U2's fan relations

[u2rob]

Am I the only one who thinks that U2's fan relations have recently dropped to a very, very low point?

Let me differentiate fan relations from public relations: U2 is still at the top of the heap in the general public's eye.  The public sees cool iPod commercials and hears the song on their favorite Fox prime-time show, and gets to see neat-o video at halftime of the Orange Bowl, and so on (ad nauseum, almost).  But for those fans who are watching closely and have time and money invested in the band, it's one negative thing after the other.

Consider the following decisions to come out of Principle Management:

-----

1.  Discontinue the Propaganda print magazine.  Do not offer refunds for unfulfilled subscriptions.  Require standing Propaganda members to pay a further $20 to subscribe to a mediocre website / ticketing agency that are giving conflicting reports as to what you're actually getting for your money.  Provide Fanfire with an old, outdated member database that fouls the initial invitation process up.  And then after all of that, completely divest themselves of any responsibility for Fanfire's current subscription troubles.

But hey, we're getting a free keychain (I think).

2.  Finally make all of the back catalog available in a digital format, but do not offer it in a lossless format (nit-picky, I grant).  Furthermore, make the most sought-after tracks only available to those who drop $150 for the "Complete" (which is really NOT complete) set.  Do not even stop to consider that the people who'll want those tracks the most are the folks who already have 80% or more of what's offered in the Complete U2.

3.  Send demands to the top fansites to remove all lyrics.  Actually be less helpful and timely than Universal, who is seemingly waiting for further instructions from PM to act upon.

4.  Fail to announce the tour postponement  on the U2.com website before it gets reported somewhere else (Rolling Stone, of all places).  Then post your own postponement message on U2.com where Paul McGuinness cites "routing" issues as the reason for the delay.  Do not even acknowledge that RS reported that the reason was a "family illness".

For something as serious as a world tour, where people are already having to save money and make travel plans, one would hope they could offer something more than the most ambiguous (and conflicting) excuses.

-----

Am I way off-base, here?  Am I wrong to feel like we're continually being given the short end of the stick?  I'm trying my hardest to not let my disappointment with the new album cloud my viewpoint regarding PM and the general management of U2 operations.  But I really am concerned with the way things have been handled recently.

Is it reasonable to wonder if Sheila Roche's departure in April 2004 may be related to all of this?  All we ever got on that front was the standard "we'll miss her; it's been great, but we've got a new guy and he'll be great, too" deal.

Or am I just reaching for possible reasons, here?

[jimbo913]

agreed with every thing above.  I will post more on this later, I gotta go right now.

Edit: Sorry about this post, I was about to type what can be seen below, but my boss came in asking for a ride and I had to end prematurely.

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by jimbo913]

[jimbo913]

1.  I do think that moving to an online only format is a bad idea.  Online should be treated as a suppliment, not a replacement.  People don't like to pay for something that isn't tangible.  The print magazine should still be going out.  For those with pre-existing accounts, this first year should have been complimentary.  I am also a big Star Wars fan (insert laughing here), and we had a similar issue when the online supplement of starwars.com came up.  Those with existing magazine subscriptions (in some case up to two years worth of "credit") were supposed to be credited when you signed up for the online deal (that is, they would be given after the online subscription ended).  The problem with this was, that most fans were going to keep their subscription till the very end, and thus would never see their already paid for magazines.  Fans hated it, and after much complaining... the fan club made it right by giving us complimentary on-line access until ones mag subscription was up.  In the end, they did it right.  And at least on SW.com, something new goes up every day.

2.  I just want to see these on CD.  I am still waiting on getting the digital set... maybe for a price break or sale or something.  I think this was a good idea... in theory... but in practice was poorly executed.  All tracks should be available for individual download.  Heck, I would jump on this if it was a lossless format, regardless.

3.  That is just bad practice.  I mean, look at the quality of the fan sites lyrics were removed from.  These sites do nothing but support/advertise U2.  I do not see what they hope to gain by making sites remove lyrics.  It makes no sense at all.  Plus, isn't it nice to know what our favorite frontman is saying in these songs?  Why deny us this?

4.  Unfortunately this is super common.  Alot of fan sites I visit (U2 and otherwise) post "official" news before official sites do.  They have to get their message 100% correct everytime, where fan sites have more leniency.  But your point remains.

Sorry you don't like the new album.  I know that is dissappointing.  I have a hard time admitting it, but I am not crazy about it either.  Some tunes I like, others I could go either way on.  I am just waiting to hear them live... like ATYCLB, these songs will take on a new feel after the band play them 100+ times in front of an audience.


phew....

