So how did the Jennifer Lopez baby pictures do? Depends on who you ask. As you will recall, People normally sells 1.4M issues of their magazine each week. The Christina Aguilera issue sold 1.3M copies while the Nicole Richie issue sold 1.8M copies. According to AMI, which is a company that owns many tabloids says the issue sold 3M copies, but actual supermarket data which is similar to soundscan, says the issue only sold about 2M copies. Lets split the difference and say it was 2.5M copies. At $4 per copy, an extra million copies sold would equal an extra $4M to People. They paid $6M for the photos and so lost $2M as well as more of whatever self respect they had left. Now, the talk is that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's new baby photos are going to sell for $10M.
I don't have a problem with Brad and Angie getting the money. The main reason is instead of trying to profit from having a baby as most stars are now, they will probably donate every penny to charity. I can't imagine any magazine selling enough copies to make a profit on the issue, but at least they can say they were helping it go to a good cause. Much better than giving it to Marc and Jennifer so they can buy more $50,000 furnishings for their nursery.
Oh, to give you an example of what was considered outrageous back in the day, Barry Levine who works for the Enquirer paid $100,000 to Lisa Marie Presley back in 1989 for photos of her baby. At the time it was the most ever paid for baby photos.
Congratulations Nicole for whoring out your baby!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe article I read also mentioned that it'd be nice if more stars would just pose outside the hospital and get it over with.
ReplyDeleteThe paps are relentless with newborns and in some ways I think it's better to set-up a photo shoot instead of having to worrying about photographers jumping out at your kids everywhere you go.
I too think that Brad and Angelina will give the money to charity IF they agree to having their kids photographed. Good for them.
They didn't lose $2 million. Magazines don't make much money, if any, off of subs and OTC sales. They would give the things away for free if they could count free copies toward their circulation. Since free copies don't count, however, they have to charge something. The boost in circulation, even if they lost 2 mil, will allow them to increase their ad rates when they tally their numbers at the end of the year/quarter/whatever
ReplyDeleteSidenote - what kind of new mother wears a freakin' ball gown for her baby photo...oh, I forgot, this is Jennifer Lopez.
ReplyDeleteSidenote #2 - baby on the left looks like it's 80 years old. I know, I know, I'll get lynched by all of you but I can't be the only one who thought that.
this is Jlo she probably had them wrapped in chinchilla on day 1.
ReplyDeleteNot buying that Nicole Richie is that popular and/or interesting. Her issue got a HUGE boost by also being the Academy Awards issue.
ReplyDeleteI just like the shots of them prancing around outside with the prams, and JLo's stilettos. C'mon, that's how all new mommies dress! It was like a parody of a celeb "see my beautiful home" spread.
ReplyDeleteA magazine's profitability is NOT based on circulation. The photos could have attracted more advertising $$ for the issue. That is the real indicator of an issue's profitability.
ReplyDeleteAre there seriously people out there who think "OH MY GAWD, J. LO HAS A WORKING UTERUS?! I MUST SEE WHAT CAME OUT OF IT!!!" People magazine is always my "well, I've read everything else this week" magazine, and fancy new belly fruit is the last thing I buy it for. I gotta start asking my friends if this stuff makes them buy a magazine they would otherwise pass over...
ReplyDeleteOk the woman is insane. first of all her husband is ass ugly. second of all, there is a huge chandelier in her baby's room. im sure she doesn't care about money anymore, she probably swims laps in it every day after breakfast.
ReplyDelete