|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 17, 2023 7:38:40 GMT
No, no, it's exactly the other way around. Rambo and Mrs Windsor are wonderful, sincere people who are being taken advantage of, and the £25 mill for a book deal is only a reasonable compensation.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 17, 2023 11:03:16 GMT
It’s honestly bizarre how obsessed you are with attacking everything to do with Harry and Meghan and this book. You clearly hate them - which is your right - but by any standard it’s obviously and undeniably a gigantic hit sales-wise.
Harry’s book has been selling a million copies per day just in the US. He sold enough books to make the top 10 bestseller list for an entire year, in just one week. It’s a phenomenal seller. Claiming it’s not selling and making snide comments just looks weirdly petty. You can dislike Harry and dislike his book while still acknowledging that it’s sold insanely well.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 17, 2023 12:16:44 GMT
Ah yes, it's me.
I'm not keen on Penguin's self-interested promo. Might turn out to be right. The unknown is the number who want to be sure themselves about what he is saying - i.e. not relying on media. That was the theme in a BBC vox pop I saw online. In other words, having sat on the fence, there is now the opportunity for a lot of people to form a view: Victim or appalling dick, which seems healthy.
At the same time, the publishers are pushing it every which way they can, which you expect from their huge investment. What's today's promo - still about sales, or something fresh? Maybe another interview, commenting on the unfair/racist media.
It's quite the industry the two of them have created.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 17, 2023 17:15:44 GMT
It’s honestly bizarre how obsessed you are with attacking everything to do with Harry and Meghan and this book. You clearly hate them - which is your right - but by any standard it’s obviously and undeniably a gigantic hit sales-wise. It's hilarious, the poor thing...
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jan 17, 2023 17:25:06 GMT
It’s honestly bizarre how obsessed you are with attacking everything to do with Harry and Meghan and this book. You clearly hate them - which is your right - but by any standard it’s obviously and undeniably a gigantic hit sales-wise. It's hilarious, the poor thing... Strange hill to die on...
|
|
|
Post by interval99 on Jan 17, 2023 18:11:55 GMT
When you have a record breaking best selling book, but the world is laughing at you.
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Jan 17, 2023 18:15:21 GMT
When you have a record breaking best selling book, but the world is laughing at you. Gurl...
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 17, 2023 19:45:16 GMT
Print book sales figures are not self-reported, they are collected from retailers by Nielsen BookData. They are an independent company - publishers have to pay them to get access to their data, which they use for market research and sales forecasts. The publishing industry needs that data to be accurate to be able to know what is selling well and what is not, to forecast sales in a way that allows them to manage the supply chain efficiently. Print books are sold to retailers on a sale-or-return basis and Returns are a nightmare for publishers - you’ve ended up paying to produce books and to store them in a warehouse and to transport them to and from retailers, and then you end up having to pay to pulp them when they don’t sell. Nielsen’s entire business model is based on the accuracy and timeliness of their data. So whatever you think of Random Penguin’s report of the ebook and audiobook sales, Neilsen’s Print sales data *is* accurate. www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/17/prince-harry-spare-is-fastest-selling-non-fiction-bookOf course Randon Penguin have no need and no incentive to overreport ebook and audiobook sales. Royalties are paid based on reported sales, and closely audited. Inflating sales figures would mean having to pay out more money.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 17, 2023 21:39:28 GMT
If you note the number of people who will only use self-service cash checkouts in supermarkets (esp Aldi and Lidl), you can start to understand there is much more to it than the century.
It does seem to be half price both in the shops and online (hardback £14), so the difference is postage cost, the hope it will eventually arrive, plus willingness/ability to use debit cards in general, and in particular online. What a weird comment. All major new releases like this are sold at half price on release by the major retailers. That’s totally standard practice. You can blame Amazon for it. Amazon also has free delivery options.
|
|
3,081 posts
|
Post by Rory on Jan 17, 2023 21:58:01 GMT
When you have a record breaking best selling book, but the world is laughing at you. Gurl... Mortifying, he's made himself a laughing stock.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 17, 2023 22:24:46 GMT
Print book sales figures are not self-reported, they are collected from retailers by Nielsen BookData. They are an independent company - publishers have to pay them to get access to their data, which they use for market research and sales forecasts. The publishing industry needs that data to be accurate to be able to know what is selling well and what is not, to forecast sales in a way that allows them to manage the supply chain efficiently. Print books are sold to retailers on a sale-or-return basis and Returns are a nightmare for publishers - you’ve ended up paying to produce books and to store them in a warehouse and to transport them to and from retailers, and then you end up having to pay to pulp them when they don’t sell. Nielsen’s entire business model is based on the accuracy and timeliness of their data. So whatever you think of Random Penguin’s report of the ebook and audiobook sales, Neilsen’s Print sales data *is* accurate. www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/17/prince-harry-spare-is-fastest-selling-non-fiction-bookOf course Randon Penguin have no need and no incentive to overreport ebook and audiobook sales. Royalties are paid based on reported sales, and closely audited. Inflating sales figures would mean having to pay out more money. Yes, I used to work for Nielsen! Kathryn is right, as usual she has checked her facts! I presented audit data to FMCG companies in the late 80s. In the days when you had graduate training schemes and final salary pensions! Better known, as a brand name, in America, where they are a household name as they also do the TV ratings…there’s even a mention of them in the movie The Rain Man, where they gain entry to someone’s house to watch TV by claiming to work for Nielsen!
|
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 18, 2023 8:59:51 GMT
Roll up, roll up, the person best known for playing a fascist on stage let's rip
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 18, 2023 9:04:20 GMT
Latecomer The book supply chain lectures I had to sit through during my Publishing MA all came flooding back…. 😄 It’s just funny to see people’s cognitive dissonance produce such half-formed incoherent ramblings. It’s like they just can’t face the fact that they’ve been wrong. The funnier thing is watching all the major British newspapers doing the same thing - it’s like children pouting and throwing tantrums because they haven’t got their own way. Especially as the obsessive coverage has been amazing free publicity. The book itself isn’t nearly as sensational as the press has made it out to be because the tone is so much more reflective and measured. The tabloids have surely persuaded people to read it who wouldn’t have normally.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 20, 2023 10:11:54 GMT
So, we've had an entire thread telling us "ignorant" types how terrible the media is and how it misrepresents and lies about Rambo and Mrs Rambo. Now, we have the media reporting on sales by the media of a book ghost written for a media personality - and it turns out the media reported data (on sales) is perfect and unimpeachable.
For us simple folk, it's a little dizzying.
|
|
724 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 20, 2023 10:49:50 GMT
So, we've had an entire thread telling us "ignorant" types how terrible the media is and how it misrepresents and lies about Rambo and Mrs Rambo. Now, we have the media reporting on sales by the media of a book ghost written for a media personality - and it turns out the media reported data (on sales) is perfect and unimpeachable.
For us simple folk, it's a little dizzying.
Nielsen aren’t the media. They are an independent market research company who provide audit data. They sell this data. It is facts. More interesting by far is why certain sections of society hate Megan and Harry and other sections don’t.
|
|
|
Post by edi on Jan 20, 2023 11:24:20 GMT
If you are struggling with your electricity bills and soaring food prices, it's a little hard to sympathise with a whinging super rich couple - their cottage was just too small for them and shock horror some of the furniture came from IKEA
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 20, 2023 15:55:54 GMT
On the other hand, sometimes people who are struggling financially quite like finding out that rich people can be miserable despite their wealth.
And it’s not like they were super-wealthy when they lived in Nott Cot. I’m pretty sure most people *were* surprised to hear that a Prince lived in a cottage and not a Palace, and shopped at discount retailers in the sales. It’s just not what people expect.
Royal finances are deeply weird.
|
|
868 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jan 20, 2023 16:05:47 GMT
The late Queen's fondness for cornflakes from a tupperware container and an ancient two bar electric fire for heat was well known for decades. The image of frugality played well as a distraction from all the millions that were wasted on things like hushing up scandals.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jan 20, 2023 16:51:16 GMT
Yes. And the idea that she walked around Palaces turning lights off. There’s a deep weirdness inherent in financial the set-up- only the monarch and the Prince of Wales have dedicated sources of independent income. They decide what everyone else gets - either from the Sovereign Grant or from the proceeds of their Duchies. ‘Working Royals’ are not permitted to earn their own money - except then you have Princess Anne, who The Queen purchased a ‘private’ estate for en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatcombe_Parkand where commercial events are held. So Anne does have a private source of income to at least partly pay for the maintenance of her lifestyle and that of her family, which was gifted to her by The Queen. Andrew is notoriously without known independent income, and yet somehow could afford to pay £7.5 million to renovate Royal Lodge and buy its 75 year lease en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_LodgeNot to mention the Swiss Chalet and the infamous pay-off. Edward also paid a very substantial amount from ‘private funds’ for his lease on Bagshot Park. Some of these private funds were surely inherited money - but as Royal wills are not made public no-one actually knows who inherited what. We do now know that Harry didn’t inherit from his mother until he turned 30. It must have been quite a surprise to The Queen that such a fuss was made about Frogmore Cottage, considering the family’s history of arranging accommodation for its spares.
|
|
|
Post by edi on Jan 20, 2023 17:14:50 GMT
On the other hand, sometimes people who are struggling financially quite like finding out that rich people can be miserable despite their wealth. . Precisely and that's one of the reasons I suspect the book is selling well
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 22, 2023 8:27:25 GMT
On the other hand, sometimes people who are struggling financially quite like finding out that rich people can be miserable despite their wealth. . Precisely and that's one of the reasons I suspect the book is selling well The book is selling well because it’s gossip about the worlds most famous family.
|
|
18,837 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 22, 2023 11:17:36 GMT
And because it had a multimillion dollar marketing campaign paid for by Netflix.
|
|
1,266 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jan 22, 2023 11:52:05 GMT
Ironically, the greater part of the publicity has come free of charge from the media frothing at the mouth.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Jan 22, 2023 12:30:36 GMT
Nothing is free when you live by the media. Ask the kids in 20 years.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 22, 2023 15:49:24 GMT
Exactly. The way the Cambridge children have been exploited in the media since birth is shameful. The media started to push this invented narrative that George is the mature well-behaved one, and Charlotte and Louis the naughty wilful ones, when they were still very young. It’s only a matter of time before Charlotte becomes the new Harry and the tabloids earn a fortune by making up stories about what a wild child teen she is (and the inevitable “showing off her leggy pins” stories - if they have decency they might wait till she’s 16) and demonising her to make George look good. None of those kids will ever know privacy, since the royal deal is the children belong at least partly to the press.
Thank god the Sussex kids are out of it, where the British tabloids can’t stalk them.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 22, 2023 23:05:34 GMT
Nothing is free when you live by the media. Ask the kids in 20 years. Grace Kelly’s kids. Served on a platter to the media. In fairness, I don’t think they realised what they were doing.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by sweets7 on Jan 22, 2023 23:09:27 GMT
Exactly. The way the Cambridge children have been exploited in the media since birth is shameful. The media started to push this invented narrative that George is the mature well-behaved one, and Charlotte and Louis the naughty wilful ones, when they were still very young. It’s only a matter of time before Charlotte becomes the new Harry and the tabloids earn a fortune by making up stories about what a wild child teen she is (and the inevitable “showing off her leggy pins” stories - if they have decency they might wait till she’s 16) and demonising her to make George look good. None of those kids will ever know privacy, since the royal deal is the children belong at least partly to the press. Thank god the Sussex kids are out of it, where the British tabloids can’t stalk them. While I cannot disagree that they way the media treat women is despicable, I cannot agree those children are overexposed. They are raiding them out of the limelight. Now the way William and Harry were raised. I mean did anyone expect them to be half normal. Bea and Eug either. Both of them are both absolutely grounded. Or so it seems. Better parenting. No tradegy in childhood.
|
|
5,593 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jan 25, 2023 14:02:39 GMT
I do hope those kids are able to choose their own lives. The media will pursue them for sure.
|
|
|
Post by NorthernAlien on Jan 25, 2023 14:11:00 GMT
I do hope those kids are able to choose their own lives. The media will pursue them for sure. The problem is the very distinctive names though, I think? Like, even just the surname 'Mountbatten-Windsor' invites questions from anyone who doesn't instantly recognise it, and the girl is named 'Lilibet', which is a lovely touching honour to Harry's granny, but, certainly in a British Comprehensive school would lead to years of bullying. And the middle name of Diana doesn't offer much relief, I don't think? Almost impossible to just shrink into the background with monikers *so* google-able.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 25, 2023 15:07:35 GMT
But they don't live in Britain? Even if they did, there's no way any royal is going to a state comp. They'd go to a posh school stuffed full of aristos, rubbing shoulders with kids named things like Artemis Cholmondeley-Plantagenet. I went to a state comp in a fairly posh part of London, and there were quite a few double-barrelled and unusual names, no bullying.
The'll end up at some posh private school in California with children of movie stars who are all named things like Pomegranate and Delaware. Or ∞=兀x2. Maybe just going by Archie Windsor and Lili Windsor, and be teased because their names are too boring and commonplace.
Anyway, surely worries about the media pursuing the children refer to the Cambridge children (who are public figures, are frequently photographed and trotted out at public events, will be expected to take on increasing public duties as they get older, and on whom the media are already thrusting manufactured personas and narratives) and not the Sussex children (who live thousands of miles away, are private citizens, and are barely ever papped)?
|
|