LP 13/Invisible: Please return, there's stuff to see!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick66 said:
I get that. But surely everyone who is going to want the song isn't going to get in in that brief window. And if they can't get it from iTunes, they'll get it from "alternate" sources. So why not sell it and keep curing AIDS? Surely they can still set it for 99p each and donate that money to RED?

Like I said, who knows what they have in mind. Keeping it on iTunes, pulling it...neither would surprise me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't know. It would make way more sense to keep it up and have it continue with a % contribution.
 
Is there a thread/sub-forum where I can post something I whipped up this afternoon based on that little audience clip? It's not like a "cover" or anything, just something that came to mind when I heard the audience chanting. Thought I'd ask in here.
 
dan_smee said:
That is true, but think about it... tying the sum to $1 per download provides U2 with the exposure - the incentive for the public to actually listen to the new music is the donation. I'm sure the values were set based on them being prepared to donate the $2 million - so why not just do it, and say 'because we donated $2 million, U2 have kindly donated this song for free to you, the fans.'

Therefore we know two things:

U2 wanted the donations tied to downloads in order to further promote the song, and therefore raise their profile / promote the U2 brand at this time

U2 wanted the song removed after 24 hours - they could have left it permanently if the 2 mill was donated from the off, just as a present.

The only reason I can think of is that at the very least, the original INTENTION of this process was so that U2 could use this as a launching pad to release an album. Why they didn't alter that when things changed is beyond me though, now they just look stupid.
Click to expand...

If you operate under the assumption that the purpose of the ad is to raise money for RED, it will of course seem confusing and contradictory.

Once you realise and accept that the primary purpose of the ad is creating hype for U2, and that the secondary purpose is rehabilitation for BOA, and the money raised for RED is incidental, it all makes sense.

Motivation makes meaning clear.
 
dan_smee said:
That is true, but think about it... tying the sum to $1 per download provides U2 with the exposure - the incentive for the public to actually listen to the new music is the donation. I'm sure the values were set based on them being prepared to donate the $2 million - so why not just do it, and say 'because we donated $2 million, U2 have kindly donated this song for free to you, the fans.'
.
Click to expand...

I guess I see it differently:

The $10 million is the up front simple donation that requires noone to do anything, and they do it because U2 lends the commercial with their name stamped all over it. So this is the "because we donated..." part for me. And because they have donated this sum up front, it's induced others to join in also. I think this is the biggest 'financial win' if you will for RED/AIDs prevention, and it's a sizeable incentive.

U2 and BoA want to engage the audience and listener tho and get people involved and feeling like they've done something with RED, so they attach a much smaller, more token if you will, amount that is contingent on downloads. I just see it as a way to try and ensure maximum audience engagement because there's a time limit on it and it feels like your making the bank cough up even more than they already promised to.

It's almost as if the download part is the extra gimmick so to speak. The real numbers are coming down because U2 agreed to let BoA (and others) associate their brand with U2. Not because Joe U2 fan downloads the song per se. Also, I think there is a plan to have BoA donor match contributions up to $1000 until December 31 or something.
 
iota said:
This is U2 we're talking about...it wouldn't surprise me in the least. They are frightened to release anything. They need to do like 3 "pretend" releases until they get their mojo back
Click to expand...

It could be worse. They could start hiring songwriters a la Aerosmith and Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. God, I really hope they decide to retire before it gets to that stage.
 
Nick66 said:
If you operate under the assumption that the purpose of the ad is to raise money for RED, it will of course seem confusing and contradictory.

Once you realise and accept that the primary purpose of the ad is creating hype for U2, and that the secondary purpose is rehabilitation for BOA, and the money raised for RED is incidental, it all makes sense.

Motivation makes meaning clear.
Click to expand...

:up: Well said. Thank you.

I still think that somewhere in all of this is album buzz. You just DONT spend the kind of money for an SB ad without an album. Or else it would have been done years ago. (RED) is not a new idea. They could have done the "charity" single at a prior SB and launched a commercial. They chose to do it this year. Says volumes.
 
They are releasing it this way because:

1. They are afraid to release anything that will have a chart position which is why it is free and a "charity single"

2. Added incentive of the download being "cool" because everybody saw it on Superbowl Sunday and everyone will be talking about it.

