Newspapers are choking out their final goodbye, while the magazine world, by all accounts, is not fairing much better. Overall, the industry is slimming down after a rough first quarter, and many publications are trying to combat the effects with the largest cover price jump in history. But those numbers are skewed toward bigger competitors who average the most readers yearly, while all but ignoring the smaller trades whose hurt has not been as wide. And not all the mags have been having a hard-go of it: Trash bags People and OK! both saw revenue and units increased, despite an increased sales price. Why? Duh, quality, or inferred quality, of the product: CONTINUED »
Gangly-toothed singer and L'Oreal shiller Jewel married rodeo star Ty Murray a week ago today. You read about it the day after, through an official statement to People by her rep, since Jewel managed to pull things off in secret, even though she held it at the Atlantis resort in the Bahamas, which is equally as luxurious as it is a hot bed of gossip-y service staff known to tip off the paparazzi for cash rewards. And the reason Jewel's nuptials — they eloped — are making news today? Because she released a photo from the ceremony. It's pretty, professional, and exactly what she could've been paid at least a few hundred grand for. Or maybe that's exactly what happened, and People is revealing the picture now.
"In that cover photo, it looks like Vivienne Marcheline — clearly the Ashley half of this Olsen-like combo — is sporting a giant grin. She may even be laughing. Hold on. These babies are purported to be a mere 3 weeks old! Parenting magazine says that babies don't smile from exterior stimulation until two to four months — even if said exterior stimulation is the most beautiful pair of humans in the entire world." [Daily Intel]
Remember when Janice Min used to dedicate entire spreads to calling out her competitors for their factual mistakes? Us Weekly's "Faux News" provided us with endless fodder. Often, Min aimed her ire at Bauer's In Touch and Life & Style for their Brangelina baby news. Worth mentioning, then, that In Touch is calling out none other than Us Weekly for its (supposedly) inaccurate Brangelina baby news: "Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are setting the record straight about their newborn babies, Knox and Vivienne. Angelina denies US Weekly's recent report that she underwent fertility treatments. 'If they had been conceived though IVF, we would have been happy to discuss it,' she tells People magazine about the twins, who were born on July 12. 'But we have been fortunate never to have had fertility problems,' she adds."
When People teamed up with Britain's Hello! to offer a joint bid on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby twins, splitting the $14 million fee (that's $3.5m per twin per mag), the U.S. tabloid secured North American rights to the pics, while Hello! would get to print the photos in the rest of the world. One might've thought this would be an even deal, with shots from last week's photo shoot spread evenly between the tabloids. That wasn't the case, according to Jolie Expert and LAT blogger Elizabeth Snead: "Hello's cover shot is even cuter, more intimate and personal than People's." Did Larry Hackett got robbed?
Rushing to put its Bragenlina twins cover on the newsstands, People has come up with this: An exhausted Angelina Jolie in her grandmother's nightie; a middle-aged Brad Pitt sporting a salt-and-pepper beard and crow's feet; biological daughter and pristine human being Shiloh holding new sister Vivienne; a tucked-away newborn Vivienne; a shielded view of son Knox; and not a peep from those adopted kids — that's what the inside pages are for. [People]
In case you need a break from Dateline's episode about the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office, point your browser at People.com on Sunday at 7pm for an Internet hug.
The first public photos of Knox and Vivienne Jolie-Pitt have already been taken! And, despite our suggestion to nobody in particular that Brad and Angelina split their newborn twins into two separate photo shoots to really maximize profit potential, the babies were photographed together.
But the babies will be split up in one sense: People magazine has secured North American rights to the photos, while British tabloid Hello!, which sports numerous international editions, will have other worldwide rights.
Sound familiar? That's because People and Hello! teamed up in 2006 to publish Brangelina's other baby, Shiloh.
In the end, the price is pegged somewhere between $11 and $15 million, though that could be off by as much as a multiple of two. And while the price is certainly one for the record books (for now), keep in mind that the price includes two babies; so really, we're talking bargain.
Not that it's any consolation to OK! publisher Richard Desmond. CONTINUED »
Congratulations, People! You've been fingered as the winner in the bidding for Brad Pitt and Angelina's baby twin photos. And while OK!'s Richard Desmond opened up his checkbook to secure the photos, everyone sort of expected you to nab the pictures, since The World's Most Famous Couple has a soft spot for ya. Now that you've been chosen to pay some $15 million (plus or minus $7 million) to the charity of Brangelina's choice, the big remaining industry question is: Will Getty Images "photojournalist" Brent Stirton — who shot Shiloh Jolie-Pitt for People in 2006 — get the Knox and Vivienne assignment? It's the boring question that shows we, just like a tabloid, we can drag out a single storyline forever!
The Matt Grant edition of The Bachelor wasn’t any more entertaining than every other season, but the breakup is proving otherwise. Former fiance (and constant famewhore) Shayne Lamas told People magazine about her plans for the engagement ring, purchased by ABC: She’s keeping it “safe and clean and in a glass box — like a glass slipper.” Also? Matt is totally on board with the idea and even “wants to come over and look at it.”
Naturally, the magazine then got a response from Matt, because this is middle school and two adults can’t just decide what to do with a piece of jewelry without using the media as a go-between. And, of course, Matt says he never spoke with Shayne about the subject.
