It seems the Co-Op want lads mags to have modesty bags placed over the front covers just like the 18+ Fiesta, Razzle, Mayfair, etc type magazines.
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23609005
Good idea? Yes? No?
If it goes ahead, then perhaps Womans Own and other similar publications that feature someone in a bikini should also be included.
Personally, other than the 18+ mags I think it's a complete waste of time and effort.
|
Is there really a lads mag called Nuts, I didn't know that, but then I've never actually bought a lads mag.
I've read, well, looked at a phew! though, I even used to have a peek at Tit Bits on my paper round.
:}
|
|
Crikey! I am old enough to to remember there only was one mag - it was called Health and Efficiency and it had the fur airbrushed out! Now there magazines that specialize in fur, I am reliably informed!
Last edited by: Meldrew on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 13:30
|
TV programmes as well Dog......
Three sketches from Smack the Pony......
www.youtube.com/watch?v=84qUAWT8jVk
|
Have often wondered what the point of them is, since reading one on, say, the train is basically tantamount to enjoying soft porn in public. Which is a bit weird.
Though if the Co-Op really want to reduce threats to kids then they'd be better off putting the crisps and sweets in a locked cabinet.
|
|
The Co-Op are an irrelevance.. in retailing. Expensive with lots of elderly customers and had 35% market share in the 1960s - 6% now - so their opinions and actions hardly matter.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 16:41
|
In which case the magazines will ignore them.
However, 6% is still quite a lot, so you may be wrong.
|
>> I even used to have a peek at Tit Bits on my paper round<<
SWMBO used to work for Titbits but it was pretty innocent! Started by Sir George Newnes, IIRC, in the wake of the 1870s Elementary Education Acts to allow the burgeoning reading classes cheap access to the world of knowledge.
Maybe you meant Parade? ;-)
|
>>Maybe you meant Parade? ;-)
I had to tune a car for a fellow who worked in a print shop on one of the industrial estates down St. James Rd. S.E.16
He showed me the eh, 'stuff' he was printing - it even shocked me, and I've not led a sheltered life.
I should imagine a few months working there would 'turn the mind', bit like working in a chocolate factory, I use to go to one of those too come to think about it, in Bermondsey St. S.E.1, the smell of the place was enough to put you orf chocolate, for life!
|
>> However, 6% is still quite a lot, so you may be wrong.
The Co-op might have 6% of retail, but they probably don't account for 6% of all lads mags sales, and probably account for more than 6% of The People's Friend.
So, they stop selling Nuts and play to their audience as defenders of decency, and Nuts refuses to tow the line and plays to its audience as bad boys.
Nuts more than makes up for the few copies lost, with a new bout of infamy, and the old dears feel better about spending a bit more on their jam.
Everyone's a winner.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 16:59
|
Spark,
it is the thin end of the wedge, and one which is rather bothersome to me, being in the publishing trade.
A few years back, Walmart decided that they wouldn't stock certain magazines like Cosmo etc unless they (ie Walmart) had a say in the cover lines, as they didn't want to have 'raunchy' stuff on their shelves. Walmart decreed what was 'raunchy'.
Given that Walmart sold ~50% of certain titles' sales, that is a big whack, and obviously said titles caved, and allowed their editorial independence to be compromised.
Recall the hysteria of Private Eye being removed from the shelves at WH Smug's and other shops after the Princess Di tunnel incident, as their cover was 'insensitive'?
|
Recall the hysteria of Private Eye being removed from the shelves at WH Smug's and other shops after the Princess Di tunnel incident, as their cover was 'insensitive'?
Yes and I still have my copy. I took a decision not to shop in Smith's after that - more or less stuck to it. How dare they dictate my level of sensitivity to me.
|
>>How dare they dictate my
>> level of sensitivity to me.
>>
Nail on head, R.P.
Locally we had a case of Woolworths (ie Marks and Sparks) not stocking some Christian magazine.
They had for a while, and come renewal time, decided that their sales of said magazine were so poor that it didn't justify taking up shelf space any more.
Oh Lordy, how the Xtian lobby went on, threatening boycotts, etc etc etc etc.
Pure hype, nothing more - they got more 'boycotters' on the petition than they ever sold magazines - by a factor of over 100!
|
>>Three sketches from Smack the Pony......
One of Mildews furry friends I'll wager ;)
|
>> One of Mildews furry friends I'll wager ;)
Mildew?
Woe betide anyone who shows a bit of fur these days. These hair removal places must be making a packet.
|
|
What worries me is what they're stuffing the packet with !
|
|
Found this in Fur Fanciers Fetish mag, in the Co-op too. tinyurl.com/nyyfwn9
|
|
If that was in the Co-oP there'd be a pubic outcry.
|
Private Eye is for adults and a separate case. Attacks on it are political, even when led by superstitious idiots.
But porn, of all levels of 'hardness', perverseness and so on is essentially for the immature, and girly mags like Nuts for adolescent boys with their obsessive voyeurism. Always seems to me that sex is to be done, not watched, and I've always found those down-under shots, pumping buttocks and so on a bit dispiriting to tell the truth. I'm not impervious to erotic images - far from it - but I really am not turned on by shots of pouting, cosmetically enhanced pneumatic babes in grubby looking underwear.
