ATYCLB Marketed to Teens...

[Flying FuManchu]

http://www.adage.com/
March 27, 2002
From Advertising Age Magazine:

Mar 25, 2002 issue

Iovine learns U2's all about el-e-va-tion to a new demographic
Wayne Friedman

U2 HAS BEEN one band looking for elevation.

The band, around since the '80s, wanted to attract a new audience--a 12-to-18-year-old
audience-for its latest release, "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and build sales from
that demographic to make the album a hit.

Enter Jimmy lovine, chairman of Interscope Records and producer of earlier U2 albums.
Mr. lovine had one clear idea how to achieve the goal: make believe U2 was a new
band--with absolutely no history.

"It was one of the rare times that you could actually feel a marketing plan in the record
business," Mr. Iovine says.

U2 and Interscope had to do it differently--specifically, have a long-term plan-vs. the quick
hits of other musical releases. "We realized that this was an 18-month plan," says Steve
Berman, Interscope's senior executive of marketing and sales. "The key was how Jimmy
set the tone for marketing."

That tone included a number of high-profile TV performances--including halftime at last
month's Super Bowl, the National Basketball Association All-Star Game, "The Tonight
Show With Jay Leno" and "Late Show With David Letterman."

Perhaps the key was Viacom's MTV. Not only would there be videos--four different ones--
but U2 would do special appearances, such as a rooftop concert, a la the Beatles, during
MTV's "Total Request Live."

Mr. lovine "had a lot do with the band trying to shed their credibility fears," says Paul
Kremen, head of brand marketing for Interscope. "It harder to take a band that's been
around as long as U2 and make them relevant to 12-to-18-year-olds."

To target teens further, U2 also got involved with another Viacom unit, Paramount Pictures,
by including the band's third single, "Elevation," in the soundtrack of the summer 2001
movie "Tomb Raider."

All efforts helped U2 sell a sizable 4 million records in the U.S. and 11 million worldwide.
The band released four singles with the new album-"Beautiful Day," "Elevation," "Stuck in
a Moment You Can't Get Out" and "Walk On." Last month it won four Grammys as well.

I'm not surprised by this article b/c reaching out to the youth is a pretty important part in terms reaching for long term relevance IMO as well as selling albums.

What do people think about this article? Has this album left an impression on the youth of America. I dunno. I sort of think that U2 hasn't hooked the teens like hip hop, Moby, Linkin Park, etc.

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[oliveu2cm]

i'm curious- was this article written in hindsight? b/c any of us could write this with just throwing in some quotes from Iovine since many of us figured out U2's reasonings behind all their tv appearances, etc..

or was the article spurred by a direct interview with Iovine? In which case .. I guess he's just confirming what we previously speculated on!

interesting!

------------------
Well you can bump and grind If it's good for your mind
Well you can twist and shout Let it all hang out
But you won't fool the children of the revolution

U2 Take Me Higher

 

[u2utah]

I don't know how well they've reached teens, but I do know that I was feelin' mighty old there in the heart at recent concerts

Most people around me appeared to be in their late teens or early 20s.

I think it's usually college age when folks discover U2. I think their music has always been a little sophisticated for very young teens.

Paul McGuiness mentioned something similar in an article in the Financial Times last September saying they always strive to reach a new and younger audience with each record.
It's not that us "old folks" aren't important, it's just that younger people tend to buy more music.

 

[elevatedmole]

Nevermind..


------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988


[This message has been edited by elevatedmole (edited 03-27-2002).]

 

[madonna's child]

They reached me.

<---17 years old

------------------
Who's gonna ride your wild horses?

Won't you kiss me on that MIDNIGHT STREET, sweep me OFF MY FEET, singing 'ain't this life SO SWEET?' -David Gray

Love,
Emily

Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by u2utah:
I don't know how well they've reached teens, but I do know that I was feelin' mighty old there in the heart at recent concerts

Most people around me appeared to be in their late teens or early 20s.

I think it's usually college age when folks discover U2. I think their music has always been a little sophisticated for very young teens.

Paul McGuiness mentioned something similar in an article in the Financial Times last September saying they always strive to reach a new and younger audience with each record.
It's not that us "old folks" aren't important, it's just that younger people tend to buy more music.

I am so glad that someone started this thread!

By the way, how old are you Utah?(if you dont mind me asking)


I am 24 and I was delighted to see MANY young people at both U2 shows @ MSG in June and in October. The older U2 fans are great. They are the most loyal U2 fans(I know that is a very general statement, but it is usually accurate).

The fact that U2 seem to be able to transcend all ages just adds to their aura and brilliance! The main reason why U2 is still relevant and great 22+ years since they first came on the scene(besides the great music) is the fact that their music is passed down from each generation. My 28 year old brother passed U2 down to me and now it is time to pass it down to others(as we hold onto it as well).

I don't wanna sound old, but I(and many of my friends agree) feel that the majority of the music that is out there today and the stuff that teen "rock" fans seem to listen to is redundant crap.

Some examples of this are: Linkin Park, Kid Rock and Papa Roach(sorry if anyone likes these bands). I think that the angst that many of these and other acts is contrived and just put out to sell records.

I am sure that people older than I were saying the same stuff about grunge(another fictional name made up by the media, IMO) when I was in High School from 91-95. The truth is, I will listen to almost anything that is old or new(Beatles to U2 to White Stripe) as long as it is original, quality and creative. Of course, art is opinionated, but really, I think an astute person with some serious musical taste can differ between contrived, unoriginal nonsense and good, unrepetitive music.

Another thing that irks me is this stereotype that once you have reached your late 30's or early 40's you are done in the music biz. I say bullshit!!! In fact, I think Bono nailed it when he said that most artists are just coming into their own during their 40's. Even if the touring aspect of a music career may take a hit with older age, the writing can still be good(ie Dylan). ---the osbournes are great---sorry...

Anyway, I constantly argue with a stubborn friend of mine who has good taste in music(Pearl Jam, U2, REM, classics, etc...) He thinks that those bands should not go on MTV and other mainstream outlets b/c todays teens just wont appreciate it. I say that if bands like REM and PJ wouldve gotten off their butts a few years back, maybe todays music wouldnt be so shitty in the first place b/c they wouldve had better choices and the shit that is out today may never have come to fruition(I love PJ and REM and respect their wishes, but I do wish they would exspose themselves just a little bit).

Bottom line: thank g-d for people like Elevatemode and Madonna's Child. The more teens that like U2 now, the more U2 will continue to thrive in the future.

Sorry to ramble, but I needed to get this off my chest....look forward to any replies....

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-27-2002).]

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-27-2002).]

[This message has been edited by MBH (edited 03-27-2002).]

 

[STING2]

First, I don't see any new marketing strategy here, especially to people between 12-18 years of age. U2 has done plenty of TV promotions in the past. I currently keep on getting many of these from the early 80s on video tape. The whole TV and MTV thing is obviously nothing new for the band. The Superbowl and Grammy's were things that happened to the band that were out of their control and cannot be considered part of any marketing strategy. 12-18 years don't vote on the Grammy's and that demographic watches the American Music awards heavily over the Grammy's. U2 did not perform at the American Music awards.
More importantly, most of U2s airplay in the USA came from Adult top 40 this time around rather than Modern Rock or regular top 40. What has sold this album in the states are old fans from 1987-1993 jumped off the bandwagon after Achtung. There is a massive U2 fanbase in the USA from ages 25-40 and that is where the majority of U2s album sales have come from for ATYCLB. Winning back these old fans who made the band so incredibly huge from 1987 to 1993 has been the real key to success this time in the USA. Certainly if you can get the 12-18 year olds to buy your product thats great, but I do not see the major effort in that direction and nor has a large number of them bought the album. I'd say less than 10% of sales of the album came from that demographic.
To sum up the band has basically marketed themselves as they always have and while they have certainly drawn in some new young fans, capturing the old fan base has been the key to this albums success. Same goes for the concerts as well. I did not see a special ticket price for the 12-15 years of age.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I do think the majority of their sales are coming from old fans or fans who jumped off the boat after Zooropa and such which would be a shame. I've met a few teens who like U2 but the majority are rather indifferent or dislike them. Maybe they should have young vixens in their videos alah Aerosmith... that cetainly helped Aerosmith a lot. Hehe.

