Back in the day when Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had their twins, they ended up receiving about $14M for the baby pictures. That is a whole lot of coin. It was that kind of outrageous spending that led to the downfall of the celebrity baby photo market. Want to know why? Well, Jo Piazza has her take on it which you can read here, but my reasoning is this. When Brangelina got paid that much other celebrities said, "I know we are not $14M big but don't you think we are a tenth of what they are?" So, with that kind of logic, People threw away $2M to Christina Aguilera for photos of her son. It was the worst selling cover of People that year. At that point I think they caught on and the market dried up. The reason this whole topic came up is because in her article, Jo tried to find out how much Jessica Simpson baby photos would be worth. It will be under six figures. Like try $50K. Mariah and Nick only got $100K and had to beg for that. Can you imagine how much Mariah and Nick would have got at the height of the baby photo craze? $5M for sure. If Nicole Richie got $1M, you know Mariah would get $5M.
mariah and nick shouldn't have sold them.
ReplyDeleteBack when Halle Berry had Nahla she shopped around for the best offer. The top offer was around $300,000
ReplyDeleteI can imagine how shocked Halle must have been Oscar winner and all...
So she tried to take the high road and say she would never sell her babies pictures.
But from where I sit none of the photo's are worth anything, why pay people who make already make amazing amounts of money for free publicity .
I have never understood why people care. The babies will be paraded around for the apps soon enough, regardless. Why pay when the milk is free?
ReplyDeleteBrad+Angie+TWINS= $$$
ReplyDeleteMultiple births are always a big deal.
Let's face it, most newborns look alike more or less. It's only when they're at least 3 months they start looking like individuals. I wouldn't waste my time or money buying anything to look at a celebrity's baby anyway. I agree - the pictures will be everywhere soon enough. You'd think a celebrity would be worried enough about kidnapping that they'd want to keep their children's faces private.
ReplyDeletegood,i hate those baby magazine covers. They are so phoney and its sad the children have no say one way or the other if they want. Way too Mommy Dearest for me.
ReplyDeleteBabies shouldn't be pay days.
I also can't imagine that people would sell $5m worth of additional issues to justify the price. Ad rates don't go up on the basis of just one issue (well, I guess the average readership does slightly, so future ad rates go up, but probably not by much). To justify $5m, you need to sell what -- 1 million additional issues? crazy.
ReplyDeletei always thought this was stupid. and i agree, eventually there will be pictures on blogs, the internet, other publications. i don't need to see the staged shoot. a baby is a baby is a baby.
ReplyDeleteThe baby money has been obscene, glad it's gone.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that now the paps take pics with celebrities and their kids every day.
ReplyDeleteBefore the kids belonged to the private life of celebrities.
Now you can see every day Bennifer's kids on Popsugar or Justjared for example and the celebrities are more famous for their private life than their works (can anyone name me the last movie with Angelina Jolie? no,i don't think but i can name the last gossips on her!)
OT: i believe there was a new law in California who banned the pic of celebrities'kids
But Enty, when David Beckham posted a photo of Harper on his Facebook page, for free, you chided him for not getting a payday to donate to charity.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Pitt/Jolie donated all of the money to charity. As long as that's the case, I don't mind people getting paid for baby photos.
ReplyDeleteHey, if it took Brangelina to pop the baby photo bubble, then that's a good reason to like them, IMNSHO. (And the money went to charity, too, not into their own pockets.) I like babies as well as the next person, but really, paying obscene amounts of money to put them on magazine covers is just plain silly.
ReplyDeleteI'm a skeptic -- I don't believe any celebs when they say the money went to charity
ReplyDeleteIm a weenie. I love the baby photos.
ReplyDeleteI don't even want to see photos of babies from people I know, why would I pay money to see baby photos in a magazine?
ReplyDeleteWhy do these people think their baby's photos are worth anything? It is a baby, not an extraterrestrial. Who really cares?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay .. this has nothing to do with anything but .. can you imagine being Jennifer Anniston and seeing this shit every where? Christ .. what a gutting experience. It cannot be easy to be a "star" and deal with this shit thrust in your face constantly. What if this putz was actually the love of her life .. yikes.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is not like I am just thinking of Jennifer .. pretty much any person. Sandra Bullock having to see and hear the ridic crap coming out of Jesse James mouth these days .. and any other famous couple you can think of assuming their love was real and meaningful to them. Gotta suck.
Anyway .. as for the end of Baby pics .. I am Team Anita_Mark. I am not a fan of baby pics period .. so the end of the multi-million dollar baby front page .. yeah. However, I really think it is who the baby belongs to.
I came here to say exactly what RocketQueen said. And I am not exactly a huge Jolie fan. ;)
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine how many people that $14 million helped (whatever charity/charaties it went to)???
ITA with you Seachica, I don't believe them when they say it went to charity. It probably went straight to their pockets, I think.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm sure the money went to charity. Can you say "tax deduction?" I knew you could.
ReplyDelete