[u2rob]

Regarding the online thing in #1 - I know things aren't going to be perfect.  I understand that taking a print service online "makes sense" in a business perspective in this day and age.  I understand that a company can only be faulted to a certain point when they're going through a transitional phase.  I'm more concerned with the attitude behind it all.  Propaganda turned over their outdated database, and then...  that's it?  They're not responsible for fan satisfaction anymore?  It's just disconcerting.  I seriously am willing to make allowances when something is new.  But the fact that the problems seem to be universal (and universally ignored) just rubs me the wrong way.

#2 - Making every track individually downloadable would have made me happy.  I had a listen to some of the .m4a files, and they're pretty good.  I probably shouldn't have even included the lossless/lossy comment.  Not that big a deal, ultimately.  I'm most put off by the way they withheld the most interesting/critical tracks and put a giant price tag on 'em.

#3 - I don't have all the info on what's going on in regards to the licensing issues, so I'm not gonna sit here and say that I'm fully informed.  I definitely don't understand the motives behind their demands.  They're giving up an awful lot of free marketing by forcing these lyrics down.  Logic tells me that the label has done the math, and that they'll make more money in the end by doing this.  Can that really be the case, though?

As for point #4 - I agree with what you're saying, but Rolling Stone is not a fansite.  Now, maybe the blame goes to Rolling Stone for publishing misinformation, but I'm seriously doubting that someone over at RS pulled the phrase "family illness" out of thin air.  If they did just make it up on their own, wouldn't U2.com be fairly quick to discredit it if it were false?  

Anyway, the fansites almost *always* provide better and faster information than U2.com.  I just...  being given two separate stories just makes me super-suspicious and less trusting.  And I don't like feeling suspicious about my favorite band.  Y'know?

[jimbo913]

1.  I still think that the magazine should be going out.  I know it makes sense in a business sense not to... but sometimes what makes sense doesn't actually work in practice.  Most magazines that go to an online format do not quit the printing part completely.  IMHO, I like a physical reminder of what I buy.  I guess I just don't see what I would be paying for over there.

I totally agree with what you are saying about the turning over of the propaganda database to firefox.  I was not a propaganda subscriber, so I can't say much in the way of my own experience.  But as someone who is toying around with joining for the first time, hearing all these negative stories from long time fans, compounded with the uncertainty of what I am getting, I have stayed away thus far.  

2.  I don't think you were wrong in mentioning the lossy format of the DBS (digital box set).  It is a valid point.  Whether right or wrong, it is off-putting to some folks. Some don't mind, some do.  I can't help but think they are not as good as they could be, and I just can't shake that feeling.  I certainly wouldn't go out and buy a VHS cassette of Slane Castle, knowing that a DVD versio is out there.  Maybe that isn't the best analogy, but hopefully you see what I am saying.  

But when it comes down to it, you are right.  The lossy format isn't really a fan relations issue.  But the decision to make you buy it all just to get the 'meat' of the set, most definately is.  Some people say that is the nature of box sets, that fans re-buy what they have to get the extras.  And they are right... up to a point.  Box sets are great when it is a step up from previously released versions.  I didn't mind dropping the money 12 years ago (good gravey, has it been that long) to get the Led Zep box set.  It was remastered and sounded better than previous CD releases, and was at the time a huge step up from my cassette copies.  But buying a digital box set... inferior to what I already have... for a handful of songs is just wrong.  But there I go again beating that dead horse.

I still hold out hope for a B side CD set release ala Depeche Mode.  

3.  Nothing more to be said on this.  You are right, they must see a benefit.  Either that, or they are paranoid over nothing.  Who knows?

4. Doh... you are right, it was Rolling Stone who broke it.  But all the fan sites reported it, proliferating the info to us.  If it weren't for the fan sites, I wouldn't have heard about it at all.  Did RS publish it on their site? In print?  It is a little odd.  I guess I don't know enough about it to have a stong opinion.  I am used to hearing about things from official sites last though (not just with u2 stuff).

I understand what you are saying about being suspicious.  It kinda takes away some of the gloss.

EDIT: Just saw the link on @u2.  So it was published on the RS site.

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by jimbo913]

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by jimbo913]

[connachtpa]

1.  Propaganda, the magazine, has always been a joke.  You did not subscribe for the magazine, that was a nice bonus - what you go for your membership into the U2 fan club, Propaganda.  And you joined the fan club solely for those lovely ticket order forms.  $20 for membership into the new fan club seems fair to me, I had two magazines to go.  For those who just joined, it sucketh mightily.  

1a.  Did anyone who had ever try to use any version of u2.com ever think that any web page affiliated with them would be a joy to use?

