Re: The No Longer Limited Edition/Collectors/Elitism


Matt McGee ([email protected])
Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:58:18 -0800


Des wrote:
>It comes down to the integrity
>of statements made by the record company that U2 has a contract with
>that collectors rely on.

Hi gang --

I stand by what I said yesterday - companies make plans and announce them
in a press release, and then those plans change. It happens all the time.
Should they have stuck by the original announcement? Sure. But a press
release is not a binding contract.

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Polygram, because I'm not. I
think they were stupid for even calling it a "limited edition" in the
first place. When I read the first press release, a red flag went up --
yeah, right. I thought right away that was the most liberal use of that
phrase I'd ever seen. Things are limited editions when a few hundred
copies, or maybe a couple thousand, are released. But it should've been
obvious to everyone from day one that this "Best Of" album was going to
be available in every store in North America, Europe, and most other
developed parts of the world ... so how "limited" is that?

And even if it didn't become obvious to everyone right away, surely when
Nico posted that one store in Denver had ordered 900 copies on its own,
that just blows the "limited edition" theory out of the water. In fact, I
agree with Prarit's suggestion earlier - when they said "limited
edition," they meant it was limited to retailers as a one-time purchase.
They didn't mean it would be limited in quantity.

I guess I'm not disappointed or angry with Polygram because I never
considered this "limited" in the first place. But I do understand if fans
who felt otherwise are upset.

Matt

_______________________
Matt McGee / [email protected]
@U2 Home Page
http://www.atu2.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Nov 06 1998 - 10:57:38 PST