Omid Scobie's new book

[boxedandribboned]

Heads up, Omid is back on the PR trail...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-meghan-author-omid-scobie-31362434

BTW, can anyone explain why he's Harper's Royal reporter when he only seems to have access to or report on Harry and Meghan? It's a bit strange.

I have taken a hypothetical scenario reported in a media report and ran an argument about it.

Funny how you think all of your beliefs about the media and the RF are truthful, but don't think someone who has an established relationship with Hollywood tattle rags and the author of this book would put out this hypothetical. Despite the fact that they put out details of pretty much everything else they do.

That's strange, I don't see much of them nowadays, they're just getting on with their lives. Good on them.

Your post didn’t read like it was a hypothetical btw. And it wasn’t reported as hypothetical, it was reported as ‘it has been reported’

Actually, the tabloid media didn’t seem to know H&M were going to the Canucks/Sharks Game. It didn’t seem to know that Meghan was going to appear at the Variety evening. They didn’t leak it - not through a ‘source’ nor a ‘friend’.

But we are supposed to believe that H&M leak to the media through a ‘source’ or a ‘friend’ that they’d like an invite to Charles’ birthday or Christmas? Not to forget the ‘Harry rang Charles on his birthday/Harry didn’t ring Charles on his birthday/Harry rang but will ring back in a few days time’ and so on and so forth - the tabloids produced about 5 or 6 different narratives for that one supposed phone call. Which tabloid media version was the truthful one? Oh I know - none of them.

Clicks clicks and more clicks. Tie Harry and Meghan to any story and the media get more clicks. And simply make up stories about Harry and Meghan and get clicks.

We only read about H&M (or any royals, generally) when they actively put themselves out there.

When H&M aren’t making ‘appearances’ , leaking things (or being pilloried by US comedians) they fall off the radar altogether and everything goes quiet.

The media isn’t making up those silly stories (birthday, Christmas invite) designed to reinforce them in the public eye as royal-adjacent - they are.

H and M bring more traffic to news sites than any other couple. Twice as much as Beyonce and JayZ; who bring more than Kate and William. It’s about money . They are profitable for the media:

H and M bring more traffic to news sites than any other couple. Twice as much as Beyonce and JayZ; who bring more than Kate and William. It’s about money . They are profitable for the media:

Source? I used to click on stories about them out of curiosity, but I no longer do. I now find them pretty dull. Actually I rarely read articles about any royals - I skim read them at most. I do look at pictures as I like to see what Kate in particular is wearing.

I think the days of H&M generating a buzz of interest have passed.

Of course there are still media stories when H&M are quiet! Lots of them. I don't know how you can say there aren't. It's endless. Remember when Meghan wasn't seen or heard of for months earlier in the year? The media articles kept rumbling on and on and on...
Even on here were threads titled 'Where is Meghan?'

It's a multi million pound industry of clickbait on anything to do with H&M.

H and M bring more traffic to news sites than any other couple

I doubt that is true, they bring traffic to gossip sites and tabloids, not news sites, they are rarely featured outside of the gossip /celeb genre.

Its mainly the Daily Mail and a few other low end tabloids in the UK who report on H&M, in the US its mainly in celeb gossip tabloids and some horrible low end gossip magazines.

Their recent outing in Vancouver, saw two very small paragraphs in the local newspapers, and one of those is clearly a PR piece about a charity Meghan is involved in.

Even on here, it's the same small group of us who have an interest in them, most people don't care or know what they are up to.

Source? Meghan and Harry most popular

it’s not the article I originally read , I can’t remember what I googled originally that resulted in me finding out but, a quick google this time and Google comes up with this article that says the same thing. It’s been reported a number of times now. It’ll be ignored on here of again of course, by people that don’t like H&M who will pretend it’s not a thing.

“Prince Harry and Meghan Markle generate more news coverage and value than any other couple, a new study has found.”

Well of course they may well do - people like gossip and are waiting to see what new if anything comes out now from them. It's like the Celeb Jungle - how many clicks about Grace Dent as opposed to big mouth Nella.

