Seen this re page 3?

absolutely scallops

I really hate "it's old-fashioned" as it suggests at one time this was OK. 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years it was still sexist.

"Also the DM's online success shows you can still objectify and ridicule women without P3..." How true. Although I still do think that some of the reasoning behind keeping P3 (consciously or subconsciously) is to keep women in their place.

Sorry my post isn't very well written. I was (appropriately) BF at the time.

I recall reading a tweet from NMP3 that a survey of the Sun's readers showed that support for it was just in the minority of male readers (49%???) and less for female readers.

I agree that it is part of the Sun's 'brand identity' and voice and that is why they stick hard to it. However I am guessing that their female readership is migrating to the Mail and that is a concern - given the demographic is so important to advertisers.

Also the DM's online success shows you can still objectify and ridicule women without P3...

From wikipedia (I know, I know....);

A YouGov survey carried out in October 2012 found marked differences in attitude toward Page 3 among readers of different newspapers. 61% of Sun readers wished to retain the feature, while 24 percent said that the newspaper should stop showing Page 3 women. However, only 4% of Guardian readers said The Sun should keep Page 3, while 86% said it should be abolished. The poll also found notable differences by gender, with 48% of men overall saying that Page 3 should be retained, but just 17% of women taking that position.

61 per cent is a big chunk. I guess it is only one survey though.

It's a big part of the Sun's brand identity.

curwen see my first comment. i don't doubt that RM is fully briefed

IIRC from the NMP3 campaign successive readers polls taken by the Sun have shown support for P3 to be in the minority - for both male and female readers. The decision to keep it has always been an editorial one, not a commercial one.

I think old Rupe has been ambivalent towards page 3 for ages. However, I vaguely recollect that one of his editors (Larry Lamb?) stood up to him years ago stating that he would lose readership, so he let it slide. I know his original twitter about 'maybe it's old-fashioned' is about 18 months old.

My question is this. If Rupe thought it would boost readership, do you think he would drop it? Do people here see page 3 as just a method of boosting readership, or do you think there are other reasons for retaining it?

Well we can only cross our fingers I guess.

you're possibly right indigui. i've never read any content tbh, and now it's behind a firewall and i'm not going to start paying now!

yy it's a murdoch paper

It's not a murdcoh paper is it?

Or is it??

I have a theory that the Sun keeps page 3 as a smokescreen. As long as people are criticizing it for Page 3, they don't call it out so much for the other sexist shit it prints. It really is a horrible paper. Second only in vileness to the Mail.

i wonder what their analytics have shown now that it's behind a firewall. i don't for a moment imagine that he doesn't fully understand what the demographics are, who is purchasing in print and who is purchasing online and what those groups want. the daily mail online is very successful and if he wants to attract that sort of success it may be that getting rid of page three is a consideration