u2.com membership & iPod tie-up: smart business moves for U2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Ponkine: The world of Led Zeppelin and the Beatles and even the 80's U2 is long gone. It's 2005. The music still plays a HUGE role, but it's not enough. Great music will keep an artist on top. If HTDAAB had horrible tunes (and while I know you think it does, most disagree), it would've been a one-week wonder and fallen fast. However, it's still in the Top 15 in both the U.S. and the U.K., two key markets indicative of success.

But unlike those other eras, music alone isn't enough - marketing must be done to catch the public's attention. Many artists, like Sting and Moby, produced brilliant albums that were ignored. So Sting and Moby did commercials featuring their music and suddenly they have multi-Platinum albums. The commercials were their marketing and people realized how good the music was.

But let's not be TOO easy on those artists of the 60's and 70's and even 80's. The Beatles did a series of movies and had TV appearances. That was their marketing. Led Zeppelin toured extensively and they stood out as they were unique for their time - this helped them tremendously. But they also had concert movies to help promote them. And the 80's were filled with videos and commercials by many artists. U2 had a ton of TV appearances in the 80's - just not in the U.S. So don't think they didn't market themselves. It was just a different style of marketing then - perhaps one you more readily accepted. For better or worse, that time is gone and unless one is some "hot new artist" getting all the attention on radio, it's tough to get noticed in the marketplace. Look at the current top 20 on the U.S. charts - only 2 rock bands. That's the state of music now and U2 have to fight in that.

To me, it's not the marketing that's important; what's critical is the music - and IMO, HTDAAB is brilliant. Furthermore, we thankfully lost the preachy Bono of the 80's. I'll readily and happily take today's Bono and U2 who *do* not just talk. These are men of action, not preachers telling us how to live. I'm thrilled that that era of U2 is gone forever. From my perspective, we got great music and a U2/Bono that's more concerned with human rights than ever. If it takes some marketing to get them noticed - so be it. But that's not selling out. Like Jick said, it's just smart.
 
Last edited:
Dima said:


you always miss the first half of the matter: you alway say that U2 make money...ok, that's true but who's giving them money? and why they are giving money to U2 with all the bands on the market? do you believe it's all due to marketing? so U2 sell out their concerts because of marketing? So U2 win constantly poll and prizes all over the world because of marketing? I think that the real reason is that they created through the year a unique link with the audience offering them year after year great music and great concerts...you cant' last 25 years and still remain relevant in the sense that people still expect from you NEW music and not just your OLD hits (as for instance happens for RS) and in the sense that your new album is THE musical event of the year any given year if not for the fact that you've have always created music with a soul: every big phenomenon lasted a few seasons and then passed away while U2 from the moment they arrived then they've never left...is it all marketing?

And again: Why Apple chose U2 and not another band? they're huge but not the biggest act in the world...are you sure that the fact that U2 are generally renewed for making "music that really matters" and one of the few act in history that for a time were the "mouth of a generation" wasn't taken in count when Steve Jobs chosed the act to link their image to? U2 marketing staff could be great but they don't make miracles: if you don't have an image of true artists behind you to sell to the world you wouldn't get such a deal nowadays...and you can't build that image if you don't make music that lasts year after year, you can't build that image only with marketing: marketing can sell that image but can't create anything that big..and that's what you miss in you theory: the starting point.

Let's rip apart your questions one by one, and you will realize that they have either been answered or the answers are too obvious that I didn't really need to post:

Q1: "...who's giving them money? and why they are giving money to U2 with all the bands on the market? do you believe it's all due to marketing? so U2 sell out their concerts because of marketing? So U2 win constantly poll and prizes all over the world because of marketing?"

A1: You will notice this statement I made in my first post which says "I am nothing but praise for U2 because they have gone beyond simpl[y] the artistic and musical side. They also treat their craft as a business and have done well in raking in the profits." Notice how I use the word "also" which indicates my implication that the artistic and musical side is what comes first. Also, in one of my thread replies I state that "U2 are already a truly great band and they do make good music." So there you have it, I did commend U2 for their great music and artistry, and that is what created the profits for them in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------
Q2: "...do you believe it's all due to marketing? so U2 sell out their concerts because of marketing? So U2 win constantly poll and prizes all over the world because of marketing?"

A2: I never said it is ALL due to marketing. I just implied that marketing plays a major role in all this and U2 are wise to invest their profits in the marketing department.

----------------------------------------------------

Q3: "...Why Apple chose U2 and not another band? ...when Steve Jobs chosed the act to link their image to?"

A3: When U2 said that no money exchanged hands, it was obvious that there was a mutual agreement between both groups Apple or Jobs did not "choose" U2. They both chose each other. What I meant by "milking Steve Jobs dry" is that at the end of the day, U2 would have benefited more than Apple did from the deal. And they could only have done this through making wise business choices.

----------------------------------------------------

I know that my opinions are highly read and greatly respected in this forum given my great reputation of being on of U2's most vocal and well-reasoned fans here. But please don't put the burden on me to explain everything. The basic point of this thread is to illustrate U2's abilities as businessmen by being able to always find ways to maximize their profit and invest it wisely. This thread is not about how U2 made their money at the start. Perhaps you can start a thread on how U2 accumulated all their profits. That is another topic altogether and that would be interesting. What this thread is all about deals with how U2 is spending their profits and how U2 are branching out to find other means to make their profits grow.

Cheers,

J
 
in the past, i never had a problem with their money maker machine because i always felt that it was left out of the studio, and their music was really independent from that.
unfortunately, i am not 100% sure that since 2000 it's still in that way.
 
bedouin fire said:
in the past, i never had a problem with their money maker machine because i always felt that it was left out of the studio, and their music was really independent from that.
unfortunately, i am not 100% sure that since 2000 it's still in that way.

Their music is not independent from the money. They make music to be heard (unlike Radiohead for example). They make music to reach the greatest number, and one way to achieve this goal is to allocate a high marketing budget and make ear-friendly music that is fresh. And they have achieved this for most of their careers that is why they are relevant. It just follows that the bigger the audience your music reaches, the richer you get. Simple as that.

Cheers,

J
 
It's not "smart business moves"... it's not "U2 making money/selling out".

U2 is worth (IMO) 500~700mlns Euro... 130mln sold albums... millions of singles, books, Propaganda, t-shirts...etc...etc. 4 worldwide tours in a row making around 100mlns$ in U.S. alone.
('Vertigo 2005 Tour''s estimated worldwide gross is around 250mlnEuro:drool: )
...not to mention a few copanies owned by U2 also making money...

Now...
Do you see anyone from U2 living like spoiled american pop-stars? Do you see them surrounded with gold and jewells like sick rap-stars?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any one of them has more than 3 hauses/mansions...
So it's not like they "need" more and more money.

The reason behind those "business moves" is not money, it's !fear!
Fear of being forgotten, fear of not being important anymore... fear of turning into TheRollingStones (if you know what I mean)... fear of having only fans their own age...
 
Yeah, I feel that Jick IS one of U2's most vocal and well-reasoned fans here, but unfortunately not too many people greatly respect him.:sad:
 
bathiu said:
Now...
Do you see anyone from U2 living like spoiled american pop-stars? Do you see them surrounded with gold and jewells like sick rap-stars?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any one of them has more than 3 hauses/mansions...
So it's not like they "need" more and more money.

Gold and jewels are usually only worn by the hip-hop crowd as they seem to have an affinity for that and big cars.

Bono's spoils on the other hand are his $400 sunglasses that come in different shapes and sizes. God knows how many he has by now. The cost of one of his sunglasses can probably be enough to feed three starving African families for a week.

If you want to talk about houses and mansions, I am certain Bono has in New York and France. Add that up to Dublin then he has at least three dwelling places.

Some people here misunderstand me as saying that U2 spends ALL their money on marketing. That is hardly the case. They also spend their money on the luxuries that are associated with people of their wealth and stature. While U2 are great businessmen, they also do know how to have fun and spend their money. I think they are well-balanced human beings.

Cheers,

J
 
jick said:


U2 allgedly turned down $2 million to lend Where The Streets Have No Name to a car commercial. I think that means a lot to all the fans that U2 would never "cheapen" their image. But U2 invest so much into their image that $2million isn't enough money to sell out. Hell, they can even make an easy $2 million just on website membership alone so they don't really care.

Cheers,

J

Not quite, they turned down about $25 million (U.S.).

---------------

As far as what they spend their earnings on, I think that's their own business, sheesh, I make next to nothing compared to U2, but even I have my "luxuries" too. Many people in affluent nations, do. Lots of people have mobile phones, which I consider a luxury item. If you don't have to worry about your where your next meal is coming from, you're pretty wealthy and of stature compared to some people.

Lots of people have their "spoils", so he/she who doesn't have their "spoils" that person may cast the first stone at U2, or any other "celebrity."

If you have your own computer, you may not.

T.V., nope.

Cable/satellite, no put down the rock.

A working vehicle, no.
 
jick said:
....They spend a lot of it on marketing. They control the media, the critics, and the reviews. ...

....They even virtually call the shots at their record label - somehow getting Eminem to release his album early so that U2 could hog the spotlight all to themselves.....

... Not to mention how many Grammies they have "purchased" during the ATYCLB era, and their marketing pitch to the Superbowl execs to bag them the halftime show....

Yes, you've ALSO praised U2 for their music but don't try to change your own statements as i wasn't able to read them...and i was referring to the bad attitude that those statements above give to your theory: don't try to deny what you've written.

you are completely entitled to your opinions but if you wanna share your opinions with us don't be surprised if such statements don't pass unobserved
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: u2.com membership & iPod tie-up: smart business moves for U2

Dima said:


Yes, you've ALSO praised U2 for their music but don't try to change your own statements as i wasn't able to read them...and i was referring to the bad attitude that those statements above give to your theory: don't try to deny what you've written.

you are completely entitled to your opinions but if you wanna share your opinions with us don't be surprised if such statements don't pass unobserved

"They spend a lot of it on marketing. They control the media, the critics, and the reviews."

A vast majority of the HTDAAB album reviews were done by reviewers in a controlled listening environment. It was through a listening session where the CD was played once, they were shown a video, and then a presskit that contained explanations of songs, lyrics, and quotes from the band. This is unlike other bands who send promo/advanced copies of their CD to reviewers who will be able to listen to the CD multiple times at their own pleasure outside a controlled listening environment.

"They even virtually call the shots at their record label - somehow getting Eminem to release his album early so that U2 could hog the spotlight all to themselves."

The early release of Eminem's album virtually assured U2 of a #1 debut in America, which is the market they find the most important. Had it been released as scheduled, Eminem's album would have beaten U2 to the punch. With their massive sales of over 800,000 units during their first week, U2 sure got the spotlight.

"Not to mention how many Grammies they have "purchased" during the ATYCLB era, and their marketing pitch to the Superbowl execs to bag them the halftime show."

It is common knowledge that either Grammies are rigged or purchased because their awards defy logic. How can an artist who was nominated for best new artist fail to win that award yet win album of the year? (Alanis). Or how can an album that has 4 songs that win Grammies, including a song of the year and two records of the year not win album of the year? (ATYCLB) The Grammy execs evenly distribute the spoils. U2 had already decided that they wouldn't add an extra European leg and tour anymore after the Grammies, so they felt no need to push themselves to win the album of the year anymore.

The marketing pitch to the Superbowl execs to bag them the halftime show was done in the Elevation Las Vegas show. This is public knowledge. The bigwigs of the Superbowl halftime show attended the Elevation Vegas show.

I've never denied what I written. I stand by what I write, especially if it is praise for the band I love so much.

Cheers,

J
 
Back
Top Bottom