US Magazine gets lesson in politics

[Crookshanks]

Us Magazine Hit Hard by Canceling Subscribers After Palin Attack

http://newsbusters.org/node/24021/print
By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2008-09-05 06:19

Courtney Hazlett over at MSNBC's "The Scoop" [1] is reporting that thousands of "Us Weekly" subscribers have not only called the magazine to cancel their subscriptions -- some reports say up to 10,000 cancellations have occurred -- but have also contacted advertisers and expressed their outrage that they are advertising with the celebrity news magazine that would so blatantly try to destroy Governor Palin.

Hazlett is hearing that the editorial board of "Us Weekly" had thought they pegged it right that media pressure and attacks would see Palin pulled from the McCain ticket even before her debut speech. Because the media had so quickly swarmed to destroy her, they thought she was toast before she even had the chance to accept the nomination.

“When Us went to print Monday night, it looked like the ticket was falling apart," says one magazine editor. “They went to print thinking Palin was dead in the water, and their mistake was thinking everyone who reads Us is a Democrat, when they’re not. Readers are loyal, but the base of a political party is more loyal. They don’t need to read the magazine when there’s so much press around it to know to be upset.”

Reports vary that from 3,000 to 10,000 subscribers have canceled their subscriptions to the gossip mag scaring the pants off of the magazine industry. In a time when sales and advertising are both down, the magazine industry does not need this sort of imbroglio, for sure. Hazlett also reports that these many thousands of cancellations came before the attacks on Palin in "Us Weekly" were even printed and distributed.

Five thousand might not seem like a large number at first glance, but it’s significant in the context of Us’ printing schedule. The magazine goes to press Monday night, which means subscribers don’t receive their issues until Friday or Saturday. In other words, the cancellations are coming from subscribers who, in many cases, haven’t even gotten their hands on the actual issue.

This speaks to the arrogance of the left leaning media establishment. They were so darn sure that they could successfully destroy Sarah Palin that they counted their chickens before they were hatched. They assumed that by the time they printed and shipped their magazine, they would have succeeded in forcing McCain to boot her from the ticket.

They didn't know how tough Sarah Palin really was, nor how outraged their readership would be. :ihit

To appropriate a saying, arrogance goeth before the fall. And "Us Weekly" just took a tumble. :rollin
__________________

[Yonivore]

I think Oprah's getting the same treatment...although, she can probably weather it better than US Weekly.

[Clandestino]

yeah, i heard oprah says she won't have her on until after the elections.

[Mr. Peabody]

yeah, i heard oprah says she won't have her on until after the elections.

She hasn't had any of the candidates on during the primaries or the general. Not even Obama. Why should Palin be any different?

[Clandestino]

oprah is watched by women. palin is a fascinating woman... it makes perfect sense. plus she is out doing shit for obama.

[ChumpDumper]

So Palin wants to be interviewed on TV now?

I look forward to seeing her on this Sunday morning's talk shows then.

Which ones will she be on?

[PixelPusher]

I just want to consume shallow, salacious celebrity voyeurism without you injecting it with your filthy politics!

(golf clap)

[Mr. Peabody]

oprah is watched by women. palin is a fascinating woman... it makes perfect sense. plus she is out doing shit for obama.

She's out "doing shit" for Obama because she supports his candidacy. She did, however, announce long before Palin, the general election and even the primaries, that she would not have any of the candidates on her show, including Obama.

If she isn't even having the candidate she supports on her show, why should she be forced to have Palin on her show?

Also, were you this upset when she didn't have Clinton on her show?:rolleyes

[PixelPusher]

Also, were you this upset when she didn't have Clinton on her show?:rolleyes

The whole "sexism" aspect of their manufactured outrage is new to them. They'll need a while to break it in, like a new pair of shoes.

[Anti.Hero]

The whole "sexism" aspect of their manufactured outrage is new to them. They'll need a while to break it in, like a new pair of shoes.

Our lady could beat up your lady.

[Spurminator]

It's good to see US Weekly subscribers have standards when it comes to the private lives of others. Well, except for people who aren't politicians.

[MannyIsGod]

LMAO @ the thoughts that US Weekly or Oprah will be hurt by this.

[hitmanyr2k]

Dixie Chicks 2.0 :lol

[Biernutz]

Dixie Chicks 2.0 :lol


Who are the Dixie Chicks?

[JoeChalupa]

It is apparent that many readers do not subscribe to US's point of view.

[AFBlue]

It is apparent that many readers do not subscribe to US's point of view.

Just read the piece in Us Weekly...it was rediculous. Not to mention they had the "styles of Michelle Obama" near the front.

It was just crazy over the top, and I can see why people would be outraged.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't I say a few days ago that this election will expose the leaning of publications and the media that most people havren't been aware of before?

I think it is all going to backfire. The more and more I see, especially with how obvious they are this year... The more and more I think congress will become rebublican again.

The democrats block the will of the people... Drill now.

The average voter now see the bias and may seek more news sources. Bye bye many lemmings... The lemming grow up and become informed voters!

[01.20.09]

I see republicans are pissed off about the freedom of the press again. Unless it is some conservative rag pushing their agenda.

[ploto]

US weekly has circulation of 2,000,000. So even with the highest estimate, they lost 1/2 of 1%.

[KenMcCoy]

The 2 million circulation incudes newstand sales (which those type of magazines rely on much more than subscriptions)...so the affect may be larger than .5%.

[Nbadan]

Then again with all the free publicity the Palin story has generated for US, the counter sales numbers could be even higher...

[ploto]

Then again with all the free publicity the Palin story has generated for US, the counter sales numbers could be even higher...

Bingo

[Crookshanks]

I see republicans are pissed off about the freedom of the press again. Unless it is some conservative rag pushing their agenda.
Are you really that dense? This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. US Weekly can print whatever it wants - but consumers also have the right to express their outrage by NOT buying the magazine.

The whole point of the article was to show that these magazines that show such bias are not going to get away with it like they did in years past.

[Bartleby]

They already did get away with it.

The hype they are receiving and the revenue it generates will far outweigh the canceled subscriptions of five or ten thousand pissed off readers (many of whom will probably get over it and start buying the magazine again after a while anyway).

[Spurminator]

Yeah once the next round of celebrity baby pictures hits the stands, the readers will return.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Yeah once the next round of celebrity baby pictures hits the stands, the readers will return.

Bidding war for Bristol's baby pics?

[hitmanyr2k]

Who are the Dixie Chicks?

They're a female band that bashed Bush and his rushing to war which they thought was wrong (turns out they were right lol). They said they were ashamed that he was from Texas blah blah blah and they received a ton of backlash for it and the yokels boycotted them. Didn't really do much good in the end though.

[Yonivore]

Who are the Dixie Chicks?
Exactly.

[Yonivore]

They're a female band that bashed Bush and his rushing to war which they thought was wrong (turns out they were right lol). They said they were ashamed that he was from Texas blah blah blah and they received a ton of backlash for it and the yokels boycotted them. Didn't really do much good in the end though.
Really? Where are they now? No where near where they were prior to their fuck up.

[Wild Cobra]

I see republicans are pissed off about the freedom of the press again. Unless it is some conservative rag pushing their agenda.

I cannot speak for all republicans, especially since I'm not one. However, being a conservative, the problem we see isn't that the freedom to lie in the media exists. It's that so many people are stupid enough to believe the lies!

[George Gervin's Afro]

I cannot speak for all republicans, especially since I'm not one. However, being a conservative, the problem we see isn't that the freedom to lie in the media exists. It's that so many people are stupid enough to believe the lies!

Including talk radio?

Those people are stupid!

[Wild Cobra]

They're a female band that bashed Bush and his rushing to war which they thought was wrong (turns out they were right lol). They said they were ashamed that he was from Texas blah blah blah and they received a ton of backlash for it and the yokels boycotted them. Didn't really do much good in the end though.
Well, let's omit the opinion and stick with the facts.

The Dixie Chicks were a very popular rising band that would have been even more popular. The problem is that their primary audience, being country music listeners, was conservatives. When they made their opinions made known in the way they did it. Americans who they insulted decided they would not buy their music anymore. They killed their their own sales by offending their largest consumer base. Even radio stations refused to play their music because the listening audience complained.

I would say that in the case of US magazine, they killed a large segment of their sales. Sure, they probably mostly catered to liberal women, but they really offended the conservative woman.

Will they ever get that segment back, or will they have a permanent loss of revenue like the Dixie Chicks?

[ploto]

I would say that in the case of US magazine, they killed a large segment of their sales. Sure, they probably mostly catered to liberal women, but they really offended the conservative woman.

I know many a conservative woman who buys and reads all that trash! Next celebrity scandal and they will buy it again.

[ploto]

You realize that the Dixie Chicks album in 2006 debuted at #1 on both the pop and country charts and was a top ten best seller for that year, along with winning them 4 or 5 Grammy awards in that year alone.

fwc5YSAc-7g

[Wild Cobra]

You realize that the Dixie Chicks album in 2006 debuted at #1 on both the pop and country charts and was a top ten best seller for that year, along with winning them 4 or 5 Grammy awards in that year alone.

So what. It took them three years to come back, and if they didn't already achieve the stature they did... They would have never recovered.

Their audience radically changed to primarily libtards who liked what they did. If they didn't give the left such orgasms for their actions, that would have never happened. They really pissed of the traditional country crowd.

The Grammy's, being from the leftist hollywood, probably would have never honored them so well had they not bashed the president.

[Mr. Body]

Really? Where are they now? No where near where they were prior to their fuck up.

They didn't fuck up, they were right. Funny, most of the country agrees with them now.

[Mr. Body]

So what. It took them three years to come back, and if they didn't already achieve the stature they did... They would have never recovered.

Dude, musical acts haven't been releasing new albums every year since Elvis was skinny.

Three years between albums is awesome.