The band promoted Backspacer wrong, made little sense

musicismylife78 · November 2009

South of Seattle wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.

All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.

And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.

Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.

And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?

What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.

Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"

South of Seattle · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

South of Seattle wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

reguarding the slandering and snickering about the tv shows I mentioned: a band is more likely to get more sales and hype and attention by being used in a movie or a tv show, than they are by doing a cover story in Spin or Rolling Stone. This is Music Culture in 2009 basics.

All I am saying is that given that, it made zero sense to go the cover story route.

And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.

Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.

And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?

What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.

Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"

I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork

I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.

I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands

musicismylife78 · November 2009

force-10 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.

You really think PJ should stop releasing complete studio albums? Is that what you are implying?

Not likely to come to happen. I amuse myself thinking that I know what they are thinking regarding music marketing. You my friend are on your own world. These guys love vinyl, tell us how antiquated this is. Not to mention, releasing complete albums.

Unless you think my name is Sufjan, Thom, or Billy, i didnt say a thing. I am telling you that, in music right now, the big wigs, the biggest names in the buisness are personally considering if they should release albums anymore. Thats not my reading of it. Thats from the mouths of these musicians. So I am not implying anything. I am telling you what some of the biggest names in music are thinking. And when Thom Yorke, talks about something people listen.

Demps · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.

You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?

I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.

The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.

That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.

musicismylife78 · November 2009

And all everyone else is saying is that these TV shows you suggest along with Pitchfork is the wrong route to go.

Pichfork is not the MAJOR player. Ask 100 random people what Pitchfork is and they'll just stare at you. Mention what Target is and I'm sure 97% will know what you're talking about.

And you're comparing Pearl Jam to indie bands like Vampire Weekend and Phoenix? Are you kidding?

What about what was said in the other posts about ESPN/ABC? Pearl Jam was played on those stations neary everyday several times a day. That was far better marketing IMO.[/quote]

Ask 100 people who they go to for music recommendation and reviews and to hear about new bands, 97 percent are gonna say the internet, blogs, pitchfork, and friends, and tv shows. I would bet not a single person says, "i get my advice from target, thats my go to music store!"[/quote]

I bet more say rolling stone or spin more than they do pitchfork

I agree with the blog thing, but pitchfork is looked at like a whiny little brother of Rolling Stone.

I seek out good new music, but rarely ever use Pitchfork as a resource. Although I sometimes use it as a way to avoid bands

[/quote]

And thats fine. I love pitchfork, I swear by it. But if you dont like it, I understand and respect that. But I also think the track record of Pitchfork speaks for itself. Its one thing to dislike something, its another to disreguard the influence it has on the world, to ignore it, because you dislike it. We are all entitled to our opinions but not our own set of facts. And the facts are that the bands that Pitchfork gives Best New Music tags to, usually blow up, and start getting buzzed about. is it all pitchfork? Probably not, but I think, its naive to discount their influence. The Pitchfork review of Funeral, was a huge reason that Arcade Fire started to pick up steam. Broken Social Scene says this about Pitchfork-"Frontman Kevin Drew said that, following the review, "Everyone was coming up to us, saying, 'We heard about you from Pitchfork.' It basically opened the door for us. It gave us an audience", and that the band "suddenly found [themselves] selling out venues."

Again, i respect people who dislike Pitchfork. If you dislike their writers, or their reviews, if its not your bag, then its not your bag. I respect that. But to tell me Pitchfork doesnt have a major influence on music, and what is considered cool and hip, is plain ignorant and dumb.

musicismylife78 · November 2009

Demps wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.

You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?

I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.

The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.

That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.

But if such music heavyweights as Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating these issues, I dont think my opinion or your opinion matter all that much. I agree the music industry blew it. I have no sympathy for the labels. I agree wholeheartedly. But I dont think thats the issue here. Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating how to release music because of two things. One: as you said, the industry is clueless, the labels are clueless, and two, music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past. I said it before, most people, dont listen to full albums anymore. They download it from iTunes legally, or go to Wal Mart, copy it on the computer, save the singles or the songs they like, then, they put the other 8 or 10 songs in the trash and upload it to their iPod. Most people dont really even listen on CD anymore. They listen on their computer, so their are never any cd's to play, or they use their iPod.

Those are fundamentally different ways of listening to music than what used to be used. ITunes allows buying of single songs. you could buy only the songs you like.

So thats what they are deliberating about. Sufjan and Thom, are considering the landscape. When people can go on iTunes and buy Sufjans John Wayne Gacy and Chicago, from the Illinois album and then not hear or not buy the rest, or when people can buy Bodysnactchers and dont have to buy the rest of the record, why even make an entire cohesive album at all?

Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?

South of Seattle · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

Demps wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.

You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?

I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.

The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.

That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.

Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?

There are still plenty of people who DO listen to albums.

drummerboy_73 · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

Demps wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I think Radiohead specifically has come out questioning the viability of the album itself, Thom Yorke created a stir when he talked about the band not wanting to release albums for awhile and focus on EP's. In the last 4 or 5 months Thom has released about the same amount of songs, 4 or 5, either free, or for a donation or whatever. Billy Corgan, who in other matters is way behind the times, in this manner is forward thinking, he has questioned the viability of making an album at all anymore, since no one buys them as albums. They get the singles from iTunes and then put the rest of the album in the trash bin. And I think that is the reason for him doing this 44 song thing, where he releases 44 songs, but not all at once. One at a time. Sufjan Stevens, has said, just the other day, that one of the reasons he is not going to be doing 48 more state CD's, is partly because, he doesnt see the point in making an album of music when no one buys albums anymore. And Trent Reznor, has given his last 2 records out for free, and gave away 2 entire concerts worth of video out for free.

You talked out if, bands were to abandon the liner notes and the package of it all, why even put out an album at all, and why would people even buy one at all. This is what I want to discuss. iTunes is the largest legal online music store in the world. The majority of people whether they buy from iTunes, or whether they download it for free, arent gonna see the liner notes or the overall package anyway. Is seeing a small pixelated version of the Backspacer cover on your iPod really incentive for people to buy it? Who these days, beyond the vinyl enthusiasts and cd holdouts, spend hours at a time looking at the covers and artwork in albums they are currently buying? Are people really buying Vampire Weekend or Bon Ivor to look at the liner notes?

I think there is room in the modern era for albums. I think that albums are an important part of the music industry, regardless of the fact that Thom Yorke disagrees. In fact, it could be argued that the abandonment of albums as things of import is helping lead to the death of the music industry.

The labels are the major problem here. Instead of embracing the fact that the industry was changing and finding a way to maintain their relevance in the face of that change, they brought lawsuits and raised prices and refused to budge in their stubborn insistence that they knew the best way to sell the product and that the fans would simply give in and take what they were offered.

That said - there is obviously a contingent of people that are going to be very happy to simply click and download songs one by one, that doesn't mean that albums are pointless and without a place in the world of music. People feared that television would be the death of movies and that has shown to not be the case. It's up to the bands and the labels to find a way to offer some kind of exclusive product to fans loyal enough to purchase an entire album. Pearl Jam has done just that, offering beautiful artwork, detailed liner notes, downloads, other exclusive content and t-shirt tie ins - and that's just the target deal alone.

But if such music heavyweights as Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating these issues, I dont think my opinion or your opinion matter all that much. I agree the music industry blew it. I have no sympathy for the labels. I agree wholeheartedly. But I dont think thats the issue here. Billy, Trent, Sufjan and Thom are debating how to release music because of two things. One: as you said, the industry is clueless, the labels are clueless, and two, music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past. I said it before, most people, dont listen to full albums anymore. They download it from iTunes legally, or go to Wal Mart, copy it on the computer, save the singles or the songs they like, then, they put the other 8 or 10 songs in the trash and upload it to their iPod. Most people dont really even listen on CD anymore. They listen on their computer, so their are never any cd's to play, or they use their iPod.

Those are fundamentally different ways of listening to music than what used to be used. ITunes allows buying of single songs. you could buy only the songs you like.

So thats what they are deliberating about. Sufjan and Thom, are considering the landscape. When people can go on iTunes and buy Sufjans John Wayne Gacy and Chicago, from the Illinois album and then not hear or not buy the rest, or when people can buy Bodysnactchers and dont have to buy the rest of the record, why even make an entire cohesive album at all?

Why create an entire album of music, when people dont listen to music AS AN ALBUM anymore?

In response to your comment "music fans in general dont consume music like they did in the past", I think we need to be clear that people don't consume it in the same FORMAT, but people consume just as much, if not more music than ever before. Most of the people I know have 10 times as much digital music on their Ipods than they own on CD or vinyl - which I find kind of silly, seeing as they don't listen to or even know half of what they have on there!

The culture of music and the relationship with commerce has changed drastically in the last 10 years. The technology has made it so easy to "acquire" such a quantity of music, and it's much more economical for artists and labels to adapt to that technology, rather than try to foster a situation where the album concept maintains some cultural significance or artistic integrity. This is where I think Pearl Jam differs from some of the other acts you mentioned. They still believe in the album format, which is why a deal like they worked with Target is perfect. They're guaranteed a fixed return on the deal, and because of the heavier promotion this time around, they will gain some renewed interest in their music - but at the same time, are preserving a nice balance between where they expect to be financially as well as artistically.

I personally rarely download music at all - I almost always buy a vinyl copy or CD of almost every album release of my favorite artists and still anticipate album release dates as much as I did 10 years ago. I enjoy reading liner notes and having a physical medium, rather than a digital file. I still play all of my music in my car on CD - no Ipod hook-up. I'm probably in the minority, but from my personal standpoint, I didn't decide to purchase less music because of the technology or illegal downloading. I stopped buying as much because frankly, there's just less quality music being produced in my humble opinion. These days, I'm discovering more "new" music from 10...20...even 50 years ago! I tend to buy more used CD's/vinyl than new stuff. Personally, I can't really stomach FM radio, Billy Corgan (I love Gish and Siamese Dream), Thom Yorke (I love Radiohead's first 4 albums), or any of the crap played on a CW TV show! As a musician myself, I appreciate that Pearl Jam is still just 5 guys rockin' out out on drums/bass/guitars, and not a bunch of jackholes who think a great album can be produced on a laptop by whining over 50 looped/mixed tracks of bullcrap for 6 minutes at a shot!

dimitrispearljam · November 2009

ryanrunning wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I just can't believe they never released a second single.

the next single is coming out soon no?

16th november

josevolution · November 2009

My ?????? to everyone here why do you care how many units are sold ,to me it's about individuality i could care less how many units are sold, i got mine ! as long as they keep on touring and i have the chance to attend and purchase boots ,just my 2c...

The Champ · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

My buisness plan for backspacer would have been: liscencing some of the tunes for use in tv shows like Greys Anatomy or The Hills. Just Breathe or The End, no doubt would fit perfectly, as some emotional scene in Greys.

They took this approach for Avocado. If you remember, 'Come Back' was featured in an extremely emotional scene in the first season of the popular show, 'Friday Night Lights.' Didn't seem to make a significant difference in terms of album sales. In any case, how the record is marketed is up to Pearl Jam and their competent management team..

Gems and Rhinestones · November 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

When I first heard about the Target deal, I didnt cringe about the fact they were doing a deal with a major corporation, my anger or disappointment was the fact this was sort of a wierd and silly idea if they wanted to sell records.

Its clear, for Avocado and Backspacer, the band, explicitly were hoping that these records would sell big numbers, and the press and marketing for both records reflected that.

I posted about this months ago, when the deal was announced and I said it was silly to do this, with Target, to focus attention and hype and the media, on the album itself as opposed to the songs specifically or the band.

My buisness plan for backspacer would have been: liscencing some of the tunes for use in tv shows like Greys Anatomy or The Hills. Just Breathe or The End, no doubt would fit perfectly, as some emotional scene in Greys. I would have liscenced the tunes to movies and trailers. I would have given the album out, to all stores, thus the Target deal wouldnt be in place, and it would have been available as instant download for 5 bucks on the Ten Club website, with various other versions of the album also on the site, maybe a slightly higher priced Backspacer for 10 bucks but included would be a free LP of the record and then additional bonus tracks only available with that purchase. I would have forgotten about Spin and rolling Stone magazine as both are non issues at this point, and done interviews with the online press even those that arent necesarily PJ friendly. Interviews with Pichfork, maybe do one of those things for Pitchfork TV where they play a few songs on the rooftop of the Pitchfork headquarters. I would do press with Stereogum and Brooklyn Vegan. Does the band still oppose using their music in tv commercials for products? They obviously think some corporations even if they are huge can still be fair and just, so, why not lend the use of the songs for commercials? The Shins did a commercial for Mcdonalds, and as far as I know they are still considered a viable and top tier band in indie rock. They could have done press with KEXP, oneof the premiere rock stations in the nation that actually plays good rock music, and ignores 3 doors down and Nickelback.

This is a smart band. A wise band. But as I pointed out months ago, they are clueless as to how to deal with the current musical climate, which of course is understandable.

It makes no sense to spend a ton of time, doing an elaborate liner notes and album cover package. PJ are the masters at this, but the time for it has passed. They should have pffered the Tom Tomorrow stuff, exclusively for the 10 buck version of the record that I mentioned above. I am not complaining. And in any case, my buisness plan that I outlined, doesnt leave the band with less money and less sales, in fact my model gains them large numbers of new fans, and a deluge of press, and lots of sales.

The crux of the issue is that the majority of bands, and labels are clueless as to how to proceed in this new downloading era. Pearl jam is no exception. I think the band had a million options, and mulled them all, especially when In Rainbows shook things up. I think they took a wrong turn though.

my 8 day old cocker spaniel Shitbrick could give a better model than this.

nukeboot · November 2009

SIAP

I wonder how many sales they missed because of the ineptness of Target.

I was on the road out west when it dropped and hit several stores to gather up
what I wanted (LP, single and Target version).

They couldn't handle a Sunday release, which is somewhat understandable since
most albums drop on Tuesday. Backspacer was in the stockroom, but not on display
in several stores (as many noted here). And even though I didn't want it, nobody
seemed to know anything about the T-shirts even though they were included in
the Sunday Target flyer.

Lots of confused looks on Target faces during my journey.

Get_Right · November 2009

nukeboot wrote:

SIAP

I wonder how many sales they missed because of the ineptness of Target.

I was on the road out west when it dropped and hit several stores to gather up
what I wanted (LP, single and Target version).

They couldn't handle a Sunday release, which is somewhat understandable since
most albums drop on Tuesday. Backspacer was in the stockroom, but not on display
in several stores (as many noted here). And even though I didn't want it, nobody
seemed to know anything about the T-shirts even though they were included in
the Sunday Target flyer.

Lots of confused looks on Target faces during my journey.

you are missing the point
it does not matter to the band-because they had a guarantee for one million records at $5 a pop.

it only hurt target in that they couldnt move as many units as they should have

Pj has not sold one million records since yield, and that includes avocado where they promoted the record more than any other
yet they got a guarantee from target for one million copies of backspacer-from the bands perspetive, backspacer was the best selling record since yield-which is pretty amazing in this digital age. Plus Itunes downloads and plus fan club sales.

brilliant I say

Musicismylife78, I am surprised you havent mentioned an infomercial-because that is the best way to move product these days.

You cannot equate pearl jam's music with a widget.

benjs · November 2009

I have mixed feelings on how the band did at promoting the album.

Rock Band: expected, and smart. Video game sales have actually remained relatively stable during the recession, and I have read that in the near future, it's very viable for an artist to release an album online, physically in stores, and on Rock Band.
Conan O' Brien Show: What? Does anyone even remember this? A repeat appearance closer to the release date would have made sense, methinks.
Target: Find another big-box retailer that will heavily feature them on advertisements and the like, buy 1 million copies up front, AND allow distribution of an album through other channels which the band supports - you'll have some trouble with that.
My thoughts are that the band likely recognize the power of their own fan base as well, which is definitely a significant amount of forward momentum on album sales the band can count on. I, for one, can almost think of myself as a living, breathing advertisement, and I'm not sad to say it. I talk about this band all the time!

Kat · November 2009

Maybe a PJ snuggie would be a better way to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs

xo

Gems and Rhinestones · November 2009

Kat wrote:

Maybe a PJ snuggie would be a better way to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs

xo

every time i see a post from you i expect to see a link to rules.

wall05 · November 2009

Kat wrote:

Maybe a PJ snuggie would be a better way to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs

xo

At first i thought this was a joke. But wow i can't believe they are serious.

Get_Right · November 2009

Kat wrote:

Maybe a PJ snuggie would be a better way to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs

xo

bwwhaaaaaaaaaa

Now thats a deluxe edition!!!!!!!

ReeenkRoink · November 2009

Kat wrote:

Maybe a PJ snuggie would be a better way to go?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXqHfHN9dJs

xo

Now that is some brilliant marketing right there.

The band promoted Backspacer wrong, made little sense

Comments

Categories