Boycott The Rag

[Deppo]

What's everyone's problem? The Sun are giving us more coverage now than they ever have done.

[Hamwic]

This is not just about the Sun or the Echo. Much as I dislike the Sun, the club and Cortese have got this entirely wrong. This is a miserable, parsimonious attempt to maximise income by flogging a few 'approved' images and to control the way the club is portrayed. This is censorship at its worst. Surely SFC can rise above it?

[hasper57saint]

I am afraid that while I think the Sun is a rubbish rag, Cortese's decision is wrong. The media have united against us and in a way I am glad. Cortese does not understand that in this country Freedom of the Press is a cornerstone of our democracy that acts as a counterbalance to arrogant and despotic decisions . Their pressure will either force him to change his mind or possibly force his removal.

 

Ah! But if this were so. Press Freedom relies entirely on 'honesty and integrity'. When did you last read an 'honest' newspaper? Look how the so-called 'press' destroyed certain England Managers!

[Deppo]

I also think we should play up to it. How about a round of "Oh when the Opposition FC goes marching in" on Saturday?

[SaintDonkey]

Before the Sun stuck it's oar in I thought that Cortese had made a bad error and should quietly back down from his position. But now I want him to stick to his guns just so the ****ing Sun can't claim credit for any change of policy at Saints.

[Deppo]

Proof that Murdoch is a mental megalomaniac:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/08/legal-case-murdoch-claims-sky

[Saint Fan CaM]

Its about time we fought back.......... "once proud club"..........."we apologise unreservedly to the fans" ...."blah blah bull****, its about time we decided whos' side we're on, Cortese and Saints or the currant bun! i personally never forgave them for Hillsborough FFs.

Mods, how about getting behind the team/management and call for an embargo on the Currant Bun?

 

Yep - agreed. Never have bought that rag - designed for neanderthal reading.

[Doctoroncall]

What's everyone's problem? The Sun are giving us more coverage now than they ever have done.

 

...and paradoxically to the OP they are getting more readership from Saints fans.

[Secret Site Agent]

Its about time we fought back.......... "once proud club"..........."we apologise unreservedly to the fans" ...."blah blah bull****, its about time we decided whos' side we're on, Cortese and Saints or the currant bun! i personally never forgave them for Hillsborough FFs.

Mods, how about getting behind the team/management and call for an embargo on the Currant Bun?

 

 

 

I don't buy the Sun or the Echo anyway, because I don't like them. But I agree with a lot of what they say on this issue.

 

Individuals can make their own choice. The mods certainly won't try to tell fans what to do though.

 

Or how about if you support the Sun and the Echo, but don't buy either, you start buying them from now on!!!!!!!!

[JackanorySFC]

lol at people that by their own admission never read the Sun saying it's read by "neanderthals, and thickos". The Sun is read by more ABC1's (2.8m) than the Times and Guardian put together (2.4m), it is the most read English speaking newspaper in the World (more than double the nearest English tabloid - the mirror) and has more Sports coverage than any other British newspaper.

 

It's also the big nasty paper that's doing a "football for £8.50" offer in conjunction with the Football Leagues and over 60 league Clubs aiming at bring football back to communities and people that can't afford todays costs - guess which "South Coast Club" isn't one of those 60?

 

Oh, it also recieved more commercial revenue from advertisers last year than ever in their history so yes, umm, I guess they may know a bit about commercial advertising/ sponsorship?

 

Before attempting to slag off 8m people in this country it's worth doing a bit of research to stop yourself looking like one of the thick, neanderthal types you are trying to run dow. Easily found at:

 

http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures;jsessionid=86C6EF097120FBF60BA272F7BB864F16

[docker-p]

I think Everyone needs to remember, although they have made the most noise, this is not just about the Sun. The Guardian, and Telegraph have both strongly criticised this move by NC, as has the Newspapers trade association.

And don't expect any of fleet streets main papers to back down on this as they have 91 other league clubs they can take photos from.

[JackanorySFC]

Yep - agreed. Never have bought that rag - designed for neanderthal reading.

 

How do you know if you've never bought it?