I am sorry, but I am laughing, that 'report ' is originally credited to a Casino and Betting online gambling website. Guess they were looking for clicks to their website😁

Celebitchy, gambling websites, what a trove of credible reporting.

Actually, the tabloid media didn’t seem to know H&M were going to the Canucks/Sharks Game. It didn’t seem to know that Meghan was going to appear at the Variety evening. They didn’t leak it - not through a ‘source’ nor a ‘friend’.

And it’s perfectly possible that that was entirely deliberate because the couple wanted some pictures to “splash” in the UK press on the morning of the Korean State Visit in the UK, knowing that there would be a lot of coverage of the Royal Family at the event. In the same way that pictures of Meghan’s solo visit to a charity only came out this morning, when there are also plenty of photos of the Royals at the State Dinner last night. And the same way that a photo of Meghan out for lunch on a Friday was strangely only published in the UK later the next week on Charles’ birthday, despite the Mail having a rolling website on which it could have published the picture on at any time.

It may of course be a coincidental pattern. But it does happen a lot.

Of course there are still media stories when H&M are quiet! Lots of them. I don't know how you can say there aren't. It's endless. Remember when Meghan wasn't seen or heard of for months earlier in the year? The media articles kept rumbling on and on and on...

Its also perfectly possible that the stories are coming from the couples own PR, to make sure that they stay in the news.

Don't agree given the stories were nearly all negative. But there you go.

Would you want endless negative articles in one day in just one media source about you? I certainly wouldn't. Let alone the rest.

What is it they say - any publicity is good publicity if it keeps your name in the papers?

Not when it's laced with unpleasantness and made up stuff, I don't think. But maybe you feel different!

My MH would be down the toilet if I had to put up with countless negative articles day in day out even when I hadn't been seen for months.

What unpleasant stories were published when they were staying quiet? Which publications? I don’t recall seeing any, but I don’t usually read tabloids if that’s where they were

I wonder then if William was the one leaking stories about him and Rose? If this is the logic being used for Harry and Meghan then it surely is the same for all of them?

I can't link it all.

All I am saying is... the media articles did not stop when Meghan wasn't seen. I remember. It popped up on all sorts of feeds. Because there was nothing new it was rehashing old stuff or just inventing stories.

Now there's a thought! @Iwantcakeeveryday

Fair enough @themessygarden but there is another study because I’ve seen it. I just can’t find the right phrases to search for it. I’ve spent half an hour googling but it means reading a huge amount of articles. But if I find it I’ll get back to you for sure.

Having said that, there are so many articles generated by the tabloids because H&M do bring in traffic and thus the advertising dollar. I don’t think that can be denied. Otherwise the media wouldn’t write about them. And they don’t even have to do anything to have stories written about them.

I was going to defend the gambling site because bookies almost always get the odds right especially when it comes to elections and referendums and such, but I had a look at JeffBets’ site and I agree with you They are looking to get clicks to their website. Amazing that another 3or 4 tabloids printed this particular Study. Times are tough in the tabloid industry.

"Its also perfectly possible that the stories are coming from the couples own PR, to make sure that they stay in the news."

its also possible that there not.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4931733-the-royals-and-dan-wootton-byline-times-part-1-of-3-year-investigation-into-how-wootton-got-information-about-the-royal-family?page=9&reply=130771694

this thread proves things are not always as they seem.

There was one by 'getinsta':GetInsta conducted the research by analysing Google searches, TikTok views, Instagram hashtags, and articles from around the world.

No idea if thats a reliable company.

Yes I’ve seen it @Iwantcakeeveryday thank you. The Getinsta report has been in mirror Uk, the Toronto sun and a few other tabloids in the past few days. It rates the Queen as the most popular (in terms of overall searches, articles etc., this year) with Harry behind her, and Meghan third, Kate or Charles 4th and 5th and so on. I don’t know how reliable GetInsta are either.

But it’s not the report that I saw a few months back.

I meant Queen Elizabeth.

I still can’t get used to thinking of Camilla as Queen.