sponsorship - your opinions?

[madonna's child]

OKAY, so I had this dream. I was riding on a bus and the bus drove by a McDonalds. On the windows of the McDonalds were these HUGE window stickies that were pictures of all the members of U2's heads and written below each head was (no joke) "I'm lovin' it". (Larry kind of looked like Prince, but whatever.) Anyway, I was shocked in my dream to see U2 plastered across the windows of my local McDonalds. First I thought, "Well, maybe this is for the new album... so that would kind of be a good thing." But then my brother, who was also in my dream told me "No, it's promoting the Elevation Tour being premiered on HBO." (Yeah, I don't know where that came from.) So, then I was just upset. Why was my U2 selling their souls to McDonalds?

When I woke up, the dream got me thinking. Where do U2 really stand on corporate sponsorship and how do I feel about it as a fan? I know U2 has never taken sponsorship for any of their tours and they are really protective about selling the rights of their songs for commercial means. BUT, I remember hearing Bono comment that he thinks hip hop artists are really smart because they'll put their name and their songs on about anything, and that more rock groups should do this.

So, my question is this - DO U2 ever take sponsorship or sell their songs to commercials? Do you as a fan think they should?

 

[martha]

Larry's veg; he wouldn't like the McDonald's thing.

Do you as a fan think they should?

No.

 

[nbcrusader]

Depends on the sponsor. If it means more affordable ticket prices, I would be in favor.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

If it was blatant advertising like your dream then i'd be against it but if they received money and the association was more discreet like U2 <insert tour name> sponsored by Bud Weiser then i'd be fine with it. It all depends on who the company sponsoring is, if it's a lame company (imo) like Mcdonalds then i'd hate the idea but if it's a Vodka company or something i like then it's fine for me. If U2 has to advertisements eating BigMacs then that's very uncool but sipping some vodka would be cool in my books so it all depends. I like a lot of products and as much as i don't see U2 as a product i can see them endorsing or being sponsored by a product if i like the product. The idea of being against all sponsorship doesn't make much sense to me, ther's a righht way to go about sponsorship and if U2 does that then it's cool in my books.

 

[Bono's shades]

I vote no. In theory accepting corporate sponsorship might not be such a bad idea if they didn't have to have the company's name and logo splashed all over everything, but since companies generally expect some tie-in advertising in return for the money they give, there's no way they can go the corporate sponsorship route and avoid this.

 

[U2Kitten]

Last time the tickets said VH1 presents. So as long as it only has someone presents, and they don't have to do any cheesy commercials I don't care as long as they make money and we save money. I hate to say that, I really do. But with almost everyone 'selling out' these days ( I heard Queen's "I'm in Love with my Car" in a commercial last night) it's almost getting to be stupid to hold out whatever principles you have and lose money. I keep hearing that Streets like snippet in that Chevy commercial, which they used even though U2 refused to sell the song. Moby was right- if you don't sell, they will make a song that sounds like it and you won't get the money. So you might as well take the cash. I hope they don't use a song in a commercial but I really don't care if they get the tour sponsored as long as it's in good taste.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

As for songs being used in commercials I think that would make me angry more than tour sponsorship. The Streets example is what i'm talking about, that song means so much to so many and to sell that into a commercial for a car or whatever is just plain wrong. They do not need the money for selling their well known songs. If they used their lesser known songs then I don't have a problem with that at all but using their big songs is a not right.

Even if a company rips off their song like they did with Streets most people who recognize the song know it's not Streets but a rip off of Streets and that to me that's cool and a form of flattery, they don't need a million dollars to sell the soul of that song.

 

[Bonochick]

They can do whatever they want. I'll still like them and listen to their music. That wouldn't change.

 

[ThatGuy]

Personally I'd like to see them do some sort of song-product tie-in like Jewel did with "Intuition." Perhaps some sort of promotion with Edge shave gel.

 

[martha]

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO.

If it comes to that, then they have become too greedy. The Stones have more money than God, and yet they've resorted to tie-ins. It's distasteful no matter who the sponsor is, and if it's a vodka company, then that's just whoring.

 

[ThatGuy]

I'd actually be really disappointed with the guys if they sold out like that. However if it did significantly bring down ticket prices ...

 

[biff]

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO.

If it comes to that, then they have become too greedy. The Stones have more money than God, and yet they've resorted to tie-ins. It's distasteful no matter who the sponsor is, and if it's a vodka company, then that's just whoring.

Martha, have faith, you know it will never come to that. Our boys ain't ho's. The Stones always were.

By the way, how are your tootsies?

 

[fah]

Within the last year U2 allowed one of their songs to be used in a commercial for organ donation. There was a story about it here somewhere.

U2 can do what they want with their music. They are very lucky that they have the control over their work that some many artists do not have. However, I would be extremely disappointed if they did what Peter Gabriel did. Gabriel has allowed Ford to use his song 'Big Time' to sell cars.

 

[biff]

And then there's Sting.

A commercial for an organ donation is hardly a "commercial".

All of the proceeds from One went to AIDS research; the earnings from The Sweetest Thing went to the Chernobyl Children's Project. Those aren't commercials trying to sell something like a car or a computer. If they are selling anything, it's the idea (or ideal) of humanity and social justice. Too bad it's such a hard sell ( unlike the latest Chevy).

 

[fah]

A commercial for an organ donation is hardly a "commercial".

But it is still U2 helping to sell something, they just have a higher standard.

 

[biff]

But it is still U2 helping to sell something, they just have a higher standard.

With respect, I disagree. They are not engaging in commerce, as the word "commercial" suggests. You cannot sell organ donations or AIDS research. It's not a product, like an automobile. It's a cause, a purpose, a goal. It's not that they have a "higher standard". They have a completely different set of values. Or perhaps we should just say they have values.

 

[fah]

I think we have to agree to disagree.

They may not be gaining anything financially from letting one of their songs be used in an organ donation commercial but they are still entering into the commercial world of sales. I think it is still really sad that people need to be sold on the fact that you need to donate your organs, that smoking is bad for you and that the world needs to look at what is happening in Africa.

We live in a consumer driven society and if we don't know that something is there - we won't buy it. It doesn't matter if the product is cars or beer or organ donations or aids research.

 

[david]

Man that U2 song in that organ doning commercial makes me want to go out and buy some organs!

 

[U2girl]

Does corporate sponsorship mean U2 gets money in exchange for endorsing their products?
Or is it just that a band has to put the firm's logo all over billboards etc... when they promote their album?

I guess it's their choice if they decide to do it - if that firm would help bring down tour ticket prices down, I'm all for it. I wouldn't think any less of them.
What if it was a charity organisation or someone like Greenpeace or Amnesty international that would sponsor them?

I don't know...Moby let virtually all of the songs from his album Play to be used in commercials which may have helped the album sales - plus he probably reached an audience outside of his usual one. To me, it's a compliment that a musician is popular enough to be asked to appear in commercials, I wouldn't mind that.

I would only mind if a band changed their music to sell more records (Metallica, for example).

 

[Angela Harlem]

It's their music, they can do whatever they want with it. I give my permission

 

[U2Kitten]

Even if a company rips off their song like they did with Streets most people who recognize the song know it's not Streets but a rip off of Streets and that to me that's cool and a form of flattery, they don't need a million dollars to sell the soul of that song.

But the thing is, most average people and casual fans are going to think it IS Streets. Enough of us diehard fans were tricked for a second the first few times we heard it and did a double take. But you have to consider the reality that 90% of people aren't going to think into it, is that U2 or a ripoff? If it sounds like U2 to them, it's U2, they don't know the difference, and they aren't going to dig into it and see like a devoted fan would. So to most of the general public, U2 already has sold Streets to a car commercial, but they don't have the money for it.

 

[bedouin fire]

are you all sure that sponsorship would decrease the ticket prices?
For other bands and summer festivals I am seeing every year more sponsorship and i never noticed any reduction in ticket prices...

 

[madonna's child]

I'm not taking sides, I'm just enjoying reading the discussion, but I have to agree with bedouin fire. Sponsorship has not helped decrease Madonna's ticket sales. Her new tour is sponsored by the anti-Christs themselves, Clear Channel, but you still have to sell your first born to afford a ticket.

So, there is no guarantee that sponsorship of U2 would make tickets cheaper. Then again, it might. U2 aren't the profit hungry whores that Madonna is.

(Don't worry I've still got mad love for my Madonna. Or perhaps I should say the mythology of Madonna, which sort of precedes her these days.)

 

[Bono's shades]

I have somehow missed seeing the Chevy commercial, but there is another commercial out there with a bit of music that sounds an awful lot like a U2 song, but at the same time you can tell it's really not U2. I just can't remember for the life of me what product it is and which song it sounds like!

It's kind of upsetting to think a company can do that without the band's permission, and I'd hate to think people who aren't as well-versed in U2 as us would hear it and think it really WAS U2. But at least WE know the band didn't give permission for their songs to be cheapened that way. To me that makes a big difference.

 

[The Sage]

Man that U2 song in that organ doning commercial makes me want to go out and buy some organs!

Surely donate some organs...?

 

[martha]

By the way, how are your tootsies?

Sore. I hate the changes made to my orthotics.

But thanks for asking!

 

[biff]

Poor Martha!

 

[Saracene]

I don't really care much. Sure, I'd cringe if they involved themselves and their songs in something really cheap and tacky, but at the end of the day it's their business, not mine.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I'm afraid it's going to come to a time when the old holding out for principles and honor thing is going to finally give way to the need for the money, and everyone will do it. But then, if everyone does it there will be no stigma as they are all guilty.

 

[Mullen-Girl]

I honestly don't care. I'd still love them no matter what