It sort of makes me wonder though about how the next album will be received. Especially if they decide to go the old U2 experimental way? Will all the old fans who jumped back on the bandwagon jump off again?

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by STING2:
First, I don't see any new marketing strategy here, especially to people between 12-18 years of age.

I agree
if it needs a new strategy for U2 to reach teens then how comes almost all of us fell in love with U2 when we were teens?


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[david]

haha I first took notice of U2 when I was 12. I didn't become a full fledged fan until I was 14, around the time Achtung Baby came out. But it wasn't the marketing that got me hooked, it was their sound.

------------------
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.

 

[Saracene]

I'm really confused sometimes about the way U2 fans use the word "experimental". I get the impression that when some people say that they want U2 to be experimental again they specifically mean the return to the sound of their 90s albums and their flirtations with dance & electronic sounds. Which kinda puzzles me because doesn't "being experimental" means exploring the sounds you haven't explored before?

 

[Autumn454]

Originally posted by Saracene:
I'm really confused sometimes about the way U2 fans use the word "experimental". I get the impression that when some people say that they want U2 to be experimental again they specifically mean the return to the sound of their 90s albums and their flirtations with dance & electronic sounds. Which kinda puzzles me because doesn't "being experimental" means exploring the sounds you haven't explored before?

Excellent point! I think those people are now 'stuck in the 90s' LMAO!!!

Oh, and I was 10 when U2 reached me in 1987. It's very unfair to say that someone has to be 'college age' to be 'sophisticated' enough to like U2. I have seen very intelligent and sophistcated teens on this list who appreciate U2 (Madonna's Child, Elevatedmole, Mona, Unforgettable Lemon, and more) while I know too many 'college agers' who don't like U2 and are jamming to Kid Rock, Disturbed, Godsmack and Papa Roach. It's not the age, it's the PERSON as an individual.


------------------
~Burned by the fire of love~

[This message has been edited by Autumn454 (edited 03-28-2002).]

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Originally posted by Saracene:
I'm really confused sometimes about the way U2 fans use the word "experimental". I get the impression that when some people say that they want U2 to be experimental again they specifically mean the return to the sound of their 90s albums and their flirtations with dance & electronic sounds. Which kinda puzzles me because doesn't "being experimental" means exploring the sounds you haven't explored before?

I wouldn't necessarily call ATYCLB a record that experiments with their sound the way The Unforgettable Fire or Achtung. I was thinking experimental as in different sounds from the last record or from the sound that they're known for. ATYCLB was not that kind of departure. The only real experiment in ATYCLB that seemed to be there (somewhat) was the songcraft... alah writing a song and performing it/developing it as a band rather then going piecemeal with different parts and forming a song...

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC



[This message has been edited by Flying FuManchu (edited 03-28-2002).]

 

[NShaik]

Originally posted by Flying FuManchu:
The band, around since the '80s, wanted to attract a new audience--a 12-to-18-year-old
audience-for its latest release, "All That You Can't Leave Behind" .

Well, if this is their intention, it hasn't worked, because I'm a teenager, and not one of the people I know my age like U2. Most of them still see them as some 80s dinosaur band. Shame really.



------------------
Watch More TV, ITs your world you can change it, taste is the enemy of art, Every thing you know if wrong, mock the devil, and he will flee from thee
www.geocities.com/nshaikspike/evil.html

 

[*Stormy*]

Originally posted by NShaik:
Well, if this is their intention, it hasn't worked, because I'm a teenager, and not one of the people I know my age like U2. Most of them still see them as some 80s dinosaur band. Shame really.

You are very correct. Most of the teenagers I know will never accept them just because of their age alone. It is a shame, at least you know better.

 

[u2utah]

Originally posted by MBH:
I am so glad that someone started this thread!

By the way, how old are you Utah?(if you dont mind me asking)

I'll be 38 in a week. From later posts I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my post. I hope young or old fans don't think I was discounting them as fans. I just think it's great that U2 has been able to bring in new fans with each record. (Whatever their ages.) I know a number of people in their mid 20s who discovered them during Pop. My friend's 11 year old daughter loves "Beautiful Day". It's great.

