Yesterday a new U2 album appeared magically in my iTunes folder and if you’re one of the 500m other iTunes users, it magically appeared in yours too.

Depending on your iCloud settings, it may even be fully downloaded and ready to play on your desktop and your iPhone. Thanks Apple. Thank you very much.

This article is a more level-headed and reasonable version of one I wrote yesterday for my own music website. Let’s see how a nights’ sleep alters my opinion.

It’s difficult to separate a personal hatred of U2 from my more objective rationale. Would a free album surreptitiously installed on my hard drive from a band I actually love make me feel more positively about the act?

I’m not sure it would. It still feels like an invasion. Plus the act of doing so has meant that U2’s album without any effort whatsoever has become the biggest music release of all time and could potentially become the most listened to album of all time.

If anybody actually listens to it. How are they even going to measure that? According to iTunes, in the last two days the album has been downloaded 200,000 times in the US alone, but according to Billboard a Universal Music Group spokesman says the number "is completely inaccurate”. 

Billboard goes on to estimate that the album would have sold between 450,000 and 500,000 units with a normal release, but because of the iTunes exclusive, they predict first-week sales of about 150,000 units. 

You can certainly see the rationale of U2 jumping into bed with Apple. Less clear is the actual relationship between the two corporations. Who approached whom? Was it Apple’s idea? Did Apple pay for the recording? It’s murky stuff, and perhaps the art versus commerce argument should be saved for elsewhere. 

The argument here is whether this bizarre mash-up of corporate schilling and guerilla marketing tactics is deeply underhanded or not. 

In this job I feel particularly lucky that we uphold certain 'church and state' values from the more commercial end of the business; I'm encouraged to write independently, with my own opinions and my own sense of humour.

Much of my evening is spent writing borderline-offensive music reviews, much of my day is spent writing best practice advice for digital marketers, clarifying certain complicated jargon-heavy areas and studying how brands use digital.

Therefore obviously a huge part of this job involves tackling issues around native advertising and social media marketing. You know, those tweets from random companies that appear on your timeline even though you don't follow them.

That Guardian article called 'What is native advertising?' which itself is sponsored by a company called Outbrain, a 'content marketing advertising platform', in a move that is not quite ironic but feels like it should be. 

Basically I'm saying this because I write articles on topics like native advertising and Facebook marketing for brands because it's part of my job and they are fascinating subjects. However, if I disagree with anything, either ethically or morally, then I am encouraged to say so and I am not controlled by commercially dictated editorial constraints. 

So with all of this in mind, here is my personal opinion: I think there is something inherently wrong with native advertising, if your current advertising model doesn't work, just think of another way, don't trick your readers. In the long-run they'll only abandon you because they don't trust you.

As for promoted tweets and promoted Facebook posts, I'm not sure I really mind them to be honest. They're easy to ignore, and it's an ultra-tough, competitive world out there with an ever-decreasing audience who are largely protected from too much spam via various algorithms.

Besides I find a friend's update on their bathroom decorating endeavours about as interesting as an advert from B&Q anyway.

However, by placing U2 surreptitiously in my iTunes folder without consent, Apple has committed something far more insidious than both of the above practices.

It's the equivalent of taking the remote control away from me while I was watching something enjoyable on television and then lecturing me with a hypocritical rant about greed before screaming "hello" repeatedly in my face till I am forced to cave my own skull in for relief.

This isn’t ‘savvy marketing’, this isn’t ‘a brilliant new way to market new music in a struggling industry, this isn’t a ‘gift’. It’s an intrusion. An unpleasant Frankenstein’s monster of various annoying marketing practices. It’s up there with autoplay video, Spotify ads and downloading spyware onto your browser.

For iTunes it's a desperate, grasping move that's indicative of how much of a dying platform it really is. For U2, it's just business as usual.

Wow, that nights’ sleep did nothing. 

Christopher Ratcliff

Published 11 September, 2014 by Christopher Ratcliff

Christopher Ratcliff is the editor of Methods Unsound. He was the Deputy Editor of Econsultancy. You can follow him on Twitter or connect via Google+ and LinkedIn

686 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (6)

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Avatar-blank-50x50

Gonzo

Makes a welcome change to the invasive, and pervasive practices of Sky, reality TV, so-called talent shows and those that promote the footballists.

about 3 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Richard Game

Interesting Chris. I think your ire is understandable. Certainly thought there'd certainly be more responses here by now, given the 'relative scale of this intrusion'.

A gift should, and could, be positive, but lack of choice (or comms) leaves the brand user experience here a poor one. Right or wrong, or inevitable, it can be summarised as "spam", with the usual user response.

about 3 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Johnny

Brilliant piece, Pretty much sums up my feeling about the whole situation too!

about 3 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

muiiio

Either you're right, or this feels just like yet another flyer in a shopping bag, thus reducing U2's value to almost nothing.

about 3 years ago

Peter Leatherland

Peter Leatherland, Online Sales Manager at Ethical Superstore

I think they have done it to test the water. What would people think if we added into people’s iTunes? Insert ads, apps etc, just doing this from the off would be very unpopular, I guess they may have thought well no one will object to a free album and that will be the foot in the door to adding content into your own personal iTunes. I’ve never had iTunes and certainly don’t want to now!

about 3 years ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Joe

I'm not surprised that U2 are in bed with apple. Both seem to promote a sort of elite persona with white-coated branding. While U2 'preach' their socio-political views though almost evangelical like music, their business is registered outside their native Ireland to avoid taxes, while claiming that governments should use taxes to help starving Africans.

Apple claim to be a precision engineered masterful piece of work and while they look pretty are of standard workmanship... from china. Sure the sexy product may be 'designed by apple in california' it is manufactured in a suicide-factory by practical slaves in china.

about 3 years ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.