Why did MJ not support Invincible with a tour?

[MAQ]

I dont see where I said anything negative. I said Michael Jackson's name alone technically should be all the promotion that's needed, especially since he has been performing for over 40 years

Well his name alone did make a big hit. The 40 years part itself is irrelevant - in fact it does the opposite of selling records; it automatically gives you the feeling as if they're not that relevant anymore. Most musicians who've had 20 year careers don't make albums that sell much in the later period. For example; Prince, Eminem, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake.

But anyway, name alone doesn't promote albums - at least not enough to maintain a never ending string of hits. Part of the reason why MJ has had such a long run of hits is his ability to promote albums innovatively. There were his awesome music videos and commercials and tours and those statues for HIStory. Those things were fascinating and kept people buying his albums. (Btw how many other depressive/angry albums like HIStory have sold 20 million records? I'm not saying that the content didn't matter - I like HIStory more than Bad or thriller.)

Invincible received NONE of that. Only one good music video, no tour, no commercials, no big promos. That's why it didn't sell as HUGE as his other albums and what the critics expected from an MJ album.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

"Invincible's promotion" was nowhere near Thriller's, what the hell are you talking about? It was a bold move of Walter Yetnikoff (sp?) telling mtv he'd pull out all the CBS artists if they didn't play Michael's Billie Jean. Being the first African American artist played on that channel was a huge promotion tool, so was doing Michael's first Moonwalk on national tv and coming up with one of the most ground braking short films ever made.

Im referring to when Thriller was originally released in December of 1982, upon release, promotion was marginal at best.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

Well his name alone did make a big hit. The 40 years part itself is irrelevant - in fact it does the opposite of selling records; it automatically gives you the feeling as if they're not that relevant anymore. Most musicians who've had 20 year careers don't make albums that sell much in the later period. For example; Prince, Eminem, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake.

But anyway, name alone doesn't promote albums - at least not enough to maintain a never ending string of hits. Part of the reason why MJ has had such a long run of hits is his ability to promote albums innovatively. There were his awesome music videos and commercials and tours and those statues for HIStory. Those things were fascinating and kept people buying his albums. (Btw how many other depressive/angry albums like HIStory have sold 20 million records? I'm not saying that the content didn't matter - I like HIStory more than Bad or thriller.)

Invincible received NONE of that. Only one good music video, no tour, no commercials, no big promos. That's why it didn't sell as HUGE as his other albums and what the critics expected from an MJ album.

As I mentioned beforr, MJ was the one artist whose name alone should promote itself

If u establish a career spanning over 4 decades, that should proves your relevancy

Michael Jordan hasnt played basketball for 12 years, and the second people get the word he is releasing his latest shoe, people flock to the stores the next day and Jordan is 52

The issue is not whether Invincible received promotion, its who the albun was promoted to

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Has anyone else noted that when MJ defends himself aggressively, that controversy receives less exposure.

Yes, I noticed that, also.

 

[barbee0715]

Invincible received NONE of that. Only one good music video, no tour, no commercials, no big promos. That's why it didn't sell as HUGE as his other albums and what the critics expected from an MJ album.

Wasn't the Madison Square Garden 30th anniversary special part of the promotion?

As I mentioned beforr, MJ was the one artist whose name alone should promote itself

If u establish a career spanning over 4 decades, that should proves your relevancy

His name alone SHOULD have promoted itself, but even at the premiere of "Black or White", all I heard were extremely hurtful negative things before the premiere-not "oh, I can't wait to hear this song"-as I said.

In my opinion, with all the things Michael had been through since Dangerous (or even BAD), he felt like he had to "come back" each and every time-hence, the gigantic promotion of HIStory with the statues-"I'm bigger and better than anyone who ever did it" kind of thing. He may have WANTED to spend 30 mil on "Invincible" and Motolla said no.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Setting aside whether or not Invincible received standard promotion, why would an artist of Michael's stature have to rely on elevated promotion when the world knows who he is and what he accomplished in the past. If there is one person who shouldn't need that level of promotion its Michael Jackson

Thriller was released with small scale promotion and hit the stratosphere because the success of the album was not based on promotion but his talent

I see you are backtracking your original claim that Invincible received standard promotion. I've been saying that for the longest time and so have many other aware MJ fans who were not fed the BS that Mottola spread , and the media regurgitated. The bottom line is that Invincible didn't receive 30,000 promotion as Mottola and people like you claimed. Mottola WANTED this album to fail. It's obvious WHY Mottola wanted it to fail. It would force Michael to sell the Beatles catalog. Mottola threw out the ridiculous claim that Sony spent 30,000, 000 on production and another 30,000,000 on promotion. You don't have to be a genius to know that was a LIE. Mottola threw all kinds of lies to the media and they were only too glad to spread them. Personally, I believe that the so- called "music critics" were paid to write negatively about Invincible. 99% of the reviews didn't talk about the music, they talked only about Michael and not the music. What other musical artist do they do that to? The bottom line is that Mottola was behind this entire fiasco and when Michael PUBLICLY called him out, the media acted as if Michael was lying. Michael KNEW what he was doing, and I never doubted him for a minute. Maybe some fans didn't agree with the way that he did it; but, there HAD to be a good reason. I've read from people closely associated to Sony during this time that Mottola tried talking to Mottola to work out why he wasn't promoting Invincible and Mottola refused to talk to him. Thus, you had the aggressive press conference where Michael called Mottola "devilish". Michael wasn't stupid, he knew what Mottola was doing. When Mottola refused to talk to Michael, he went to the HEAD honchos at Sony Japan. Mottola was KICKED out the door. He didn't leave , because wanted to(Mottola's) spin; Mottola left because was FORCED to do so.

Finally, you say that an artist with Michael's stature didn't need "that level of promotion". What "level" are you speaking of? Michael was the biggest star on the planet and he deserved a promotion that was WORTHY of his stature. The pathetic promotion that Invincible received wasn't even worthy of Sony's lowest selling artists and it was certainly not $30,000,000 worth of promotion. Even with virtually no promotion, sabotage, media manipulation,etc., Invincible STILL managed to sell more than all the other albums released that year. That was a testament to Michael's talent, staying power, fans and his relevance. Just think what it would have sold, IF Mottala hadn't sabotaged it and promoted it. Damn, you couldn't even find Invincible in some major stores and Mottola/Sony refused to re-stock it. It wasn't because it wasn't selling, it was. This was all a part of the conceived "plan".

 

[KOPV]

It is somewhat unfair to complain about the financial input on promotion of Invincible when the album was a highly highly highly expensive album to create.. It sucked up a lot of financial backing... Then like I said the relationship between Sony and MJ was only a recipe for disaster.. I can see both sides of the story, but Financially if you just count what was put into that album in general.. A lot of money was put into Invincible.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Wasn't the Madison Square Garden 30th anniversary special part of the promotion?

His name alone SHOULD have promoted itself, but even at the premiere of "Black or White", all I heard were extremely hurtful negative things before the premiere-not "oh, I can't wait to hear this song"-as I said.

In my opinion, with all the things Michael had been through since Dangerous (or even BAD), he felt like he had to "come back" each and every time-hence, the gigantic promotion of HIStory with the statues-"I'm bigger and better than anyone who ever did it" kind of thing. He may have WANTED to spend 30 mil on "Invincible" and Motolla said no.

HIStory wasn't about "I'm bigger and better than anyone who ever did it before". It was about " I'm strong. I'm defiant. You tried to take me down; yet, I'm still standing TALL"(hence, the statue with the clenched fist). I don't believe Michael asked to spend 30 million on Invincible. That's the number that Mottla threw out to the media. However, I do believe that Michael wanted Invincible to be promoted in the manner that all his other albums had been promoted. Let's not forget that Michael was still a HUGE seller. He deserved promotion for Invincible and Mottola sabotaged it and manipulated a guillible public by releasing lies to the media. Sadly, a lot of the public fell for that crap. First, some WANTED to. Second, some people just don't try to dig deeper and find out the truth. They are willing to accept things at face value and not investigate. I am not one of those people.

 

[AtlasAir]

I dont think Michael asked to spend 30 mil on the album, I think thats what ended up being spent when all was said and done!

I know we in the fandom can sometimes be a in a bubble, but it is also possible that the audience was just dwindling over the years. You Rock My World had such a big push, but it's possible that it just didn't connect with people.
ALSO, let's not forget that older artists in general don't get a lot of top 40 airplay to begin with.

I remember following the promo during that era too. They never followed through with an official single for Butterflies, despite it doing pretty well on radio without much promo.

Motolla is not to blame. Sorry. Unpopular opinion. There was no conspiracy to scam MJ. There's no reason why he would want the album to flop.
Yes, Sony COULD have done more, but let's not pretend they didn't do anything grand.
Michael was just expecting too much without a good outlook of happening.

With that said, a world tour would have totally been a huge success. There's no question he could still fill stadiums and arenas.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

It is somewhat unfair to complain about the financial input on promotion of Invincible when the album was a highly highly highly expensive album to create.. It sucked up a lot of financial backing... Then like I said the relationship between Sony and MJ was only a recipe for disaster.. I can see both sides of the story, but Financially if you just count what was put into that album in general.. A lot of money was put into Invincible.

Not to mention that he also paid Rodney Jerkins and his team not to work with anyone else so they could solely focus on his album (and who knows if MJ paid for it out of his own pocket or took that out of the album budget.) Those guys were spending 24 hours in the studio to the point that they had set up beds to sleep there along with the makeshift studio bus that they were working in parked outside as well. Plus, by mid 2000's when the album was almost complete in the mixing stage, Michael scraped the album and started all over again ...

"It was supposed to be a month long mixing process in Los Angeles and I just jumped at the opportunity to be able to work with Michael and Bruce (Swedien.) It turned into a thirteen month project because as we were mixing the record that we thought was going to become Invincible, Michael decided, in the mixing process, that he wanted to start writing all new songs." - Stewart Brawley from Xscape Origins.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

I see you are backtracking your original claim that Invincible received standard promotion. I've been saying that for the longest time and so have many other aware MJ fans who were not fed the BS that Mottola spread , and the media regurgitated. The bottom line is that Invincible didn't receive 30,000 promotion as Mottola and people like you claimed. Mottola WANTED this album to fail. It's obvious WHY Mottola wanted it to fail. It would force Michael to sell the Beatles catalog. Mottola threw out the ridiculous claim that Sony spent 30,000, 000 on production and another 30,000,000 on promotion. You don't have to be a genius to know that was a LIE. Mottola threw all kinds of lies to the media and they were only too glad to spread them. Personally, I believe that the so- called "music critics" were paid to write negatively about Invincible. 99% of the reviews didn't talk about the music, they talked only about Michael and not the music. What other musical artist do they do that to? The bottom line is that Mottola was behind this entire fiasco and when Michael PUBLICLY called him out, the media acted as if Michael was lying. Michael KNEW what he was doing, and I never doubted him for a minute. Maybe some fans didn't agree with the way that he did it; but, there HAD to be a good reason. I've read from people closely associated to Sony during this time that Mottola tried talking to Mottola to work out why he wasn't promoting Invincible and Mottola refused to talk to him. Thus, you had the aggressive press conference where Michael called Mottola "devilish". Michael wasn't stupid, he knew what Mottola was doing. When Mottola refused to talk to Michael, he went to the HEAD honchos at Sony Japan. Mottola was KICKED out the door. He didn't leave , because wanted to(Mottola's) spin; Mottola left because was FORCED to do so.

Finally, you say that an artist with Michael's stature didn't need "that level of promotion". What "level" are you speaking of? Michael was the biggest star on the planet and he deserved a promotion that was WORTHY of his stature. The pathetic promotion that Invincible received wasn't even worthy of Sony's lowest selling artists and it was certainly not $30,000,000 worth of promotion. Even with virtually no promotion, sabotage, media manipulation,etc., Invincible STILL managed to sell more than all the other albums released that year. That was a testament to Michael's talent, staying power, fans and his relevance. Just think what it would have sold, IF Mottala hadn't sabotaged it and promoted it. Damn, you couldn't even find Invincible in some major stores and Mottola/Sony refused to re-stock it. It wasn't because it wasn't selling, it was. This was all a part of the conceived "plan".

Im not backtracking at all

And tomorrow, I will give first hand account of how much promotion the album did receice and when the first time word was put out that Michael was working on the new album

 

[michaelsson]

*sits back and watches this mess at hand unfold* lol

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

*sits back and watches this mess at hand unfold* lol

I wouldn't necessarily call it mess my friend

 

[somewhereinthedark]

I dont think Michael asked to spend 30 mil on the album, I think thats what ended up being spent when all was said and done!

I know we in the fandom can sometimes be a in a bubble, but it is also possible that the audience was just dwindling over the years. You Rock My World had such a big push, but it's possible that it just didn't connect with people.
ALSO, let's not forget that older artists in general don't get a lot of top 40 airplay to begin with.

I remember following the promo during that era too. They never followed through with an official single for Butterflies, despite it doing pretty well on radio without much promo.

Motolla is not to blame. Sorry. Unpopular opinion. There was no conspiracy to scam MJ. There's no reason why he would want the album to flop.
Yes, Sony COULD have done more, but let's not pretend they didn't do anything grand.
Michael was just expecting too much without a good outlook of happening.

With that said, a world tour would have totally been a huge success. There's no question he could still fill stadiums and arenas.

YRMW was No. 10 on the Hot 100 on Billboard chart, so it connected with people. "Butterflies" went to No. 2 on Hot R& B Billboard chart without a video. R&B radio basically forced Sony to release this song because radio programmers LOVED it, as well as the R&B audience. This song CONNECTED to people. Sorry, I don't agree with you when you say Mottola was not the blame. Mottola did a lot of underhanded things to make this album fail. He was the head of the label and he was responsible for the lack of promotion. I call it lack of promotion when your biggest artist album has no promos in the record stores when it was released. Invincible sold by word of mouth, not because of promotion. Most people didn't even know Michael had an album out. I don't think that the 30th Anniversary Concert had any support from Sony. I didn't even see a commercial for the album. Does anyone actually think that Motolla would have been kicked out of Sony, if the HEADS hadn't uncovered something "devilish" about his dealings with Michael and the Invincible album? Michael's aggressive behavior was a result of what he KNEW Mottola was doing-sabotaging Invincible.

 

[MAQ]

As I mentioned beforr, MJ was the one artist whose name alone should promote itself

If u establish a career spanning over 4 decades, that should proves your relevancy

Michael Jordan hasnt played basketball for 12 years, and the second people get the word he is releasing his latest shoe, people flock to the stores the next day and Jordan is 52

The issue is not whether Invincible received promotion, its who the albun was promoted to

That's the thing! Many people never got the "word" that MJ was releasing another album - that's what promotion's supposed to do - to spread the word.

 

[MAQ]

It is somewhat unfair to complain about the financial input on promotion of Invincible when the album was a highly highly highly expensive album to create.. It sucked up a lot of financial backing... Then like I said the relationship between Sony and MJ was only a recipe for disaster.. I can see both sides of the story, but Financially if you just count what was put into that album in general.. A lot of money was put into Invincible.

Let's get one thing straight. Invincible needed to sell at least 6 million copies to cover the budget. If it had been promoted well - as had been the case with all MJ albums, the budget would've been covered up much more easily as the album would've sold much more copies. In the end, Sony's budget got covered, while MJ made a little money. You see where I'm going?

The album had a lot of potential. YRMW got to #10 based on radio airplay alone. Butterflies got to #13 without any promotion. Imagine if they had good promotion, YRMW could've topped the charts while Butterfly could've at least entered the top 10.

Sony WAS trying to get MJ to fail. It's not like they never spent more than 30 million dollars on MJ before (HIStory) and they always got the Money back. This time also they got the cash, but prevented Michael from making any.

 

[HIStoric]

I dont think Michael asked to spend 30 mil on the album, I think thats what ended up being spent when all was said and done!

I know we in the fandom can sometimes be a in a bubble, but it is also possible that the audience was just dwindling over the years. You Rock My World had such a big push, but it's possible that it just didn't connect with people.
ALSO, let's not forget that older artists in general don't get a lot of top 40 airplay to begin with.

I remember following the promo during that era too. They never followed through with an official single for Butterflies, despite it doing pretty well on radio without much promo.

Motolla is not to blame. Sorry. Unpopular opinion. There was no conspiracy to scam MJ. There's no reason why he would want the album to flop.
Yes, Sony COULD have done more, but let's not pretend they didn't do anything grand.
Michael was just expecting too much without a good outlook of happening.

With that said, a world tour would have totally been a huge success. There's no question he could still fill stadiums and arenas.

Agreed. Although Michael was a genius when it came to picking singles and marketing, he could've helped the promotion of the album still. As we all know, Sony insisted on releasing whatever as the first single. Instead of going "No, I want Unbreakable to be released or I'm not doing anything to help it" (as was the case with Cry/Butterflies), Michael could've gone "Ok, I'll let you pick this single and I'll help promote it as much as I can, I'll also appear in the music video, but after this I want you to help me with Unbreakable". There is (or should be) little doubt that this was a very expensive album to create (keyword: create, I'm not saying marketing. Feel I have to point this out), I feel it can be understandable that Sony wasn't in a rush to do a multi-million dollar music video straight off the bat for Unbreakable... as much as I would've loved to see it.

Is it also possible Sony did not have as much faith in MJ after BOTDF? Of course it wasn't a proper studio album, but it sold way less than other Michael Jackson albums. It's at 6-7 million today, so it was probably only a 5 million around 2000 which still good, wasn't much for MJ. Every album he had sold over the past twenty years had sold 19-20 million+. Another reason as to why Sony weren't in a rush to give him another grand round of marketing maybe?? Hypothetical thought.

Like I've said before, I feel that while both MJ and Sony had valid points, they both could've done more in this situation and it ultimately turned out to be a cringe-fest.

 

[Virre]

As someone who has a family member who knew Michael and was around from time to time. I know that Michael had so many other ideas than what Sony had, in the end he had to do what they wanted.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Sony WAS trying to get MJ to fail. It's not like they never spent more than 30 million dollars on MJ before (HIStory) and they always got the Money back. This time also they got the cash, but prevented Michael from making any.

Sony was aware that Michael was leaving their employment since 2000 and then sunk $30 million into creating an album. There was no way in hell they were going to properly promote this album.

The blame is also on Michael's shoulders for being somewhat unreasonable and erratic.

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Sony was aware that Michael was leaving their employment since 2000 and then sunk $30 million into creating an album. There was no way in hell they were going to properly promote this album.

The blame is also on Michael's shoulders for being somewhat unreasonable and erratic.

"Unreasonable and erratic"?? How was Michael "unreasonable and erratic"? Please explain your reasoning.

 

[MAQ]

Agreed. Although Michael was a genius when it came to picking singles and marketing, he could've helped the promotion of the album still. As we all know, Sony insisted on releasing whatever as the first single. Instead of going "No, I want Unbreakable to be released or I'm not doing anything to help it" (as was the case with Cry/Butterflies), Michael could've gone "Ok, I'll let you pick this single and I'll help promote it as much as I can, I'll also appear in the music video, but after this I want you to help me with Unbreakable". There is (or should be) little doubt that this was a very expensive album to create (keyword: create, I'm not saying marketing. Feel I have to point this out), I feel it can be understandable that Sony wasn't in a rush to do a multi-million dollar music video straight off the bat for Unbreakable... as much as I would've loved to see it.

Is it also possible Sony did not have as much faith in MJ after BOTDF? Of course it wasn't a proper studio album, but it sold way less than other Michael Jackson albums. It's at 6-7 million today, so it was probably only a 5 million around 2000 which still good, wasn't much for MJ. Every album he had sold over the past twenty years had sold 19-20 million+. Another reason as to why Sony weren't in a rush to give him another grand round of marketing maybe?? Hypothetical thought.

Like I've said before, I feel that while both MJ and Sony had valid points, they both could've done more in this situation and it ultimately turned out to be a cringe-fest.

BotDF was a remix album, not a studio album. And it performed excellently for its type. Sony must be really dumb, using BotDF as a basis for that assumption.

 

[KOPV]

Let's get one thing straight. Invincible needed to sell at least 6 million copies to cover the budget. If it had been promoted well - as had been the case with all MJ albums, the budget would've been covered up much more easily as the album would've sold much more copies. In the end, Sony's budget got covered, while MJ made a little money. You see where I'm going?

The album had a lot of potential. YRMW got to #10 based on radio airplay alone. Butterflies got to #13 without any promotion. Imagine if they had good promotion, YRMW could've topped the charts while Butterfly could've at least entered the top 10.

Sony WAS trying to get MJ to fail. It's not like they never spent more than 30 million dollars on MJ before (HIStory) and they always got the Money back. This time also they got the cash, but prevented Michael from making any.

Your post does not make sense..
Invincible needing to sell a specific amount to break even in budget has to do A LOT with Michael demanding a huge amount for the creation of the album.. Sony never spent that much in creating an album for Michael before.. Simply Michael felt pressure to make a huge “comeback” album and he put pressure on Sony because of it..

And to say a company TRIED to make MJ fail while he was there largest business partner and potentially the artist that would have brought in the largest income for an album release is absolutely bonkers.. That makes no sense!!
Michael leaving Sony with half of the catalogue - along with everything else MJ could have taken would have been a disaster for SONY.. People say that so much but never do I hear people say what Sony would have gained for sabotaging Michael Jackson…
I hate to say it but Michael spent too much time attacking Sony when he could have used that time/energy on promotion.. When Michael was disappointed in Sony he pretty much checked out… Sony still released videos without Michaels input and tried to get Michael to do things.. He did not want to tour, did not want to make more videos..
We can’t have drank THAT much MJ juice not to see that right???

I’m not saying that Michael did not have reason to be angry at Sony but he did end up doing his own portion of sabotaging his own album..

 

[reibish]

...He was their largest business partner and potentially the artist that would have brought in the largest income for an album release is absolutely bonkers.. That makes no sense!!
Michael leaving Sony with half of the catalogue - along with everything else MJ could have taken would have been a disaster for SONY.. People say that so much but never do I hear people say what Sony would have gained for sabotaging Michael Jackson…

This. Generally what I believe is that Sony had unreasonable expectations - "What do you MEAN a remix album only sold 5mil? It's Michael ****ing Jack$on!" Labels are run only by moneymakers and lawyers. There are things that they just don't get. And then there are things that the artists just don't get. Michael was really good about following his instinct, but Sony was having none of it, and quite frankly I don't think they expected a temper tantrum like he gave them. But business people see his name and think money first before strategy.

Sony wanted to make money - that's why they signed him - but like many others, expected him to do the same thing over, like a formula. That's where all the head-butting came along. His last project wasn't the same global smash as everything else (of course we know the reasons why, and it was still a huge success in its own right), but they only think in terms of dollars and cents, not sense. I also imagine that in these meetings, of course Michael had his reps and stuff around him, but if at any point he opened his mouth (And I'm sure he did) we all know that in the pressure of the moment he was not very good at explaining himself, and it could have been way too easy for both parties to misinterpret each other. Michael was very well-spoken when he wanted to be, when he had time to put his thoughts together, but in the end he was an introvert and that can be bad news when they're put on the spot about something.

We can’t have drank THAT much MJ juice not to see that right???

...I wonder that myself, and I am a person who believes the 'conspiracy' that people were after Michael for his catalogue.

I’m not saying that Michael did not have reason to be angry at Sony but he did end up doing his own portion of sabotaging his own album..

I don't think he could have saved it, and probably knew that. Once something was in the public he couldn't do-over, and he was frustrated, scared, and just quite frankly pissed off. He could have said what he did against Sony in a much better way where people would have actually listened to him. Clogging up London on a bus with a riot...probably not the best way to get that message across.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

I haven't had a chance to respond back until now....

regarding promotion, it began back as early as the spring/summer of 1999 after Rodney Jerkins accepted Michael's offer to begin producing his new album, Jerkins gave a full length interview with Vibe Magazine giving full account. He was saying how they were working 18 hours a day in his studio working on the record. As he explained to Vibe, Rodney proclaimed that Michael’s new album would feature a sound of music never heard before, something that would lead the recording industry well into the 21st century. The record was initially scheduled to be released in late 2000 but pushed back a year which doubled the budget expected to be spent on production. Rodney mentioned advanced programming techniques he was planning on using for the recording process. The way he was talking, this record was going to surpass anything Michael Jackson ever did. This was in 1999

and the production of the new record was not being discussed by Pop radio but Urban Radio, that's one of the main reasons why the perception lingers that there was a lack of promotion not just for the record itself but for the making of it. Pop radio no longer supported Michael after the controversy with TDCAU and the initial lyrical content featured in teh song. so in America, Michael Jackson had to rely on Urban radio to re-establish his career here because it was not going to happen w/the support of Pop Radio

plus by the end of the 90s, beginning of the 2000s, R&B was experiencing a resurgence with a bevy of young contemporaries delivering great music in their own right: Usher, Ginuwine, Musiq Soulchild, Monica, Aaliyah, Brandy, Jill Scott, Erykah Badu, even Justin Timberlake and NSync to a degree before the music industry attempted to distinguish Timberlake as the next/future King of Pop......Jay Z had released his album the Blueprint a month before Invincible was released, sampling the Jackson Five's classic "I Want You Back" for his classic "H.O.V.A" paying homage to Michael...Usher and Ginuwine were paying homage in their dance choreography in their videos "You Remind Me" and "Differences"......it was like the stars were lining up

After 2 years of collaborating, Jerkins announced in an interview during the spring of 2001 the new album was complete and going into the beginning of the summer, Sony began promoting "Butterflies" and "You Rock My World" to R&B radio and Urban news sources.....Sony knew Pop radio had disassociated itself from supporting Michael's career


Both songs received airplay beginning as early as July. DJ’s asked the listening audience to call in and voice their opinion about the songs. People knew the album was on its way and was given the anticipated release date. When the release date was announced, this is when Pop radio followed in retucent fashion


an album was being promoted 2 years before the fact, that didn't happen with either of Michael's previous albums, not Off The Wall, not Thriller, not Bad, not Dangerous, not History.....


Constant promotion followed as record stores began staging large sized flyers, full scale photos of Michael. No sooner then you walk through the door, you knew Michael’s new album was months from release. Display racks were cleared out to fill them with Michael’s previous albums; anything to increase anticipation. Store employees played both songs as record buyers travel down the aisles.


Sony was given permission to place billboards on the side of New York City public buses to advertise the new album. By that point, Sony had already spent 30 million just to record it and another 30 million to promote it. That’s 60 million bucks to furnish an album that took two years to complete.


and when Invincible was released in North America on 10/30/2001, just like w/the Black and White single, You Rock My World debuted on all of the major video networks, MTV, BET, VH-1. Then a barrage of MJ's past videos were being showed around the clock. then a marketing coup added to spark interest where Sony issued five difference colored versions of the CD album version to stand out from the competition.

Then couple that with Michael's own promotional attempts, teh 30th anniversary special, the appearance at Virgin megastore, the interview with TV Guide Magazine, and late that summer appearing on stage with Jay-Z at the annual Summer Jam Rap concert.......the word was out that the album was on its way....

the issue isn't whether the album was promoted, it was who the album was promoted to upon release that's the real question....Sony knew it was going to be the urban audience that would have to establish the foundation for the album's success starting out.....

 

[barbee0715]

^^Brighter, so you are saying they spent 30 mil by talking about the album on R&B/Urban radio for 2 yrs? (Pretty much same audience for OTW originally). Is the MSG concert included in that figure? That's an astronomical sum to talk on the radio.

And you said it wasn't the promotion that was the problem, it was who they promoted it to?
Was that the wrong audience?? Or had the audience moved on to these other people you mentioned.

I'm not quite understanding.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

^^Brighter, so you are saying they spent 30 mil by talking about the album on R&B/Urban radio for 2 yrs? (Pretty much same audience for OTW originally). Is the MSG concert included in that figure? That's an astronomical sum to talk on the radio.

And you said it wasn't the promotion that was the problem, it was who they promoted it to?
Was that the wrong audience?? Or had the audience moved on to these other people you mentioned.

I'm not quite understanding.

I didn't say just just radio, Im saying urban entertainment sources. MJ was trying to improve domestic sales and knowing going into the making of the album, Michael knew that support would be vital

Anytime a record compant manufactures five different colored versions of the same album, that takes extra money to produce

 

[ShipOfFools]

Michael had a different vision for the album and the promotion than Sony did. This was why he tried to get out of his contract by going on about Tommy M being a racist. It was a carefully planned business decision to make Sony hate him enough, and then they would let him go.

It didn't work out that way, but that's what Michael wanted. It probably would have happened differently, had Living With Michael Jackson and the 2004/2005 trial not happened.

There was promotion, though. Invincible was the album that made me a fan again, and I was a teenager who was into mostly rock music. I knew there was a new Michael Jackson album coming out, and I wasn't the only one. Many people at my high school bought Invincible on release.

 

[KOPV]

This. Generally what I believe is that Sony had unreasonable expectations - "What do you MEAN a remix album only sold 5mil? It's Michael ****ing Jack$on!" Labels are run only by moneymakers and lawyers. There are things that they just don't get. And then there are things that the artists just don't get. Michael was really good about following his instinct, but Sony was having none of it, and quite frankly I don't think they expected a temper tantrum like he gave them. But business people see his name and think money first before strategy.

Sony wanted to make money - that's why they signed him - but like many others, expected him to do the same thing over, like a formula. That's where all the head-butting came along. His last project wasn't the same global smash as everything else (of course we know the reasons why, and it was still a huge success in its own right), but they only think in terms of dollars and cents, not sense. I also imagine that in these meetings, of course Michael had his reps and stuff around him, but if at any point he opened his mouth (And I'm sure he did) we all know that in the pressure of the moment he was not very good at explaining himself, and it could have been way too easy for both parties to misinterpret each other. Michael was very well-spoken when he wanted to be, when he had time to put his thoughts together, but in the end he was an introvert and that can be bad news when they're put on the spot about something.


...I wonder that myself, and I am a person who believes the 'conspiracy' that people were after Michael for his catalogue.



I don't think he could have saved it, and probably knew that. Once something was in the public he couldn't do-over, and he was frustrated, scared, and just quite frankly pissed off. He could have said what he did against Sony in a much better way where people would have actually listened to him. Clogging up London on a bus with a riot...probably not the best way to get that message across.

You make some great/valid points... I would say though Along with Sony wanting to make money one thing that we need to remember is they know how to make money.. I understand that Michaels instincts and business sense when it comes to what the audience wants was something very unique and special. We have to understand that Sony would believe they know better.. Would have I like Sony to go along with what Michael envisioned 100% YES.. But I can't blame a business known for making money and selling for believing they know what is right.

Michael was used to being able to get his way, and when he didn't he got people to make it happen for him. (In his career and life).. Sony was already at the point of "we've had enough of this".. All they were seeing from Michael (there perspective) was delays, more expectations, and forking out more money.. They were fed up and tried to take control... Which with Michal did NOT work lol!

At the time Sony did not believe that Michael Believed in the work being done, and Michael did not believe that Sony believed in him... Basically a clash between business and perfectionism..

We will never know how well the album would have been done if they either went with Sony plans or Michaels because neither happened. I believe either would have done better than it did though..


Also we do have to remember that even in the fan community invincible is often voted as the "least favorite album" and/or the album that had to "grow on people"..

It's my personal belief that Sony was Right aboutone thing… (My opinion) Michael was notsure in himself… That is part of thereason why the album was delayed so much, why it cost so much to create, andwhy it was the solo album that he wrote the least amount of songs. He put his beliefin new writers and new producers instead of himself.. Don’t get me wrong I lovethe album but I definitely feel he was going through a lot around that time emotionally and it exploded in a huge fight between Sony and MJ.

 

[Eulonzo]

My honest opinion is he just didn't want to do one. He didn't even perform any Invincible tracks when appearing at awards shows, just doing Dangerous (and HTW and BOW). No inclusion of any Invincible songs on TII (Apart from Speechless and Threatened).

9/11 had an impact on this decision too from what I've read.

Really? I thought 'You Rock My World' was somewhere on the setlist too.

 

[Spaceship]

"Unreasonable and erratic"?? How was Michael "unreasonable and erratic"? Please explain your reasoning.

Because he was leaving Sony around the same time he released Invincible. Record labels simply don't promote departing artists as promoting them would help any competing label that would sign that artist.

While Invincible certainly would have fared much better with proper promotion, it's still partly Michael's fault the album didn't get promoted properly.

As for why Michael didn't do a tour for Invincible, I think it's clear he didn't want to. He says in his 1999 interview with TV Guide: http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/interviews/tvguide99interview.html

TV Guide: Do you think you will tour again?
Michael: I don't think so. It takes a lot out of me.