1b.  You do not know that they have divested themselves of any responsibility.  You are not even aware that the band knows about this.  Do we even think that anyone with any real responsibility has said "well, too bad for you?"

1c. - actually knowing someone who has benefited from the old database being used, I think it's kinda cool.  I also don't think it will wind up mattering in the long run.  I really don't believe they will know who the Propaganda members were, and who are the new ones.  And why should new fan club members get screwed out of getting tickets because they just found the band and joined this

2.  Yes, that was bad planning.  But I think they are aware of it.  During the listening party Larry mentioned that it was .33 a song, much cheaper than the $1.  But still sucky for those of us who only want those 11 songs.  What truly pisses me off is that the iPod is the low storage one, and priced $100 more.  I'd at least have wanted it to be the 40 GB.  Do I think they thought - excellent way to rip off the hard core?  Nope.  Do I think they thought, hey .33 a song, excellent.  More likely.  Am I upset that my band doesn't think, well the average fan has all this and can easily upload their cds?  Not really, because I can't think of another 43 year old who would know it.  Of course, those 43 year olds aren't going into business with Apple...I'll give you this point :-)

3.  So Principle sent out those emails?  I assumed it was Universal Publishing.  Interesting.  And weird.  Must look into copy write law, but I'm pretty sure that they don't actually have control over the publication of the lyrics.  As I understood it, the albums are sent and then it's someone else's job to figure out what Bono's saying.  Someone at Universal.  They publish the lyrics.  It's not that U2 or four5one (right?) sends over the jacket with they lyrics in it, translated from Bono's handwriting (or word document) by a band source.  I could be wrong.  I have been before :-)

4.  I don't blame them for this at all.  Rolling Stone online got a story and ran with it.  That's what news outlets do (see New York Times and Dan Rather and CBS News.)  Was U2 ready to announce it to the world?  Heck no.  And why would they confirm or deny anything about a family illness, it's none of our business.  No comment.  It's like a celeb having to have their PR counter everything said on Access Hollywood.  Tour postponed, here's why, we'll get back at you.  Doesn't sound like a group who wanted to issue a press statement today.

Here's the kicker.  We are abnormal.  The majority of U2 fans are waiting to hear when the tickets go on sale to see if they can line up a babysitter, not have to work, or will they be in school and where.  We are waiting because I have 3 weeks of vacation and $2,000 to spend.  Ok, I mean, I'm abnormal.  

Yes, I think you might be letting your disappointment in the album tint these issues.

The iPod is perhaps the worse thing U2 has done to their fans.  And it's voluntary.  You don't have to get, and the 11 news songs are now available elsewhere.

Am I anxious over ticket getting?  Yup.  Is it any different than the last 4 tours.  Nope.

Do I hate U2.com and fanfire - yup.  But I hated u2.com long before the fanfire debacle.

And as a long time fan, let me say that while I know Sheila Roche was a long time member of U2, Inc.  I have no idea what she did :-)


Alrighty - I hope I have convinced the masses to see things the way I see them!

[u2rob]

Hey, you.  Glad to see you made it.  =)  Even though you roasted my points one-by-one.  =P

I probably focused my attacks on PM too much, when really I should just have been aiming at "the label / management / operations / the U2 entity" instead.

Here goes...

1.  True, I did subscribe for the ticket order forms.  I have less of a problem with the expense involved and more of a problem with them taking my money and not fulfilling their end of the deal (i.e. four magazines).  A optional refund would have been in order, bottom line.  Granted, I *did* take advantage of their membership discount, and so I, myself, don't have a problem.  I weighed the cost of an extra $20 against what I was supposed to be getting, and I went for it.  I just think that "click here to have your remaining magazine issues credited to a credit card" would have made a lot of folks happy, even if they didn't end up going that route.

1a.  U2.com has improved.  I hope that trend continues.  I just fear for Fanfire's own servers come ticket pre-sale day!

1b.  Point taken.  However, more than one person went to visit Principle *in person* to talk to them about the problems they were having.  Principle wouldn't give 'em the time of day.  See http://tinyurl.com/5gx6m [forum.atu2.com].  I can understand that it's technically not PM's business anymore, but...  yeah.  Okay.  Let me just expand my problem with Principle to encompass Fanfire, since I really can't bring forth any more PM-only evidence at present.  =P

1c.  All fair points except that you are neglecting the people who never got their Propaganda letters/cards because of the old database that was supplied.  They're forced to go through the hassle of emails and/or phone calls to get their discount.  I do agree that longstanding fans shouldn't be given extra priority (they already got the $20 discount, after all).  But an email from Propaganda DID state that current members would move to the front of the ticket line.  If they want to now retract that statement, that's on them.

