August 4, 2008

Celebrity Photographs: I don’t get it

Posted in Web tagged , , , at 11:08 pm by Andrew McMillen

Why do publications still pay ridiculous amounts for “exclusive” photos of celebrity babies?

We all know that as soon as these photos are published, they’re scanned, uploaded and disseminated across the web.

Exclusive pictures of [celebrity name] newborn twins fetched $14 million, a person involved in the negotiations told The Associated Press. The celebrity weekly scored the photos in a joint deal with [magazine name], and the two will split the bill. Particulars of the division were not disclosed.

Bragging rights?

“We’re thrilled to be able to feature these pictures in [magazine name],” managing editor Larry Hackett said in a statement. [magazine name] plans to unveil the first photo on its Web site on Sunday evening.

The photographs aren’t even going to appear in the magazine first.

How can a collection of pixels be worth US$14 million? And what kind of fucked-up, media-driven society thinks this is normal? Acceptable?

It’s cool that they’re donating it all to their charity. Really cool. But can you imagine the boardroom conversations before this deal was sealed?

“We’ve got to secure the rights to these pictures! It is imperative that people of the world associate the images of these celebrity children with our brand name! Our magazine!”

Doesn’t this all seem ridiculous? Excessive? Moronic?

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Nick Drewe said,

    Ridiculous? Excessive?
    I’m likely to say no. It’s obviously worth it for [Magazine name] to buy these pictures. They probably make the money back many times by charging a premium for advertising along side the photos in an issue that’s going to see a major boost in distribution than usual.

    Which leads me to:

    Moronic?

    Yes! But not the magazine, it’s just a business, but our celebrity obsessed culture. I can see why a magazine would want to buy the photos if it’s worth it to them, but who the hell wants to look at them, and WHY?

  2. Deprived souls who’re unhappy with their lives, and who’d rather live vicariously through the image and success of others.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: