Seen this re page 3?

[grimbletart]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29140217

Even Murdoch now seems to be questioning the validity of the inane page 3.

But I nearly snorted coffee over the keyboard reading this….

A spokesman for the newspaper said: "While all aspects of The Sun are continually under review, we remain committed to listening to our readers and producing the newspaper that they want to read."

Trying to work out what level of reading skill is needed to drool over pix of bare breasts…….

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

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.

It's not a murdcoh paper is it?

Or is it??

yy it's a murdoch paper

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!

Well we can only cross our fingers I guess.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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.

absolutely scallops

"Aren't beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?"

NMP3 campaign sent me an email the other day with this quote. I think they are seeing it as a potential victory, but I can't help but feel he is still massively missing the point.

It doesn't really matter how "young" (urgh) woman are most attractive. Because you are purporting to run a newspaper. Not a wankmag.

My first thought was, that he said some fashionable clothes, he didn't say how many exactly!

It's also still placing women as objects of attraction for men FuckOffWeasel. And lets remember the definition of attractive is incredibly narrow according to the Sun.

I agree with what you say but I must confess that it is a teeny step towards men just starting to grow up (a little bit) when they at least think it is better to objectify women with clothes on than women without clothes on.

Maybe. Small steps hey!

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.

Either your memory has failed you or NMP3 were being a little disingenious

The Yougov survey is here (took me 5 seconds to find it)

yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/6667/

61% of Sun readers in favour of keeping Page 3, pretty much everybody else against.

Unfortunately, I think this has now assumed the status of a 'small act of defiance' for the Sun readers - everybody knows that it is stupid and pointless but they want to keep it just because they know it annoys middle class white Guardian readers.

I also think Murdoch is now in a bit of a bind (my heart bleeds) - he can see that Page 3 is a bizarre anachronism and also a barrier to achieving the sort of success that mail online has - but at the same time the people who actually buy his paper say they want to keep it.

I can't really see it lasting much longer though - I think they'll gradually decrease the frequency (as they are doing already) until it quietly disappears.

Unfortunately even if Murdoch does swathe the models in 'fashionable clothes" (and totally agree this doesn't really address the underlying objectification issue), looks the The Sun will just print titty pics in other guises: www.facebook.com/NoMorePage3/posts/797789370284245

(And I note the journo also had a go at recruiting at Netmums, but not MN interestingly www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/netmums-mums-panel-251/media-requests-7/1171623-breast-cancer-shoot.html)

no responses though...even from netmums

Either your memory has failed you or NMP3 were being a little disingenious

The Yougov survey is here (took me 5 seconds to find it)

It wasn't a YouGov survey according to my failing memory it was an internal one

The point I was making is that support for P3 isn't overwhelming among the Sun readership (even at 61%) - so the argument for keeping it because 'that's what the public wants' doesn't stack up. And Murdoch knows this.

I imagine it's a bit of an embarrassment for someone who sees himself as running a serious media business that one of his main titles markets itself as basically being one step up from porn. Probably doesn't play very well across the Atlantic where attitudes are a bit more censorious on these issues.