ding
Kantar data on free U2 album consumption by Apple device users.
- Thread starter Super Yo
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ding
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Yeah, I agree with popacrobat on this point, and others have made good posts about why even more shit would probably hit the fan if Kanye or the Stones did this. As for Taylor Swift, we need look no further than the controversy surrounding the campaign to vote Shake It Off into Triple J's Hottest 100, which some of you may have seen. For those who don't know, the Hottest 100 is an annual poll run by Australian radio station Triple J that anyone in the world can vote on. It now registers over two million votes each year, and Buzzfeed started a campaign to get Shake It Off to #1 in a veiled swipe against "hipsters". The backlash was ridiculous. The whole furore was ridiculous. In the end Shake It Off was disqualified! (It would have come twelfth.)
Anyway, I do think it's lazy to suggest the negative narrative is just some thing peddled by the blogosphere or Twitter - indeed, that seems like just repeating Bono's talking point. Certainly I noticed that SOI quickly became a punchline on Aussie TV comedies, and plenty of my co-workers who have minimal Internet presence, think Twitter is stupid, and wouldn't dream of keeping a blog were poking shit at U2.
I tried to find out how many active users there are, but it seems they don't publish that and all I could find was unsourced claims that it's something in the realm of over fifty percent. I suppose it's very easy for many people to just keep scrobbling after drifting away from the site, since the app works in the background. As long as somebody's using the same computer as the one they registered on, they could be sending scrobbles to last.fm five years after they forgot about the place.
Of course, for the Last.Fm stats, without total plays, it's meaningless since U2 has more songs.
(just ribbing, absolutely not surprised by those numbers, except for thinking that fans of pop music didn't use last.fm.)
You may be ribbing, but I do wish I could've found that data! I'm sure it's out there for somebody who can be bothered to find it or piece it together. Best I can do is give the total plays for each artist of every song ever:
U2
Individual listeners: 3,267,194
Total tracks played: 129,085,810
Katy Perry
Individual listeners: 3,391,774
Total tracks played: 111,483,911
Taylor Swift
Individual listeners: 1,849,767
Total tracks played: 101,271,701
I find that fascinating, because you can make heaps out of it. Of course both Swift and Perry are at a disadvantage to U2 in that their careers began after last.fm was created, while U2 have had the site's entire existence to rack up plays. But you have Katy Perry with more listeners than U2 but less total plays, and Taylor Swift with markedly less listeners than either but nudging close on total plays!
At any rate, it suggests that per song, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift both get more plays than U2, but that U2 can amass a bigger tally of total plays as they have a larger discography.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
LOL...I missed this story somehow, and don't have time to read this whole thread, but I'll just say that anyone who takes seriously any data that suggests that U2 is being listened to more than Taylor Swift and Katy Perry combined on their iPod/iPhone has drank way to much of the U2 Kool-Aid.
And this data only means something if U2 AND all the those other artists are on someone's device. Otherwise, OF COURSE it's been listened to more. The music market is fragmented, except that U2 uniquely managed to get their music on everyone's phone. Not everyone has Katy Perry and Taylor Swift on their phone. Someone listening to one track (or a few seconds of one track) of a record that was dumped on their phone because of either curiosity of more likely a product of a using the "shuffle" setting isn't the stuff of relevancy or popularity. Crikey get real.
Once again, the "goal" for this record was to make U2 popular and relevant again...not go get their music on everyone's device. The release method was merely the way they set about achieving their "goal". Repeating that the goal was to simply get the music in front of a ton of people and say "Mission Accomplished" is like saying a busker who gives away her CD for free to everyone who walks by has accomplished some kind of "goal". It takes nothing to give away your art...the real test is if people connect to it and respond to it positively.
Each U2 record of the 00's has sold less than the one that came before it. If you want to know how popular SOI would have been without the Apple release, all you have to do is look at how NLOTH did and subtract.
And this data only means something if U2 AND all the those other artists are on someone's device. Otherwise, OF COURSE it's been listened to more. The music market is fragmented, except that U2 uniquely managed to get their music on everyone's phone. Not everyone has Katy Perry and Taylor Swift on their phone. Someone listening to one track (or a few seconds of one track) of a record that was dumped on their phone because of either curiosity of more likely a product of a using the "shuffle" setting isn't the stuff of relevancy or popularity. Crikey get real.
Once again, the "goal" for this record was to make U2 popular and relevant again...not go get their music on everyone's device. The release method was merely the way they set about achieving their "goal". Repeating that the goal was to simply get the music in front of a ton of people and say "Mission Accomplished" is like saying a busker who gives away her CD for free to everyone who walks by has accomplished some kind of "goal". It takes nothing to give away your art...the real test is if people connect to it and respond to it positively.
Each U2 record of the 00's has sold less than the one that came before it. If you want to know how popular SOI would have been without the Apple release, all you have to do is look at how NLOTH did and subtract.
The info is so inaccurate its untrue. Ill take it though and i will be telling everyone that a 1/4 of apple users are listening to u2
Good thinking. We should all quote Kantar research, that'll shut up the naysayers #teamirishdadrock
CosmoKramer
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,325
That has almost nothing to do with U2s popularity and speaks more to the state of the record business, which has declined almost every single year since 2002.
NLOTH was the 6th best selling album in the WORLD in 2009 and yet sold less then 5 million copies. It would had been top 5 had Michael Jackson not passed away.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
It seems to me that over the period of time U2 fans have become negative nelly more and more. Whether it is about the music or anything surrounding the band these days it just seems that people have lost the plot in the hardcore fan base.
U2 have sold more albums in their 40's and 50's then Taylor Swift or Katy Perry ever will and I would hazard to guess would be in the top 3 in the history of music at this age if not #1.
U2 have sold more albums in their 40's and 50's then Taylor Swift or Katy Perry ever will and I would hazard to guess would be in the top 3 in the history of music at this age if not #1.
Scorpionac
War Child
A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that Swift has sold approx 33 million of her studio albums, whereas U2 have sold approx 26 million of their post-2000 albums. Not that I really care one way or the other, it's just an inaccurate statement.
Salome
you are what you is
This is beyond far fetched.
ATYCLB sold because of Beautiful Day, How to Dismantle because of Vertigo.
POP was a relative disappointment sales wise and No Line barely sold at all.
When was the last time a U2 album became a success because people discovered this wonderful album from a certain Irish 4-piece?
They are a bunch of 50+ year olds in a rock band.
They either create a smash hit or they try something like the Apple release strategy.
"Critical respect" we can maybe start assessing 10 years from now.
Probably later.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Well, yeah. And the "Apple release strategy" pretty much confirmed they knew the record didn't have a "monster hit". The band basically admitted as much.
With the "Apple release strategy", the band is ridiculed; without it, the record is essentially ignored (relatively speaking). So is it better to be ridiculed or ignored?
There are no good options for a rock band composed of "50+ year olds" when your record doesn't have a sure-fire "monster hit".
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
In line now to be the first to get one...can't wait.
I disagree that the album would have been ignored without Apple. I think giving the album away for free on iTunes was a great idea. The pushing of the album direct to people's accounts is was what caused the problem.
They're still capable of putting out a number one album on name value alone. The album is good, so that would have helped even more. Are they releasing a number one single in today's world? No. But it could have done a lot better on adult alternative formats if not for the negative reaction the pushing of the album caused. I have no doubt about that.
They're still capable of putting out a number one album on name value alone. The album is good, so that would have helped even more. Are they releasing a number one single in today's world? No. But it could have done a lot better on adult alternative formats if not for the negative reaction the pushing of the album caused. I have no doubt about that.
Why is disagreeing with a marketing strategy being a "negative Nancy"? Are we just supposed to be lemmings jumping off the cliff with every single decision they make?
My thinking the pushing of the album was a terrible decision doesn't change my love of the band, nor does it have a negative effect on the album for me.
The issue is that it had a negative effect on the album for the general public. Whether it should have or not isn't the point. It did, and it will forever overshadow this album.
I think the negative reactions to the album push were absolutely stupid and childish; the epitome of "first world problems."
That doesn't change that they exist, nor does it change that it cast a negative light on the album before it ever got a chance to breath on its own.
thavidesco
Refugee
Who is Taylor Swift? I heard about her/him only at this forum...
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
Isn't he the guy who played the werewolf in the Twilight movies?
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
This is exactly it.
If I had the option to download a free new Police album, I would consider it.
All of a sudden one shows up in my songs and starts playing itself without my having done anything when I'm listening to my music on shuffle, yeah I'm gonna be annoyed and probably look for a way to get rid of it, or at least all but the one or two songs I might really like.
Of course I wouldn't go whining about it like Sting shot my parents in front of me or anything, but people are fucking idiots anyways, and with a bullhorn as large as the Internet is undoubtedly those who scream the loudest will drown out the more moderate reactions.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I completely agree. I was listening to TCB and EBW on the way to work this morning and thought, it would have been really cool to see what would have happened if either of these two songs were just released traditionally as a lead singles for this album...
I think you would have seen at least Coldplay-like success. Decent radio play on AC stations, maybe an alternative spin here or there, solid worldwide sales, etc...
I think Headache is right about giving the album for free was a cool idea, but not how it was done. I still think it would have been awesome to have the album free for 24 hours, and then available for a low price, only on itunes for a month or something.
That would have still been a different and cool release method, but forgoing all the other bullshit.
anyway, I think that the quality of this record would have made it as successful a record as any other rock band out there right now.
It's a completely different landscape out there, than even 6 or 8 years ago. There are no HUGE rock bands. There aren't even really huge bands anymore. Only individual solo artists that seem to hold any brief attention.
RaisedByWolves
War Child
I will clarify that I mean when Taylor Swift and Katy Perry are 40+ they will sell nowhere near this number of albums, so they best enjoy their limited window of opportunity now.
What U2 has done since they have been 40 as far as record sales is pretty much unheard of.
Haven't read most of the pages so forgive me if I'm stating what others have already said. I actually think that these numbers are believable. Let's assume that 60% (approx 300 million) of all iTunes users have SOI on their devices, and only 10% (50 million) have Taylor Swift's songs/albums, why would it not be conceivable that more people checked out a u2 song? Remember, it only takes one or two songs to resonate with someone for that song to be played regularly. I'm sure an instant catchy classic like EBW would have made a positive impact on most people checking out SOI, and even if they don't give the other songs a chance, it is not too far fetched to think that they will revisit that one particular song on a regular basis.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Who is Taylor Swift? I heard about her/him only at this forum...
Google her up and you should get about 8 million hits.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Google her up and you should get about 8 million hits.
What is this Google machine you speak of?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
One thing that I am not sure has been touched on in this thread is that nearly 6 months from the release date, how many listeners who were truly outraged by receiving this album are still going to have it in their library? I think most people can probably be put into one of these categories:
1) U2 fans
2) not U2 fans but willing to give it a listen
3) people who are indifferent
4) those who were annoyed by receiving SoI
5) those who fly into a blinding rage at the thought of such utter shit besmirching their iTunes library
-I'm willing to guess that U2 were targeting the first three groups. Maybe some of the milder cases in group 4.
-I'm also willing to guess that most people from group 5 would have found a way to remove it by now. Otherwise, how much of a dumbass would you have to be to basically leave something on there that made you have tantrum like a petulant toddler every time it randomly played.
-Less, but probably still a decent percentage of those from group 4 would have removed it by now, too.
If it were only a month after the release, I would buy the argument that a lot of these could have been mistake listens, but not now. No doubt some were, but I'm thinking its a lot less than some of you think.
1) U2 fans
2) not U2 fans but willing to give it a listen
3) people who are indifferent
4) those who were annoyed by receiving SoI
5) those who fly into a blinding rage at the thought of such utter shit besmirching their iTunes library
-I'm willing to guess that U2 were targeting the first three groups. Maybe some of the milder cases in group 4.
-I'm also willing to guess that most people from group 5 would have found a way to remove it by now. Otherwise, how much of a dumbass would you have to be to basically leave something on there that made you have tantrum like a petulant toddler every time it randomly played.
-Less, but probably still a decent percentage of those from group 4 would have removed it by now, too.
If it were only a month after the release, I would buy the argument that a lot of these could have been mistake listens, but not now. No doubt some were, but I'm thinking its a lot less than some of you think.
Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
6) People who think Bono is a tax-dodging, hypocritical egomaniac.
Anyway, kind of depends on how large groups 2 and 3 are. I wouldn't consider shuffle plays mistakes, just indifferent.
Anyway, kind of depends on how large groups 2 and 3 are. I wouldn't consider shuffle plays mistakes, just indifferent.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
What I'm calling a "mistake play" is a play by someone who genuinely does not want to hear it, but it comes on their shuffle. Or someone who skips it when it comes on. It would be interesting to know how long you have to listen to it for the play to register. Indifference doesn't count as a mistake play.
ImNotSleeping
Acrobat
So the mod of the other big U2 forum received clarification from Kantar on how they got their info. It's all anonymous activity tracking like Nielsen. This detailed info makes the data even more impressive.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Google her up and you should get about 8 million hits.
Google doesn't exist under rocks.
I'm totally out of touch with recent music and even I know of her. While I'm usually the one not having a clue what artists you guys are talking about. This thread makes me wonder what would've happened if U2 had truly just given their album away for free on iTunes, without the forcing on people's devices part.
That doesn't clear up the info itself, though.
Similar threads
