Members Anderton Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 So you're Tim Cook. You're committed to doing this free album thing to generate buzz, and more importantly, to remind people iTunes still exists. You think, "We'll get U2!" but then someone younger and hipper says "Tim, they're kind of, um, y'know, passe. If you really want to appeal to a wide demographic and capture a younger audience too, then you really need to sign up...[ ]." And who would that be? Is there even anybody who would accomplish what Cook had hoped to accomplish with U2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dendy Jarrett Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Great question, and honestly, I am not sure "who" has the staying power and impact as U2. Maybe Maroon 5 as they are still on the charts (#6 this week on top 40).Hmmm D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Black Sabbath. You're welcome, Tim Cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I was just thinking this same thing, and I think the answer might be "no one". Problem is A) younger people don't care about albums. B) older people don't care about a $10 freebie of something they only were maybe 1/4-interested in buying in the first place. So I think the "free album" thing was a loser from the get-go. Maybe a free movie or video game would have been better? Or, if this is really about iTunes waning, then you look towards how can you make iTunes more relevant and do a tie-in with whatever that newer technological twist might be. That would probably be the Jobsian thing to do. But if you're GOING to do an album, then you need to make it an even bigger multi-media tie in. Maybe you tie it in with the season premiere of The Voice and you give away new singles by Blake Shelton and Pharrell Williams and commercial-free access to NBC programming perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KB Gunn Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Maybe I am having a senior moment, but I can't get the U2 album to download. It says purchased, but I can't access it. I opened the iCloud and found nothing about music content. It says on iTunes that it is in the iCloud but I can't find an iCloud icon to click on. Apple used to be so easy and intuitive, now it is totally frustrating. Can anyone help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Are you signed up with iCloud services? It's something that has to be done separate from your iTunes account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I think I'll have to agree with guido61 - I really don't think that there's anyone out there who can really appeal to a truly wide demographic. Besides, younger people seem to be hip to streaming and generally prefer that to "buying" and storing files on their devices from what I've been hearing. Personally, I agree with them. IMHO, the old iTunes store paradigm is fast becoming a thing of the past - streaming is the present... and future. Apple really needs to up their game in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 What a good question Craig...I'm so freakin' old that I'm not sure who it would be...Kids today...Maybe a Beyonce album? Or is she passe already? Album name there..Beyonce Passe'. Might have had more success if they could have gotten artists from several different genres to make and give away new albums. Y'know, Rock, Country, Rap, Dance, Hip hop, Classical, Jazz.....And then given customers their choice of album....But that would mean a lot of money going a lot of different directions. Not sure why they were thinking that U2 was universally adored. IMHO opinion, it was kinda a dumb idea. If your product is that smoking hot you shouldn't need to give away something with it. You don't get a free Allman Brothers album with a new Les Paul. Nor a Hendrix album with a new Strat...Nor a AC/DC album with a new Marshall. You get a proven product. Giving a new U2 album away with a telephone or Super Watch is kind of like getting a box of detergent with a new Washing machine. 'Cept you'll be sad when you're out of free soap. And you'll wonder..."Did I pay more for that washing machine cuz of the free soap?" Shrug your shoulders and think.."Ah, it didn't get the clothes that clean anyway, I'll go buy some soap I like". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 You don't get a free Allman Brothers album with a new Les Paul. Nor a Hendrix album with a new Strat...Nor a AC/DC album with a new Marshall. Not that I'd complain if we did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goober(s) Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 there's never been a band that appeals to everyone. maybe the beatles came closest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Not that I'd complain if we did... Me neither Phil...Not that I could afford any of them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I'll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and presume they weren't thinking U2 would appeal to everyone. But then that does beg the question "what WERE they thinking?" they probably just didn't think it through far enough. U2 is a big band, and they had a new album ready for release and....that's probably as far as they went. Which is where the "fail" begins. There's nothing wrong with giving away a new U2 album. But I gotta believe that Jobs would have thought it through to the next level or two and asked "is this really going to work to our benefit in the long run?" and decided "no". I don't know how much they actually paid for the album. Some of the reports seem pretty ridiculous. But are they going to get ANYTHING in return for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 there's never been a band that appeals to everyone. maybe the beatles came closest If there was was anything that could unite us....GLOBALLY...Ah..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onelife Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 IMHO' date=' the old iTunes store paradigm is fast becoming a thing of the past...[/quote'] That didn't take long. I wonder if it will go down peacefully or kicking and screaming like the record industry did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 That didn't take long. I wonder if it will go down peacefully or kicking and screaming like the record industry did. Apple has other alternatives, and other markets so I'm sure they'd be fine even without music on the iTunes store... and while I think they'll continue to sell and market music, I don't think Beats is going to be as wise a decision for an entry into the streaming market as they obviously hoped - we'll see. I do think that in the face of competition like Spotify they're fighting a uphill battle on streaming. If you want to be a big player in that arena, you need to innovate and improve on what they're doing in some significant way - and so far, IMHO, Apple has failed to do that. But whether they do or not, the writing is on the wall for MP3 sales - on-demand streaming for a monthly fee makes a lot more sense now that most people have access to 4G phones, and the bandwidth is only going to increase in the future. Why store it when you can play it whenever you want without it taking up valuable storage space on your device? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted September 17, 2014 CMS Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 Tony Bennett, and I'll bet he'd be a lot cheaper than U2 They keep complaining that older people don't "do" apps, and younger people don't listen to albums. Tony spans a number of generations. With all we hear about how much "they" know about us, they could probably line up maybe half a dozen artists and target the gifts based on what they know about us. You could get a Kraftwerk album, and I could get a Merle Haggard album, and we'd both be happier than if we got a U2 album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 So you're Tim Cook. You're committed to doing this free album thing to generate buzz' date=' and more importantly, to remind people iTunes still exists. You think, "We'll get U2!" but then someone younger and hipper says "Tim, they're kind of, um, y'know, passe. If you really want to appeal to a wide demographic and capture a younger audience too, then you really need to sign up...[ ']." And who would that be? Is there even anybody who would accomplish what Cook had hoped to accomplish with U2? As I mentioned in another thread, I think it would have been wiser for Apple to introduce 12 new artists to the world with commercials and free albums. Instead of a huge group like U2 who is set. It would have been a great gesture from Apple to promote new artists and give them each their own 30 second commercial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goober(s) Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 As I mentioned in another thread, I think it would have been wiser for Apple to introduce 12 new artists to the world with commercials and free albums. Instead of a huge group like U2 who is set. It would have been a great gesture from Apple to promote new artists and give them each their own 30 second commercial. agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I don't think Beats is going to be as wise a decision for an entry into the streaming market as they obviously hoped - we'll see. I was watching an interview with Tim Cook on Charlie Rose a couple of days ago and he said (or heavily implied) that the Beats deal was really all about bringing Iovine and Dre on board. Whether those guys will bring the mojo to Apple he's hoping for or not remains to be seen. But I think that's probably also what having a free exclusive album with one of the biggest bands in the world was all about as well. It seems Apple is trying to position themselves to maybe take over for what the record labels have traditionally done---promote and distribute new music by artists. Like you said, the future seems to be streaming. And away from physical media to a streaming model where the provider can better control how and what the user consumes. Where the streamers not only provide the content, but create and own it as well. If the only way to watch your favorite TV shows is to have a Netflix subscription, and the only way to listen to your favorite bands' new music on demand is to have an iTunes subscription, then maybe there's a way to monetize some of this after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Tony Bennett, and I'll bet he'd be a lot cheaper than U2 They keep complaining that older people don't "do" apps, and younger people don't listen to albums. Tony spans a number of generations. I dunno. Didn't the whole "Tony Bennett is really cool with young people" thing die out right around the time U2 had their last huge hits 10-15 years ago? I think Apple's "win" here will be to promote the model of the free album via their exclusive platform, rather than how much anyone clamors for THIS particular release. U2 may or may not have been the best choice for an artist to pair with, but they do still have enough of a name that people are talking about it. Certainly more so than with the new Bennett/Gaga album I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted September 17, 2014 CMS Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 I dunno. Didn't the whole "Tony Bennett is really cool with young people" thing die out right around the time U2 had their last huge hits 10-15 years ago? I didn't know that Tony Bennett was cool with young people 10-15 years ago. I wasn't young people then, and I'm still not. I was actually thinking that he would be appreciated by the older folks who aren't really into smart phones. Apple isn't interested in getting people to like U2, they want to sell them phones so they can sell them more stuff. And besides, as you noted, Tony Bennett recently did an album with Lady Gaga. I haven't heard it, but I'll bet it's quite a good chunk of music. They both really understand music well even though they're a few generations apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I don't think the free U2 album was about trying to get older people to buy smartphones. You don't need a phone to access iTunes or the free album. Pretty clearly it was about trying to make the "Big Announcement" be as eventful as possible. Or not... heck...I'm not really sure WHAT it was supposed to be about.... But yeah....that whole Tony Bennett resurgence a couple of decades ago was about him clicking with a "new audience". If not for that, he'd still only just be the guy who sang "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" a million years ago as he was throughout the 70s and 80s. But you're right. That's pretty much the same age group who was way into U2 back then as well. I just think they are over Tony Bennett by now as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Idunno Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Thread misses the mark. Fact is, fandom is slowly separating flesh and blood from music and actually conforming to whatever the most robotic delivery is available and cheap. Call it what you will, but the divisive power of personal electronics is producing arms length lovers in all aspects of life. Music is seeing that full on. Young people do not want to be romantically involved with anyone or anything anymore and that kind of desensitizing is the effect of cheap and highly distributed personal electronics. Besides, the music industry has lost its art. Even if it didn't see music as art in the old days, it knew enough that it was important to prop it up and nurture it because the music makers and takers saw it that way. Artists and fans felt it, lived and breathed it but that's no more a facet of the machine's strategy for turning a buck with music. It cost them big bucks to do that. Now it's all about studio gurus faking it well enough to substitute. It has turned away from milking the public by nurturing the artistry, to hiring the knob turners and cutting out the middle man. Knob turners are dime-store cheap and because they're on the payroll, they can be threatened with job loss if their performance isn't cashing in. Desensitized audiences and cheap music go hand-in-hand towards a good strategy of trading in the instruments and related gear for the knobs if you're thinking about making money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted September 18, 2014 Members Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think I'll have to agree with guido61 - I really don't think that there's anyone out there who can really appeal to a truly wide demographic. Besides' date=' younger people seem to be hip to streaming and generally prefer that to "buying" and storing files on their devices from what I've been hearing. Personally, I agree with them. IMHO, the old iTunes store paradigm is fast becoming a thing of the past - streaming is the present... and future. Apple really needs to up their game in that area.[/quote'] Meanwhile in Japan: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cd-lov...003123863.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 18, 2014 Members Share Posted September 18, 2014 Adele. You're welcome, Tim Cook (since Mr. Cook didn't bite on my first suggestion of using Black Sabbath). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.