Oldschool approach

[jazjme]

I don't know the answer to this so Ill just ask, how do we know Axl didn't in fact sink a lot of his OWN MONEY into the project.? I know #'s are thrown out there and stuff, but where is the true source. Bans and artist make most of their real income on touring and merchandise. So could it be possibly that Axl has more to lose and this why touring before the
album comes out? I dunno the answer do you?

[Skunk]

1. Those of us saying this might be the approach aren't just grasping at straws here - Merck actually said it might just show up in stores one tuesday. You can say he didn't mean that, but it was said, so that gives good reason to speculate.

2. The record company may have their say about promotion (it could also be that Axl does things his own way, because i think if they let him make the record the way he did, then why not think they'd let him do whatever else he wants) - but it's not unreasonable to think that the no-promo idea came from Geffen. The myth of this album is currently it's best mainstream selling point.

3. Axl was completely nowhere to be seen for years and years. There were no pictures of him. "Axl spottings" are what we used to talk about on here - could it be? Was it really him? Like he was fucking big foot. GNR cancelled a tour and never said anything. All this has been going on, and the most consistent response we get is silence. So is this no-promotion idea really out there? Yes, and that's why it's appealing. EVERYTHING about this band has been unexpected.

[WAR41]

I don't know the answer to this so Ill just ask, how do we know Axl didn't in fact sink a lot of his OWN MONEY into the project.? I know #'s are thrown out there and stuff, but where is the true source. Bans and artist make most of their real income on touring and merchandise. So could it be possibly that Axl has more to lose and this why touring before the
album comes out? I dunno the answer do you?

any scenario is possible. ?How likely is it that this is the case? ?I would say not very likely at all. ?

We are talking about the conventional ways that record companies work. ?This is how it has always been done (unless if you are DIY) and that is why 99% of artists make almost no money on album sales. ?The record company gives you money to record, mix, master and everything else that needs to be done to an album. ?They promote the album in order to sell a ton of them, get radio play, MTV play etc, then in turn your band cashes in on ticket sales and merchandise from a wider fanbase. ?

[chriskon72]

Tah is a very good point but it would be in his own best interest to have the album out, because new album = more ticket and Merchandise sales

[jazjme]

Tah is a very good point but it would be in his own best interest to have the album out, because new album = more ticket and Merchandise sales

Conversely having the band touring again , beit on a larger scale but still in the spirit of "old school" ways also can be a advantage . And honestly I for one am very confident that the album will be out this year.

[14 Yrs Of Silence]

To me, not marketing the album is a sign of a lack of confidence. ?Now I'm not saying that is Axl and company's feelings or intentions, but to an outsider it can sure seem that way. ?Hopefully they do some marketing, even if its in the week before the album comes out. ?No marketing at all is just strange.

[pilferk]

Those of us who are "poo-pooing" on this silly idea are just being real about this. Not promoting an album that's been in the works for 13 years, had $15million dumped into it, had 2 tours supporting it, and been pushed back 7 years would be stupid. With that much time and money going into it, they certainly can't be naive enough to rely on word of mouth.

Certainly a valid point of view.  But not the only one.  I'm simply saying that keeping an open mind, and listening to alternate ideas, has some merit, too.

And again..you're asserting "not promoting".  There is promotion going on...it's just not the traditional hype machine.

On the money thing...there are other things to consider:

1) The label recouped a good part, if not all, of the costs of CD (which USUALLY takes the form of an advance on future royalties to the band, at least in part...so it's not like it won't come back to their pockets eventually) with GH.  Conservatively they pulled back 8 to 10 million, with 12 to 18 million being the midpoint in projections.

2) The label could very well have just decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater, considering expenses, and took up the alternative marketing idea simply to pinch pennies on the project

3) The label could very well have been pitched what they thought was a new, innovative, creative marketing strategy that, eventually, will result in more PROFIT off the album by reducing ad expenses and maximizing free promotional vehicles.

There's lots of ways to explain the money stuff, if you really think on it.  I'm not, for an instant, saying your wrong in your viewpoint...just that there is no reason to insult, poo-poo on, or belittle those who hold out for a different possibility.

[pilferk]

I agree with everything you said.? Lets be realistic.... a company is going to go with what has worked for them in the past especially considering they have poured millions of their own dollars into this project.? If it wasn't such an expensive risk, I think there would be a SLIGHT possibility that they would take a chance with a 'new' advertising approach like the one the original poster mentioned.? But that would only happen if they didnt spend more than Ethiopia's GDP on this record.

Yes, lets be realistic....companies are changing the way they advertise and promote. ?With the advent of "media on demand" technologies, the almost comatose state of the print media, the continued and increasing role of the internet to consumers, and the evolution of personal technology.....someone is going to have to try something different, eventually. ?Because the old methods are beginning to go long in the tooth and carry incredible expense for limited benefits.

Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it won't ever change. ?Yes, I agree, your opinion is particuarly well founded on history. ?and yes, it may be ?optimistic to expect that Universal will choose GnR to try some new tactic they think might work. ?Absolutely. ?But it does't mean, by any stretch, that it won't happen.

Oh, on the money spent...see my response to the Doors singer.

[pilferk]

any scenario is possible. ?How likely is it that this is the case? ?I would say not very likely at all. ?

We are talking about the conventional ways that record companies work. ?This is how it has always been done (unless if you are DIY) and that is why 99% of artists make almost no money on album sales. ?The record company gives you money to record, mix, master and everything else that needs to be done to an album. ?They promote the album in order to sell a ton of them, get radio play, MTV play etc, then in turn your band cashes in on ticket sales and merchandise from a wider fanbase. ?

They ADVANCE the artist the money to do all that (and more).? Then, they track the record sales to pay off the advance.? I'm not going to get into the "evils" of big labels...god knows artists and others have done that better than I can do it justice here...but suffice to say that the accounting is creative enough that, unless you're a huge, over time seller (like AFD, or the UYI albums) making money on the album, for an artist, is tough.

[pilferk]

To me, not marketing the album is a sign of a lack of confidence. ?Now I'm not saying that is Axl and company's feelings or intentions, but to an outsider it can sure seem that way. ?Hopefully they do some marketing, even if its in the week before the album comes out. ?No marketing at all is just strange.

No marketing at all would be suicide.

No paid marketing til release.....that's an intriguing idea.

And I've heard the "lack of faith" point made before.  It's not a bad one.  The thing is.....given the response to the leaked material in the press, and on line, and on radio stations that have played it.....I'm not convinced the label would ignore all that.  Granted, they have further exposure to the material on which to found their opinions, but...still.....

[JimMorrison4]

I just don't think that assuming the reason we've heard nothing about the album in a while is because of an alternative marketing ploy. If this is the case, don't expect Chinese Democracy to do all that well (especially in America). Today, albums need promotion to be succesful. If GNR did just record this album to fullfill Axl's vision or whatever, then I'm sure he at least wants to tell people when they can hear it.

Yes, they're doing some form of promotion by touring. But it's not working. They're playing to half empty arenas ?Go up to random people and ask if they heard when Chinese Democracy is going to be released. After you have to explain to them it's a Guns n Roses album that's been rumored to come out since 1999, they'll ask, "They're still around?"

They did start out with, what seemed to be, a creative marketing strategy. When 4 songs leaked earlier this year, major news outlets did pick up on it. It got people talking about them. That would have been an ideal time to release it. Now, not only have they still not released an album, but they're down to playing ONE new song in the setlist (I'm not counting The Blues, it's been listened to for 4 years).

[Buddha_Master]

No marketing at all would be suicide.

Then Le Petite Morte Starts Tuesday

[pilferk]

I just don't think that assuming the reason we've heard nothing about the album in a while is because of an alternative marketing ploy. If this is the case, don't expect Chinese Democracy to do all that well (especially in America). Today, albums need promotion to be succesful. If GNR did just record this album to fullfill Axl's vision or whatever, then I'm sure he at least wants to tell people when they can hear it.

