U2 or Michael Jordan?

13

  Comments


  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    DeeRock,

    I dunno man, I think people who keep insisting on U2 really have it completely wrong.

    Again - if the question is: "who has more fans?" that may complicate things since the definition of "fan" is a little harder to parse out. But if the question is: who is more popular?

    IT'S MICHAEL JORDAN. It shouldn't even be a question unless someone here really is going to try to suggest that U2 has managed to trump the global marketing power of Nike over the last 20 years.

    Just pause and think about that. It has nothing to do with whether b-ball is more popular than football (or rock music) around the world. It has to do with how powerful an iconic figure has been pushed into every part of the developed AND developing world.

    You show anyone, around the world, the MJ jumpman logo and then ask them, "who is that?" vs. asking "who is U2" and I find it difficult to believe that U2 is going to win out.

    Again, this isn't a question of who has more fans - that's a lot tricker. But if we're talking about global recognition? It's Jordan.

    Seriously, I go back to my original post - I would say around 75% of people in the UK (one of the most usa centered countries in the world) over the age of 50 would have no idea who Michael Jordan is. They wouldn't have owned a pair of Nike Airs and they'd never have seen basketball played.

    Globally basketball is a pretty minor sport compared to something like soccer. There's probably at least 5 sportsman alive today who are more globally known (look at cricketers for example who dominate sports focus in India, Australasia etc).

    BTW, if you showed the nike logo to a lot of people over here their answeer would be "that's nike air" not "that's mike jordan". However if you played them something off Auchtung baby you'd probably have a more accurate answer.

  • d_wordd_word 666 Posts
    Globally basketball is a pretty minor sport

    BTW, if you showed the nike logo to a lot of people over here their answeer would be "that's nike air" not "that's mike jordan".


    This is why it isn't Jordan. U2 wins.

  • Globally basketball is a pretty minor sport

    BTW, if you showed the nike logo to a lot of people over here their answeer would be "that's nike air" not "that's mike jordan".


    This is why it isn't Jordan. U2 wins.


    this is unbelievable!!


    if people know that there is a sport called basketball, than they know about michael jordan. i could almost say the same thing about nike. his flight logo is almost as well known as the swoosh!!

    if countries outside of the us did not have televisions or newspapers, than i might be able to co-sign on U2. but get serious please. that google stat is ridiculous. someone needs to perform a census.

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    Globally basketball is a pretty minor sport

    BTW, if you showed the nike logo to a lot of people over here their answeer would be "that's nike air" not "that's mike jordan".


    This is why it isn't Jordan. U2 wins.


    this is unbelievable!!


    if people know that there is a sport called basketball, than they know about michael jordan. i could almost say the same thing about nike. his flight logo is almost as well known as the swoosh!!

    if countries outside of the us did not have televisions or newspapers, than i might be able to co-sign on U2. but get serious please. that google stat is ridiculous. someone needs to perform a census.

    I've got the feeling that this isn't really going to be settled without the much needed census but all I can say is that you have to understand that in countries where basketball is a minority sport the coverage of local teams nevermind the US league will be minimal to non existant.

    In many countries outside the US, people don't care about basketball.

    There, I've said it, I'm sorry.

  • Those of you arguing for MJ sound very, very American right now.

    Without even bringing U2 into this, please understand that the vast majority of the world does not give a shit about basketball. Why is this so difficult to accept?

    Is MJ bigger than U2 in the United States? Sure.

    But that was not the question.


    DeeRock, you were right. Get worldly on 'em!

  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    Globally basketball is a pretty minor sport

    BTW, if you showed the nike logo to a lot of people over here their answeer would be "that's nike air" not "that's mike jordan".


    This is why it isn't Jordan. U2 wins.


    this is unbelievable!!


    if people know that there is a sport called basketball, than they know about michael jordan. i could almost say the same thing about nike. his flight logo is almost as well known as the swoosh!!

    if countries outside of the us did not have televisions or newspapers, than i might be able to co-sign on U2. but get serious please. that google stat is ridiculous. someone needs to perform a census.

    You just don't get it, do you?

    The issue here is world-wide recognition, not US recognition.

    Basketball is very small on a global scale, this is a FACT.

    And to address the commercial issue, who do you is involved in a larger number of ads/ad campaings yearly; U2 or Jordan?

    Media-wise, which of the two is featured more often on the news, radio, etc...

    (A good side-note to this would be that U2 transcend so many different outlets of modern media, world-wide.)


    All in all, regardless of the Nike connection, Jordan isn't nearly the fucking powerhouse entity that is U2.

    _________

    p.s. If this were a 'Stein-like voting post, I'd vote for MJ. I really hate U2.

  • i understand basketball is not as popular in other countries, but not only is mj bigger than basketball, he IS basketball in the same way Pele IS soccer and Muhammed Ali IS boxing to people worldwide who have never followed either sport.

  • 6fran506fran50 266 Posts
    In many countries outside the US, people don't care about basketball.
    but know michael jordan

    i vote MJ ... and i m not american

  • FlomotionFlomotion 2,385 Posts
    Most of the worlds sports fans could give a shit about basketball....
    It's all about futbol, soccer.
    Someone like Beckham, Zidan, or Ronaldinho is probably more
    recognizable than MJ in many places worldwide.

    That said U2 packs stadiums worldwide.
    I say advantage U2.

    Soccer is popular globally, but MJ is more well-known than all three of those guys combined.

    Football is ten times bigger than basketball and Beckham alone is better known globally than MJ was at the height of his fame.

    Basketball's not that big in a lot of countries but I'd say Jordan's still better known than U2 even if it's just through the Nike products. You aren't going to find many African kids listening to Bono-rock compared to those wearing knock-off Jordan sportswear. In the UK though U2 are infinitely better known than Jordan ever was - basketball barely exists beyond an amateur level here. No-one taller than 5'2" in Britain, you see...

  • yuichiyuichi Urban sprawl 11,329 Posts
    In many countries outside the US, people don't care about basketball.
    but know michael jordan


    i vote MJ ... and i m not american

    There you go.

    also.....

    if people know that there is a sport called basketball, than they know about michael jordan.

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,032 Posts
    Soup Ream,

    It's not about who I like better. I'm not mad at U2 remotely and Bono's done a shit load more for humanitarian causes around the world than MJ ever did. (MJ's not even my favorite b-ball player, a'ight?)

    This is has nothing to do with basketball. I don't know why people keep on coming back to this argument about whether basketball is more popular than soccer or not. The sport has little to do with it.

    Ali was famous around the world but boxing was secondary. The sport didn't have to be popular in order for the icon to be. Same with Pele. A lot of Americans knew who Pele was even though soccer wasn't (and still isn't) a big deal here.

    And just to state this again, with MJ we're talking about global marketing power and in that respect, Nike spent TWENTY YEARS branding Jordan's image into people's heads around the world.

    It may be true that people in the UK over the age of 50 don't know how MJ is. But I'd suggest that an African teenager under the age of 14 won't know who the fuck U2 is but they'd probably know who MJ is. On that level, I think it's a wash. U2 has an advantage with older folks in, say, Europe but then again, so would MJ among the younger people in that same community.

    Who's more popular in say, China? U2 or MJ?

    JORDAN. The reason being, the recorded music industry in China is a joke and the distribution of Western pop music over there is nowhere as organized as it is in Europe or the U.S. (or even Japan or South Korea). U2 are hardly unknown but the inroads that a comapny like Nike has made into places like China far exceeds anything U2 would have been able to do officially or unofficially.

    Likewise, does anyone think U2 is more popular in India than MJ is? Nike's penetration into the emergent middle class there - arguably the fastest growing in the world - would result in a much higher recognition of Jordan than U2 especially since INdia's local music industry is sizable enough to keep Western rock acts at a further distance than in other nations. Likewise, amongst the Indian poor, U2 has likely made no impact whatsoever on a musical level (they're not buying music or going to U2 concerts) but Nike's marketing can still reach them (even if they aren't consumers).

    Just to run this again: China, India and the U.S. = the three most populous nations on Earth. In all three cases, Jordan is the more popular icon. I'd argue that most of Europe is more likely to have had a recognition of Jordan over U2 as well given the penetration of basketball as a sport in that continent combined with Nike's targeting of the consumer base in those countries.

    Hogg: this isn't American-centrism. This is a cold, even cynical acknowledgement that Nike has a massively deep reach around the world and where NIke has gone, MJ has followed by extension.

    Think of it this way: among middle class consumers around the world, you could argue that older members of that population are more aware of U2. That's a reasonable argument (even if I would even doubt that). Among younger members, MJ pulls closer to even or takes over.

    Among POOR communities around the world - who are, of course, the bulk of the world's population - U2's popularity plummets b/c these are people who are not buying CDs or attending concerts. They may own radios or have access to radios in community centers but in those cases, what's the likelihood that "Achtung Baby" is being played locally?

    In contrast, poor people around the world who don't own sneakers or even know what basketball is still can have Nike flood their cities and even villages with advertising and marketing in the form of television and billboards and posters.

    Advantage: Jordan.



    Some of you dudes are reaaallly living in a bubble yo. Those numbers are pointless. You may think "this coming from a dude with a basketball player as his avatar". No, you're living in a bubble.

    Are you MJ's cousin or something?
    Try sleeping in your Jumpman jammies while snuggling your
    OG AJ III's tonight. You'll feel much better on Tuesday.


    Can you make your avatar, name, and location any more obscure?


    Probably to all three.
    Avatar=Keith Haring piece, you know Keith Haring the famous 80's NY artist?
    Pretty well known dude if you are up on the 80's Graf/Downtown scene.
    Name=It's a contraction of my first and last name, a contraction, like do not= don't
    As in don't sweat MJ any harder his wife might get jealous.
    Location: Does anyone on Soulstrut put the town they live in?

    Hilarious! Man this thread has turned into some serious comedy. O why do you keep asking me fans etc.? Read the very first post. It just says popular and thats that. The numbers don't lie. U2. It's like asking who is more popular Organized Cunfusion or M.C. Hammer and we all say "Organized" is because we like them and know they are so ill and Hammer sucks when we all know Hammer sold way more records. Thats just what it is. I feel everybody's arguments and some great stuff has been said but it is U2. yes Jordan is completely the shit and I know about the marketing and all that but at the end of the Day I really honestly think U2 is bigger on a Global scale.

  • yuichiyuichi Urban sprawl 11,329 Posts
    I was just about to say, U2 can take Europe. What about China, India, South America...

    Unfortunately, that knowledge gem that you're dropping is irrelevant! SOCCER IS THE MOST POPULAR SPORT IN THE WORLD! AND EVERYONE KNOWS THE ALL-MIGHTY U2! JUST CHECK THE GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS!

  • roistoroisto 877 Posts
    I'm not sure it's wise to draw a parallel between Nike and MJ. I mean, Air Jordan is just a logo, and I doubt that most people outside the US who own those shoes (or dream of owning them) actually know who MJ is. Plus, dude has been out of the spotlight for years, whereas Bono is in the media almost weekly.

    But if we draw that parallel, MJ is probably bigger than U2.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    I'm not sure it's wise to draw a parallel between Nike and MJ. I mean, Air Jordan is just a logo, and I doubt that most people outside the US who own those shoes (or dream of owning them) actually know who MJ is. Plus, dude has been out of the spotlight for years, whereas Bono is in the media almost weekly.

    But if we draw that parallel, MJ is probably bigger than U2.

    Haven't you answered your own question there though. People might not know who Jordan is, but they wear "Air JORDAN's". They will know the name.

  • HAZHAZ 3,373 Posts
    I saw a documentary about hookers in Thailand. There was this one girl saying "Michael Jordan!" flapping her arms and making airplane noises.

    I'll still say U2.

  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    I was just about to say, U2 can take Europe. What about China, India, South America...
    China (1,313,510,000), India (1,110,000,000), SA (371,000,000), and USA (300,105,000) make up less than half (3,094,615,000) of the world population (6,554,000,000), so if we give the rest of the population (3,459,385,000) to U2, U2 > MJ. source

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    jordan has more street cred

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,518 Posts
    My mom does not know the difference between Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson.
    Duderonomy

  • d_wordd_word 666 Posts
    Soup Ream,

    It's not about who I like better. I'm not mad at U2 remotely and Bono's done a shit load more for humanitarian causes around the world than MJ ever did. (MJ's not even my favorite b-ball player, a'ight?)

    This is has nothing to do with basketball. I don't know why people keep on coming back to this argument about whether basketball is more popular than soccer or not. The sport has little to do with it.

    Ali was famous around the world but boxing was secondary. The sport didn't have to be popular in order for the icon to be. Same with Pele. A lot of Americans knew who Pele was even though soccer wasn't (and still isn't) a big deal here.

    And just to state this again, with MJ we're talking about global marketing power and in that respect, Nike spent TWENTY YEARS branding Jordan's image into people's heads around the world.

    It may be true that people in the UK over the age of 50 don't know how MJ is. But I'd suggest that an African teenager under the age of 14 won't know who the fuck U2 is but they'd probably know who MJ is. On that level, I think it's a wash. U2 has an advantage with older folks in, say, Europe but then again, so would MJ among the younger people in that same community.

    Who's more popular in say, China? U2 or MJ?

    JORDAN. The reason being, the recorded music industry in China is a joke and the distribution of Western pop music over there is nowhere as organized as it is in Europe or the U.S. (or even Japan or South Korea). U2 are hardly unknown but the inroads that a comapny like Nike has made into places like China far exceeds anything U2 would have been able to do officially or unofficially.

    Likewise, does anyone think U2 is more popular in India than MJ is? Nike's penetration into the emergent middle class there - arguably the fastest growing in the world - would result in a much higher recognition of Jordan than U2 especially since INdia's local music industry is sizable enough to keep Western rock acts at a further distance than in other nations. Likewise, amongst the Indian poor, U2 has likely made no impact whatsoever on a musical level (they're not buying music or going to U2 concerts) but Nike's marketing can still reach them (even if they aren't consumers).

    Just to run this again: China, India and the U.S. = the three most populous nations on Earth. In all three cases, Jordan is the more popular icon. I'd argue that most of Europe is more likely to have had a recognition of Jordan over U2 as well given the penetration of basketball as a sport in that continent combined with Nike's targeting of the consumer base in those countries.

    Hogg: this isn't American-centrism. This is a cold, even cynical acknowledgement that Nike has a massively deep reach around the world and where NIke has gone, MJ has followed by extension.

    Think of it this way: among middle class consumers around the world, you could argue that older members of that population are more aware of U2. That's a reasonable argument (even if I would even doubt that). Among younger members, MJ pulls closer to even or takes over.

    Among POOR communities around the world - who are, of course, the bulk of the world's population - U2's popularity plummets b/c these are people who are not buying CDs or attending concerts. They may own radios or have access to radios in community centers but in those cases, what's the likelihood that "Achtung Baby" is being played locally?

    In contrast, poor people around the world who don't own sneakers or even know what basketball is still can have Nike flood their cities and even villages with advertising and marketing in the form of television and billboards and posters.

    Advantage: Jordan.

    You are arguing this so thoroughly because deep down you do not believe it and you are trying to convince yourself.

  • yuichiyuichi Urban sprawl 11,329 Posts
    I was just about to say, U2 can take Europe. What about China, India, South America...
    China (1,313,510,000), India (1,110,000,000), SA (371,000,000), and USA (300,105,000) make up less than half (3,094,615,000) of the world population (6,554,000,000), so if we give the rest of the population (3,459,385,000) to U2, U2 > MJ.


  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,032 Posts
    Uh ,or maybe because I'm right?

  • d_wordd_word 666 Posts
    Uh ,or maybe because I'm right?

    Nah, that's not it.

  • mannybolonemannybolone 15,032 Posts
    Uh ,or maybe because I'm right?

    Nah, that's not it.

    Given that all your "argument" has comprised of in this thread was a co-sign on two flimsy conjectures, you'll pardon me if

  • cpeetzcpeetz 2,112 Posts
    At this point I'd say that all theses posts are conjecture, some are longer and more
    detailed and generally well thought out but....
    Conjecture, none the less since we don't have any way to quantify popularity.
    Nore has anyone done the indepth research it would take to give a this question
    a remotely definitive answer.

  • BsidesBsides 4,244 Posts
    Well, its not really fair cause jordan is one dude, and u2 is a band.

    I bet more people recognize jordan than larry mullin jr. Or whatever the drummers name is.

    Its gotta be jordan though. The man is iconic, his brand image is universal, and basketball trancends culture and language.


    Remember when they had his cologne how many rural african kids knew who it was just based on his silloette?

    I guess it could be different now that hes been retired for a minute. But as far as bigger than life legendary figures, i dont think it gets much bigger than jordan.

  • I gotta go with Jordan too. He's a huge brand, unlike U2, which is really just a band with a humanitarian dude at the helm. I think even with all of the work that Bono is doing in Africa, Jordan would be more well known in ever single country. I can't prove that, but it's a feeling.

    Plus, you got Jordan t-shirts, shoes, basketball cards, coffee cups, pens, underoos, books up the ass, movies, hair creams, gold chains. U2 can't fuck with that type of brand extension.

    The only thing against Jordan is that he retired a while ago, but I think he's still maintained legend status. Every sports fan in the world knows Jordan, but I don't think every music fan would know U2.


  • Plus, you got Jordan t-shirts, shoes, basketball cards, coffee cups, pens, underoos, books up the ass, movies, hair creams, gold chains. U2 can't fuck with that type of brand extension.

    All of these belong to a demographic not exceeding age 40--some of them far below.

    U2 became popular around the same time as Jordan. In fact, my dad bought "Joshua Tree" before he bought any of us kids a pair of Nikes.

    Maybe I'm reading some of you the wrong way, but it seems to me that many people are conflating popularity (ie. Jordan is most popular with people under 40) with recognition (ie. he might be more popular with that age group, but the same people have also heard of U2).

    I also find the arguments about J's influence outside of America bizarre. Have any of you actually been around the world and noticed this trend or asked the people? Wearing the name brand might be a visible way of someone saying they know who Jordan is (not necessarily so, however), but people can obviously know who U2 is without showing it. This seems pretty simple to me.

    Just my opinion...

  • holmesholmes 3,532 Posts
    I feel it just has to be U2. That band is frickin huge all over the globe. They are the band that people who don't even like music like.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts

    Plus, you got Jordan t-shirts, shoes, basketball cards, coffee cups, pens, underoos, books up the ass, movies, hair creams, gold chains. U2 can't fuck with that type of brand extension.

    All of these belong to a demographic not exceeding age 40--some of them far below.

    Most of the developing world is under the age of 30. And I still say Jordan. The marketing of Nike using Jordan as an icon far outweighs people listening to U2. The number of Jordan knock offs floating around the developing world probably far outweighs the number of bootleged U2 CDs/tapes.

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    this is kinda stacked cos u2 is still releasing albums and touring and shit while jordan aint really done nothing in a while
Sign In or Register to comment.