Why Michelle Obama can't sell magazines
It doesn't matter that the liberal media is falling over each other to fawn over Michelle Obama, their platitudes isn't helping sell magazines that have her on as cover page and story. Before I tell you why, note Brent Bozell talking about the 'fawning frenzy';
'Imagine being Laura Bush and turning on the television and watching the absolute deluge of sticky-sweet syrup being poured all over Michelle Obama during her European debut as first lady. It is as if every TV reporter was handed a pamphlet of talking points and ordered to compare Mrs. Obama to Jackie Kennedy. NBC's Dawna Friesen gushed: "Though Harvard-educated Michelle Obama has substance, not just style, and that's what sets her apart." Apart from … whom?'
According to Adage, 'A Michelle Obama cover doesn't hurt a general-interest magazine, the numbers suggest, but it doesn't produce more than an occasional lift either. New York magazine's March 23 issue, with a cover story about "The Power of Michelle Obama," looks like it produced "average" sales, New York said April 3, although the numbers remain subject to change. When Ms. Obama appears on the cover of a magazine directed toward African-Americans, however, or when she appears with the president, sales really do seem to jump.'
Michele Obama's lack of pulling power is unlike Princess Diana who regularly helped the industry sell more copies at newsstands. The reason's country-related. Diana sold in the UK, Michelle sales must happen in the US. These are two different countries with two different set of attitudes. Americans are unlike the British. Roughly one-half of America is deeply religious and conservative, and that's not a good thing for magazines trying to tom-tom with substanceless-celebrities. One half of America doesn't care. The British en-masse need their dose of pop-religion. They found it in Diana.
Conservative Americans aren't looking for pop-fulfillment. Instead they have religion and they take to it, lock, stock and barrel. Amen.