Yes, they're doing some form of promotion by touring. But it's not working. They're playing to half empty arenas ?Go up to random people and ask if they heard when Chinese Democracy is going to be released. After you have to explain to them it's a Guns n Roses album that's been rumored to come out since 1999, they'll ask, "They're still around?"

They did start out with, what seemed to be, a creative marketing strategy. When 4 songs leaked earlier this year, major news outlets did pick up on it. It got people talking about them. That would have been an ideal time to release it. Now, not only have they still not released an album, but they're down to playing ONE new song in the setlist (I'm not counting The Blues, it's been listened to for 4 years).

1) Again, there IS promotion going on....just not paid advertisements.  Radio is talking about it, print media is talking about it, there are blurbs up on all the big music sites about a rumored release date.  All that is promotion.

2) "Today's albums need promotion to be successful".  There are plenty of breakout artists who would disagree with you, especially if you mean promotion "pre-release".  Look at The White Stripes first album.  Look at (god help me) Evanescence's first album.  Look at (again, god help me), Creed's early albums. There have been a number of successful albums, that still sell well, that didn't get a huge push at release.

3)He will tell people when/where they can hear it...as soon as they can.

4) Well, then they're not listening to Rock Radio or reading any sorts of music press (online or otherwise)...which means they would be unlikely to be exposed to the traditional album hype machine anyway.

5) I'd venture they may be simply playing the future single (Better) and holding off on the rest until the album hits.  But it's just a guess.

[pilferk]

No marketing at all would be suicide.

Then Le Petite Morte Starts Tuesday

Read both lines, now Buddha...both lines.

No marketing at ALL would be suicide.

No marketing til release would be intriguing.

Once the album drops they have to do something....

[WAR41]

I agree with everything you said.? Lets be realistic.... a company is going to go with what has worked for them in the past especially considering they have poured millions of their own dollars into this project.? If it wasn't such an expensive risk, I think there would be a SLIGHT possibility that they would take a chance with a 'new' advertising approach like the one the original poster mentioned.? But that would only happen if they didnt spend more than Ethiopia's GDP on this record.

Yes, lets be realistic....companies are changing the way they advertise and promote. ?With the advent of "media on demand" technologies, the almost comatose state of the print media, the continued and increasing role of the internet to consumers, and the evolution of personal technology.....someone is going to have to try something different, eventually. ?Because the old methods are beginning to go long in the tooth and carry incredible expense for limited benefits.

Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean it won't ever change. ?Yes, I agree, your opinion is particuarly well founded on history. ?and yes, it may be ?optimistic to expect that Universal will choose GnR to try some new tactic they think might work. ?Absolutely. ?But it does't mean, by any stretch, that it won't happen.

Oh, on the money spent...see my response to the Doors singer.

If you work in corporate America then you should know that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get an established firm to try something out of the box. ?Usually its a small independent firm who does something that is so different and becomes successful and then others emulate it. ?Just look at film. ?Kevin Smith brought raunchiness to a whole different level when he released the original Clerks. ?Others tried (and still try) to copy it. ?Leigh Whannell tried something completely different with Saw. ?Without that movie I don't think we would see as much graphic violence in film as we do today. ?Tarantino with Pulp Fiction... the list goes on and on. ?And the common theme is that its always a small firm or group of people looking to break into the industry. ?

Another issue is with the finance department. ?You aren't able to calculate ROI on something that has never been done before. ?And if the big plan fails... who is going to be blamed? ?A bunch of people will be blamed, and no one wants to lose their job so they will go with the norm. ?The only big firm I can think of offhand that has no problem taking risks is Wal-Mart. ?Something tells me the record label backing Guns N Roses arent going to take a big risk with his one. ?

[Skunk]

Publicity is always more effective than advertisement.
Axl and GNR know how to generate publicity. Axl frequently does it by accident (tommy hilfiger). There is and will be publicity and they won't have to pay for it. All that's strange so far is no release date and the possibility that there won't be one.
There could be any number of reasons for something like that, but right now it's still more reasonable to believe we're getting it this year, because the band/management seems to be carrying on that way. Dropping two albums on the same day, THAT was crazy. Releasing CD without a prior announcement, i don't think that's so far out there.

[pilferk]

If you work in corporate America then you should know that it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get an established firm to try something out of the box. ?Usually its a small independent firm who does something that is so different and becomes successful and then others emulate it. ?Just look at film. ?Kevin Smith brought raunchiness to a whole different level when he released the original Clerks. ?Others tried (and still try) to copy it. ?Leigh Whannell tried something completely different with Saw. ?Without that movie I don't think we would see as much graphic violence in film as we do today. ?Tarantino with Pulp Fiction... the list goes on and on. ?And the common theme is that its always a small firm or group of people looking to break into the industry. ?

Another issue is with the finance department. ?You aren't able to calculate ROI on something that has never been done before. ?And if the big plan fails... who is going to be blamed? ?A bunch of people will be blamed, and no one wants to lose their job so they will go with the norm. ?The only big firm I can think of offhand that has no problem taking risks is Wal-Mart. ?Something tells me the record label backing Guns N Roses arent going to take a big risk with his one. ?

I know the perception you're talking about. ?Historically...it's mes a mes. ?You see the big firms innovating all the time...it's just not as remarkable when they do it. ?I've seen some exceptionally creative marketing (Halo2 is a great example from MS (as is most of their marketing), WalMarts stuff too, ditto on Apple's IPOD marketing) come from pretty large firms. ?I've seen it come from small firms, too (The original "priceless" idea was pitched by a small firm).

On corporate finance....while the bean counters have great sway over things, they are not the ultimate decision makers. ?They simply need to be placated, and, if you have enough sway at the top, that's not too hard to do.

[chriskon72]

I don't know sort of like I said earlier....on this one the stakes are too high. I just want the Bastard to release it who cares how !

[Skinflick]

I think they know what they're doing.....they are long time successful veteran musicians...and we are not.

[TAP]

I just don't think that assuming the reason we've heard nothing about the album in a while is because of an alternative marketing ploy. If this is the case, don't expect Chinese Democracy to do all that well (especially in America). Today, albums need promotion to be succesful. If GNR did just record this album to fullfill Axl's vision or whatever, then I'm sure he at least wants to tell people when they can hear it.

Yes, they're doing some form of promotion by touring. But it's not working. They're playing to half empty arenas  Go up to random people and ask if they heard when Chinese Democracy is going to be released. After you have to explain to them it's a Guns n Roses album that's been rumored to come out since 1999, they'll ask, "They're still around?"

They did start out with, what seemed to be, a creative marketing strategy. When 4 songs leaked earlier this year, major news outlets did pick up on it. It got people talking about them. That would have been an ideal time to release it. Now, not only have they still not released an album, but they're down to playing ONE new song in the setlist (I'm not counting The Blues, it's been listened to for 4 years).

1) Again, there IS promotion going on....just not paid advertisements.  Radio is talking about it, print media is talking about it, there are blurbs up on all the big music sites about a rumored release date.  All that is promotion.

2) "Today's albums need promotion to be successful".  There are plenty of breakout artists who would disagree with you, especially if you mean promotion "pre-release".  Look at The White Stripes first album.  Look at (god help me) Evanescence's first album.  Look at (again, god help me), Creed's early albums. There have been a number of successful albums, that still sell well, that didn't get a huge push at release.

3)He will tell people when/where they can hear it...as soon as they can.

4) Well, then they're not listening to Rock Radio or reading any sorts of music press (online or otherwise)...which means they would be unlikely to be exposed to the traditional album hype machine anyway.

5) I'd venture they may be simply playing the future single (Better) and holding off on the rest until the album hits.  But it's just a guess.

The only evidence for the non-promotion scenario is the lack of information, but the lack of information is also overwhelming evidence that there is nothing to say. Has Axl ever said anything to suggest he would release CD with no promotion........and it's not even no promotion, people are really suggesting anti-promotion. That is, time and money are being actively invested to suppress information about the album, create alternative means distribution, and basically shut up anyone in the chain between Axl and us. To me it doesn't make any sense, even if it is theoretically possible.

My feeling is that the album was supposed to coincide with the tour, but it just isn't ready........would that really surprise anyone?