When Us Weekly slapped Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover, Janice Min saw her newsstand numbers spike: Some 1 million readers picked up the issue, compared to the usual 800,000 copies that it normally moves. Perhaps looking for its own brand of presidential success, People followed suit, putting the entire Obama clan on its cover.
Things did not go as well. CONTINUED »
When we spotted People's Barack Obama cover on the newsstand yesterday, the first thought that hit was was "They're totally following Us Weekly's lead" Janice Min's tabloid, of course, has given the Obama clan plenty of love (owing in part to Jann Wenner's love affair with Barack), from inside pages to the (said to be well-selling) cover last month. But, as it turns out, People has been putting presidential types on its cover for years. Warning: Bad hair ahead. CONTINUED »
The grossly outrageous sum of $20 million has been replaced by the moderately outrageous figure of $12 million — that's supposedly the latest asking price for the pictures of Angelina Jolie's new twins. While one might think People has a lock on the pics, because it's their nature to have a lock on these sort of things, OK!'s Richard Desmond has a trick up his sleeve: He gets to spread the cost around his 17 international editions of OK!. Or maybe Time Inc. will partner up with an international rag, like Hello, and find a clever way of splitting its costs, too.
Sorry. No. Absolutely not.
The photos of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's new kids, Knox and Vivienne, will not be sold with a price tag as high as $20 million, as some outlets are reporting. Sure, "in the celebrity world, it seems to be the double-second coming," as Darryn Lyons, owner of paparazzi agency Big Pictures, tells it. But the fee that either People or OK! hands over, while enormous, will not even come close to the figures being reported. CONTINUED »
Speaking of Us Weekly, the latest circulation reports for the tabloids are out and they've got Keith Kelly explaining why Jann Wenner might be looking to unload the tabloid: After eight years of steady growth, it's missing its rate base of 1.9 million by 4.1 percent! Not that Wenner might, you know, downgrade the rate base a smidge so he wouldn't have to face headlines like this. Elsewhere for the first five months of the year, People is over its 3.425 million rate base by 9.4 percent, OK! is 1 percent above its 900k mark, Star is 5.8 percent above its 1.25 million base, In Touch missed its 1.2 million promise by 0.9 percent, and Life & Style was off its 550k guarantee by 0.7 percent. Barack Obama, won't you save us?
That People magazine has a nicey-nice relationship with Madonna, as Gawker relayed today, has been an ill-kept secret in the tabloid biz. Some veteran tabloid editors said they weren't surprised managing editor Peter Castro is rumored to be accepting free tickets to the pop star's concerts — but comp'd tickets, though worth thousands of dollars combined, isn't enough to guarantee her protection from the biggest circ celeb weekly. Rather, Madonna relies on the magazine's "straight and narrow" approach to celebrity news (though, to be sure, fairness is a relative concept in the industry).
While Madonna's publicist Liz Rosenberg isn't known to play well with others — which makes her awesome to us — we're told she has a soft spot for People, because they're always willing to run her statements and spin, and not the rumors others traffic in, as the real news. (i.e. "Madonna 'Over the Moon' About Finalized Adoption" sounds a lot different than, say, "Madonna Finally Nabs African Baby After Adoption Scandal.")
But what are the consequences of Madonna having such a lovey-dovey relationship with the Time Inc. tabloid? For one, the other kids on the playground won't be so nice. CONTINUED »
As if you expected People magazine to turn America's Victim Anne Hathaway into a knowing party to ex-boyfriend Raffaello Follieri's cons. "Even as some friends say they warned Hathaway about Follieri, she stuck by him for months as allegations of his wrongdoing swirled," the magazine reports. "But when Hathaway learned that Follieri's charitable foundation was under investigation by the New York State attorney general for tax irregularities, the actress broke off the relationship. Says a pal: 'That was the last straw.'" This is beautiful, touching stuff — especially when you consider what the alternative copy could've looked like: "Hathaway was an oblivious dolt who relied on her good looks to charm her way through life. She only broke off the relationship when she realized the lavish vacations would be coming to an end and the bad press could affect her career." But that's really more Star's territory, which always enjoys a nice backyard BBQ where women are served up well-done.
… are the people bidding $22 million on her baby photos? If Entertainment Tonight really wants to confirm its story, perhaps they should touch base with People and OK! and find out why a deal hasn't been wrapped up yet. Because if those kids are outside the womb, certain magazine editors are going to be eager to schedule the photo shoot for, like, this afternoon.
The week began with reports that bidding on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's baby twin photos was skyrocketing past a $15 million mark; today brings word the final sum could hit $22 million, as the tabloids feed the human trafficking frenzy. (What's an ultrasound worth?)
No matter that the two magazines still in the bidding for the photos, People and OK!, claim those figures are wildly out of touch with the actual dollar amounts being tossed around.
But make no mistake: This sale is on track to break all previous records, including the estimated $7 million Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony scored for selling U.S. and European rights to their twins.
As for who's going to end up on top, the smart money is on CONTINUED »
Only People and OK! are the remaining contenders. And, joke of all jokes, the proceeds will supposedly go to charity. [TMZ] Time to, once again, revisit the economics of paying ridiculous sums for these type of photos.
Editorial Director
