OMG, another Vancouver-ite!!! Nicely said, EvolutionMonkey, but I disagree to some extent. I do think marketing and media perception do play into it to a large extent, but I think Pop just didn't strike a chord with the masses in the same way that Achtung Baby did. I mean, Achtung wasn't promoted to nearly the same degree, but look how well it did. Also, critics trashing an album doesn't always result in low album sales. Take a look at Rattle & Hum, for example (or the Britneys of the world). To this day, it remains one of their highest selling albums of all time, selling over 10 million copies. I think if a product is really great, the public will generally buy it, if it's advertized at all. Pop was advertized very well, but the masses just weren't into it. Now, let's make it clear that doesn't mean it's a bad record. The masses love Britney Spears and J Lo, too, apparently so that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying it goes beyond the marketing and perception of the record, and to the actual material, itself.
Perhaps the music buying public weren't ready for Pop in 1997? But if that were true, why would they have gobbled up OK Computer by Radiohead in such ravenous fashion? Afterall, the latter album was unlike anything out there (in popular music) at the time, as well. Maybe U2's record (Pop) was not what the general public wanted from U2? Maybe it would have been huge if done by another artist? (Well, we all know that would be impossible--no one *but* U2 could have made Pop, but for sake of argument....) The point is, I really don't have one (a point), but the bigger point is, it goes deeper than one thing (ie, marketing), at least in my opinion.
Ps. Are there any other Vancouver U2 fans on this board? lol