2.  You gave me a point!  Whew!  =)  No, I don't think they intentionally planned to cheat the collectors.  But yeah, that ended up being the result.  I just want a fair price on things.  By doing it their way, they denied themselves sales.  I'd have been first in line to pay them a premium rate for the "Rare and Unreleased" tracks, and I imagine there'd be a long queue behind me.

3.  Universal sent the emails, as far as I'm aware.  But Principle has had a long-standing relationship with a number of the fansites, and at this point are dragging their feet when it's come down to actually setting up licenses to display the lyrics.  As I understand it, the site owners are in communication with Universal, and Universal can only shrug and say "we're waiting for word from PM, sorry".  Besides all that, though - has Universal targeted other bands' fansites?  Have they even targeted more than the top handful of U2 fansites?  It just seems like an awfully direct attack on the "competition" for U2.com, is all.  And that makes me wonder where the directive to demand lyrics removal is coming from.

4.  Agreed, but conflicting stories still reflect poorly on all involved.  I do concede your "no comment" point.  If an illness is the real reason behind the delay, it's definitely not the fans' business.  I suppose Rolling Stone should shoulder some blame for running the "family illness" angle in the first place, but it would have been nice to get a little more detail than the manager-speak that McGuinness supplied us with in the official announcement.  "Routing" is still being worked on?  What does that even mean?  Throw me a frickin' bone, here!

It's true, I'm generally disappointed by the album, and it probably *does* hinder my perception of these issues to an extent.  I just... argh.  The marketing is eclipsing the music, and it's really distracting to me.

How do I make it stop?

[Carl]

Sorry for jumping on this so late, I meant to reply earlier and it slipped by me.  Here's a few clarifications / my two cents.

1.  The old magazine wasn't the greatest thing in the world, but it was something, and it's neat to have a physical item - kind of a proof of membership thing.  I'm fine buying songs on iTunes - in fact at the moment having a bunch of physical CDs is more of a nuisance than anything else *runs and hides from the collectors*.  DM sends out yearly fan club only EPs, a lot of other bands send cool stuff.  Melon and Hasta La Vista Baby! were cool but rather exceptions.  I'd rather have a yearly EP of unreleased songs or unused remixes than a magazine or online streamy crap.  I also think DM has a better fan site, but

2.  As for lossless / lossy - iTunes is a great service and they deal in m4p/m4a format, I can't really see The Edge convincing them to add some lossless format (does AAC lossless have DRM?) and it is ~2GB as it is (imagine how much it would lossless... like ummm... 22GB in WAV, at least 12-13GB in FLAC or something comparable.  Even on broadband that's a hell of a long download. The U2 iPod is $50 more but you get a $50 coupon for the set to stick in it, so it isn't that bad.  The 20GB only option kinda sucks but oh well.

As for complete - they should have just worked out the licensing to include the cover songs, and either stuck all the promo stuff or none in.  Not having promo only remixes would have made sense, and there wouldn't be the grumbling of only having some of them.  In comparison the six DM digital singles sets will set you back ~$175 on iTunes and I don't know if there are any album / bonus tracks.  There were some stupid decisions like cutting the b-sides discs of the best ofs while leaving repetitive a-sides, but the multiple tracks make sense.  If I want to listen to the Best Of 80-90, I don't just want the 3 edits (or 6 non album version ones, or whatever the number was) that haven't shown up yet - I want to listen to it all!  An ideal solution would be for the tagging standard to be changed to allow a single track to be track 1 out of 6 for a single, 3 out of 12 for this album, 6 out of 14 for that compilation etc, and it would show up multiple times while searching.  But barring that, casual use in iTunes makes having multiple tracks easier.  I'd probably delete the duplicates actually, but I'm a bit picky about cluttery files. :p

3. Universal sent the letter, but at the behest of PM.  PM when contacted ignores us and once sent out a generic "we can't do anything about it sorry" while Universal is very helpful and says they are just following instructions - not to mention that according to Universal PM did play a role in things...

4. U2.com is getting better, keep in mind their job is not to scoop but to release what they want to release.  They're getting better at getting the A/V stuff out there than before and the news is picking up.  Perhaps making it part of the fan club does have a pay off.  I still think the navigation is annoying.  Again no idea why the lyrics thing was started, there are a few theories and u2.com traffic is one of them.  This is perhaps boosted by the fact the fateful four (heh) don't rank that high searching google for "u2 lyrics" but do for just "u2" which is how a lot of u2.com visitors probably get there.

[Edited on 2005-2-28 by Carl]