Do you consider GNR an Underdog?

[younggunner]

When GNR release the material and hit the road do you consider/look at  them as an underdog or a favorite to succede? Why or why not?

[dave-gnfnr2k]

I  think no matter how great the album is going to be, its still going to get a lot of negative reviews because, it has taken so long, and he is still using the name guns n roses. Instead of basing the review on the songs, a lot of them will talk about this not being gnr, it take 4 or so  years and how its not like past gnr albums.

[awhellzno05]

GN'R are without a doubt the underdogs.  Everybody loves to hate Axl.  Its almost like being on Slash's sides the cool thing to do.

[Continental Drift]

Overwhelming underdogs. Like Northeast Louisiana Regional Tech against Oklahoma in a college football game.

Conversely, I am suddenly now convinced, a GN'R tour with some incarnation of the "original" line-up (be it with Izzy and Steven or Gilby and Matt) would be a MONSTER success. I didn't use to think that at all... but the original Guns still has its street credibility as the sales of Greatest Hits, VR and the popularity of the Behind the Music clearly shows. I think there are literally millions of people out there that would pay good money to see that type of Guns N' Roses show. Lots of kids out there who would die to have been around for GN'R's prime. Far fewer people interested in Axl's circus- unless he can cough up a hit album one of these days.

[Booker Floyd]

No.

[badapple81]

Well critics who wrote up shitty reviews of AFD would look silly now considering how rated the album has become.

But at the time, it didn't stop the critics from giving shit reviews, and no matter how good Chinese Democracy is, the critics will be looking to give a negative article/review. Look at how fast people loved to talk about Axl this and Axl that at the VMAs.

I would say they are underdogs definately, not much has seemingly gone right for Axl over the last few years (in terms of releasing material, the 02 tour etc.) and I think people will be waiting for tour cancellations, problems etc.

[norway]

Well critics who wrote up shitty reviews of AFD would look silly now considering how rated the album has become.

They did, axl is an icon now

[Naupis]

Hard to be an underdog when you are releasing an album under the name "Guns N' Roses" given the brand equity it has and built in fan base, regardless of who is playing under the banner of the name. If he were releasing the same material under a different name.....absolutely and underdog in becoming a musical force again. Under the GNR name, not a chance given the built in advantages and brand awareness that goes with it.

[Dave_Rose]

GN'R will always get stick the songs we've heard from the new gn'r are amazing its just critics think why axl is using the gn'r name basically because axl is gn'r but who cares what the critics think right I mean if it comes out and sells millions copies bring new fans who gives a fuck what the critics think right

[younggunner]

Under the GNR name, not a chance given the built in advantages and brand awareness that goes with it.

So your saying the GNR name will carry this band throughout the whole time?
The media is going to automatically embrace this band because its gnr? Thats what your basically saying.

No.

why

[Naupis]

So your saying the GNR name will carry this band throughout the whole time?

Not through the whole time, but in the very beginning where other bands without "Name Recognition" have to spend a couple of years building product recognition, GNR gets to skip out on the first 4 or 5 stages of the product introductory cycle in terms of marketing and product consumption. If you released the exact same music under the "Guns N Roses" brand name, and then under a brand no one has ever heard of, the GNR brand stands an infiinitely better chance of breaking into the market place given the brand awareness that exists with that name. Where as under a name no ones ever heard of you won't get the radio play, record sales, or tour attendance because most of your time is being spent on product awareness and brand development, rather than just pushing product. Anyone with half an ounce of business accumen will tell you that is the most likely reason (beyond just really thinking he is GNR, but that's a whole nother conversation) he wants so badly to use that name, because he has a new band to promote, and under the GNR banner he skips the entire stage a new band like VR has spent the last 18 months doing, and that is building brand awareness in the marketplace.

I know I am making it sound all technical and whatnot, but from a business standpoint these are the exact terms and things the marketing people are talking about. Because its GNR it will be given the initial benefit of the doubt, and that goes along way. If they have a strong product it will have staying power, if not, then regardless of what the name is it won't matter. It's like graduating from Harvard or the local community college, you can eventually get to the same place career wise, but it is much easier getting started and getting your foot in the door having the Harvard degree than the community college degree. Does that mean you can't get the same job eventually with the CC degree, absolutely not. I am just saying that in terms of gettting your foot in the market, it helps exponentially having the Harvard degree. In this case the Harvard degree is operating under the GNR name brand, and the CC degree would be using a new band name. Doesn't mean you can't make noise without a name brand, but it is inherently much easier with a recognized brand in the market place. Like College degrees though, if after you get your foot in the door you don't perform, it ultimately doesn't matter where you came from. The same applies with the name thing, if the music isn't accepted it won't matter what the name is.

The question you asked though was if they are an underdog or not, and there is just no way from a business standpoint they can be considered an underdog. Credibility wise maybe(This will be the biggest hurddle to overcome), but business wise absolutely not. I think I have laid out a pretty good case for that.   

[Falcon]

Oh God no.

Underdogs don't debut at #1, which CD (if ever released) inevitably will and sell a couple million records solely off curiosity.

[takeshi]

Oh God no.

Underdogs don't debut at #1, which CD (if ever released) inevitably will and sell a couple million records solely off curiosity.

Mick Jagger released a solo album which was a total flop.  Being a big name or having curiosity value isn't always something you can rely on.

Considering the amount of negative press the new album is going to get, it's a pretty safe assumption to say that GN'R will be underdogs.  This is in no small part due to the fact that Axl has seemingly gone out of his way to alienate and just generally piss off the media.  It's ok to do that when you're at the top, selling millions of albums and having a huge world tour but if years pass without a new album and you need good press to get back on top it's going to come back to bite you on your ass.

I think that CD will be a slow burner like AFD was.  It will take a while for word of how good the album is to get out through the fog of the negative meda attention but i'm in no doubt that it will happen.

[NickNasty]

I think this band is absolutley an underdog,especially on the crediblity argument. Essentially, after the 2002 December Philly trainwreck, the few bits of media who had supported Axl even jumped off the horse. His distance and general negative treatment of the press, combined with plenty of ex-members willing to talk shit about him in addition to fucking with the biggest music/radio/touring conglomerate in this nation will make strong, long-term sales of CD and a North American tour an undoubtedly hard sell. I agree the album will probably debut at #1 based on curiosity alone, but the odds of that carrying over long-term with a hostile media and skeptical ticket-buying public are iffy. Axl has to release a dynamic record and complete an entire tour on-time each night...I think he knows this, and that's why it's been 2 years since we've really heard anything---the pressure drives him nuts (well MORE nuts).

[damnthehaters]

Any publicity is good publicity. ?If or when Chinese Democracy comes out, just about the whole world is going to know about it. ?There are a lot of curious people out there. ?Is it going to be good? ?Nobody knows, but a lot of people are going to listen to it and give it a chance.

[Booker Floyd]

Mick Jagger released a solo album which was a total flop.? Being a big name or having curiosity value isn't always something you can rely on.

That wasnt Falcons point. ?The fact is, Chinese Democracy will debut at #1 (or near there). ?Its highly anticipated, and is sure to sell reasonably well at first. ?

And "Mick Jagger" isnt "The Rolling Stones."

Considering the amount of negative press the new album is going to get, it's a pretty safe assumption to say that GN'R will be underdogs.? This is in no small part due to the fact that Axl has seemingly gone out of his way to alienate and just generally piss off the media.? It's ok to do that when you're at the top, selling millions of albums and having a huge world tour but if years pass without a new album and you need good press to get back on top it's going to come back to bite you on your ass.

Yeah, theyll face intense scrutiny, but does that make them underdogs? ?Maybe the thread-starter should have been more clear in what makes an "underdog." ?Theres no doubt theyll take a beating from journalists, but at the end of the day, theyre still selling records as Guns N' Roses, and the odds are in their favor to do fairly well. ?Obviously, they wont do old GNR numbers, and Im not sure what can technically be considered "success" due to the record costs, but speaking in general, theyll have initial success.

Theyll still have a huge initial fanbase, no matter what they put out, solely because of the name Guns N' Roses. ?Then theres people who will check it out solely out of curiosity. ?I think Naupis summed things up quite nicely.

I think that CD will be a slow burner like AFD was.

Come on....do you really think this album isnt going to debut high? ?AFD was a debut album by an unknown band; this is the first Guns N' Roses?album in 14 years, and one of rocls most anticipated albums ever. ? Basically, its the opposite of AFD.

It will take a while for word of how good the album is to get out through the fog of the negative meda attention but i'm in no doubt that it will happen.

1) Were a little past the "word of mouth" stage.

2) Thats assuming the album will be great. ?

If Axl took on this endeavor with a new band name, or simply by himself, Id say he was in more of an underdog position. ?But no, I dont see GNR as an underdog band. ?Theres a chance theyll flop as well, and thatll be because theyre not underdogs and the expectations are high. ?

And most of the Axl/New GNR die-hards dont really see GNR as underdogs either. ?Despite wanting them to be underdogs, youve been guaranteeing their success for years. ?"CD will sell as much as AFD," "GNR will rock the world," "GNR wll be huge again," etc. ?Now its "I think its going to take word of mouth" and "GNR are underdogs"

[Naupis]

Mick Jagger released a solo album which was a total flop. ?Being a big name or having curiosity value isn't always something you can rely on.

Notice what you wrote....."Mick Jagger released a solo album"......not under the Rolling Stones brand name, but under his own. The argument I and a few others are making, is that being able to release an album under the GNR brand name makes it impossible to be a true under dog. They have rebuilt the band, but they haven't had to rebuild the brand name, and that is the most important part of making this a success from a business standpoint. No amount of delays or bad publicity can diminish the brand equity built up in the GNR name over the past 17 years. That alone will get their foot in the door with radio stations and the public......where as if they were a ?no name band with the same album to push they would have not have access to all of the avenues and publicity GNR does because of the connotations associated with the brand name(being outstanding music for 17 years).

From a credibility standpoint they are underdogs, as they are never going to get the critical acclaim they might otherwise deserve if the album warrants it because of all that has gone on, but there is no way from a business or marketing standpoint they can be considered an underdog.

This is a perfect example of why people buy the right to franchises(which is essentially what this is with Axl running an almost entirely different entity under an established brand name). You open a business you want to get out there under an established name because it provides you instant visibility and gives you a better chance at success. It's the reason people who want to get in the coffee business would rather open their company under the Starbuck's brand name than just opening a coffee shop under a name no one has ever heard of. The unknown shop's coffee may be just as good or better, but there is a built in advantage to operating under an established brand name like Starbucks that you just wouldn't get with a no name coffee shop.

It might make some of you feel better to feel bad for Axl and consider him an underdog and go into this with the Axl against the world mentality, but the economic reality of it is he is the furthest thing from an underdog there is. Underdogs don't get 13 million dollar advances, unlimited time to record albums, and a name with the built up brand equity the Guns name has under which to release an album.

[norway]

I know I am making it sound all technical and whatnot, but from a business standpoint these are the exact terms and things the marketing people are talking about.

Yeah, it's a product with a well-known name, or brand and that will help alot
but that just for a commercial succes, imo

i hope the succes is gonna rely on the music, thats what it's all about in the end

[younggunner]

Theres no doubt theyll take a beating from journalists, but at the end of the day, theyre still selling records as Guns N' Roses, and the odds are in their favor to do fairly well.

So if the album is getting bad reviews but its selling like crazy will it be a success or failure?

Theyll still have a huge initial fanbase, no matter what they put out, solely because of the name Guns N' Roses.  Then theres people who will check it out solely out of curiosity.

Ok so when will this band reach success on thier own merit..on their own material? When does that come into play?

And most of the Axl/New GNR die-hards dont really see GNR as underdogs either.  Despite wanting them to be underdogs, youve been guaranteeing their success for years.  "CD will sell as much as AFD," "GNR will rock the world," "GNR wll be huge again," etc.  Now its "I think its going to take word of mouth" and "GNR are underdogs

Yep and the peopel who oppose those opinions say "The GNR name is ruined", "Axls a washed up wanna be", "WHo wants to watch a bunch of freaks",etc.....
The difference is in order for gnr to prosper they will need good music. not the name. we all know the name will carry it initially. Its not rocket science.

They have rebuilt the band, but they haven't had to rebuild the brand name, and that is the most important part of making this a success from a business standpoint.

After the initial phase, people will see that this isnt the same band and it isnt the same sound. So its a new band to them. Like you say they are a bunch of freaks with a prodigy wanna be type sound so why will any1 be buying gnr records after the band releases the 2nd or 3rd single.

From a credibility standpoint they are underdogs, as they are never going to get the critical acclaim they might otherwise deserve if the album warrants it because of all that has gone on, but there is no way from a business or marketing standpoint they can be considered an underdog.

THANK YOU!

Maybe I should have made it clear in my original post about the underdog thing. Im talking about the crittical acclaim/ actual music. NOt the numbers game.

It might make some of you feel better to feel bad for Axl and consider him an underdog and go into this with the Axl against the world mentality, but the economic reality of it is he is the furthest thing from an underdog there is. Underdogs don't get 13 million dollar advances, unlimited time to record albums, and a name with the built up brand equity the Guns name has under which to release an album.

NO shit. but why are we talking economics? this is music. im talking about the music side of gnr.

[Naupis]

NO shit. but why are we talking economics? this is music. im talking about the music side of gnr.

I have laid out for you musically what this band has to produce to even begin an argument about which is better, and if I am not mistaken you replied with something about it not being a fair fight. So in your opinion, what is it that will make this project surpass the old band musically.

In my opinion anything that falls short of at least 2 generally accepted top 10 all time riffs/solos(as NR and SCOM are), sold out stadiums, and the most played stadium anthem ever(Jungle) has to be considered a disappointment. To even begin that argument they have to produce at least that much, as it has been shown possible by GNR in the past. When you stack the deck like that it just goes to show how impossible a task it really is.