would ,the cosmos rocks,been a bigger hit if advertising was better.in my region(the scottish borders),there was little or no adverts for it.and as for the forethcoming release.live in the ukraine.i dont expect much more.if queen productions had been a bit more on the ball it could have been a massive hit.i and many others loved the album,went ballistic at the secc,and thought it was so so much better than,return of the champions(basicly queens greatest hits with a few extra tracks).maybe queen productions or a couple of band members thought it would fail.i think that had a massive advertising campaing been launched it could.and should,have been a bigger hit.i even know someone who knows i am a lover of queen and q+pr,(not a lover a such lol),and is a queen fan in a very small way herself.that she didnt even know about ,the comos rocks,till 2 weeks after it's release..so maybe this time they will go for glory,a massive advertising blitz.maybe even posters lol.after all apart from rock in rio,this is queen or queen+paul rodgers second biggest concert ever(now the purists will tell me there was a bigger one lol).in fact for a 1 night concert this may have been the biggest.(sorry if rio was bigger).yes i know that this release is nearly the same as return of the champions.but there was 1extra song(cleb)lol.so for fuck sake....queen productions.get your act together and advertise.unless you want one of the biggest bands in history to fade away(no pun intended)..me myself i will be buying the tin(cd,dvd,tshirt).but i will still be watching the uncut version i downloaded from my friends at queenzone.complete with ukranian comments between songs..nice.
david (galashiels) · Member since
o i forgot.if anyone has the secc gig.11.10.2008,uncut in hd i will pay many many scottish pounds for a copy lol.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
David, here's my two cents. [/QUOTE]No.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]In the days of the internet, all it's takes is for something to catch the imagination of a few people (see Susan Boyle, Paul Potts, the ukelele chick) for a band or artist to break. IMHO, there is nothing of interest to the general public on TCR that would demand any attention. Why, for instance, wouldn't the record companies get behind a Queen release, given their stature and the fact that they are a cash cow for all of their record companies in the UK and Europe? The songs weren't there, that's why!!! From the moment this alliance took place, people were skeptical because Queen music was larger than life and totally different than the music of their peers. God bless the three of them for trying, but they succeeded in making the best Bad Co. album ever, and worst Queen album ever, by a mile. You can't flog a product that people don't believe in, and very few people (outside of this board and QOL) believed in TCR. [/QUOTE]
steven 35638 · Member since
In contrast, I would argue that better advertisement would have been beneficial in making the album a more successful endeavor. Granted, people would still have argued that without Freddie Mercury the album would be substandard. Around the same time prior to the release of Cosmos Rocks, AC/DC was busy promoting their new album. I recall walking on Broadway in New York City and witnessing huge, and I do mean gigantic, light up signs promoting their new album. The album ended up gaining a lot of recognition, and was a success, in my opinion. I bought it too! But to be honest, I didn't enjoy it and consider it to be more of the same from them -- which bores me to death. So, I have to ask myself -- was the album a success primarily because of adequate advertisement? Would similar advertisement for Queen on such major locations have helped them much in the same way as it helped AC/DC? Honestly, I'm leaning toward advertisement. If I had a nickel for everytime I had to tell people Queen aren't dead I'd be a friggin' millionaire.
By the way, I'm not implying Cosmos Rocks is a masterpiece.
Yara · Member since
Yes, I think the album could have done better had it been better marketed. But, and the but here is strong enough as to almost deny what I wrote before, I guess even a massive advertising offense would ultimately reach a limit - that of the album itself. If people did get to know the album but failed to relate to it, then no advertising in the world would save it from maybe an even greater failure: the lack of commercial success despite huge advertising. That'd be really a knock out. I guess no matter how much advertising they made, the album would still have had a very pale reception, even if slightly better than what it actually got.
Because the guys didn't set very high standards nor create too much expectation, many people welcomed the album as a low-profile, modest output of a very tentative musical partnership which was still haunted by the shadow of Freddie Mercury. In this sense, and because the guys did manage to put the album together and tour with it, and most importantly, suceeded in doing so having as a partner none other than Paul Rodgers, who's a tremendous and legendary singer, the album was a personal success for them, I guess. And that's also very important: if the guys are happy with the work they have done, as they seemed to be indeed, Paul included, then it was worth it from the point of view of artists who will always have to struggle not only against the odds of lack of creativity, as any musician, but also against the overwhelming legacy of Freddie Mercury, which makes people more resistant to whatever they happen to record: many people will either doubt their relevance and capacity or judge them according to Queen's older standards, which were largely laid out by someone who's not there anymore...
lalaalalaa · Member since
I didn't even know Queen + Paul Rodgers existed until I saw the Return of the Champions DVD at a store. I was like "when did this happen???"
So their advertising was pitiful for Return of the Champions as well as the Cosmos Rocks. (of course it might just be that we never hear this stuff in the U.S.)
Vali · Member since
I'd say, not the ROTC album, but the 2005 tour really had much advertising and media coverage in Europe, compared to the non-existing for TCR and its tour in 2008.
I remember my city, Barcelona, with many, many flyers, posters, etc, of the QPR gig hanging in the streets back in 2005, as well as many ads for the WWRY musical (I even managed to "steal" two flyers from a bank office, he he), radio ads, TV ads, etc etc etc
The fact of the time coincidence of both events at Barcelona and their generous publicity made the QPR gig to be sold out, with more than 18.000 people attending.
Then, in 2008, I only saw "one" (literally, one) poster in the street announcing the new tour, hence only 11.000 people attending the gig at the same venue ... wich could be, more or less, considered a success
Wiley · Member since
I think the album would have sold more copies/made a bigger buzz if they had appeared in TV shows, made a couple of videos for their songs, release another single, do radio shows here and there and, you know, actually PROMOTING YOUR FRICKIN' ALBUM!!
Maybe they didn't want to risk it. From a financial point of view, they probably made more money with the tour and selling only 400,000 copies with ZERO promotion than if they had sold 800,000 copies with a huge promotion campaign.
If that was their "strategy": lower costs, maximize return on investment, then they are geniuses. If this is the case, then they are not disappointed by the album's sales as they expected them and this "failure" won't affect their decision to move forward with their work relationship. That's me with a lot of wishful thinking.
If they really expected the album to sell by itself and to have a sleeper hit that would motivate them to do something else later, well, they failed miserably. They migh as well have called the album "The Works 2".
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
In the days of the internet, all it's takes is for something to catch the imagination of a few people (see Susan Boyle, Paul Potts, the ukelele chick) for a band or artist to break. IMHO, there is nothing of interest to the general public on TCR that would demand any attention.
[/QUOTE]
To me, those are two completely unrelated statements. While that may be your personal opinion on the album, that has little to do why it didn't sell well. People on TV talent shows are on a whole different level in our pop culture of quick consumption of all new things good and bad. Paul Potts and Susan Boyle will be forgotten in 5 years.
Queen are on an entirely different level, as they have been in the media for about 35 years. But no matter what they create, they won't get mass marketing, even if it it's as good as A Night At The Opera. Marketing creates an artificial sense of supply and demand for a product, no matter the quality. The media does not feel the need to push anything done by Queen, and that's where the buck stops.
U2's latest album was bought by millions because it was marketed to incredible lengths before anyone had heard a note, not because all buyers are U2 fans who have bought every previous U2 record. Plenty of curious rock music fans would have bought the QPR album had they heard about its existence. More people went to a single concert in the Ukraine than bought the album worldwide. Does that mean the new songs didn't go down well live, or that they didn't get constant reminders to buy the new album, like U2's, or AC/DC's?
Our pop culture creates the idea of what is marketable, and the name U2 is exactly that, especially when Bono is all over the news for non-musical reasons. Compared to The Cosmos Rocks, Britney Spears' latest record has sold about 10x as many copies. Does that mean it's a better record, or that there's some kind of supply and demand at work? AC/DC's last album is the same album that they've created for the last 30 years (Angus Young even admits it), yet they sell millions too. Does that mean AC/DC's latest record is inherently better than QPR's?
To me, QPR is a great record, created by three legends who simply want to create more music. Aside from Freddie Mercury not being there, Queen's and Paul's trademark sounds are all over the record, and it holds up against much Queen's and Paul's back catalogues. If it had sold 10 million copies, those facts would not be any different. Sales and quality are two completely different issues.
Negative Creep · Member since
So what if it had had loads of promotion? A boost in short term sales would have had no effect on the content of the album. They had no problem shifting tickets for the gigs as they were Queen nostalgia fests - majority of people attending obviously werent too fussed about hearing any new output, coz it ain't Queen and they probably aren't to arsed about hearing new songs sung by Paul Rodgers. Reactions in the online "Queen community" haven't exactly been great, to say the least.
Also, it isn't EMI's fault the "band" failed to deliver any suitable material for a lead-off single, or indeed any possible subsequent singles. And it isn't EMI who refused to do much promotion - apparently a live show to be broadcast on Radio 2 was on the cards, until a band member vetoed it coz they couldn't be bothered to do any work to shift units. Bit too easy to blame the record company.
Wiley · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Negative Creep wrote: [/b]
So what if it had had loads of promotion? A boost in short term sales would have had no effect on the content of the album. They had no problem shifting tickets for the gigs as they were Queen nostalgia fests - majority of people attending obviously werent too fussed about hearing any new output, coz it ain't Queen and they probably aren't to arsed about hearing new songs sung by Paul Rodgers. Reactions in the online "Queen community" haven't exactly been great, to say the least.