3. They feel they need to bribe people to listen to their music by making them think they are fighting AIDS (BoA will donate 2 million regardless....."up to" means "already donated").

Basically, if this song tanks with all those factors in play...condolences...new album with Eno and Lanios in 2016 (maybe...we'll see)
 
To be honest the speed of which each thread passes is really exciting to me right now.

RoKKeR said:
Is there a thread/sub-forum where I can post something I whipped up this afternoon based on that little audience clip? It's not like a "cover" or anything, just something that came to mind when I heard the audience chanting. Thought I'd ask in here.
Click to expand...

There's an original music thread in The Bang and The Clatter. :)
 
Nick66 said:
If you operate under the assumption that the purpose of the ad is to raise money for RED, it will of course seem confusing and contradictory.

Once you realise and accept that the primary purpose of the ad is creating hype for U2, and that the secondary purpose is rehabilitation for BOA, and the money raised for RED is incidental, it all makes sense.

Motivation makes meaning clear.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with, and accept what you are saying. This is what makes it confusing though, considering that they are passing up the opportunity to use this platform for meaningful promotion. They will disappear for a few months, then re-surface and people will already either be bored, or getting sick of them again
 
I love how the email says you can download it for free for 24 hours but doesnt tell you where. So is the free download just for U2.com subscribers or everyone? If its for everyone then there shouldnt be very many 'ZOmG can you send me the song??!!' posts.





It's Invisible, it's a new U2 song and you can download it for free, this Sunday, for 24 hours.

And every time the track is downloaded, anywhere in the world, Bank of America will donate $1 to (RED), to help in the fight against AIDS.

Catch a glimpse of the TV spot in Sunday's Super Bowl when it all kicks off.

Don't forget, the download is available for a
limited period - until 11.59pm (US EST) Monday.

best wishes

The U2.com Team.
Click to expand...
 
dan_smee said:
I totally agree with, and accept what you are saying. This is what makes it confusing though, considering that they are passing up the opportunity to use this platform for meaningful promotion. They will disappear for a few months, then re-surface and people will already either be bored, or getting sick of them again
Click to expand...

I'm just hoping we get something concrete between now and the Fallon appearance.

McG is getting that award on Sun as well....maybe one or more band members show up? :hmm:
 
Sicy said:
I love how the email says you can download it for free for 24 hours but doesnt tell you where. So is the free download just for U2.com subscribers or everyone? If its for everyone then there shouldnt be very many 'ZOmG can you send me the song??!!' posts.
Click to expand...

I think it's free on iTunes, for everyone (or, iTunes users anyways).
 
dan_smee said:
I totally agree with, and accept what you are saying. This is what makes it confusing though, considering that they are passing up the opportunity to use this platform for meaningful promotion. They will disappear for a few months, then re-surface and people will already either be bored, or getting sick of them again
Click to expand...

Unofficially - Promotion for U2 - Bono says it will remind people they exist;
Officially - Charity purpose; marked detachment from the main project talking.
 
dan_smee said:
I totally agree with, and accept what you are saying. This is what makes it confusing though, considering that they are passing up the opportunity to use this platform for meaningful promotion. They will disappear for a few months, then re-surface and people will already either be bored, or getting sick of them again
Click to expand...

Yeah. But U2 and Guy Oseary are pros at this, more than you or I, so I just have to assume there's a plan to all this and that they know what they're doing. Then again, perhaps they don't.

Incidentally, that's not to say I don't believe U2 isn't passionate about RED and the money they're raising. I believe that they are. It's just that the primary purpose of this is to promote them, and I don't fault them for that one bit. U2 is a rock band, not a charity. They used to be called The Hype for crying out loud...this is what they do.

If they can raise some money for AIDS in Africa, that's great as well, it's a nice bonus. We get a song, U2 gets exposure, BOA gets some good PR for ending AIDS, and The Global Fund gets the equivalent of a rounding error in their yearly budget. It's a win-win all around. :)
 
Agreed.

On another note, I can't see them viewing this little period of activity as anything but a success. Of their recent youtube videos:

There is No Them, Only Us - 21 hours old - 1,226,514 views
Ordinary Love Alternate Video - 29 Dec, 2013 - 999,157 views
Ordinary Love Original - 22 November 2013 - 6,654,180 views

In 2 and a bit months, U2 have added three videos - 2 for the same song, and the other is an 18 second teaser trailer with no real music. They have had 8,879,851 views.

In anyone's language, that is phenominal.
 
Nick66 said:
Yeah. But U2 and Guy Oseary are pros at this, more than you or I, so I just have to assume there's a plan to all this and that they know what they're doing. Then again, perhaps they don't.
Click to expand...

I really and truly am putting my eggs in this basket. Oseary and the LN machine did not purchase U2 to have them sit on their arses for another 2-3 years. They are spending money to make money.

U2 sells. End of story. Regardless of the album quality, people go to see the show. 360 screams of that.

LN isn't going to let Bono wallow in self-pity and worry about relevance. They're going to expect some sort of profit at some point. Especially with the BOA ad and the fact that it's looking more and more like Invisible will never actually be for sale. It'll be a limited freebie and then that's it.
 
Having a short teaser video get over 1 million views in the space of less than a day is actually quite amazing in a way, no? That's much more than I would have expected.

If Invisible is a success then it'll rack up views by the millions, surely.
 
Vlad n U 2 said:
Having a short teaser video get over 1 million views in the space of less than a day is actually quite amazing in a way, no? That's much more than I would have expected.

If Invisible is a success then it'll rack up views by the millions, surely.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For a band U2s age to get nearly 10 million views for the three videos they upload in 2 and a bit months is amazing.

Can't see the Rolling Stones having that sort of attention paid to their new music...
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Ding ding ding

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people
Click to expand...

url
2-tio-salamanca-was-originally-supposed-to-be-the-main-villain-of-the-show.gif

search
 
Other thing worth noting is the ratio of Up and Down thumbs. There will always be haters, ESPECIALLY with U2. (PS, does the 1, 2, 3, 4 in the teaser sound like Edge holding his nose to anyone else???)

There is No The - Up 639, Down 17
Ordinary Love Alt - Up 7,469 , Down 158
Ordinary Love Orig. - Up 58,044 , Down 964

Totals - Up 66,152, Down 1,139

So that is over 98% 'Up'
 
Nick66 said:
Y
It's just that the primary purpose of this is to promote them, and I don't fault them for that one bit. U2 is a rock band, not a charity. They used to be called The Hype for crying out loud...this is what they do.

If they can raise some money for AIDS in Africa, that's great as well, it's a nice bonus. We get a song, U2 gets exposure, BOA gets some good PR, and The Global Fund gets the equivalent of a rounding error in their yearly budget. It's a win-win all around. :)
Click to expand...

The primary focus varies depending on who's being asked. I'm fairly certain that the Bank of America doesn't give a shit about U2 or AIDS in Africa of anywhere else. The institution is psychopathic. However much they end up donating won't make up for the misery they've inflicted or for their involvement in American politics and support of the destruction of the middle class, the poor, the environment, their own employees...

I don't think that there will be that many downloads. Who watching the superbowl is going to hear a 30 second ad and then run to download the song? New U2 music is pretty much a niche concern; even the fans that go to the shows don't know the new music (NLOTH) or album cuts from their mega successful 83-93 run. The ad won't have that much effect on U2 aside from attaching some BoA stink onto them. It will make the Bank of America look pretty damn good though. After all, they're donating money to Africa, and they have the blessing of The Conscience of Rock N Roll.

You're beautiful more beautiful than me
You're honorable more honorable than me
Loyal to the Bank of America
It's a sign of the times

Vested interest united ties, landed gentry rationalize
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America
 
ClaytonsKitten said:
U2 sells. End of story. Regardless of the album quality, people go to see the show. 360 screams of that.
Click to expand...

Sure. And you make a good point...Live Nation plays a big part behind the scenes in all this, and ultimately this is more about the tour than the record anyway. That's where the money is. So to that extent, this kind of hype for U2, who have been out of the public eye (a Pop culture saturated public that has a very short attention span) for a while is good, whether there's a record attached to it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
R
LP13/Invisible. The Hope! The Trauma. Who's lying next?
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
60K
ClaytonsKitten
ClaytonsKitten
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Album 13: Shit Gets Real
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
59K
Mrs. Garrison
Mrs. Garrison
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Album 13: Arguing/Punning/Meme-ing/Discussion thread
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
60K
mama cass
mama cass
LemonMelon
Desert Island X: Group 1 Listening Thread
5 6 7
Replies
185
Views
7K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom