I just posted this thread because I hate it when artists sell out - they are no longer artists in my opinion but corporate commodities. Their credibility as an artist is gone forever, and they will not be remembered for the music they made but the artistic license they had forsaken to sell out to the corporate club. In Mike Reebok's case, his music will no longer be seen as an expression, but merely a vehicle to flog expensive, crappy trainers.
Mike Skinner sells his soul to Reebok
- Thread starter R.I.C.O.
- Start date
thestraightman
Hand to mouth to Jaksie
here we go 
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
editor said:
I don't think it's the same thing at all
part of your brand is to loudly proclaim that U75 is free of adverts and sponsorship
I've never heard of Mike Skinner making any such claims, he a musician and these days a major source of revenue for musicians is corporate sponsorship, respect to any who don't do it but I don't have a problem with any who do
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
thestraightman said:
His reward will be in heaven, my child.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Matthew 5;8
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
editor said:
The big difference is that Skinner from day one has been making a product - his music.
U75 isn't a product nor did it start life as a product; it instead has a huge potential to become either a product itself or a place to advertise other products.
Skinner has never pretended to have ethical concerns, so is it fair to castigate him for taking the reebok dollar? There isn't that much money to be made in music these days, even to someone of his profile.
miss giggles
an unknown quantity...
I'm amazed how many of you don't have a problem with him or other artists doing this. I think it's really sad. Since when did artists start making music for money and lucrative advertiseing deals? I thought they did it because they had something they simply had to express. If this is now an acceptable thing for them to do, even something they aim for, maybe that's why, when our government killed 25.000 innocent people in an illegal war, there wasn't one protest song in the charts. A fucking disgrace. 
Sigmund Fraud
893 all the way.
miss giggles said:
er since about 1840?
zenie
>^^<
Sigmund Fraud said:
Word!!!
I can't really say how you we compare Mike Skinner to Urban75 and Ed.
Ed has ethics Mike Skiiner as much as he is 'street' doesn't.
Any corporate branding on here would be seen as an endorsement by yourself Ed and who would you actually feel happy about endorsing?
For what it's worth I like Mike Skinner and I think well why not make a bit of money out of the corporate world if you wear the brand already then you're just getting paid to wear it?
He aint gonna be remembered for a Reebok ad is he?
editor
hiraethified
Well, that's the difference between you and me.Louloubelle said:
I get utterly depressed when I hear kids opining that big gigs/events/festivals can't happen without the involvement of some corporate or another, and I loathe the business of megabuck multinationals trying to associate 'cool' to their brand by co-opting unrelated entities.
But then that's my punk background coming to the fore.
But you haven't answered my question: would you have a problem if I got this site sponsored and festooned the pages with banner ads, branding and corporate tie-ins?
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Sigmund Fraud said:
zenie
>^^<
miss giggles said:I'm amazed how many of you don't have a problem with him or other artists doing this. I think it's really sad. Since when did artists start making music for money and lucrative advertiseing deals? I thought they did it because they had something they simply had to express. If this is now an acceptable thing for them to do, even something they aim for, maybe that's why, when our government killed 25.000 innocent people in an illegal war, there wasn't one protest song in the charts. A fucking disgrace.
Err Pepsi and Michael Jackson springs to mind?
Someone already mentioned the beatles (not that old so wouldn't know
)You don't need to ask us about that war you need to ask the artists themselves.
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
editor said:
my only problem would be that you have proclaimed for so long that you would never do that and that it was against your cherished principles
also it would depend on the products, for example, I would positively support U75 linking to the mooncup website, that way you get a % each time one is sold via the link, but a link to Nestle would be completely different
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Thank fuck U75 is an adertising free space... not much of those around these days... yanks get bombarded by 3,000 adverts everyday... I don't know how many we Brits have to take in...
editor said:
Good for you!
A friend of mine put on a drum and bass night in Guildford a few years back - some horrible alcopops company (VK?) wanted to "support it" (meaning = we want to sponge off your success to sell our fizzy shite) he did more or less the same thing....
miss giggles
an unknown quantity...
zenie said:Err Pepsi and Michael Jackson springs to mind?
Someone already mentioned the beatles (not that old so wouldn't know
You don't need to ask us about that war you need to ask the artists themselves.
The answer is obvious. Their concernd with corporate sponsorship. Tying into a brand in effect they censor themselves. What they say and do has to fit the "brand image". When a person stands on stage and presents their material they are making an offer to the world. Anyone who stands on stage and offers a reebok trainer is pittiful. Frankly, I'm fucking insulted that's all they have to say to me.
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
editor said:
Budweiser (the US one) are evil
What if an environmentally friendly, organic, fair trade business co-operative staffed and run entirely by people with disabilities (just for the sake of argument) asked you if they could sponsor offline? You get 5 crates of free beer for consumption on the night but you have to accept their logos and stuff on all your promotional stuff for offline .
Do you still refuse?
genuine question
miss giggles said:
Exactly how I feel.
If there was controversy in the news that a major disaster had happened at a Reebok factory in India / Pakistan etc, and it concerned shoddy conditions and forced slave labour killing hundreds of workers, would Mike Skinner now be able to speak out about it? I seriously doubt it. He has been effectively censored.
AverageJoe
...
Mr Retro said:
Sorry Mr Retro, you're wrong.
The thing with marketing is that the value of a site, or in Mike Skinners case, a commodity depends totally on the audience that view it. People will pay *through the nose* to get their message to the right audience. If you look at the demographics of U75, and the assumptions of the lifestyles of the posters (by looking at their posts), then there is ample opporunity to run banners on the site. And they would be *very* profitable.
As an example, each section on this site could have adverts targetted to the specific audience, so adverts for flour in the cookery thread, hmv in the music thread, and sky in the film and tv thread.
Everytime someone clicks on the link the Editor would get paid a predetermined sum, agreed between him and the sponsor.
I think its refreshing that the Ed has no advertising on the site, but I could certainly see the monetary value in it if a decision was made to run adverts. With the revenue comes larger servers, marketing of U75, more subscribers, more adverts and so on until a larger company comes along and buys it. Then the Ed can retire into the sun. or the Albert.
So hats off for sticking to your principals Eds, but if you ever changed your mind, I certainly wouldn't begrudge you some financial success for the work you put in and the entertainment the site provides me.
