New Album Sponsership?

dannyschmanny

fluff4u wrote:

Purex37 wrote:

fluff4u wrote:

Now explain the commercial. Do they have to do that?

How is this commercial any different than the recent ones for the re-release of Ten? Or for that matter... Check out this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzjOXidORYg

In fact, Cameron Crowe filming a commercial to sell the new album at Target is really no different than the videos that were done for Alive and Even Flow back in the day. They were made to help sell Ten. Sony probably even paid MTV to put them on the air initially.

I am sorry if you don't see the differance between making a live music video for a "music station" That supposed to be about music than selling a product for Target. Huge differance!

there is no difference. it's the same exact thing. all this does is specify that you can buy the album at target. mtv back then was a visual representation of radio. and don't forget those are businesses. band's (most often labels) have to fork over the money to get a song on the radio/video on mtv to generate the buzz to get the album sold. and the album is still gonna be sold at independent record stores. target just happens to be the corporate location that met the terms that the band set. the fact that the band isnt on a label anymore means if they dont set a deal with a big chain store...the album becomes a lot more difficult for people in certain parts of the country to get.

PJStatTracker

High Fidelity 2000 wrote:

The most important thing about this thread (since everything else has already all been said) that no one has mentioned is SPONSORSHIP.

With an -or at the end of sponsor.

Don't you remember the "Sponsored by No One" tour?? Spelling, people.

which is a laugh, because Sony sponsored the whole thing.

Vedd Hedd

personally, those who ar eupset with this situation really dont understand this situation. its as simple as that.

if you really understood what it means, then you wouldnt be upset with it.

Vedd Hedd

fluff4u wrote:

Purex37 wrote:

fluff4u wrote:

Now explain the commercial. Do they have to do that?

How is this commercial any different than the recent ones for the re-release of Ten? Or for that matter... Check out this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzjOXidORYg

In fact, Cameron Crowe filming a commercial to sell the new album at Target is really no different than the videos that were done for Alive and Even Flow back in the day. They were made to help sell Ten. Sony probably even paid MTV to put them on the air initially.

I am sorry if you don't see the differance between making a live music video for a "music station" That supposed to be about music than selling a product for Target. Huge differance!

You DO realize that EVERY video is an ad for their product, right?

Why have they done any video?

benjs

Is this still seriously being discussed? :shock:
It makes me laugh that this debate is going on, essentially regarding whether Pearl Jam are entitled to maximize their profits. Does anyone else realize how absurd of a debate this is?

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

I read an article about David Grohl and the Foo Fighters when their last album had dropped and he was talking about doing promos for Wal-Mart and how before they were so against it, but after the years go by you catch yourselves doing things you wouldn't dare to do in the beginning. I don't blame the guys. I just look at it as another way to promote great music. Not enough people listen to decent music anymore, and I think it will help spread the word that music is actually being made that people put the time into and it's not just being pumped out to make money. Nor is it all talentless people who use key equalizers *cough Taylor Swift cough*.

Vedd Hedd

benjs wrote:

Is this still seriously being discussed? :shock:
It makes me laugh that this debate is going on, essentially regarding whether Pearl Jam are entitled to maximize their profits. Does anyone else realize how absurd of a debate this is?

Although they are ENTITLED to do that...this deal doesnt accomplish that....

IN effect, they are willingly limiting which stores can carry this album. They decided not to sell it at Walmart, K Mart, Best Buy, Costco, etc....

This deal does NOT maximize their profits....a deal with ALL of those places would do that.

benjs

Vedd Hedd wrote:

benjs wrote:

Is this still seriously being discussed? :shock:
It makes me laugh that this debate is going on, essentially regarding whether Pearl Jam are entitled to maximize their profits. Does anyone else realize how absurd of a debate this is?

Although they are ENTITLED to do that...this deal doesnt accomplish that....

IN effect, they are willingly limiting which stores can carry this album. They decided not to sell it at Walmart, K Mart, Best Buy, Costco, etc....

This deal does NOT maximize their profits....a deal with ALL of those places would do that.

Hm. You're right.. I'm out of ideas. Could it have to do with not being able to meet the demand of selling at all those big-box retailers while doing this without Sony's help?

lostdogs77

Do people realize that the production cost of an album is often in the millions$$$$$$. Being unsigned Pearl Jam LLC. puts up the initial investment and they want to get a relatively fast return. What is the big mystery??? If people on this board do not make smart life decisions that is their business and if PJ wants to
conduct their affairs a certain way that is PJ's business.

lostdogs77

benjs wrote:

Vedd Hedd wrote:

benjs wrote:

Is this still seriously being discussed? :shock:
It makes me laugh that this debate is going on, essentially regarding whether Pearl Jam are entitled to maximize their profits. Does anyone else realize how absurd of a debate this is?

Although they are ENTITLED to do that...this deal doesnt accomplish that....

IN effect, they are willingly limiting which stores can carry this album. They decided not to sell it at Walmart, K Mart, Best Buy, Costco, etc....

This deal does NOT maximize their profits....a deal with ALL of those places would do that.

Hm. You're right.. I'm out of ideas. Could it have to do with not being able to meet the demand of selling at all those big-box retailers while doing this without Sony's help?

It is like a guarantee. That is why Best Buy got stuck with a million copies of Chinese Democracy

LikeAnOcean

Like someone mentioned earlier, look at it this way..

Instead of making deals with Sony, Walmart, Best Buy, Circuit City, Kmart, Target, and so on, they are only making a deal exclusively with Target this time and handling the deal themselves.

High Fidelity 2000

lostdogs77 wrote:

Do people realize that the production cost of an album is often in the millions$$$$$$. Being unsigned Pearl Jam LLC. puts up the initial investment and they want to get a relatively fast return. What is the big mystery??? If people on this board do not make smart life decisions that is their business and if PJ wants to
conduct their affairs a certain way that is PJ's business.

Pearl Jam LLC can afford it. Don't worry. Stone owns his own studio. I'm tired of people around here always acting like the band is gonna be homeless and their kids will go hungry if they don't make enough money. They've got money. Don't worry. They know there is a big enough crowd out there that will buy anything they put out and they won't go broke (look at the $140-200--depending on where you bought it--Ten box set... it's an album we all already HAD and we still plunked down 10X the cost of a single CD for it and they made out just fine).

The only people losing money here are the Pearl Jam fans who have to shell out for plane tickets, hotels, and rental cars when they don't play your state more than once every 10 years. That's IF you want to see them in concert. Which unfortunately I'm passing on for this year (again). Oh yeah, and buying the album twice on Ten Club and Target (when they announce what sort of bonus Target-only material will be available, which you know it will).

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i wonder just how rich they are. combined are they billionaires?

fluff4u

Yes! They are extremly Rich and Ed makes the biggest cut (Kim Neely). An album that does as well as Ten that alone makes you a millionare forget the huge success of VS.
That's whats confusing to me...Back in the days of ten and vs they had huge popularity (They didn't need a commercial) and didn't want the attention....now their like begging for it?

mfc2006

fluff4u wrote:

....now their like begging for it?

how are they " begging" for it?? not trying to start an argument, i'd just really like to know what they, as a band are doing that makes you feel like they're begging for attention? going on Conan? doing some interviews? striking a distribution deal with a big box store? seriously...i'd love some answers because i don't see anything drastically different. ok---they made a commercial. they've had commercials in the past. anyone??

CJMST3K

Just want to ask those on this thread their feelings about the following:

1) Is selling exclusively thru Target (plus mom-n-pop stores and online) selling out?

2) Is having "Bud Light Presents Pearl Jam" selling out?

3) Is having huge screens on 2 sides of the stage which say "Verizon Wireless" selling out?

4) Is having fliers handed out at venues with PJ's photo, and "Verizon Wireless" on it selling out?


Not looking for a lecture. Just looking for a yes or no on each of the four.

100 Pacer

CJMST3K wrote:

Just want to ask those on this thread their feelings about the following:

1) Is selling exclusively thru Target (plus mom-n-pop stores and online) selling out?

2) Is having "Bud Light Presents Pearl Jam" selling out?

3) Is having huge screens on 2 sides of the stage which say "Verizon Wireless" selling out?

4) Is having fliers handed out at venues with PJ's photo, and "Verizon Wireless" on it selling out?


Not looking for a lecture. Just looking for a yes or no on each of the four.

1. No - strategic business alliance, burden still on the band since they've paid out of pocket to record and produce the album while retaining complete artistic control and ownership of said material and controlling distribution channels.

2. Yes - the band can afford its' current touring production while still making a more than generous net income off ticket and merchandise sales, merchandise being the significant source of income.

3. No - Verizon Wireless paid for said screens, while the band demanded the fans in attendance not be charged for text requests/comments broadcast on the screens AND not be spammed by Verizon after the concert. the screens weren't in use during the concert and were in no way involved on the production side.

4. No - strategic business alliance, the posters/fliers handed out were used to promote the live bootlegs recorded on Verizon's mobile recording studio, which made for free samples of audio/video to be uploaded for free to the fans at no cost to the band/production while giving Verizon the opportunity to demonstrate said browsing technology at the venue to the concertgoers.

mfc2006

100 Pacer wrote:

1. No - strategic business alliance, burden still on the band since they've paid out of pocket to record and produce the album while retaining complete artistic control and ownership of said material while controlling distribution channels.

2. Yes - the band can afford its' current touring production while still making a more than generous net income off ticket and merchandise sales, merchandise being the significant source of income.

3. No - Verizon Wireless paid for said screens, while the band demanded the fans in attendance not be charged for text requests/comments broadcast on the screens AND not be spammed by Verizon after the concert. the screens weren't in use during the concert and were in no way involved on the production side.

4. No - strategic business alliance, the posters/fliers handed out were used to promote the live bootlegs recorded on Verizon's mobile recording studio, which made for free samples of audio/video to be uploaded for free to the fans at no cost to the band/production while giving Verizon the opportunity to demonstrate said browsing technology at the venue to the concertgoers.

well said.

PJStatTracker

CJMST3K wrote:

Just want to ask those on this thread their feelings about the following:

1) Is selling exclusively thru Target (plus mom-n-pop stores and online) selling out?

2) Is having "Bud Light Presents Pearl Jam" selling out?

3) Is having huge screens on 2 sides of the stage which say "Verizon Wireless" selling out?

4) Is having fliers handed out at venues with PJ's photo, and "Verizon Wireless" on it selling out?


Not looking for a lecture. Just looking for a yes or no on each of the four.

yes to all four. But I stand by the position that they sold out the second they signed with Sony, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

norm

CJMST3K wrote:

Just want to ask those on this thread their feelings about the following:

1) Is selling exclusively thru Target (plus mom-n-pop stores and online) selling out?

2) Is having "Bud Light Presents Pearl Jam" selling out?

3) Is having huge screens on 2 sides of the stage which say "Verizon Wireless" selling out?

4) Is having fliers handed out at venues with PJ's photo, and "Verizon Wireless" on it selling out?


Not looking for a lecture. Just looking for a yes or no on each of the four.

1) what does this have to do with the music?

2) what does this have to do with the music?

3) what does this have to do with the music?

4) what does this have to do with the music?

am i the only one that got into this band because of their amazing music and not their bullshit political stances? :roll: