The magazine that publishes the first photos of the new mini celebrity pays top dollar to do so. Let's review some past biggies.
Suri Cruise. As if Tom Cruise having his first biological child with the woman who he was jumping on Oprah's couch about wasn't historic enough, there was also controversy about Suri herself. Was she born earlier than the now divorced (ouch) TomKat revealed? I mean, she just had sooo much hair. Was she actually the daughter of Chris Klein? Vanity Fair scored this cover for free...or so I read...and enjoyed a 60% increase in sales for the issue.
Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. She was destined to be a money maker from conception. Surely the mere sight of Brad and Angelina's first biological offspring was going to burn our eyes from the over powering beauty. Plus, Shiloh's arrival wasn't all that long after Brad had notoriously cheated on America's sweetheart for his now baby mama. Everyone knew it and People magazine capitalized on it...or maybe it was Brangelina that capitalized on it? For a cool $4.1 million, People featured the very first photos of Shiloh.
Vivienne and Knox Jolie Pitt. Not to be out shined by their older sister and with twice the star power, exclusive first photos of Brad and Angelina's twins, were jointly sold to People and Hello! magazines for a whopping $14 million. The money was reportedly donated to the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.
Christina Aguilera's son, Max, was covered by People magazine for $1.5 million. Jennifer Lopez's twins, Maximilian and Emme, were covered by People magazine for $6 million. The late Anna Nicole Smith's daughter, Dannilynn, was covered by OK! magazine for $2 million. Jessica Simpson reportedly just made a deal with People magazine to reveal the first photos of new daughter Maxwell for $800,000, not too shabby. Side note: Writing this post has made me surprisingly aware of how popular the name Max is among the rich and powerful and not-so-surprisingly aware of how People magazine dominates the celebrity baby photo market.
So, how much do with think the first photos of Penelope Scotland Disick will earn the eldest Kardashian daughter? According to the Huffington Post, not much (check out the article here). Life & Style Weekly scored the first photos of Mason Disick back in 2009. I couldn't find any reports on what those photos were worth, but if I know the Kardashians (and I think I do) they were not freebies. The Huff Post sited Kourtney's B list status and Penelope being the 2nd child as reasons for the lack of big money worth. It made me feel bad for Kourtney K., which is wrong on so many levels. I'm not so sure she needs (or deserves) my sympathy. Plus, do I really feel bad that her daughter's not pimpable? I should probably feel worse that I just made up and used the word pimpable.
The questions of the day: How do you feel about these mag covers? Is it pimping your baby or earning a worthy fee? Does it make it any better if the money is donated to a charity? Which magazine cover were you most excited to see?
2 comments:
I think it is kind of sick to make money off of pictures of your child like that. Don't normal parents send out FREE birth announcements sharing the excitement of their newborn? Not celebrities. Their excitement of their child comes at a price. I mean think about it, the child is born and they sell a picture spread and it pays for their medical bills, the designer nursery (which was probably half freebees anyways) and more than the child's entire existant in diapers. It just seems so unfair. But hey, maybe I'm just bitter?
I am more into celebrity gossip than I'd like to admit, but I am not a huge fan of celebs pimping out their baby pics. I do think it is nice when the proceeds go to charity though. And my goodness, Suri Cruise had SO much hair when she was a baby!
Post a Comment