If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Rolling Stone issue with Boston Bomber on the cover sees the magazine's sales explode   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, Rolling Stones, bad publicity, newsstands, ledge  
•       •       •

1005 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Aug 2013 at 8:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-01 09:04:42 AM
People buy magazines?
 
2013-08-01 09:13:51 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-01 09:17:50 AM

Arkanaut: People buy magazines?


That's what I was thinking. I just slip them down the front of my pants when no one's looking and walk out of the store nonchalantly.
 
2013-08-01 09:29:18 AM
Good. I wish I could have bought one, but every newsstand around here caved to the mob and didn't sell it.
 
2013-08-01 09:36:51 AM
Well, it's better than when they had Bob Dylan on the cover.  Oh, wait......
 
2013-08-01 09:39:11 AM
Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.

And the article, on balance, was pretty good. Talked to a lot of the guy's friends, and tried to piece together how an otherwise pretty normal immigrant kid with plenty of opportunity in life could become a deranged monster.
 
2013-08-01 09:41:59 AM
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-01 09:44:06 AM
Glad to see Rolling Stone has survived  the pressure cooker of intense media scrutiny.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:07 AM
So exactly as planned.
 
2013-08-01 10:04:59 AM
Boom, Streisanned.
 
2013-08-01 10:07:52 AM
Who would have thought that by bringing massive amounts of attention to something one could increase sales.
 
2013-08-01 10:16:17 AM

ReapTheChaos: Who would have thought that by bringing massive amounts of attention to something one could increase sales.


I don't believe they thought through their "let's buy a bunch of magazines and burn them!" strategy.
 
2013-08-01 10:17:41 AM

Pontious Pilates: Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.


Nevermind the fact that the NY Times ran the same pic on its front page weeks before.
 
2013-08-01 10:31:02 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Pontious Pilates: Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.

Nevermind the fact that the NY Times ran the same pic on its front page weeks before.


Right, sure, as well as other outlets. Ain't no rage like manufactured facebook rage.
 
2013-08-01 10:39:12 AM

WyDave: Glad to see Rolling Stone has survived  the pressure cooker of intense media scrutiny.


Came for this...

I think some people were hoping the decision to run the cover would blow up in their faces. Glad to see it didn't.
 
2013-08-01 10:50:43 AM
Successful Troll is Successful
 
2013-08-01 10:59:04 AM
They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.
 
2013-08-01 11:54:19 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Pontious Pilates: Overblown issue was overblown. I'm a RS subscriber. When my copy arrived in the mail, what became apparent and seems the ZOMG media outrage didn't convey was that the picture was very low-res and fuzzy. Not at all complimentary or "glamorous." It was a crappy cell phone selfy that had all the quality of an ATM surveillance photo. Yeah, OK, he had the touseled hair and pouty face thing going on, but that was just how the kid looked.

Nevermind the fact that the NY Times ran the same pic on its front page weeks before.


I think the idiots' "logic" was that since the Rolling Stone puts a lot of rock stars on the cover, Rolling Stone was making the Boston Bomber (I believe he really is still the alleged Boston Bomber as I'm not aware of a conviction yet) out as a rock star.

/ I never said it was good logic.
 
2013-08-01 11:56:00 AM

Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.


And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?
 
2013-08-01 12:00:24 PM

Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.

And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?


It's RIAA math. People who would never subscribe to Rolling Stone have loudly proclaimed that, because of this, they'll never subscribe to Rolling Stone. All of those represent lost sales, which is like a billionty-leven dollars of lost revenue.
 
2013-08-01 12:14:33 PM

Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.

And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?


Theaetetus: Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.

And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?

It's RIAA math. People who would never subscribe to Rolling Stone have loudly proclaimed that, because of this, they'll never subscribe to Rolling Stone. All of those represent lost sales, which is like a billionty-leven dollars of lost revenue.


I just Googled "cancel Rolling Stone subscription Boston bomber" and clicked on the first link. Look what I found!

http://www.rferl.org/content/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/25049374.h tm l

"Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."
 
2013-08-01 12:18:38 PM

Tommy Moo: Theaetetus: Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.

