Great article

[u***@domain.invalid]

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003999243.story?page=1

Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations for
the Target commercial and the support they are giving to outsourcing,
slave labor and republicans by offering them an exclusive... but if you
buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to charity), you can feel better
about yourself...

Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed to
$2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid $2.2
million to do a Target commercial. Would PJ of 10 years ago have taken
$2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a right-wing
corporation?

On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

[CT]

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003...
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations for
  the Target commercial and the support they are giving to outsourcing,
slave labor and republicans by offering them an exclusive...  but if you
buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to charity), you can feel better
about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed to
$2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid $2.2
million to do a Target commercial.  Would PJ of 10 years ago have taken
$2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a right-wing
corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

The Target debacle never did bother me. They don't have a major label
distributing their music and they want to reach the most amount of
people with their music. Well, selling only on ten club's website and
itunes isn't going to cut it. And selling at independent music stores
isn't going to cut it either. You're going to have to hit the big
stores. So instead of inking a deal with sony or whoever to
distribute it all over the place, they make one deal with
Target...which allows them to also sell the disc at mom and pop
stores. I see no problem with this.

--CT

[Jett K]

Post by u***@domain.invalid
http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003999243.story?page=1
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations for
the Target commercial and the support they are giving to outsourcing,
slave labor and republicans by offering them an exclusive... but if you
buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to charity), you can feel better
about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed to
$2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid $2.2
million to do a Target commercial. Would PJ of 10 years ago have taken
$2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a right-wing
corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I few years ago, I might have
cared a lot. The main thing that got me in the article was Eddie
saying that the fans were just going to have to trust them. Oh,
really? Because he's so darned cute? It's a pretty good reason. But
one more relevant before perimenopause than after.

What I do trust them to have done was to become used to a certain
standard of living and then having become accustomed to it. I have
done the same, obviously to a much more modest degree. They want to
maintain their standard of living just like I do. Because of my
desire to maintain my standard of living, I am having to make choices
like not going to their shows and am often shopping at Walmart.
Because they would like to maintain their standards of living, they
are partnering with Target. So, in an effort to maintain our
standards of living, both Pearl Jam and I have partnered with The
Devil, and the right wing of The Devil, at that. There is no question
about it. I therefore find it very hard to call the china cheap
(although it was only $49.95!) when I have no moral high ground upon
which to stand. I would also like to say that I, too, give to charity
directly from my dealings with Walmart. I buy from the Devil with my
red right hand, but give to little Angels with the left. So, chango
presto!...I am absolved of all my sins. Just like Pearl Jam.

Still, if you are a person who actually has moral high ground, that
rare commodity, I empathize with your outrage. I once thought I owned
some land on Moral Hight Ground, especially in regard to Deals with
the Devil, but realize in retrospect that wishes are not fishes. It
was a rude awakening, but I'm all the more bruised for it. Yeah. The
story doesn't have a particularly happy ending. ;)

I look forward to probably buying my album at Target in the sincere
hope that I will like it as much as Avocado. That was a worthy album.

--Jett

[Brian (aka Zod)]

Post by u***@domain.invalid
http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003999243.story?page=1
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations for
the Target commercial and the support they are giving to outsourcing,
slave labor and republicans by offering them an exclusive... but if you
buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to charity), you can feel better
about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed to
$2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid $2.2
million to do a Target commercial. Would PJ of 10 years ago have taken
$2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a right-wing
corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

I don't have a problem with the Target deal. They need to find a way to
distribute the album. They can sell it on the website only, but that
makes it difficult for alot of people to buy the album. They can sign a
record contract and have a record company distribute it. Why bother
when the record company doesn't share the wealth.

I think using a major retailer for distribution, while not having to use
a record label or support the RIAA is brilliant. They obviously avoided
using walmart, because walmart makes you censor everything.

I can't really thing of a better way to do it and achieve the same
goals. Trying to distribute independantly would be a nightmare. Only
offering the CD on the webpage would kill sales and increase costs to
the consumer (as shipping can be expensive).

I'm cool with it, I think its inventive. And now they'll own their own
music!

[Evolution]

Post by Brian (aka Zod)

Post by u***@domain.invalid
http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003999243.story?page=1
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations
for the Target commercial and the support they are giving to
outsourcing, slave labor and republicans by offering them an
exclusive... but if you buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to
charity), you can feel better about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed
to $2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid
$2.2 million to do a Target commercial. Would PJ of 10 years ago have
taken $2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a
right-wing corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

I don't have a problem with the Target deal. They need to find a way to
distribute the album. They can sell it on the website only, but that
makes it difficult for alot of people to buy the album. They can sign a
record contract and have a record company distribute it. Why bother
when the record company doesn't share the wealth.
I think using a major retailer for distribution, while not having to use
a record label or support the RIAA is brilliant. They obviously avoided
using walmart, because walmart makes you censor everything.
I can't really thing of a better way to do it and achieve the same
goals. Trying to distribute independantly would be a nightmare. Only
offering the CD on the webpage would kill sales and increase costs to
the consumer (as shipping can be expensive).
I'm cool with it, I think its inventive. And now they'll own their own
music!

There are other ways to distribute an album other than on their website
or by making a commercial for Target. If they choose an established
record company for distribution only (like they did with the last
album), it's not the same as an old-style record deal and has nothing to
do with the RIAA. And they wouldn't have to whore themselves in a
Target commercial... with an audience made up of actors...

They are also using Verizon to distribute their music electronically..
would you feel the same if they made a TV commercial for Verizon as part
of that deal?

[Chris (CT)]

Post by Evolution

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003...
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations
for  the Target commercial and the support they are giving to
outsourcing, slave labor and republicans by offering them an
exclusive...  but if you buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to
charity), you can feel better about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed
to $2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid
$2.2 million to do a Target commercial.  Would PJ of 10 years ago have
taken $2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a
right-wing corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

I don't have a problem with the Target deal.  They need to find a way to
distribute the album.  They can sell it on the website only, but that
makes it difficult for alot of people to buy the album.  They can sign a
record contract and have a record company distribute it.  Why bother
when the record company doesn't share the wealth.
I think using a major retailer for distribution, while not having to use
a record label or support the RIAA is brilliant.  They obviously avoided
using walmart, because walmart makes you censor everything.
I can't really thing of a better way to do it and achieve the same
goals.  Trying to distribute independantly would be a nightmare.   Only
offering the CD on the webpage would kill sales and increase costs to
the consumer (as shipping can be expensive).
I'm cool with it, I think its inventive.  And now they'll own their own
music!

There are other ways to distribute an album other than on their website
or by making a commercial for Target.  If they choose an established
record company for distribution only (like they did with the last
album), it's not the same as an old-style record deal and has nothing to
do with the RIAA.  And they wouldn't have to whore themselves in a
Target commercial... with an audience made up of actors...
They are also using Verizon to distribute their music electronically..
would you feel the same if they made a TV commercial for Verizon as part
of that deal?
--
Laurie
http://lauriehester.blogspot.com/

At the end of the day, the members of Pearl Jam have to pay bills like
the rest of us. If Target allows them to do this, great. I usually
buy my CDs at larger stores, just because they are more accessible.

If PJ end up funneling their profits from Target to child-abusers in
some third-world country, then you might have a point. I think PJ has
done more good than evil in their 18 years as a band.

And seeing them on tv during a commercial can only help them get more
exposure. What is the percentage of people that actually care how
bands conduct advertising their band? < 5% i'm assuming.

[Evolution]

Post by Chris (CT)

Post by Evolution

Post by Brian (aka Zod)

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003...
Watch out though... your head may spin from all the rationalizations
for the Target commercial and the support they are giving to
outsourcing, slave labor and republicans by offering them an
exclusive... but if you buy the t-shirt at Target (proceeds to
charity), you can feel better about yourself...
Bottom line, if they are, as Stone says, getting $5/album as opposed
to $2, and they sell 750,000 albums, they are basically getting paid
$2.2 million to do a Target commercial. Would PJ of 10 years ago have
taken $2.2 million to do a commercial for *anyone*, much less a
right-wing corporation?
On the balance, you won't find a band who gives more back, but I just
can't get over this... I may have to give up TV when the commercial
starts airing... and if I see a sign at the shows with "Pearl Jam" and
"Target", I may puke...

I don't have a problem with the Target deal. They need to find a way to
distribute the album. They can sell it on the website only, but that
makes it difficult for alot of people to buy the album. They can sign a
record contract and have a record company distribute it. Why bother
when the record company doesn't share the wealth.
I think using a major retailer for distribution, while not having to use
a record label or support the RIAA is brilliant. They obviously avoided
using walmart, because walmart makes you censor everything.
I can't really thing of a better way to do it and achieve the same
goals. Trying to distribute independantly would be a nightmare. Only
offering the CD on the webpage would kill sales and increase costs to
the consumer (as shipping can be expensive).
I'm cool with it, I think its inventive. And now they'll own their own
music!

There are other ways to distribute an album other than on their website
or by making a commercial for Target. If they choose an established
record company for distribution only (like they did with the last
album), it's not the same as an old-style record deal and has nothing to
do with the RIAA. And they wouldn't have to whore themselves in a
Target commercial... with an audience made up of actors...
They are also using Verizon to distribute their music electronically..
would you feel the same if they made a TV commercial for Verizon as part
of that deal?
--
Laurie
http://lauriehester.blogspot.com/

At the end of the day, the members of Pearl Jam have to pay bills like
the rest of us. If Target allows them to do this, great. I usually
buy my CDs at larger stores, just because they are more accessible.
If PJ end up funneling their profits from Target to child-abusers in
some third-world country, then you might have a point. I think PJ has
done more good than evil in their 18 years as a band.

I agree, and that's what makes this palatable.

Post by Chris (CT)
And seeing them on tv during a commercial can only help them get more
exposure. What is the percentage of people that actually care how
bands conduct advertising their band? < 5% i'm assuming.

Well, you're probably right, but I remember not too far back at the
Greek Theater, when Ed was throwing a hissy fit and almost refused to
play because there was an advertising banner on the building. I think
many Pearl Jam fans remember those days and identified with those
sentiments and admired them.

In a time where commercials are encroaching on planes, movie theaters,
and even some DVD rentals, it's just disappointing.

[Chris (CT)]

Post by Evolution
Well, you're probably right, but I remember not too far back at the
Greek Theater, when Ed was throwing a hissy fit and almost refused to
play because there was an advertising banner on the building.  I think
many Pearl Jam fans remember those days and identified with those
sentiments and admired them.
In a time where commercials are encroaching on planes, movie theaters,
and even some DVD rentals, it's just disappointing.

Yes, I'd call it disappointing as well. But not PJs fault. Just
society and marketing patterns in general. I'm just waiting when we
have advertisements at the beginning of songs. :) J/K, but yeah, if
you look back maybe 15 years, Stadiums and arenas were not named after
companies, but people, or other descriptive words. Now there must be
a gazillion verizon wireless amphitheaters (Riverport Amph. here in
st. louis became Verizon wireless amph, 1 or 2 years ago). I always
loved the name Red Rocks for the one in colorado. That scenery over
there is amazing and calling it anything else would be a crime.

Maybe it's Pearl Jam stubbornly moving into the 21st Century. They
were already pioneers in distributing live recordings, but tried to
take a stance on stupid commercialization and decide they couldn't
fight it forever.

--CT

[Evolution]

Post by Chris (CT)

Post by Evolution
Well, you're probably right, but I remember not too far back at the
Greek Theater, when Ed was throwing a hissy fit and almost refused to
play because there was an advertising banner on the building. I think
many Pearl Jam fans remember those days and identified with those
sentiments and admired them.
In a time where commercials are encroaching on planes, movie theaters,
and even some DVD rentals, it's just disappointing.

Yes, I'd call it disappointing as well. But not PJs fault. Just
society and marketing patterns in general. I'm just waiting when we
have advertisements at the beginning of songs. :) J/K, but yeah, if
you look back maybe 15 years, Stadiums and arenas were not named after
companies, but people, or other descriptive words. Now there must be
a gazillion verizon wireless amphitheaters (Riverport Amph. here in
st. louis became Verizon wireless amph, 1 or 2 years ago). I always
loved the name Red Rocks for the one in colorado. That scenery over
there is amazing and calling it anything else would be a crime.
Maybe it's Pearl Jam stubbornly moving into the 21st Century. They
were already pioneers in distributing live recordings, but tried to
take a stance on stupid commercialization and decide they couldn't
fight it forever.
--CT

Fine, then maybe it's time to get over their phobia of video and release
the miles and miles of video they have in storage. If they need money,
release that shit. I know there are fans who could even take the raw
footage and put together a boot dvd of every live show for free... they
could sell them for $10 and make millions...