Following yesterday’s news of People paying an estimated $1.3 million for Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz’s pics from tomorrow’s wedding comes news that Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves are already shopping around their offspring to the highest bidder. [TMZ] They’ve enlisted “brand agent” Todd Shemarya, who was behind similar deals for Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie and Christina Aguilera, and already there’s interest from at least three magazines with a price over $1 million. We’re guessing it’s People, OK!, and Us Weekly in the running, leaving the only question remaining: Will McConaughey hold the baby with or without his shirt on?

This morning, gossip outlets like Rush & Molloy were reporting that bidding over the wedding pics for Saturday’s Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz wedding were being shopped around for “a seven-figure sum.” One source we just spoke to says the winning bid came from People magazine, with a $1.3 million fee paid to, who else, Joe Simpson, who brokered the deal himself. The photos will appear in next week’s issue.

It’s probably a good time to revisit the argument that paying these huge sums for exclusive pics is actually not a profitable business model.

Without Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan’s daily antics, it’s fallen on Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt to fill the gossip blogs and tabloid covers. And they’ve more than made themselves available. “We’re always the juicier story,” Spencer tells the LAT. “And when Heidi and Spencer are gossip machines, it’s like, ‘What did Heidi and Spencer do?’”

This is the stock of celebrity we’ve allowed ourselves to settle for, and they’re cleaning up; $50,000 each for hosting a party here, $15,000 for posing for “paparazzi” photos there.

CONTINUED »

The Top 10 Words That Only Exist in Gossip Columns ends predictably. [BWE]

Is the willingness of celebrity weeklies to engage in political fodder – Bill Clinton essays, Barack Obama “Just Like Us?” spreads – evidence that tabloid readers are interested in mixing politics with escapism, or are the editors so starved for actual content that isn’t recycled from the blogs that they’re looking to any pop culture talking points for an easy pictorial?

We’re going to go with a more simple rationale:

CONTINUED »

Are these seven-figure sums that celebrity weeklies pay for exclusive pics justifiable? Are magazines actually turning a profit from these huge payouts? Is the inflation of photo prices only benefiting the celebs?

In a story that could’ve been on the shelf for weeks, the Times‘ Richard Perez-Pena looks at the tabloid industry’s growing tendency to pay huge sums for exclusive photos.

So what are the answers to the questions above?

Yes, yes. And yes. (Asterisk, asterisk. And asterisk.)

CONTINUED »

Is news of Ben Widdicombe’s departure about to get trumped – in gay gossip circles – by Ted Casablanca? The E! gay-ssip today mentions his upcoming nuptials: “You’re pissy; we’re less so (I’m getting married in less than a week, and Becky’s gonna be free of my pushy ass for a whole two, woo-friggin’-hoo!).” Um, congrats?

Partner Jon Powell proposed to Casablanca last June “on a deserted Hawaiian beach.” At their wedding, they’ll still be wearing Speedos, but with tuxes over ‘em.

In a “this wouldn’t even be a cute April Fool’s Day joke,” Ben Widdicombe is leaving the gossip pages of the New York Daily News after something like a decade in the rumormongering industry. “Oh no! After four years (which is 28 in liver years) Gatecrasher has crashed its last gate for the Daily News. I hope you’ve had as much fun reading the column as I have had writing it, but today I am leaving to pursue my ambition of becoming the world’s first plus-size hand supermodel. Wish me luck!”

Talking points:

• What will Widdicombe’s next gig be? Voice-over work?

• Since his Gatecrasher column took over the daily void left by Lloyd Grove’s Lowdown, will the News be looking for another daily column to run alongside Rush & Molloy? And will that honor go to the Sunday-only Full Disclosure from News gossip veteran Jo Piazza? So far, we hear that plan hasn’t been made.

Candace Trunzo put this week’s Star on newsstands with “Exclusive All-New Photos” of Britney Spears and her “New Bikini Body.” Nevermind that Britney’s bod wasn’t isn’t the skinny thing we’re used to seeing — but the “all-new” pics of Britney that made Star’s case in this week’s issue were actually snapped at the end of March.

So if, as the cover claims, Britney lost 20 pounds in 30 days, that means those 30 days ended, um, 30 days ago, making this entire cover story a month old.

World’s sketchiest dad Joe Simpson has been making the tabloid rounds with hopes of selling his daughter Ashlee’s pregnancy pics. Asking price? $1 million. Laughing price? $60k, or that’s what at least one magazine editor estimates would be paid for them. That is, these photos aren’t that salable, even if a package deal includes exclusive shots of her baby bump, an interview, and the newborn pics.

And don’t forget the timing of all this: Ashlee’s album Bittersweet World was a non-starter in the realm of buzz; now she’s getting free advertising from all the paparazzi coverage and pseudo-denials about her pregnancy.

And if there actually aren’t any cells splitting in her womb, it would be a new low, even for the press-hungry Simpson family — it’s a sad day when even an engagement between Ashlee and Pete Wentz isn’t enough to fuel the gossip mill.

One of those tabloid shows we profess not to watch has become, of late, an infomercial for the website Hollywood.TV. What’s that? Just a wee Mr. Paparazzi competitor.

Founded by Sheerez Hasan, Hollywood.TV gets the shows that license its clips to carry a bug for the site, which also provides blogs with free embeddable YouTube clips. It’s unclear whether the entertainment programs pay to use this footage on air, but it’s likely no cash exchanges hands, or very little — it’d be uncommon for an Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight to be forced to advertise a clip’s source if they paid for the rights. (This is different from print or online, where photos, and many videos, must be credited.)

Also in the mix is CelebTV.com, which started as a forgettable player but now packages news segments from its “studio” where “on-air hosts” walk you through celeb events like Britney Spears’ latest car accident.

And CelebTV.com’s recent email to tabloid TV producers explains just how this arrangement works: Plug the hell out of CelebTV.com, and you get the video for free.

CONTINUED »

Kudos to Us Weekly for being the only tabloid wise enough to realize Americans might be just as interested in Beyonce and Jay-Z’s (maybe) wedding as, say, a white girl like Katherine Heigl’s.

Janice Min might be the only celeb weekly editor who understands the newsstand lure of black celebs; her magazine’s Janet Jackson “How I Lost 40 Pounds” issue was among its best selling ever (though it’s said that Min was on leave, and didn’t have much to do with it).

While the paparazzi hounded the Tribeca apartment building where Jay-Z and Beyonce supposedly got married, and the local television news had a field day guessing why everyone was wearing white, OK!, In Touch, Star, and Life & Style all ignored the week’s biggest story on their covers.

How come?

CONTINUED »

Might Halle Berry’s baby girl Nahla still be unseen nearly a month after her birth because … Halle doesn’t want to sell the pics? That’s the word we’re hearing from inside Tabloidville. We’re told Berry’s reps aren’t accepting the phone calls of some very interested editors, leading us to believe either: 1) Nahla has some birth defect, which would be sad and depressing, but also less saleable; or 2) We’re looking at a rare example of a Hollywood mom who isn’t willing to whore out her spawn to pay for the new home theatre.

It’s been nearly a month since Halle Berry and Gabriel Aubry birthed Nahla, and nobody’s seen the little girl yet. Um … what gives?

CONTINUED »

CALLING THE KETTLE HOT PINK Perez Hilton, who has undoubtedly hurt, damaged, and rendered beyond repair the reputations of many a Hollywood figure, is now suing blogger and amateur sex tape star Jonathan Jaxson for allegedly slandering him all in an effort to promote his own website, which Hilton claims caused him “loss of his reputation, shame and mortification” and “mental anguish.” [TSG]

Growing its reputation for telling lies with pictures, OK! magazine bounces from last week’s issue, where they used a five-year-old photo of Britney Spears to claim she lost weight, to this week’s issue, where they crop out Eva Longoria from a photo to make readers believe there’s something going on between Orlando Bloom and Jennifer Aniston.

Herein lies the difference between the British and American press: While The Sun calls out Christina Aguilera’s boobs for having the audacity to get smaller after giving birth, the American press requires Christina to appear on Ellen for a more comfortable discussion about being top heavy.

From blogs! Down By The Hipster spotted Gossip Girl’s Chace and Michelle Trachtenberg at Soho’s Upstairs. [Earlier]

Don’t you often wonder how celebrity magazines score exclusive sightings and insider starlet news? You might be led to believe their roving reporter corps are snagging tips from sauced publicists who are too drunk to know they’re spilling, or their checkbook does the reporting.

Or, most likely, a publicist is planting an item.

Yesterday, Marissa McMillion, a marketing staffer at designer Christian Audigier/Ed Hardy, blasted the press with news that Britney Spears stopped by the corporate offices to meet with Audigier himself, and that “she came to check out his new spring collection but mainly to discuss business… she wants to work on a line with Chrisitian… was in good spirits… Christian and her were laughing… she also left with tons of gear… She really loved the new Ed Hardy bathing suits… thought they were “gorgeous… put on the Ed Hardy sunglasses instantly… got presents for Jamie Lynn (her birthday is tomorrow)… got her Christian Audigier handbags, scarves, Ed Hardy bathing suit, Ed Hardy cologne and belts.”

And look how well it moved down the gossip line:

There’s People magazine’s “Britney Spears’s Birthday Shopping for Jamie Lynn” item, which reports “Christian and she were laughing as she tried on Ed Hardy sunglasses and checked out the bathing suits”; and there’s Star magazine’s “Britney Gets Presents For Jamie Lynn’s Birthday!” item.

And, of course, because this was a super secret meeting, the paparazzi were nowhere to be found!

OK! took plenty of flack this week for publishing a five-year-old photo of Britney Spears to back up a cover line claiming she lost 15 pounds in four weeks. But let’s not kid ourselves: All the tabloids do it!

Let’s see … there’s Star’s cover about “Brit and Kevin’s secret weekend,” which features a photo not from their possibly-never-happened weekend, but from their 2004 honeymoon. And Us Weekly, though it doesn’t claim its cover photo is recent, used a November 2003 photo of a much younger looking Britney, from an Entertainment Weekly photo shoot, as its cover.

First we have to deal with covers that are missing a baby’s legs, and now OLD CELEBRITY PHOTOS? Somebody should lose their Photoshop license.