Little_star said:
I had to question this statement purely because I wonder if there really is a market? Aside from this forum (and others) and Royal fans I sincerely doubt that the average person is interested in Kate. If anything I think the media are trying to create the hype but the public aren't responding.
The papparazzi are for the most part freelancers. They take on a day's assignment as the newssources give them out. So if the newssources and photo agencies find their newspapers with Kate's picture are not making enough money to offset the papparazzi costs; they can stop sending out assignments to photograph Kate. Its not like they have photographers on a yearly fixed salary and they have to keep sending the paps out to justify paying their salary. Paps cost money and the money has to come from somewhere, usually from people who think they can make more money from the pics the paps bring in than they spend in hiring the paps.
In the U.S. Kate has gotten slightly more exposure here in People magazine but otherwise not so much.
Little_star said:
As for Kate, I find her complaint quite petty. The photos in question were clearly taken from a distance, the photographers were certainly not up close to her.
If these are the photographs she's talking about, then I agree. But there are others from one particular news agency where you can see the camera actually get in Kate's face. If it were anyone other than a photographer, Kate would be excused for thinking she was being mugged.
I think people here are confusing perks with non monetary payment such as a company car.
All our field salespeople get company cars because they drive so much during the day visiting accounts that if we required them to use their own cars, they'd have to replace their cars every year due to wear and tear. Its hardly a perk when the alternative to the perk is paying your own money to replace your car every year or so.
Some people may want to grant a celebrity a perk because it gives them free advertisement. Who here talks about Audi cars except when its about Kate getting a free car? That's wonderfully good advertising for Audi and the cost of a car may be less than an advertisement campaign that would generate similar interest. People give perks to other people who may not have deserved them because it makes business sense to do so, ie., doing so gives them something, in this case free advertising. As I mentioned before, the only unethical part of it is if Kate were a lawmaker or business person who was in a position to influence an important law or major business purchase decision that could benefit the party who gave her the Audi.
But she is the girlfriend of the grandson of a powerless figurehead. Kate herself has no power at all. There is no major decision she can influence one way or another that the Audi dealer can tempt her with a new car.
I often wonder how many of the people on here would react to all the intrusions. I would probably be in prison, because I would not put up with having a camera pushed in my face everytime I left my house! 
The girl hasn't said or done anything out of line, except get the press off of her back. Yet she is despised as if she called somebody's baby ugly or something. 