Perhaps there's something wrong with me. Never got a buzz from porn as such. Perhaps when dementia really sets in I will start griping about the shelf displays in the decorous Sussex news outlets. That should brace the carphounds up and get them to serve me inside half an hour.
|
|
Good report on the national news tonight - Co-oP have now said they're not going to stock it - good cross section of views in the vox-pop that accompanied the report. BBC claim that the circulation of Nuts has dwindled from a peak of 400,000 per annum to 30,000 per annum...
|
|
Probably related to the availability of such images, free, on the net among other factors
|
>> Probably related to the availability of such images, free, on the net among other factors
I buy a lot less car mags than I used to, not because of the images but for the availability of free information on the net.
|
|
I haven't bought a newspaper for years for the same reason.
|
|
Yes RR but don't you have to pay for access? Even the Sin is charging £2 a week now
|
|
Still plenty on non pay or non newspaper sites.
|
|
One wonders for how much longer. No paper has yet come up with a way of maintaining revenue in the internet age and the future looks bleak for most titles. Fewer titles and a reduction in the amount of investigative journalism will not be good for democracy. Whatever the faults of the press we will miss them when they are gone.
|
The press will always be about, TV and internet rather than the papers.
I assume you mean investigative journalism is expensive and they won't have the cash so won't continue?
You think many will miss them, even if they don't buy them? I might in the future, but now if I'm honest I can't see how. I'm in the 'haven't bought a paper in years' group.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 19:53
|
"The press will always be about, TV and internet rather than the papers."
I'd like to think so but I rather fear it won't unless some mechanism is found to pay for it. Advertising alone is not sufficient to pay for for the sort of press we have at the moment. To date consumers have proved extremely reluctant to pay for internet content and the only news organisation with a sound business model is the BBC with its guaranteed license fee.
At the moment the future of the press does looks bleak and I don't expect that in five years time we will have half the titles we have at the moment. And its not just the number of titles, it's the quality of the journalism that will fall as the number of journalists falls and the papers become more and more reluctant to finance expensive overseas new gathering operations and long term investigative reporting.
The future of the press is probably one of the most important issues facing democracy.
|
I'm sure they will be about. I've no doubt they will change from what we have now that I agree with. The only way they can survive is to make the customer believe what they are paying for is worth it. With the way sales are now and will no doubt continue that is very much an up hill struggle. To me I can't see myself picking up a newspaper daily or even once ever.
The numbers might well fall, although the last time I flicked through a paper that might not be a bad thing. With the rise of the online media I don't think it will mean a fall in quality of journalism, personally I find the online media of greater quality and of far more interest than the print media. I find myself checking back most days to see updates on news stories and blog updates far more than I ever did when I read print media.
|
>> I'm sure they will be about. I've no doubt they will change from what we have now that I agree with
I think so too. Plenty of megalomaniacs with the necessary bread. There was an earlier wave of commercial modernisations with Eddie Shah and the like.
Of course even the broadsheets often seem beyond the pale these days. Still got classy hacks but the whole thing is getting more slapdash and careless. The downstream production side is palpably worse than it used to be, not that it was ever perfect
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 23:20
|
On line blogs are all very well for comment but to a very large degree they live on the back of the traditional print media. New reporting is an expensive business . Sending reporters to somewhere like Syria doesn't come cheap.
It seems inevitable that as you say traditional newspaper sales will continue to fall. The problem is that few seems prepared to pay for its online equivalent. Are you prepared to pay for on-line content?
|
I'd disagree, in an increasing number of cases it's the online only that are doing the running and the press are catching on after they've covered online. It's not just comment but content as well, for me it far outstrips what you find in the newspapers. Primarily because they are too general but I suppose that's the nature of the beast. Possibly newspapers are better if people like to flick through the news rather than have anything too in depth? There may well be a market for that.
No it is expensive to send people to war zones, but quite often the best coverage comes from those already there, in that case there are all sorts of blogs with someone in country. With Syria case I'd rather read from someone who knows what they talking about with some real analysis rather than 2 minute slot on the news or small column in the newspaper.
I donate to blogs that I find interesting and read often. Would I pay for online content of traditional print media? No, it's just not of any interest to me to do so.
|
>> I donate to blogs that I find interesting and read often.
I feel the same way about news these days by finding alternative sources whilst bearing in mind their own possible agendas, refreshingly free of excess political correctness too.
With traditional source of newspaper or televison reporting you still get an agenda, and that includes especially the BBC.
One mans terrorist etc.
|
>> Yes RR but don't you have to pay for access? Even the Sin is charging
>> £2 a week now
>>
£1.99 a month for the Telegraph, the Guardian and Indy are still free as is the Mail (You need something to balance those left wing rags).
The Mirror is still available without charge, but that must be the most biased, infantile pile of whatsit ever published. Daily newspaper sales will die a death over the next decade. I work part time in my local shop weekends and hardly anyone under forty buys a newspaper, most sales are to the elderly. When the non-internet generation disappears so will most of the press as we know them.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Thu 8 Aug 13 at 20:58
|
|
Sort of browsing Supermarket shelves of late, the choice seems to have gone down. I have both my motorcycle mags by subscription (and of course the Eye) - I very occasionally impulse buy Autocar - but only if there's a topless model (F Type) on the front !
|
I get my Model Rail and swm's cookery mag delivered with the morning paper. Me mate Ali gets two more mags at his post office for me.....The Railway Magazine and the Hornby Magazine.
When I go in to collect, he insists on shouting, so everyone can hear, that my Horny magazine is in ! He sometimes has Asian Babe on the shelf, which is quite an eye-opener !
I used to get all the classic car stuff but I don't bother with any car or bike mags now. The Camping & Caravanning and British Heart Foundation mags come by post, free. Evening paper delivered and that's it.
Ted
|
|
I was idly Googling for car models and I came across Fiesta magazine. Looks good!
|
|
Try looking for Escorts. ;-)
|
>> I came across Fiesta magazine.
That sounds a bit premature.
|
Nuts (and other lads mags) censorship - Dog