And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?

It's RIAA math. People who would never subscribe to Rolling Stone have loudly proclaimed that, because of this, they'll never subscribe to Rolling Stone. All of those represent lost sales, which is like a billionty-leven dollars of lost revenue.

I just Googled "cancel Rolling Stone subscription Boston bomber" and clicked on the first link. Look what I found!

http://www.rferl.org/content/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/25049374.h tm l

"Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."


... and since no one ever lies on Facebook...
 
2013-08-01 01:48:16 PM

Tommy Moo: "Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."


Just like all those gamers who will never buy anything with DRM. Or an XBoxOne. Or any EA product.
 
2013-08-01 01:53:26 PM
From the redlit thread:

here to help:They are both losers. They are both murderers. Anyone with half a brain knows that. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot. That's that. Freaking out about a stupid selfie is pointless. Find out who the older brother was trained by and Seal Team those mother f*ckers. THAT'S what people should be talking about. Or how about all that weird sh*t about the kid who got killed while being interrogated? Or the dude they supposedly killed and sprinkled with pot? What's going on with THOSE stories? WHY THE F*CK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A STUPID PICTURE???!!!

because BOSTON STRONGGGGGG

no, seriously, I would love those things to be asked and according to the RS article, the older brother tried to get in with the Islamist fighters in Chechnya and even they said he was an idiot and that it wasn't their fight. But as it is, we're a fickle people this far north. We're jumping at shadows and picking fights where no fight was needed. It's our mentality, we can take on the world because *ARRRRRRRRRRGH* BOSTON STRONG

Seriously, I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of the bombing, but this city/statewide victimization is a load of crap. Thankfully it's not at 9/11 levels but this is pretty sad that we've gotten to this point all because of some magazine cover
 
2013-08-01 03:29:22 PM
Ha, ha.  RS does an actual look at the bomb "suspect" and those who realize he looks like their idea of the right kind of person loose it.  Also, those who don't read RS magazine join in, just because.  Cold, hard truth doesn't sit well with a lot of folks in the current American generation/ society.
 
2013-08-01 04:07:38 PM

Tommy Moo: I just Googled "cancel Rolling Stone subscription Boston bomber" and clicked on the first link. Look what I found!

http://www.rferl.org/content/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/25049374.h tm l

"Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."


How come every article that comes up on that Google search quotes the same four or five OUTRAGED people if RS's site was so flooded with hate? No mention of all the supportive posts there, though.

And how do you think Rolling Stone would go about cancelling a subscription based on a Facebook post, which includes none of the "subscriber's info? Hell, I could go there and post "I AM UNSUBBING!"...and I'm not a subscriber.

See how this Internet thing works?
 
2013-08-01 04:44:03 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-08-01 05:51:14 PM

Theaetetus: Tommy Moo: Theaetetus: Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: They'll get theirs. This cover might have brought in some quick sales from newsstands, but newsstands are like 5% of their business. Whoopdy-doo, they get a momentary 5% bump in revenue by doubling that for one issue. When they lose 10% of their subscribers, this will hurt them in the long run.

And why exactly would they lose 10% of their subscribers, Mr. "They'll Get Theirs"?

It's RIAA math. People who would never subscribe to Rolling Stone have loudly proclaimed that, because of this, they'll never subscribe to Rolling Stone. All of those represent lost sales, which is like a billionty-leven dollars of lost revenue.

I just Googled "cancel Rolling Stone subscription Boston bomber" and clicked on the first link. Look what I found!

http://www.rferl.org/content/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/25049374.h tm l

"Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."

... and since no one ever lies on Facebook...


kronicfeld: Tommy Moo: "Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."

Just like all those gamers who will never buy anything with DRM. Or an XBoxOne. Or any EA product.


Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: I just Googled "cancel Rolling Stone subscription Boston bomber" and clicked on the first link. Look what I found!

http://www.rferl.org/content/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/25049374.h tm l

"Rolling Stone's Facebook page has been flooded with enraged comments and expletive-filled messages, many from longtime subscribers saying they have canceled their subscription or regular readers vowing never to buy another issue."