Also, it isn't EMI's fault the "band" failed to deliver any suitable material for a lead-off single, or indeed any possible subsequent singles. And it isn't EMI who refused to do much promotion - apparently a live show to be broadcast on Radio 2 was on the cards, until a band member vetoed it coz they couldn't be bothered to do any work to shift units. Bit too easy to blame the record company.[/QUOTE]
Do you know who vetoed that Radio 2 broadcast idea?
Regarding the "what if they had loads of promotion", well, they would have sold more albums in the short term like you say. Some people here and there would have liked it, etc.
I don't blame the record company actually. I think that THE BAND WAS LAZY. Too bad, I actually like the album very much and I kinda saw it as "A new beginning".
I HOPE that they don't care about bad sales, that they are not bummed by this outcome and they choose to make another album together.
Sadly, I think that the band though it would be a moderate hit with little work and this would justify more tours or new material. No hit? Let's move on. :( Too damn sad for me.
vadenuez · Member since
Lack of promotion is quite a blurry statement regarding poor sales. QPR had a much more than decent response from the public in this last tour which indicates that they're still an important live act. But the fact that the people's high spirits weren't strong enough to go and buy a copy of TCR the day after the concert speaks worlds of how much was Joe Public really interested in listening anything new from them.
georgs1963 · Member since
I agree on the fact that if it would have been a real Queen album including Freddie and John there would have been no promotion needed, at least in Europe. Here in the States the market always been different for them. I also have notice especially here in the US that over the last few years Freddie has been more embraced , more of a cultural icon and he is constally mentioned in Movies and TV shows. I didnt buy the album because i been A Queen fan for a verly long time and it's been always the 4 of them for me. I remember a statement Freddie made in the mid 80s that if one of them either quit or dies he wouldnt go on as Queen. That's not a knock on Brian or Roger but just how i feel. Queen set themself apart from any other band even the other great ones for several reasons , one of the main one was Freddie, his voice and his musical skill.
Sheer Brass Neck · Member since
I'm stupid and need a problem solved. Please help me. Given the fact that in the last five years, and in some cases before that: [listu] [li]Brian and Roger would go to the opening of a closet for promotion purposes [li]a multinational beverage company based a campaign on a Queen song with the biggest artists of the day [li]you can't walk five feet without an ad for the musical WWRY, including tawdry rags in Britain [li]television commercials were done in Britain for GH 3 [li]Queen's songs have been used in advertising for every type of product including erectile dysfunction drugs [li]Queen is arguably the 2nd biggest band in history is GB, Europe and South America [li]there is an unending demand for Queen back product [li]Queen has probably made more money for EMI and their EUR record company than any band ever [li]they have the first record since the death of their iconic singer so curiosity should be massive [li]they appeared on one of Britain's most popular shows to promote C-Lebrity before TCR was completed[/listu] Who in the name of God is going to say "let's not advertise this album?" I'll provide a list of suspects, you tell me why I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Jim Beach? No. More money for QP with a big sale.[/QUOTE] Brian May? No. Perfectionist, spokesman for Queen, proud of the new venture, eager to show Queen was not just Freddie, would not commit time to a project to bury it intentionally (see stereo photo company, BANG).[/QUOTE] Roger Taylor? No. Wants to keep Queen name alive, proud of the new venture, eager to show Queen was not just Freddie.[/QUOTE] Paul Rodgers? No. Proud of the new venture, seemed to enjoy the tour, potential for a big payoff.[/QUOTE] So assuming the band wanted to advertise (as the thread is lack of advertising), who does that leave?[/QUOTE] EMI? Given all of the factors listed from a-j above, EMI has a band and brand that most people who know music know. Maybe not like The Beatles, but like Elton John, and the Stones. Iconic. [/QUOTE] Fans of Queen? Uh, no.[/QUOTE] So who made the decision that TCR should be advertised lightly, if at all? My guess?[/QUOTE] EMI. Why? Nothing there song-wise. Queen was a spectacular singles band even when their album quality went downhill. Their first single was always something different that set the tone for the album. I'm sure that the EMI execs shit their beds when they heard C-Lebrity and figured if that's the first single, we've got a dog on our hands, let's cut our losses and promote the shit out of the back catalogue. I may be wrong, and would like to hear other reasons, I think the songs couldn't meet the hype, so EMI backed their ad dollars off it.
As for my point on Susan Boyle and Paul Potts, lots of things go viral in the world today. If C-Lebrity on Al Murray's show was as amazing as Paul Potts singing the Pavorotti song on Britain's Got Talent, C-Lebrity would have hit huge all over the world. I have lots of long term Queen fans who saw it the next day and found it cliched and boring. People want to be wowed. Whether Paul Potts and Susan Boyle disappear in one year is irrelevant. They touched people with their song. Queen, with 35 years and big business behind them could have done the same thing. They didn't, and if not's because of the music I'd like to know why.
[/QUOTE]
beautifulsoup · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote: [/b]
David, here's my two cents.
No.
In the days of the internet, all it's takes is for something to catch the imagination of a few people (see Susan Boyle, Paul Potts, the ukelele chick)