[Scummer]

lol at people that by their own admission never read the Sun saying it's read by "neanderthals, and thickos". The Sun is read by more ABC1's (2.8m) than the Times and Guardian put together (2.4m), it is the most read English speaking newspaper in the World (more than double the nearest English tabloid - the mirror) and has more Sports coverage than any other British newspaper.

 

It's also the big nasty paper that's doing a "football for £8.50" offer in conjunction with the Football Leagues and over 60 league Clubs aiming at bring football back to communities and people that can't afford todays costs - guess which "South Coast Club" isn't one of those 60?

 

Oh, it also recieved more commercial revenue from advertisers last year than ever in their history so yes, umm, I guess they may know a bit about commercial advertising/ sponsorship?

 

Before attempting to slag off 8m people in this country it's worth doing a bit of research to stop yourself looking like one of the thick, neanderthal types you are trying to run dow. Easily found at:

 

http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures;jsessionid=86C6EF097120FBF60BA272F7BB864F16

 

I see the Meridian region is also it's 3rd largest area of readership, after London and Central.

[buctootim]

lol at people that by their own admission never read the Sun saying it's read by "neanderthals, and thickos". The Sun is read by more ABC1's (2.8m) than the Times and Guardian put together (2.4m), it is the most read English speaking newspaper in the World (more than double the nearest English tabloid - the mirror) and has more Sports coverage than any other British newspaper.

 

It's also the big nasty paper that's doing a "football for £8.50" offer in conjunction with the Football Leagues and over 60 league Clubs aiming at bring football back to communities and people that can't afford todays costs - guess which "South Coast Club" isn't one of those 60?

 

Oh, it also recieved more commercial revenue from advertisers last year than ever in their history so yes, umm, I guess they may know a bit about commercial advertising/ sponsorship?

 

Before attempting to slag off 8m people in this country it's worth doing a bit of research to stop yourself looking like one of the thick, neanderthal types you are trying to run dow. Easily found at:

 

http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures;jsessionid=86C6EF097120FBF60BA272F7BB864F16

 

Lol. These are figures from the Newspaper Marketing Agency - the PR body funded by the newspapers to say nice things about newspapers. Readership of the Sun is nowhere near 8m, circulation is less than 3 million - including all bulk distribution -ie freebies given away. The Mirror is cutting around 200 editorial jobs including six of the current ten staff photographers. All papers will be relying increasingly on third party sources of pictures.

[Deppo]

lol at people that by their own admission never read the Sun saying it's read by "neanderthals, and thickos". The Sun is read by more ABC1's (2.8m) than the Times and Guardian put together (2.4m), it is the most read English speaking newspaper in the World (more than double the nearest English tabloid - the mirror) and has more Sports coverage than any other British newspaper.

 

It's also the big nasty paper that's doing a "football for £8.50" offer in conjunction with the Football Leagues and over 60 league Clubs aiming at bring football back to communities and people that can't afford todays costs - guess which "South Coast Club" isn't one of those 60?

 

Oh, it also recieved more commercial revenue from advertisers last year than ever in their history so yes, umm, I guess they may know a bit about commercial advertising/ sponsorship?

 

Before attempting to slag off 8m people in this country it's worth doing a bit of research to stop yourself looking like one of the thick, neanderthal types you are trying to run dow. Easily found at:

 

http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures;jsessionid=86C6EF097120FBF60BA272F7BB864F16

 

Using the NMA as an independent source for your 'facts' makes you look a bit like a thick, neanderthal type.

[wild-saint]

ITs harldy restricting the freedom of press. They are still free to report the events in thier own bias / style but they just arent allowed to take photos. In my mind freedom of press and permission to take photos are not one and the same.

[Wes Tender]

How do you know if you've never bought it?

Ah! so the only way that one can read the Sun is if one buys it, right?

 

Issues of the rag that are left on a pile at the Barbers or on a train seat are strictly not for consumption by anybody else apart from the individual who purchased it, right?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

The Echo have now waded in with a statement on the back page and invited the club to a meeting to discuss the situation.

They point out that in days of yore when the club declined to send a photographer to away games they would let the club have their pics no charge.

[La BoIS Saint]

Using the NMA as an independent source for your 'facts' makes you look a bit like a thick, neanderthal type.

 

Figures come from the ABC?

[Wilko]

If I don't buy the Sun, how will I know what to think?

[Wes Tender]

Lol. These are figures from the Newspaper Marketing Agency - the PR body funded by the newspapers to say nice things about newspapers. Readership of the Sun is nowhere near 8m, circulation is less than 3 million - including all bulk distribution -ie freebies given away. The Mirror is cutting around 200 editorial jobs including six of the current ten staff photographers. All papers will be relying increasingly on third party sources of pictures.

 

So circulation is less than 3 million, but 2.98 million of those readers are ABC1's? I take it all back. Clearly there are only 20,000 thickos reading it and the rest are the intelligentsia.

[Quickfire Double]

Hellfire, never mind a boycott: now I know The Sun is the thinking man's newspaper, and the English speaking world's one-stop shop for news and unbiased views, I'll be getting a copy every morning!

[gaz]

Sun readers don't care who scored on Saturday, as long as she has big boobs.

[saintquin]

I'm sure most papers buy their pic's from freelance photograthers anyway, that's why you see the same photo's in all or most of the papers of the same subject. So why not pay Saints instead of someone who is only trying to earn money out of Saints.

[CB Fry]

Using the NMA as an independent source for your 'facts' makes you look a bit like a thick, neanderthal type.

 

Lol. These are figures from the Newspaper Marketing Agency - the PR body funded by the newspapers to say nice things about newspapers. Readership of the Sun is nowhere near 8m, circulation is less than 3 million - including all bulk distribution -ie freebies given away. The Mirror is cutting around 200 editorial jobs including six of the current ten staff photographers. All papers will be relying increasingly on third party sources of pictures.

 

LOL. Got to love this forum, populated with people who are thick as pigsh it. God bless you all.

 

Readership figures are not "PR" they are managed by the national readership survey which is a joint venture between the papers, the media buyers and the advertisers themselves with equal representation of all three in the management of the figures. And here's a clue - two of those three parties have a vested interest in making sure the other party don't fudge the figures. Because it saves them money on advertising and makes their ad campaigns more effective.

 

But you carry on living in your dopey conspiracy land where everything is "PR"......

 

And readership is not the same as circulation, because as demonstrated below, papers aren't bought and read by a single person...

 

Ah! so the only way that one can read the Sun is if one buys it, right?

 

Issues of the rag that are left on a pile at the Barbers or on a train seat are strictly not for consumption by anybody else apart from the individual who purchased it, right?

 

most papers are read, on average by something like 2.4 to 2.8 people. Papers like the Sun tend to be higher than the broadsheets as they get passed round a bit more.

 

And you mention bulk and freebie copies but they are very rare these days, especially on the Sun which has never relied on them particularly. And anyway, it's not much more of a fudge than attendence figures counted even when season ticket holders stay at home. Bulk papers are still read, and adverts are seen, and there are very, very strict rules about how many bulks can be claimed in a period too.

 

 

So readership of the sun is not "nowhere near 8m" Buctootim, it is very near 8m, 7.7m at last count, with more ABC1s than any other paper except the Mail.

 

But everyfink is a PR conspiracy aint it. Thank got we've got the official site, the only place on earth reporting information with no agenda whatsover.

 

Christ.

Edited 11 August, 2010 by CB Fry

[Deppo]

I think you will find that the readership figures are often fudged, CB Fry.

[buctootim]

LOL. Got to love this forum, populated with people who are thick as pigsh it. God bless you all.

 

Readership figures are not "PR" they are managed by the national readership survey which is a joint venture between the papers, the media buyers and the advertisers themselves with equal representation of all three in the management of the figures. And here's a clue - two of those three parties have a vested interest in making sure the other party don't fudge the figures. Because it saves them money on advertising and makes their ad campaigns more effective.

 

But you carry on living in your dopey conspiracy land where everything is "PR"......

 

And readership is not the same as circulation, because as demonstrated below, papers aren't bought and read by a single person...

 

 

 

most papers are read, on average by something like 2.4 to 2.8 people. Papers like the Sun tend to be higher than the broadsheets as they get passed round a bit more.

 

And you mention bulk and freebie copies but they are very rare these days, especially on the Sun which has never relied on them particularly.

 

 

So readership of the sun is not "nowhere near 8m" Buctootim, it is very near 8m, 7.7m at last count, with more ABC1s than any other paper except the Mail.

 

But everyfink is a PR conspiracy aint it. Thank got we've got the official site, the only place on earth reporting information with no agenda whatsover.

 

Christ.

 

Your posts are never quite as informed or as smart as you try to portray. The idea that papers are read by 2.6 people on average is a total fallacy dreamt up by the NMA, and youve fallen for it. The papers dont compete on this figure because it is no-ones interest to do so, claiming more readership sells more advertising. The Audited Bureau of Circulation are the only figures which count - and the Sun has an average of 2.9 million and falling. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45444&c=1

 

I get the Times delivered every day. Im the only person in my household who reads it. In fact I only read it 4 or 5 times a week. So for every household like mine (0.6 readers per copy) you would have us believe there is another household where 5 people read a single copy.

[CB Fry]

Your posts are never quite as informed or as smart as you try to portray. The idea that papers are read by 2.6 people on average is a total fallacy dreamt up by the NMA, and youve fallen for it. The papers dont compete on this figure because it is no-ones interest to do so, claiming more readership sells more advertising. The Audited Bureau of Circulation are the only figures which count - and the Sun has an average of 2.9 million and falling. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45444&c=1

 

I get the Times delivered every day. Im the only person in my household who reads it. In fact I only read it 4 or 5 times a week. So for every household like mine (0.6 readers per copy) you would have us believe there is another household where 5 people read a single copy.

 

 

Dream on, you plank.

 

It's not the NMA, it's the National Readership Survey, and alongside the ABC audit is as rigourous a measure of media consumption as you'll find. Certainly far more rigourous than TV and Radio audience research.

 

ABC figures are a good guide to how newspapers are performing themselves, but advertisers and media buying agencies are more interested in readers, because ads are all about reaching people not newspaper buyers. Sorry, I do know about these things, not much but enough and clearly more than you.

 

The 2.6 thing is pretty true, your sample of one is just as lame as me saying that the Guardian I buy twice a week is read by three people each time. I don't know what the factor is for each individual paper but it a lot bigger than 0.6 readers per copy. Papers get passed round families and workplaces every day. There's a copy of the Times in my office that is read by at least 15 people ever day. Rule of thumb is two-and-a-half. It's not fallacy, get over it.

 

Any way, I haven't fallen for any bloody PR, it relates to my previous employment (Press Circulation) and my current employment (FMCG Brand Marketing). So I know what I'm talking about.

 

Anyway, I don't want to bicker as our owner has just passed on so let's leave it there.

[buctootim]

,,.

Edited 11 August, 2010 by buctootim
done with the bickering

[smithy]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3091521/Southampton-owner-Markus-Liebherr-dies.html

 

Puts a lot of things into perspective.

[Matthew Le God]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3091521/Southampton-owner-Markus-Liebherr-dies.html

 

Not calling us "South Coast Club" anymore.

[Sour Mash]

It's also the big nasty paper that's doing a "football for £8.50" offer in conjunction with the Football Leagues and over 60 league Clubs aiming at bring football back to communities and people that can't afford todays costs - guess which "South Coast Club" isn't one of those 60?

 

To be fair that offer was pretty s**t!

[Robsk II]

I hate the ****ing Sun anyway.

[Dalek2003]

See CBFRY is at it again. Only his view is the correct one. All knowing CBFRY our very own Mr Knowitall !

[Dan Johnson]

Dont read the Sun anyway and honestly couldnt care what they say about us.

[Leicestersaint]

I hate the Sun. I hate Murdock.

[ericb]

To call the Sun's readership Neanderthal and stupid is way beyond the pale to me, but to claim that it's the bastion of fair journalism because of the amount of people that read it is a bit like saying the ITV news is more in depth than Newsnight because more people watch it.

 

I think it's fairly obvious to most that the Sun plays to a couple of agenda's, firstly the political and economic bias of it's owner (hence the amount of anti-bbc articles it's printed along the years), and secondly a populist agenda to sell papers.

 

Of course you can argue that it doesn't make up copy, since as you point out that would lead to numerous lawsuits that it could not afford, but it does have a liberal view of the truth and will bend or misappropriate "facts" to fit their own agenda. Some people would argue this is clever reporting/journalism, as much as being able to confine subjects to the reading age of seven year child (this could be conjecture, but i've been led to believe that's the aim from friends in the industry). Whether any of this makes for fair and unbiased journalism is a totally different matter though.

 

As for saints ban on photographers i really struggle to see why anyone cares, aside from showing minor delusions of grandeur from NC - how many people outside of southampton and the team they're playing will even notice? - is it really such a big deal that it's worth numerous threads on an internet football forum, and a petty petulant campaign from a redtop newspaper?

 

Oh and one other thing about The Sun/Murdoch group, it's great that they're trying to re-associate football with the community, but don't you think that's just blatant marketing to those that can't see through it? Since otherwise they wouldn't be so pivotal in selling the global brand around the world, nor would they take their sports news channel, make it pay only and then advertise the fact as if they're some kind of philanthropist saint.

 

Sky/Murdoch and all those weasely little entities that run from his empire are part of the reason football is in the mess it's in, from the celebrity culture that justifies ridiculous wages, to the hype and hyperbole of The Greatest League In The World ^tm.

[St Chalet]

Am I right in thinking that we can only control the media rights on our home games? If so it will be interesting to see how many photos we get in the rags. Based on the thin coverage of League One I think the difference is likelt to be minimal.

 

The Sun are very used to paying big money to 3rd parties for photographs, they do pay Papp's for photos I would assume.

 

It seems that the clubs plan has backfired for now, but I wonder had it been one of the big four going first whether it might just have become the adopted model for football.

Edited 15 August, 2010 by St Chalet

[oxfordshire_saint]

This is not just about the Sun or the Echo. Much as I dislike the Sun, the club and Cortese have got this entirely wrong. This is a miserable, parsimonious attempt to maximise income by flogging a few 'approved' images and to control the way the club is portrayed. This is censorship at its worst. Surely SFC can rise above it?

 

Meh, censorship happens everywhere in today's world, read the following match report from FIFA and note how it makes no mention of the fact that an offside goal was shown on a big screen replay in the stadium, thus causing the entire Mexico team to go ape****:

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249717/match=300061502/summary.html

 

Also, let's take a look at the matchday photo gallery from England vs Germany (painful though it may be) and I can assure you that if you click through the images, you will not find a single one of Lampard's shot that crossed the line........funny that:

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249717/match=300061501/photolist.html#1261380

 

So, for example, if Wotton got sent off for decking someone and Saints released no photos of it, anyone who was there, saw it on TV or read a report of the match will still know it happened.

 

We're hardly North Korea now, are we?

[Danny]

Meh, censorship happens everywhere in today's world, read the following match report from FIFA and note how it makes no mention of the fact that an offside goal was shown on a big screen replay in the stadium, thus causing the entire Mexico team to go ape****:

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249717/match=300061502/summary.html

 

Also, let's take a look at the matchday photo gallery from England vs Germany (painful though it may be) and I can assure you that if you click through the images, you will not find a single one of Lampard's shot that crossed the line........funny that:

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249717/match=300061501/photolist.html#1261380

 

So, for example, if Wotton got sent off for decking someone and Saints released no photos of it, anyone who was there, saw it on TV or read a report of the match will still know it happened.

 

We're hardly North Korea now, are we?

 

The FIFA website is a bad example as it is the 'official line' from FIFA. It is the equivalent of Saints' official site - a marketing tool designed to show the organisation in as positive light as possible (understandable and fair enough, I guess). All the other media in the covering the World Cup however mentioned and showed images of the offside Argentinian goal and Lampard's shot - because they were unhindered in doing so.

 

Now, if FIFA controlled all images/footage, would anyone outside those in the stadium have seen either event? The match reports on the FIFA website suggest not. References to North Korea are OTT, but there is certainly a risk of 'censorship' for want of a better word. 'Sanitising' is probably a more appropriate way to describe it.

[Thedelldays]

i tell you what...try going into a world cup game as any old reporter with a camera...you reckon they would let you in...?

[Professor]

Personally I have nothing but utter contempt for the sun rag, but its one of life's lessons that if you take a decision such as Cortese has done, you need to think through the possible retaliations of the people affected in case you might finish up worse off. Cortese is still a young man and clearly of high intellect, but maybe this is a situation that doesn't crop up in the world of Swiss banking and where more experience of the British media may have helped.

[aintforever]

I don't see how disliking a certain paper makes Cortese's retarded policy any more or less wrong.

[oxfordshire_saint]

The FIFA website is a bad example as it is the 'official line' from FIFA. It is the equivalent of Saints' official site - a marketing tool designed to show the organisation in as positive light as possible (understandable and fair enough, I guess). All the other media in the covering the World Cup however mentioned and showed images of the offside Argentinian goal and Lampard's shot - because they were unhindered in doing so.

 

Now, if FIFA controlled all images/footage, would anyone outside those in the stadium have seen either event? The match reports on the FIFA website suggest not. References to North Korea are OTT, but there is certainly a risk of 'censorship' for want of a better word. 'Sanitising' is probably a more appropriate way to describe it.

 

Fair point, but we're not denying footage or reports, purely photos (and yes, I know photos of the contentious incidents at the World Cup were displayed elsewhere, but I was giving an exaple of how organisations handpick their content)

[Micky]

Personally I think that the readership figures are a complete red herring - it could be mandatory to read The Sun every day - who gives a toss. The point is they have resorted to making reference to the club and players by means of non-descript names in order to try to 'censor' our particular image. Each too their own. The last time I remember doing anything similar or likewise was when John Burgess stole my bike, let the tyres down and dumped it in a stream - after that I always, without fail, referred to him as 'Pongy Johny' - that showed him. Admitedly I was only young at the time, probably 9 or 10, definately pre-pubescent, but I hated Pongy Johny - mind you, I've since matured and grown up a little.

[Saint Fan CaM]

How do you know if you've never bought it?

 

I suspect that if I need to explain that to you, you are probably a Sun reader?!

[AussieDog]

Personally I think that the readership figures are a complete red herring - it could be mandatory to read The Sun every day - who gives a toss. The point is they have resorted to making reference to the club and players by means of non-descript names in order to try to 'censor' our particular image. Each too their own. The last time I remember doing anything similar or likewise was when John Burgess stole my bike, let the tyres down and dumped it in a stream - after that I always, without fail, referred to him as 'Pongy Johny' - that showed him. Admitedly I was only young at the time, probably 9 or 10, definately pre-pubescent, but I hated Pongy Johny - mind you, I've since matured and grown up a little.

 

Whatever happened to Pongy Johny?

[stuey]

ok, so... say we do have the fantastic season we all hope for? By christmas we are top of the league and flying... Therefore all the media want a piece of our action... Surely that makes images from Saints games much more valuable? Maybe thats what Cortese was banking on?

 

discuss.......

[westofshannonsaint]

What's everyone's problem? The Sun are giving us more coverage now than they ever have done.

 

& there is no such thing as bad publicity... I'm gonna have a glance at tomorrow's Irish Sun to see if they have got the memo (although I have always found it hard to find any Saints related story in the Irish/Iorish tabloids - it's like where's wally)

[for_heaven's_Saint]

ok, so... say we do have the fantastic season we all hope for? By christmas we are top of the league and flying... Therefore all the media want a piece of our action... Surely that makes images from Saints games much more valuable? Maybe thats what Cortese was banking on?

 

discuss.......

We're in league one, no one else cares about us.

 

Case closed.