We all remember just where we were and what we were doing back in late November, when the entire world very nearly shook itself to pieces over the sight of Britney Spears's extremely naked vagina. Those few of us still alive may justly wonder at the long-term effects. Long-term in the sense of approximately three weeks, that is. Intern Mary is on the case, and we knew our universe had changed forever just with a glimpse at the raw data — 87 Britney Spears press mentions pre-vagflash, and a staggering 464 mentions post-vagflash. After the jump, consider the numbers.
Britney Spears Pre-Vagflash Press Mentions, November 2006
(click to enlarge)
November was an eventful month for Britney, given her announced divorce from Kevin Federline and the brief frenzy over a bogus sex tape. The split with K-Fed dominated though, as expected. When Lil' Britney came out to play, the vagflash drove the vast majority of the sudden Britney boom, with a minority of stories regarding Britney's possible new boyfriend. Given the salacious nature of the subject, how did reporters and editors choose to finesse Britney Spears's genital revelation as news?
Britney Spears Post-Vagflash Press Mentions to Date
(click to enlarge)
With no finesse at all, really. Three quarters of post-vagflash Britney items led with the vagflash itself in the headline, and most of those put it in the lede as well. Of course, there was no real story there beyond the photos, so the vagflash then got padded with recycled Britney material from previous weeks. Who was fooled by this tactic? Anyone? The "new boyfriend" articles have popped up more recently, now that Britney's nether regions have become overexposed in more ways than one. Still, it's an object lesson on how to keep your name in the papers, or at least steal away the publicity "momentum" from your ex-husband.