Lucy Pinder Photo Gallery Lucy Pinder Videos Index Lucy Pinder Television Website on Facebook LucyPinderNews and LPinderOfficial twitter feeds
Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index Facebook button Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum
Lucy Pinder - Pictures, News, Videos - The One-Stop Shop
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister (Problems? See here)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Twitter button Lucy Pinder Videos Index

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT
Go to page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index -> Lucy Pinder
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:30 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


The lunatics have taken over the asylum... it's official Sad

Malene Espensen writes on her forum:
Malene wrote:
The Star is totally changing Sad Which is a total bummer.
The editor does not want any glamour stuff in the paper anymore.....I don't know why (maybe you should write and ask her)?

It's a real shame and not fun anymore....I just really hope she won't scratch Page 3 as well Yikes! Yikes! Yikes!


What do they think people buy the Star for? The glamour pics of course. It certainly isn't for the textual content. A chap on another forum wrote "[The news in it] is all b******s anyway, I just buy it for the pictures of half-naked celebs"... and that is typical.

The Star has got where it is today purely as a result of having plenty of glamour pics. If it hadn't had them nobody would have been interested... and if they get rid of them then everybody will lose interest and buy the Sun or the Sport instead.

It is the Sun - and to a lesser extent the Sport - that the Star is in competition with. To deliberately disadvantage themselves in the competition is frankly insane.

Without regular appearances from Lucy, Malene and friends it will die. Simple as.

One suspects yet another instance of creeping PC madness... Be so PC that you put yourselves out of business? Barmy.

I urge everyone to follow Malene's suggestion and write to the Star pointing out the inevitable circulation crash that will result from such a crazy policy.


Last edited by Pigeon on Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Dib



Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Contributions: 276
Location: San Luis Potosí, México

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:47 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Please, tell me this is some kind of British "April's fool day".

If not... well I cannot help much since México... that paper doesn't come to here.

It's indeed a shame.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message # MSN Messenger
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:50 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Dib wrote:
Please, tell me this is some kind of British "April's fool day".


I wish it was mi amigo... but alas it isn't, Malene knows what she's talking about...

You may not be in the readership, but anyone can point out the illogicality and complete lack of business sense of such a move Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Supra Edd



Joined: 29 Jan 2009
Contributions: 98

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 6:52 am    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


that seems very strange. im sure that if it happens the sales will go down. then they will realise their errors, sack the editor and get back to their old ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 7:44 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Thing is it's happening already, we've already seen a distinct lack of any glamour features apart from page 3. Used to be just as likely, if not more so, to see Lucy in some other feature as on page 3, front covers, centre spreads, illustrating some article... recently there has been none of that apart from the Wolverine promo, and page 3 has been largely populated by unknowns... not only Lucy but Malene and the other familiar faces have all been short on appearances.

The sooner they are apprised of their error the better, it doesn't help anyone for them to have to "learn the hard way" by watching the sales fall off while in the meantime we are starved of Lucy...

Apparently they are not insensible to direct reader feedback, either, so it's definitely worth making the effort.

Useful addresses:

Editor - Dawn Neesom
The Northern & Shell Building
Number 10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6EN
Tel: 0871 434 1010
Fax: 020 7922 7960

Richard Desmond - Chairman of Northern & Shell (owners of the Star)
Martin Ellice, Stan Myseron - Joint managing directors
Same address
Tel: 0870 062 6620
Fax: 020 7922 7789

I would suggest it is probably best not to mention Lucy, Malene or any other individual model by name, better to just complain about the policy in general...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Poggy



Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Contributions: 581

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:05 am    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


I noticed some time ago that the page 1 glamour feature vanished. Then the centre spread feature has become rare.

The problem here lies in that with a woman editor the paper will lose most of it's glamour features. I'm not saying all women are like this but......You will find that many women still think women are degrading themselves by doing glamour work. Yes they often think that because they pose topless they have no brains. Not realising how good the money can be and there are women who enjoy doing glamour modelling.


Sorry but I will never buy the Sun (Liverpool supporter) and the Sport I've not bought since my early 20's. So soon I'll not be buying a newspaper then. As the only thing I buy it for is the glamour mostly. As all the news and sport is old anyway. I mean you don't buy a newspaper for up to date news. As it will always be a day behind compared to TV and internet.

So IMO big mistake dropping the glamour by the Star.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:00 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Poggy wrote:
The problem here lies in that with a woman editor the paper will lose most of it's glamour features. I'm not saying all women are like this but......You will find that many women still think women are degrading themselves by doing glamour work. Yes they often think that because they pose topless they have no brains. Not realising how good the money can be and there are women who enjoy doing glamour modelling.


Ironically such arguments apply with rather more force to the relative unknowns who they are featuring on page 3 under the current policy - paid £60/hr, are there long enough to earn one hour's money, and much of that is eaten by travelling expenses - than it does to the established big names such as Lucy who have the appeal, stature and leverage to extract a decent fee. You'd really have expected someone in the position of editor for the Star to be better placed than most to realise this...

You also raise the point that glamour modelling is a much under-appreciated line of work - people do not realise that to succeed at it most certainly does require significant talent; as the self-submitted photos on the Nuts website, for example, show, anyone can take her clothes off but it takes something special to make the result into a pic that leaps out and grabs you - and that special something comes from the model, not the photographer. Also the amount of hard work and application required is not generally appreciated. It is, really, much like many high-earning professions - but unlike the more conventional such, people are distracted by the result Smile and do not understand what goes into it.

Dawn Neesom has been there since 2003... I wonder if the hiatus in Lucy's appearances in the Star a few years ago was down to a previous attempt to instigate such a policy, but without Malene to spill the beans for us...

The word is spreading, anyway... babe100 have now taken up the cry Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:06 am    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


...Proof that they are not insensible to reader feedback Smile

"A, Lytham" has texted in to their text-in page (text DSTAR followed by a space, then your name and comment, to 80088) complaining about the shortage of Lucy on page 3 recently. Good work that man Thumb Up! and the result is this:



...One will recall that this is the second time recently someone has done this, and with a similar result...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:47 am    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


...and today yet a third person has achieved success in this field Big Grin Lucy's promo last weekend has led to three pro-Lucy text messages on their text-in page Big Grin and one of them has resulted in a repeat of this pic... considering that two of the messages made direct reference to the claws, it is somewhat odd that they have chosen the one pic that does not feature them, but it seems the message may be getting through... so if you haven't made your point yet, go on and do it! Smile

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
kilbs



Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Contributions: 214

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:17 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Pigeon wrote:
...Proof that they are not insensible to reader feedback Smile

"A, Lytham" has texted in to their text-in page (text DSTAR followed by a space, then your name and comment, to 80088) complaining about the shortage of Lucy on page 3 recently. Good work that man Thumb Up! and the result is this:


So what is the number then Pigeon, Jsn says its 82100 youve got 80088? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:36 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


82100 is the usual number they use for text votes - "text DSLUCY to 82100" and all that. They seem to use it for other things as well though so it probably works. However, 80088 is the number actually quoted on the text-in page... that's where I copied the instructions from - so I think that's the one we can say definitely works.

.....................................


I have found an interview with Dawn Neesom from way back in 2004. There are some interesting bits in it:

Dawn Neesom interview, 2004 wrote:
Part of her strategy is to involve readers - from a letters page for the text-message generation ("Can any1 explain y the bird sh*t on my car is PURPLE?") (Eating berries Wink ~ P) to a quest for Britain's "Cleavage Queen", which attracted entries from 2,000 " gorgeous babes". The Sun's "cleavage week", by contrast, lacked any "conviction", Neesom notes.

She rejects as patronising any suggestion that the paper should not show topless models. "Girls love it. They see it as a path to fame and fortune.

And they're not wrong. It's aspirational. A reader might have the worst job on Earth, but they think, 'Jordan started off like this, so maybe I'll have a go.'" The paper claims to have discovered not just Jordan, but Melinda Messenger and Nell McAndrew. (2004 - bit early for them to be listing Lucy. ~ P)


From earlier on:

Dawn Neesom interview, 2004 wrote:
"The secret is it's fun, it's cheeky, you read it and you smile," she says.

"Let's face it, people are not getting their news from newspapers now. The only paper that's doing exceptionally well is the Daily Star, and we have a light and frothy diet of celebrity and fun.


But also:

Dawn Neesom interview, 2004 wrote:
Yet it has faced a struggle to appeal more widely to women readers.

Neesom responds that she has increased the proportion from around 30 to 40 per cent by using "less laddish" headlines and photographs of women celebrities rather than "gratuitous models".


There seems to be a degree of ambivalence expressed here - on the one hand she acknowledges the importance and success of the glamour content but she also decries "gratuitous models"....

The interesting thing is that there is - certainly now - a significant overlap between the categories of "celebrities" and "models", and the Star has played some part in bringing this about. Several models are now big enough names to count as celebrities in their own right. Lucy is a case in point... and it is again interesting that Dawn Neesom joined the Star in 2003, the same year they gave Lucy her "break".

Seems to me (a) she's always been somewhat in two minds over it, and (b) the current policy is failing to take advantage of the celebrity/model overlap.

I'm also not sure about the 30/40% statistic and the significance of the female readership in terms of sales... I think it probably correlates more to readers than buyers. Looking at those of my friends who are "in relationships" (I hate that expression, everyone is unless you're a hundred-percent hermit...) it seems to be that in terms of who actually chooses and buys a publication, the men buy the papers (Star, Sun etc) and the women buy the magazines (OK, Hello etc). She reads His paper, so She counts as a "reader", but it's Him who buys it, and primarily for His own entertainment, so it's mainly the attraction to the male readership that actually determines sales.

And certainly diminishing such attraction does hurt sales in a very noticeable way. When Lucy is on the front cover the Star is guaranteed to sell out pretty quickly in every outlet round here except one or two who always massively overstock. When, on the other hand, the front cover is all about gossip rather than glamour, as has been the case recently, it takes much longer for the paper to sell out. Unfortunately due to newsagents' ordering patterns this phenomenon will not be readily apparent to those who analyse the situation in terms of numbers of copies delivered to newsagents... they just order their regular amount and it sells out in the morning or in the evening depending on how attractive an issue it is... they can't pre-emptively order more copies when Lucy's going to be in it... (perhaps I should start tipping them off Smile)

It's also noticeable that the "unknown" models don't get the paper to sell as fast as the "big names" like Lucy or Malene do.

One other noticeable point from the interview is a definite intention to give the readers what they want, so it is surely worth making it known what we want...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:12 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


...Well I haven't received any kind of response yet to my letter to the Star, neither a letter in return nor any sign of a change of heart in terms of what we've seen in the paper.

Today's paper includes an article about horse riding being sexy, but the pics they have used to illustrate it in the paper are hardly glamorous and the one of Amy Winehouse is frightening.

The website version of the article includes this lovely pic of Lucy Big Smile why couldn't they have printed this in the newspaper version?




So if you haven't yet written to the Star to express your concern, once again I urge you to do so...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
kilbs



Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Contributions: 214

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:38 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


email is starletters@dailystar.co.uk hope they do something. its crap this is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:05 pm    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Thanks, seems I forgot the email address Blush I tend to prefer snail mail for things like this as there's more chance of it being taken seriously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6645

DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOTPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:58 am    Subject: DAILY STAR LOSES THE PLOT Reply with quote


Don't let's be forgetting about this chaps.

On Monday we have the first picture of Lucy in the Star for over two weeks... and that is only there as a result of reader pressure, good work to pompeyblue Thumb Up!

I still haven't had a reply to my letter to Dawn Neesom, shall have to write again... this is an important matter and I will not be satisfied with a lack of response.

It is especially important that people write now and tell them about it because the current shenanigans about Jordan - and I don't just think it's all a setup, I know it is, for definite - is going to obscure the depressed sales from the lack of glamour features. They're getting a splash front page every day out of it; it couldn't have come at a worse time.

We know, too, that Lucy has done a new shoot for the Star. So where is it? It was knocking on for three weeks ago now. We've seen the Nuts shoot she did after it, so when do we get something from the new one?

This policy needs to change, and it needs to change now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index -> Lucy Pinder All times are GMT
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Go to page 1, 2  Next

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Lucy Pinder News on Twitter Lucy Pinder TV on Facebook Lucy Pinder herself on Twitter


Powered by phpBB 2.0.23+repack-4 (Debian) © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
phpBB SEO