How come every article that comes up on that Google search quotes the same four or five OUTRAGED people if RS's site was so flooded with hate? No mention of all the supportive posts there, though.

And how do you think Rolling Stone would go about cancelling a subscription based on a Facebook post, which includes none of the "subscriber's info? Hell, I could go there and post "I AM UNSUBBING!"...and I'm not a subscriber.

See how this Internet thing works?


I love how you speculators are all so certain that you're right. Wait and see how their numbers do next quarter. You can mock me then if their subscriptions haven't taken a hit. Until then, all you're doing is smugly claiming that you're 100% certain that this won't have a negative impact on their sales with no crystal ball or anything.

No one's saying the editors should be arrested. The right to not do business with a company that offends you is part of the free market. Why do you have such a problem with the idea that someone might not want to buy a Rolling Stone subscription after they put Jimmy Jihad Tiger Beat on the cover and write about how he's just a poor misunderstood victim of society? How farking out of touch are you people? If you want to use the internet as evidence, then I'll point to the fact that people are outraged pretty much everywhere, and so far the only people I've seen defending RS are three dipshiats on Fark.
 
2013-08-01 06:25:06 PM
Your move "Time" magazine man of the year issue . . .

dianedimond.net
 
2013-08-01 07:05:55 PM

nursedude: WyDave: Glad to see Rolling Stone has survived  the pressure cooker of intense media scrutiny.

Came for this...

I think some people were hoping the decision to run the cover would blow up in their faces. Glad to see it didn't.


Too soon, man, too soon...
 
2013-08-01 07:10:03 PM
So, the people that said that RS was free to print whatever but not free from consequences from printing whatever, they're cool with this outcome, right?
 
2013-08-01 08:25:21 PM
Successful Troll is (attractive and) successful.
 
2013-08-01 09:09:00 PM

Tommy Moo: Rant, rant, rantidy-rant-rant-rant.


Lighten up, Francis. You'll get over it.
 
2013-08-02 12:35:26 AM
cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2013-08-02 02:14:21 AM

Tommy Moo: I love how you speculators are all so certain that you're right. Wait and see how their numbers do next quarter. You can mock me then if their subscriptions haven't taken a hit. Until then, all you're doing is smugly claiming that you're 100% certain that this won't have a negative impact on their sales with no crystal ball or anything.


Says the guy who started this whole thing by smugly claiming "10% subscription drop" and "they'll get theirs" with no crystal ball or anything. You sound 100% certain. Ahem.

So I'm gonna go ahead and keep mocking you now, thanks.
 
2013-08-02 03:35:12 AM

Disgruntled Goat: Tommy Moo: I love how you speculators are all so certain that you're right. Wait and see how their numbers do next quarter. You can mock me then if their subscriptions haven't taken a hit. Until then, all you're doing is smugly claiming that you're 100% certain that this won't have a negative impact on their sales with no crystal ball or anything.

Says the guy who started this whole thing by smugly claiming "10% subscription drop" and "they'll get theirs" with no crystal ball or anything. You sound 100% certain. Ahem.

So I'm gonna go ahead and keep mocking you now, thanks.


I'm at least basing that off of what actual reporters are actually reporting. Your assumption is that people are lying for no reason. Clearly people are saying that they are going to cancel their subscriptions. So your position is that all of these people who are pissed off enough to rant about it on Facebook are going to send another check to RS when the resub notice comes in the mail?
 
2013-08-02 04:33:30 AM

Well, DOY!
 
2013-08-02 08:49:39 AM
The last rolling stone magazine i bought was in 2001.

There was a review of Bob Dylan's album Time Out of Mind.

The date  Time Out of Mind was released:  September 11, 2001.
 
2013-08-02 11:06:26 AM

Tommy Moo: Clearly people are saying that they are going to cancel their subscriptions. So your position is that all of these people who are pissed off enough to rant about it on Facebook are going to send another check to RS when the resub notice comes in the mail?


Yes, that is my position. Because those people weren't subscribers to begin with.

Again, you really don't understand how the Internet works.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report