It does seem to me that a majority of people seem to discover how great U2 are in college
However, when I said their music is a bit sophisticated for a lot of very young teens I meant that at 12 or 13 years kids tend to like simpler music (rhymically, melodically, lyrically etc) and that's normal developmentally. Of course that's a generalizaion and doesn't apply to all pre-teens or early teens. Young teens are as diverse as any other age group. elevatedmole has that wonderful Bono quote about not dicounting 14 year olds and I agree with that. (At any rate, Interferencers are obviously more advanced than the general population

)

Back to the original article, I agree with STING2 in that it wasn't necessarily a brand new strategy because they have always tried to reach out to a new audience with each record. I do, however, think there was a stronger, more calculated, push to reach out the the "MTV generation" because it is harder to reach that demographic if you're perceived as an "old band". Bono has talked about doing that numerous times since ATYCLB came out.

Older fans shouldn't feel bad that they weren't the subject of a marketing push. It simply wasn't necessary.

Obviously they aren't marketing to "loyal fans" because they don't need to. Those fans were at the record store on Oct 31 marketing or no

Only a little marketing was needed for old fans who didn't like Pop, and that was covered by their overall marketing scheme. A couple of articles and TV shows and those fans would come back. Older folks who weren't into U2 were also covered by the the overall plan of TV appearances, tour etc.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by STING2:
First, I don't see any new marketing strategy here, especially to people between 12-18 years of age. U2 has done plenty of TV promotions in the past. I currently keep on getting many of these from the early 80s on video tape. The whole TV and MTV thing is obviously nothing new for the band. The Superbowl and Grammy's were things that happened to the band that were out of their control and cannot be considered part of any marketing strategy. 12-18 years don't vote on the Grammy's and that demographic watches the American Music awards heavily over the Grammy's. U2 did not perform at the American Music awards.
More importantly, most of U2s airplay in the USA came from Adult top 40 this time around rather than Modern Rock or regular top 40. What has sold this album in the states are old fans from 1987-1993 jumped off the bandwagon after Achtung. There is a massive U2 fanbase in the USA from ages 25-40 and that is where the majority of U2s album sales have come from for ATYCLB. Winning back these old fans who made the band so incredibly huge from 1987 to 1993 has been the real key to success this time in the USA. Certainly if you can get the 12-18 year olds to buy your product thats great, but I do not see the major effort in that direction and nor has a large number of them bought the album. I'd say less than 10% of sales of the album came from that demographic.
To sum up the band has basically marketed themselves as they always have and while they have certainly drawn in some new young fans, capturing the old fan base has been the key to this albums success. Same goes for the concerts as well. I did not see a special ticket price for the 12-15 years of age.

Why are you so cynical? I feel like you turn most discussions into an argument. U2 definitely has marketed themselves differently for ATYCLB than for POP and for stuff from the past. Nobody said that they have NEVER marketed themselves like this b4.
Appearing on TRL is marketing to teens(even Bono mentions how they wanted the younger audience to see what a great rock band is).

U2 has not ALWAYS marketed themselves like this. If they did, POP may have sold more(I dont want to re-hash that discussion that we had last week, thank you). Put those stats down for one minute and take a look around you. I have read, seen and heard stories from younger people (teens, very early 20's) showing a great interest in U2. Of course the majority is older people who have liked the band for a long time, but U2 have certainly attracted a younger audience this time around(I also get the impression that U2 has many more younger fans in other countries around the globe)....

 

[doctorwho]

MBH: To speak on poor STING2's behalf, I don't think he means to come across as argumentative. I believe this is just his writing style. And, please correct me STING2 if I am erroneous, but I don't believe English is his first language. Hence the "tone" of his posts. However, having interacted with STING2 for a long time in other forums, I can vouch he did not mean to insult.

That said, I do disagree with STING2 here and agree with you, MDH. I do feel that U2 marketed for a younger crowd. Despite some statistics, for the most part, teenagers have the most disposable income and buy the most CDs. It's during one's teen years that you take a chance on a CD (whereas an adult, especially one in his/her 30's and beyond, is less willing to spend the $$ on something that they really may not enjoy). Plus, teens succumb to peer pressure. Get one teen interested and others will follow. Again, adults tend not to do this.

Hence why marketing to a teen crowd is crucial in the music industry. Bono is also right in that it's time teens heard some GOOD music. They've been fed bubble-gum pop and rap rock for so long, they don't know anything else. They don't know a good rock song - now they do.

For an album to have this much success, clearly the teen crowd was captured at some level. If this were a country album, then perhaps the teen market isn't as important. But for a rock (pop-rock) album, the teen market is critical. Clearly U2 succeeded in reaching that market (otherwise they would not have a soon to be 4x Platinum album in the U.S.).

Also, as I witness in this board room, U2 have clearly attracted many teens. Heck, just a few weeks back Baker6621 posted that he got his driver's license! Now that's young, especially when I've had my license for more years than Baker has been alive. LOL! But this is a good thing. The success of "Beautiful Day" was able to capture these fans - and keep them. While many critics argued that U2's tours were full of 30-somethings, I saw a LOT of teens and 20-somethings there as well. I attribute this youthful audience to U2's marketing efforts this time around.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by doctorwho:
MBH: To speak on poor STING2's behalf, I don't think he means to come across as argumentative. I believe this is just his writing style. And, please correct me STING2 if I am erroneous, but I don't believe English is his first language. Hence the "tone" of his posts. However, having interacted with STING2 for a long time in other forums, I can vouch he did not mean to insult.

That said, I do disagree with STING2 here and agree with you, MDH. I do feel that U2 marketed for a younger crowd. Despite some statistics, for the most part, teenagers have the most disposable income and buy the most CDs. It's during one's teen years that you take a chance on a CD (whereas an adult, especially one in his/her 30's and beyond, is less willing to spend the $$ on something that they really may not enjoy). Plus, teens succumb to peer pressure. Get one teen interested and others will follow. Again, adults tend not to do this.

Hence why marketing to a teen crowd is crucial in the music industry. Bono is also right in that it's time teens heard some GOOD music. They've been fed bubble-gum pop and rap rock for so long, they don't know anything else. They don't know a good rock song - now they do.

For an album to have this much success, clearly the teen crowd was captured at some level. If this were a country album, then perhaps the teen market isn't as important. But for a rock (pop-rock) album, the teen market is critical. Clearly U2 succeeded in reaching that market (otherwise they would not have a soon to be 4x Platinum album in the U.S.).

Also, as I witness in this board room, U2 have clearly attracted many teens. Heck, just a few weeks back Baker6621 posted that he got his driver's license! Now that's young, especially when I've had my license for more years than Baker has been alive. LOL! But this is a good thing. The success of "Beautiful Day" was able to capture these fans - and keep them. While many critics argued that U2's tours were full of 30-somethings, I saw a LOT of teens and 20-somethings there as well. I attribute this youthful audience to U2's marketing efforts this time around.

Well said, Dr.! Thanks for the info...I will now know in the future....

 

[Foxxern]

I don't know, I mean, all my friends at least respect U2, and most of them like them as well (we're all between 20 and 22). I used to get a good ribbing for being such a huge fan when we first met, but not really anymore. I can say, however, that their awareness of U2 has grown a lot since ATYCLB. I'm not sure why, but I think overall this album was more "normal", and people picked up on it quicker. Pop was more of a grower, and those are the kinds people buy, and give up on after one listen.

My point is, I think that that yes there was more of an effort to promote this album to the younger crowd, especially by getting the songs onto radio more. No matter how much we hate it, the radio still is a very big part of our music scene. This album connected more with people who don't consider themselves music aficionados, and those casual fans constitute a large part of music consumers. These include kids, who may be more prone to buy the latest hot thing, rather than sticking with a few artists and following them. I think U2 wanted to be cool again with the crowd, not just with their hardcore fans, and they succeeded.

------------------
Change is the only constant

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by NShaik:
Well, if this is their intention, it hasn't worked, because I'm a teenager, and not one of the people I know my age like U2. Most of them still see them as some 80s dinosaur band. Shame really.

Yes, you are right, that is a shame. I am glad that you are intelligent enough not to cow down to the trends of adolesence.

This is not to say that everything that teens listen to is bad or that everyone should listen to U2. To each his own.

My point is that I get the impression that many of the younger generation do not like U2 JUST because they are an older band(and maybe since they are old, they are not as cool as they would be if they were younger).
To discredit something just b/c of its age is ridiculous and lame. I am glad that you could see through that.

Although I may sound old here(only 24!) and I do think differently in every aspect including music now then when I was in my mid-teens, I always try to judge music for the music. NOT for the age. When I was 15 or 18 I would listen to older musicians and did not give a f--- what my peers thought. Floyd, Zepplin, Beatles, Dead, Doors, Dylan, Gaye, Who, on and on were all older bands. They are also great bands, some of the greatest of all-time(U2 were still fairly young and first coming into their "coolness" around this time--AB, ZOO TV era). If someone will IGNORE a band b/c they are older than shame on them. If they dont like U2 or any band that is older than 40, then fine. However, I bet that most of the older bands nowadays are producing more creative and original work than most of the younger bands(linkin crap, POD, Kid Rock, Papa Roach, etc....).

If the music is good, it is good. I feel fortunate that I hit my musical stride during one of the greatest periods in music history in the early 90's. U2, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Guns N Roses, Pumpkins, REM, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Peppers, Janes Addiction, NIN, Nirvana, STP....all produced some great material while I was in High school. I am sure that many people in their twenties back then thought that grunge and some of the other popular stuff was crap in the same way that I think rap-rock is crap today. Although it is all a matter of taste, the music from the early 90's has stood the test of time. Much of those bands and their work are copied, emulated, revered by those in the industry and written down for future generations to enjoy. I highly doubt that the same will be said for much of the contrived anger rock of todays generation.

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Foxxern:
I don't know, I mean, all my friends at least respect U2, and most of them like them as well (we're all between 20 and 22). I used to get a good ribbing for being such a huge fan when we first met, but not really anymore. I can say, however, that their awareness of U2 has grown a lot since ATYCLB. I'm not sure why, but I think overall this album was more "normal", and people picked up on it quicker. Pop was more of a grower, and those are the kinds people buy, and give up on after one listen.

My point is, I think that that yes there was more of an effort to promote this album to the younger crowd, especially by getting the songs onto radio more. No matter how much we hate it, the radio still is a very big part of our music scene. This album connected more with people who don't consider themselves music aficionados, and those casual fans constitute a large part of music consumers. These include kids, who may be more prone to buy the latest hot thing, rather than sticking with a few artists and following them. I think U2 wanted to be cool again with the crowd, not just with their hardcore fans, and they succeeded.

Why did they rib you about U2? If this was during POP, then maybe that is a rhetorical question...just kidding.

Actually, I have a similar experience. I was in college when POP was released. I did not relate to most of my peers b/c, unfortunatley, rap(biggie, 2pac, which is ok) was HUGE in early '97. U2 went wierd and even they admit they made some errors with POP. I remember stumbling into a dorm room and someone of my age had a POP poster on the wall and I thought that I had just found the holy grail!!!!

Maybe that is why we like it here @ Int. We feel that we have good taste in music and it is nice when other people share in those thoughts and feelings.

On another issue, ATYCLB is like a catch-22:
U2 became REALLY big again, attracted a younger crowd, and are considered by many young people to be "in" or "cool."

The bad thing is, I am sure that there are many who think that U2 pandered to the younger audience JUST to SELL records(hence the term Sell---; I have gotten in trouble for using the "S" word on this site b4!!!).

Whatever. I dont buy it. Sure U2 wanted to sell records. But they will sell many records and are rich even if the younger crowd doesnt buy their music. I think that U2 is really fed up with the shit that is filling the airwaves and, like Bono said @ the 2000 MTV awards, U2 "bit the arse of the pop charts!"

 

[elevatedmole]

Originally posted by Autumn454:
Oh, and I was 10 when U2 reached me in 1987. It's very unfair to say that someone has to be 'college age' to be 'sophisticated' enough to like U2. I have seen very intelligent and sophistcated teens on this list who appreciate U2 (Madonna's Child, Elevatedmole, Mona, Unforgettable Lemon, and more) while I know too many 'college agers' who don't like U2 and are jamming to Kid Rock, Disturbed, Godsmack and Papa Roach. It's not the age, it's the PERSON as an individual.

You made absolutely excellent points, Autumn. This is something I've been trying to make apparent to so many people for ages. It really is NOT the age group -- it's the person.
Just because I'm 13, everyone treats me weird when I tell them I like U2 and I hate Backstreet Boys and NSync and all that pop crap. That's why I have that quote in my signature -- I think it's brilliant and it points out what I am always trying to get across.
I personally only know of 3 people in my age group who like U2: Bono's Babe, Phuzzie, and Fly Girl. I'm from a dying race.

Anyway, I do understand that most people are just airheads who like mainstream pop groups/singers, but I just wanted to say that Autumn is right -- there IS smart teenagers out there who do like U2.

------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

 

[madonna's child]

1. I saw Beautiful Day on mtv

2. I saw them perform on TRL

3. I saw them announce their tour on TRL

4. I bought their album

I think they did market to teens, and I think it worked.

------------------
Who's gonna ride your wild horses?

Won't you kiss me on that MIDNIGHT STREET, sweep me OFF MY FEET, singing 'ain't this life SO SWEET?' -David Gray

Love,
Emily

Visit my webpage for U2 wallpapers:
www.geocities.com/springtime5348/index.html

 

[STING2]

Dr. Who,
English is my native language although I did take some Russian in college. Kind of funny though that you thought it was not. Perhaps its the rather unorganized and unedited nature of most of my post.
I'm sorry my views don't agree with everyones here on this topic, but because they do not should not suggest something hostile. I stand by my views. Yes I do look around me and notice what is going on. I have been following U2 for 15 years. Whats more I use statistics from billboard magazine to back up my conclusions.
So I'll briefly state again that I do not see a serious attempt to win 12-18 music buyers with the current marketing involved. Most marketing and promotion is done through radio airplay, music channel video play, and concerts. The exposure level in these area's has been roughly the same as with POP and POPMART. If you need statistics for proof, I have them from Billboard. POP got a similar level of promotion compared with ATYCLB, but simply failed to sale as much.
I understand they went on TRL once. But TRL did not exist before 1998 so this could not be used as an example of a new U2 marketing tatic not done in the past.
Teens love Linkin Park and buy their album not because they saw them on late night TV 4 months ago, but because they are played constantly on the radio.
I'll give you an example of when teens loved U2. Yes its a personal one and it was back in my senior year of highschool 1992. For the first date that was near my town in Philadelphia on March 10, 1992 nearly 1 out of every 4 people in my class went to that show! When it was announced that tickets would go on sale on a Saturday about two weeks before the show, thats all anyone at school would talk about. More people would have gone but the show soldout in 20 minutes. Plus we live about 2 hours from Philadelphia. Not everyones parents would let them travel to Philadelphia that was two hours away on a school night. By the end of 1992 with more shows in the general area plus the band staying in my town for a full week to practice for the outdoor leg, nearly 3/4 of my class saw ZOO TV. Another big thing was the PROM where ALL I WANT IS YOU was the theme song. Most of the music played at the PROM was U2 as well.
So to anyone in highschool or are now in college. Did or does your highschool have a similar level of devotion to U2? I think we'll find that, based on many of the answers by teens on here, they are the only ones besides one or two others who have bought the new album and maybe have seen the tour. But if I'm wrong I'd be interested to hear your story.
Back when I was in Highschool, U2 were the only band it seemed. Many of course left the following after ZOOROPA only to return with ATYCLB. I randomly saw 10 people from my highschool class, that I did not know would be at the June 14, 2001 MCI show in Washington. Kind of amazing to run into them there among 20,000 people.

 

[Ana]

U2 hooked me at 17. Now I'm 19 and more in love than ever with the band.

 

[popsadie]

U2 hooked me when I was 18. I'm now 23 and they are still my favorite band. I became aware of them in the pop era, and at the time it seemed like being a u2 fan was not a "hip" thing to be, but now at the age of 23...and sadly still at the same University;p I see U2 t-shirts all the time. I am not saying that U2's popularity increased drastically with ATYCLB, but I do see a much larger appreciation of them at my campus now.

 

[STING2]

ATYCLB has sold twice as many copies as POP has worldwide and in the USA the number is could become triple by the end of the year. I would say that the exposure on radio, MTV and concerts is about the same as for POP though at least in the USA. I think the main increase of course for ATYCLB has been old fans coming back after having left after ZOOROPA. I think the number of brand new fans who are teens is small. That is interesting though that you feel that the presence on college campus your at is stronger for U2.

 

[barlowdog]

I just had to get in on this one. Sting2, and english not being his native language? HAHA! That's a good one. Sting2 and I went to the same high school, though I'm several years older. C'mon Sting...represent!! This makes our education look bad.

Anyway, it's early morning, Good Friday, and I'm a little bleary eyed. I feel ATYCLB was marketed differently to a degree. U2 are masters at this marketing game and they've got the money, power and the well known brand name to do it. As for what the thread was started about, marketing to teens, rock bands have always done this, all the way back to Elvis and Buddy Holly. U2's not stupid. They know you GROW with your audience, but you don't GROW OLD with them. At least not yet. I agree with most here that sales are higher for ATYCLB primarily due to the 25-40 crowd that either hopped back on or possibly even realized how much they really like U2 for the first time. But I wouldn't discount the younger audience factor. I believe there's been a huge influx of younger fans(my sister is one of them). Heck, my cousin's only eight years old and he knows Beautiful Day and I had nothing to do with that.

EXPOSURE: I think U2's exposure has been enormous, much more than POP and Zooropa, for this album. With Bono's activities outside the band, Time magazine, etc., there's been almost an oversaturation of U2 outside just the regular rock spectrum. Part of why I think there's been a different approach has to do with the new American label association and Iovine's 18 month strategy, but factors like 9/11 certainly gave the album renewed life when it may have been ready to slip quietly away. The main thing I see that is different is the amount of TV the band has done. Bono breaking one of his own commandments, Beware of Television. I've filled up three times as much videotape for this album than in all of the 90's. U2 played SNL for the first time ever. REM did this when their career was starting to wane in the late 90's. U2 played almost every awards show they were invited to. They played TRL. In spite of it not existing prior to 1998, this is something I think U2 would have avoided at other times in their career. Where are the most young people going to see you: TELEVISION. It's the best way to reach the most young people. Lower priced tickets could be aimed at teens and poor college students...and that is only speculation on my part. However, regardless of whether or not that was the band's intention, it was still a wonderful thing to make these cheap seats some of the best in the house. I'm sure many fans, young, old, rich and poor appreciated that. The videos for this one also seem to be getting much more exposure than for POP. I still haven't seen Last Night on Earth or Please(damn, I really want to see them). I think a gig like Farmclub was an attempt to align themselves back in the alternative scene like they were able to do with Achtung after becoming the biggest band in the world in the 80's. Popular bands like REM and Radiohead are fiercely guarded about their underground roots and alt-rock status, whether it be real or not. U2, Bono in particular, has always been vocal about wanting to reach everyone they could and that means holding on to some of that underground cred. Saying things like "we're a punk rock band hearing mad tunes in our head" and playing small shows like Irving Plaza and the London club gig are ways of doing that. I don't fault U2 for doing these things; I think it's f***ing great. I applaud them and say thanks for being out there. But it's ok to question their reasons. Apparently, it helps kill some time. And though this may not be relevant to this post, I wanted to add that I've never felt that sales figures, chart positions, money data, etc., are good tools to refute someone else's speculation and opinion about a band's motives. These tools of industry are what they are. Business measuring sticks. I, for one, don't care because it's not how I personally measure a band. If Achtung sold only 50 copies, we'd still love it. It's about the music, man.

Finally(I hope), someone had mentioned certain things as being out of U2's control, specifically the Grammys and the Super Bowl. I politely and respectfully disagree. If you don't want to play them, you say no, thank you, and don't play. It's that simple. Being U2 fans, we know that is not the bands style. They don't turn down gigs when possible. They still act like an up and coming band sometimes and, although laughable, I think that's kind of cool. And they still make mistakes. The Target commercial. AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHH. Of course, I bought it, but I didn't like the fact that I had to get it at Target instead of my local independent record store. I also abhored the football themed "Stuck" video. Not only was it a bad video, but it seemed to take away from the original meaning behind the song, in my humble, ill informed opinion.

Well, I gotta get to work. Please be nice to each other. ROCK ON!!