Report this comment as spam or abuse

The second link you give I’m not that interested in - it’s just a blogger moaning on about stuff that happened after the deal was made and an even more random “Go Team Aniston”.

The first link is more interesting - but we do have to remember that the writer says it’s a source exclusive to them. Which could be a euphamism for talking through their backside as it’s a far cry from the old journalistic standard of two independant verifiable sources.

Dagnabbit Lola even you could be the source there (in which case maybe you do work for those magazines/ Getty Images - in that case the first blogger is right, you muffed the People cover).

It’s an interesting point that Shiloh’s was less expensive and only had a half-million fewer sales.

But again I have two things I’d like to add - this one is the highest selling “good news story” People has - the others were real zeitgeist moments, which is why they sold more.

Online viewing of gossip and spread of images has become even more prevalent in the past two years which is having a noted effect on gossip-based print media. The Top 3 sold before or at the start of the trend, so perhaps 4 million is really the limit?

Huge loss for Time Inc and Getty Images - Debatable
Shrewd negotation on part of Brangelina - undoubtedly.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

http://coverawards.com/2008/08/11/news_people_brad_pitt_angelina_jolie_twins_cover_38712/

Whichever way you spin it, lets face it, the mere fact that Shiloh’s pictures were 11million less and sold only 400k issues less says a lot. With all the hype that the tried to create around the twins. I, like people magazine I guess expected more sales if not the highest grossing issue ever.

The fact that they are releasing these numbers and trying to put a positive spin on it should tell you something.

http://www.thejay.com/2008/08/12/pitt-jolie-people-magazine-cover-failure/

Report this comment as spam or abuse

And just two tiny weensy little things wrong with your logic there. ( I know you won’t pay a blind bit of notice - but no harm in giving everyone else an alternative)

1 - who knows if they expected it to beat the Sept. 11th or Diana mags. I bet they blooming didn’t though. Only the editor can answer that question.

I know that you’re always always always right, but perhaps you can write to the editors and Getty pictures and tell them what they should be thinking too? because they’re obviously too stupid to get through the day without your rightness steering their companies to greatness.

2 - you’ve forgotten that not all of the magazine’s revenue comes from sales alone. There’s the little matter of advertising to consider.

As I said before, I’ve no idea how it affected advertising sales for those issues (Hello had sold out when I got around to trying to buy it on the Tuesday/Wednesday after, but I’d say it would have spiked interest.

And silly silly advertisers who didn’t try to cash in - an extra 2.6 million customers (a large proportion of which will probably share the magazine around with family and friends - not to mention those destined for doctors and dentists surgeries) is not to be sniffed at.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

I see my BADettes are effortlessly rising to the top as usual, sending the fun-suckers packing.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse