Jump to content

The Royal Family


Genie

Recommended Posts

Daily Mail alone made over 170m in digital advertising last year, the number of stories regarding Harry and Meghan is a key driver to people to their site. The mail online pretends they have had enough of them, but I suspect today alone there will be at least 5 stories on them, not that I want to check this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

About a quarter of what Harry made?! 

I doubt that's True. 

But even if it was. Again so what? We can't have Harry making more money than the rags that rip into him and his wife? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Daily Mail alone made over 170m in digital advertising last year, the number of stories regarding Harry and Meghan is a key driver to people to their site. The mail online pretends they have had enough of them, but I suspect today alone there will be at least 5 stories on them, not that I want to check this.

That is enough to make you want to vomit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Daily Mail alone made over 170m in digital advertising last year, the number of stories regarding Harry and Meghan is a key driver to people to their site. The mail online pretends they have had enough of them, but I suspect today alone there will be at least 5 stories on them, not that I want to check this.

For completeness, as of 12.47 today the daily mail online has published 13 stories relating to Harry and Meghan, 13. they love that, yesterday, and remember this is one site, yesterday they published 41 stories on them. It drives traffic, people share stories and visit the site. The Mail Online have their nose in the trough as much as anyone. 170 million from digital advertising last year alone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Daily Mail alone made over 170m in digital advertising last year, the number of stories regarding Harry and Meghan is a key driver to people to their site. The mail online pretends they have had enough of them, but I suspect today alone there will be at least 5 stories on them, not that I want to check this.

For transparency, they raised 170m in revenue, that's not what they 'made'. Turnover for show, profits for dough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

For transparency, they raised 170m in revenue, that's not what they 'made'. Turnover for show, profits for dough!

The point I am making is that ad revenue is high, they make a lot of money, a hell of a lot of money from ads and driving people to their site, their perceived enemy features in a significant number of stories that drive people to their site. 100% of them negative. Now you said that they make a quarter of what Harry made, not sure thats true. Turnover or profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, tomav84 said:

because whether they do or not the daily mail etc is still going to tell its own version of their story. they want to tell their side. and as others have said, why do it for free?

they were getting battered by the press well before all these interviews and stuff so a section of the public hated them anyway.

Thing is I don't see how 90% of what he's come out with actually sets any record straight or protects his wife. 

He's mainly launched a load of grenades about a ton of stuff no one had any idea about. 

He's made the story bigger and painted himself and his wife in an even more negative light with the press he's trying to put straight so now there is going to be more intrusion, more focus and more press stories. 

So the massive fees paid to me suggests to me it was never about protecting his family and setting the record straight as he's tried to paint it, it was always just a massive cash grab designed to be explosive and sensational. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

If you watch the documentary, the hounding and abuse started as soon as they were spotted together as an item.

If you think they could swan off to the California sun and leave a peaceful, undisturbed life, you're painfully naive.

So now they can? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still hate this but this as much as I can see is what happened. Harry starts seeing a woman of colour, Palace, absolutely not known for being welcoming to anyone not white famously treats her badly, according to the person that was treated badly. Papers, allegedly after being fed stories by Father Markle and the Palace start a constant barrage of stories on Markle and young Prince Harry. Harry says hold up, this is shit, OK, if stories are coming from my own family, and knowing how the press hounded my mum, possibly time to reconsider my options. He reconsiders his options. Says cheers, but stepping down and hope to make my own money. Fair do's no one would be happy with his stepping down and still on the take from the public purse, so off you fly you beardy ginger. Oh, but just so you know, you ain't getting personal protection, so **** you.

Heads to states, hoping for a quieter life and does stuff. OK, now to put food on the table, applies to walmart, wendys and the roller disco, and oddly they say no, right what you got, well turns out he is a former royal, ok, that's lucrative, spotify, netflix, publishing companies all want a slice of that pie. OK thinks Harry, let me tell you about Invictus, can we stop you there Harry, we didn't pay you all of this cash for you to tell us about one legged action men. Spill the beans, and spill them now. This is now where we are.

I expect more titillation in the next volume of his book, but you know, he is a royal, so **** him, but **** him, the same amount as the king and the not spare prince. **** them all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

He's mainly launched a load of grenades

It's funny, that's the exact phrase every Royal Correspondent in the media seemed to be using last week. It's like it came from somewhere originally and everyone copied it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's funny, that's the exact phrase every Royal Correspondent in the media seemed to be using last week. It's like it came from somewhere originally and everyone copied it

I think it's a fairly normal term of phrase for someone who is putting the cat amongst the pigeons in fairly spectacular style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

I think it's a fairly normal term of phrase for someone who is putting the cat amongst the pigeons in fairly spectacular style.

I'd say that one was far more common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If someone is launching grenades at cats and pigeons they can’t be all bad.

When I was a little boy I was walking through a park in Boston. There was a drunken grubby looking guy there, golfing pigeons. There was battered bloody birds and feathers all around the area. 

Was that you?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, maqroll said:

When I was a little boy I was walking through a park in Boston. There was a drunken grubby looking guy there, golfing pigeons. There was battered bloody birds and feathers all around the area. 

Was that you?

 

Vaguely rings a bell, was it a beer batter or more of a light tempura?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

If someone is launching grenades at cats and pigeons they can’t be all bad.

That'll ruffle a few feathers. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â