The Economics of the Daily Mail's Sidebar of Shame
Discussion
Take this article for example:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8365...
Ex-lad's mag model Caprice filling up her car with petrol. Now, I struggle to believe paparazzi follow her around therefore, there must be some kind of arrangement going on here. Does she pay them to take her picture, otherwise what's in it for the pap?
In turn, does Caprice pay the Daily Mail to write the article in order to gain her some publicity? Again, I struggle to see why the DM would pay for some boring pics of a z-lister.
Who pays whom in this scenario?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8365...
Ex-lad's mag model Caprice filling up her car with petrol. Now, I struggle to believe paparazzi follow her around therefore, there must be some kind of arrangement going on here. Does she pay them to take her picture, otherwise what's in it for the pap?
In turn, does Caprice pay the Daily Mail to write the article in order to gain her some publicity? Again, I struggle to see why the DM would pay for some boring pics of a z-lister.
Who pays whom in this scenario?
There was a great thread on Twitter where someone had collated all of the papped Daily Mail pics of 'ex lads mag models' putting out their bins in their knickers. Must be a thing. I refuse to believe that that lass from the 2006 series of the Apprentice just happened to be dragging out her green bin in her leopard print nightie, full face of makeup and flip flops when a photographer walked past.
I'm no fan of the DM. Indeed, I may have occasionally been muted in my praise of their online presence. However, the site is controlled by algorithms. In other words, it's governed by clicks. I would agree there is a certain criticism that can be laid at their door for not having any form of quality control, but they only rarely exceed the regs on what can be published, and given their output, that's pretty good going.
They are, unlikely though it may seem, governed by the public's taste.
Before criticising the fact that they are controlled by their algorithms, read up on them, and you'll be shocked (if you don't know already) by just how much your life is controlled by them. Want to make a decision where there is insufficient evidence? The answer, if you believe in them, is 37%. However, if you want to turn your back on bots and things, the answer is then 37%. Always will be.
They are, unlikely though it may seem, governed by the public's taste.
Before criticising the fact that they are controlled by their algorithms, read up on them, and you'll be shocked (if you don't know already) by just how much your life is controlled by them. Want to make a decision where there is insufficient evidence? The answer, if you believe in them, is 37%. However, if you want to turn your back on bots and things, the answer is then 37%. Always will be.
thetapeworm said:
The Daily Mail is a bastion of high quality journalism that wouldn't pay for staged content or, on the flip side, be paid to promote certain content.
Guardian has the same sponsored content.https://www.theguardian.com/all-in-all-together
BJWoods said:
Yet manages to tell far fewer lies than the Mail.Lots of posters on here regularly read the Mail. You can tell by their wildly inaccurate musings.
CzechItOut said:
Take this article for example:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8365...
Ex-lad's mag model Caprice filling up her car with petrol. Now, I struggle to believe paparazzi follow her around therefore, there must be some kind of arrangement going on here. Does she pay them to take her picture, otherwise what's in it for the pap?
In turn, does Caprice pay the Daily Mail to write the article in order to gain her some publicity? Again, I struggle to see why the DM would pay for some boring pics of a z-lister.
Who pays whom in this scenario?
I also find this whole fake candid photo fascinating, I found a short Cosmo interview about ithttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8365...
Ex-lad's mag model Caprice filling up her car with petrol. Now, I struggle to believe paparazzi follow her around therefore, there must be some kind of arrangement going on here. Does she pay them to take her picture, otherwise what's in it for the pap?
In turn, does Caprice pay the Daily Mail to write the article in order to gain her some publicity? Again, I struggle to see why the DM would pay for some boring pics of a z-lister.
Who pays whom in this scenario?
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/...
And it seems to be mostly the celebrities either getting paid to promote something or wanting to control their image so I'm guessing either she's getting paid to model the clothes she's wearing and the money is split between her and the photographer, or she has a show coming up and paid the photographer to take her photo.
Does seem odd as she's no longer a sought after star (or maybe she is in different circles to what I read) but maybe it's as simple as her paying to get in the paper.
FunkyNige said:
I also find this whole fake candid photo fascinating, I found a short Cosmo interview about it
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/...
And it seems to be mostly the celebrities either getting paid to promote something or wanting to control their image so I'm guessing either she's getting paid to model the clothes she's wearing and the money is split between her and the photographer, or she has a show coming up and paid the photographer to take her photo.
Does seem odd as she's no longer a sought after star (or maybe she is in different circles to what I read) but maybe it's as simple as her paying to get in the paper.
I can understand paparazzi following the likes of Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston, as they are well known and I'm sure various media outlets will pay for their pictures.https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/...
And it seems to be mostly the celebrities either getting paid to promote something or wanting to control their image so I'm guessing either she's getting paid to model the clothes she's wearing and the money is split between her and the photographer, or she has a show coming up and paid the photographer to take her photo.
Does seem odd as she's no longer a sought after star (or maybe she is in different circles to what I read) but maybe it's as simple as her paying to get in the paper.
However, the kind of people who appear on the Daily Mail are not in the same league, ex-models, WAGs, reality TV stars and so on. As you say, I can only think that they are paying the DM to publish photos as an attempt to stay in the public domain.
CzechItOut said:
I can understand paparazzi following the likes of Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston, as they are well known and I'm sure various media outlets will pay for their pictures.
However, the kind of people who appear on the Daily Mail are not in the same league, ex-models, WAGs, reality TV stars and so on. As you say, I can only think that they are paying the DM to publish photos as an attempt to stay in the public domain.
It doesn't matter to the DM who it is who's not wearing a bra on a cold morning, as long as she's got the necessary. If a has-been X is photographed in revealing clothes, but no one bothers to click on it, she's out. However, in the battle between cup size and anything else, the former wins every time. Show the advertisers the figures, in more ways than one, and up the price.However, the kind of people who appear on the Daily Mail are not in the same league, ex-models, WAGs, reality TV stars and so on. As you say, I can only think that they are paying the DM to publish photos as an attempt to stay in the public domain.
The DM online is a remarkable site. Most others have to subsidise theirs to an extent. Why buy the printed version of the Guardian when you can get everything, and a more current version, online for free? So they get views at the cost of sales. The DM is still one of the best selling printed papers, second only to the Sun, and even then declining at a slower rate. Online, the battle's the same, although the BBC takes pride of place. To beat the Sun, as it is likely to do, it needs the copy that will attract them. The Guardian online is doing well.
It's a tough life as a journo.
CzechItOut said:
FunkyNige said:
I also find this whole fake candid photo fascinating, I found a short Cosmo interview about it
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/...
And it seems to be mostly the celebrities either getting paid to promote something or wanting to control their image so I'm guessing either she's getting paid to model the clothes she's wearing and the money is split between her and the photographer, or she has a show coming up and paid the photographer to take her photo.
Does seem odd as she's no longer a sought after star (or maybe she is in different circles to what I read) but maybe it's as simple as her paying to get in the paper.
I can understand paparazzi following the likes of Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston, as they are well known and I'm sure various media outlets will pay for their pictures.https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/...
And it seems to be mostly the celebrities either getting paid to promote something or wanting to control their image so I'm guessing either she's getting paid to model the clothes she's wearing and the money is split between her and the photographer, or she has a show coming up and paid the photographer to take her photo.
Does seem odd as she's no longer a sought after star (or maybe she is in different circles to what I read) but maybe it's as simple as her paying to get in the paper.
However, the kind of people who appear on the Daily Mail are not in the same league, ex-models, WAGs, reality TV stars and so on. As you say, I can only think that they are paying the DM to publish photos as an attempt to stay in the public domain.
Caprice must be mounting some kind of comeback - she was on the recent series of Dancing on Ice, but left due to "undisclosed reasons" which generated a few column inches for her, now this... her name is getting out there ready for something like a new book launch no doubt. Expect to see her on This Morning or Sunday Brunch in the next few months perhaps, if you watch those shows.
Some bint off Big brother is always putting her bins out just when a pap is round. It is all a set up, it sells stories as dirty pervs go straight to them, and the z list celeb gets free publicity,who in a few weeks/months will be bringing out another fitness/my life story book/video.
There was a great BBC series years ago I think it was called just "Paparazzi", it followed a few freelance photographers and a few staff photographers I think from Big Pictures. Anyway the experienced ones would often just drive around and just spot people and slam on the brakes and turn around to take photos, they really did just have a good memory for faces, so the random street/shopping photos do happen. Also likely the photos were staged of course 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff