“Project Runway” has announced that Season Six of the show will air on Lifetime, instead of their home network Bravo. This move has caused quite a stir among bloggers, fans, and especially NBC Universal who is now suing, according to Adage.com. “Project Runway” was Bravo’s highest-rated show, attracting both devoted viewers and publicity. In fact New York Daily News states “the buzz generated by ‘Runway,’ which appeals to the metropolitan fashion elite, is far greater than the show’s actual viewership.”
From a public relations perspective, the buzz and devoted viewers should have been taken into consideration when “Project Runway” owners, The Weinstein Co., decided to make such a significant move.
This decision was clearly based on one factor alone: money.
The Lifetime deal is reportedly paying one million dollars per episode, a big jump from Bravo’s $600,000.
While the network will clearly be paying more, will the advertisers? Will the sponsor relationships like Elle, Tresemme, and Saturn, that developed with “Project Runway” on the Bravo network continue to Lifetime?
Will the fans follow?
The Lifetime network does not appear to be a likely fit for “Project Runway” because their image is currently the Housewife Channel, while “Project Runway” appeals to the metropolitan fashion forward.
I feel that The Weinstein Co. did not take all concerned publics into consideration when they decided to make this move. I would have chosen a network based on the show, the fans, advertisers and sponsors, and then the paycheck in order to maintain positive public relations.
Bravo is Out. April 11, 2008
Privacy April 4, 2008
The explosion of the Internet has drastically changed public relations in entertainment forever. Credentials, reputation, and accolades are no longer needed to earn a widespread audience. Anyone can write a blog these days, in fact some are required to! In addition to the paparazzi, bloggers have added to the absolute demise of celebrity privacy. Yet another interesting development is that even unknown blog readers can now reveal celebrity secrets to the world. For example, when an ordinary person spotted Nick Carter dancing at a birthday party, they sent the photos to perezhilton.com and they show up under the heading “More Backstreet Deboozery!” It has become virtually impossible for celebrities to lead their lives without tarnishing their name. This places public relations in a bind. They can certainly brief their clients for a press conference, but how do they prepare their clients for every birthday party or beach outing? With control of the client’s image diminishing, perhaps public relations experts’ only hope is to have an excellent crisis communications plan for every occasion.
One of the few advantages may be that the public has grown accustomed to celebrity misconduct. If Vanessa Hudgens can bounce back from a nude photo scandal, anyone can! …With the right PR strategy, that is.
Baby Bucks March 28, 2008
Magazines love shots of celebrities toting the hot new accessories: babies.
Baby pictures have been valued and cooed over since the beggining of, well, birth, but not until recently have those photos begun to double, triple, quadruple… in worth.
Nicole Richie’s baby apparently was not even worth one million dollars. However Jamie Lynn Spears’ future baby is worth the million, and Christina Aguilera’s was worth twice that. These figures may seem extravagant, but Jennifer Lopez topped out at six million for her twins.
Shameless!
Do these celebrities feel any shame for exploiting these unborn living beings? Perhaps their superficial nature inhibits them from perceiving their actions in that way. At least from a superficial standpoint, do they realize how they will appear?
It seems that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have got it all figured it out.
They are donating their whopping eight to ten million dollars to charity!
Perez Hilton has canonized them San Brad and Santa Angelina.
This way, they avoid the paparazzi’s mad dash for first baby photos, they increase magazine sales, they gain positive publicity, and most importantly, the less fortunate receive a sizable donation. Brilliant.
Britney needs a PR strategy like that.
Disney Princess March 21, 2008
Vanessa Anne Hudgens, Disney darling of “High School Musical” endured a public relations crisis in 2007 when nude photos surfaced on the Internet. The hit movie series began with the debut of “High School Musical” in January 2006. Vanessa played Gabriella, a shy bookworm and the love interest of Troy, who is played by her real-life boyfriend Zac Efron. The movie’s tremendous worldwide success lead to the release of “High School Musical 2″ in April 2007, which drew over 17 million viewers. By this time Vanessa had become a role model to millions of adoring young fans, prime time for her nude photos to spread like wildfire across the Internet.
CRISIS!
On September 6, 2007 Vanessa’s nude photo appeared on the Internet. The very next day Vanessa publicly acknowledged her mistake and apologized in a statement released by her representative:
“I want to apologize to my fans, whose support and trust means the world to me. I am embarrassed over this situation and regret having ever taken these photos. I am thankful for the support of my family and friends.”
Her publicist, Jill Fritzo, followed with the statement that the photo “was taken privately. It is a personal matter and it is unfortunate that this has become public.”
The same day, a Disney Channel spokeswoman, Patti McTeague, publicly stated Disney’s support:
“Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment. We hope she’s learned a valuable lesson.”
Despite rumors, Disney went on to offer Vanessa a return role in the upcoming “High School Musical 3″.
While this must have felt like rock-bottom for Vanessa and her Disney family, the mainstream media surprisingly did not seem to think so. Most of my sources shed a positive light on the situation, placing emphasis on Vanessa’s immediate apology, and Disney’s support. Headlines remained fairly neutral, for example “Vanessa Hudgens’s nude pic emerges” and “Vanessa apologizes for nude photo”. Furthermore, none of the articles actually showed the infamous photos being described. Five out of six articles were accompanied by a photo of Vanessa, fully dressed and looking her best at various red carpet events.
Five out of six articles included Vanessa’s apology and her publicist’s statement, and several went on to quote the Disney Channel spokeswoman in stating their support. Several articles also included positive quotes from Hollywood publicists, image consultants, and mothers of Vanessa’s fans.
The general consensus was that in these days of DUI’s, rehab, and inappropriate videos, nude photos are not that bad! One article even went so far as to say that Vanessa now has more career options than her straight-edge counterparts like Hillary Duff and Christy Carlson Romano.
Most importantly, Vanessa took responsibility for her actions, which were meant to be private. She got out in front of the problem and tackled it right away, which lessened its severity. While some journalists speculated that this may threaten her relationship with Disney, they did not find the crisis to be long-term or career-threatening. Many journalists went on to state that it is in Disney’s best interest to keep Vanessa in their movies because the movie series has made so much money. When it comes down to it, money matters.
There was more variety in the blog coverage of Vanessa’s photo scandal. Many blogs posted the actual nude photos, several of which have since been removed by the request of Vanessa’s representatives. There was a wider range of sentiment in the blogs, from those who framed her as a hypocrite for speaking out about Britney, to those who demanded that the media back off. All of the blogs quoted her apology, and many quoted Jill Fritzo and Patti McTeague as well. The headlines were mainly neutral, but one referred to Vanessa as “Vanessa and her army of reps”.
For the most part the blogs reported the incident in neutral terms, and the readers’ comments either bashed or defended Vanessa.
The mainstream media and the blogs reported the incident in the same way, however the more of the blogs posted the actual photos, therefore having greater potential to harm Vanessa’s career. Vanessa emerged in a fairly favorable position due to the media coverage, but the main danger came from the pictures themselves spreading across the internet. The consensus seemed to be that she is young and made a mistake, but more importantly, she apologized for it.
I think that Vanessa handled the crisis in exactly the correct manner because she took responsibility and apologized, and that is what the public really wants from their celebrities. The public does not expect them to be perfect, just to be honest. I think that Jill Fritzo’s statement put the crisis into perspective, and Patti McTeague’s statement added legitimacy to Vanessa’s apology. I would not have done anything differently.
Mainstream Media:
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20631297/
FOX
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296262,00.html
ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=3584044&page=3
CBS
http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/07/people_hot_water/main3242333.shtml
PEOPLE
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20169046,00.html
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/arts/08arts-HIGHSCHOOLFO_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=vanessa+hudgens+photos&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Blogs:
Defamer http://defamer.com/hollywood/apologies/vanessa-hudgens-and-her-army-of-reps-sorry-about-those-leaked-nudie-pics-297728.php
Pop Sugar
http://popsugar.com/603564
Celebrity Blog
http://celebrity-blog-news.blogspot.com/2007/09/vanessa-hudgens-naked-photos-issue.html
Hollyscoop
http://www.hollyscoop.com/vanessa-hudgens/vanessa-hudgens-explains-nude-photos_12625.aspx
February 29, 2008
Amy Winehouse is reportedly Back to Crack, as Perez tactfully put it. Once again she has bloggers in a frenzy, with reactions like lalate’s “let’s hope it’s not true.” AllThingsScorpia describes her as “the horrific accident where you don’t want to look but you can’t help yourself.” Amy Winehouse’s personal public life has been documented: mugshots, tabloids, drug videos and all.
Yet something sets her apart from Paris, Lindsay, Nicole, Kim, Britney (I could go on) and Mischa: talent.
Amy has won just as many Grammy’s as Celine Dion! According to the New York Times, Amy’s music “could help lead soul into 21st-century territory.” She may even be leading the retro movement that the U.K. is experiencing. There is significant substance to her fame.
In addition to substance, I think Amy’s honesty sets her apart from Britney and co.
She never claimed to be a virgin. She certainly does not hide her affinity for drugs of all types. Her words and appearance do not come off as a carefully scripted PR strategy (Paris’s interview on the “Larry King Live Show” comes to mind).
Perhaps this combination of talent and raw personality is the reason Larry King, Oprah, and top British anchorman Sir Trevor McDonald are all vying for an interview!
Proven Wrong February 26, 2008
As a follow-up to my first post, Amy Winehouse’s career is actually thriving despite her bad behavior. Last week she was welcomed to the stage of the Brit Awards by “rapturous applause” according to the Huffington Post. The previous week she won an astonishing five Grammys, including record of the year. Despite her ragged appearance, her multiple stints in rehab, and incarcerated husband, the public still loves Amy Winehouse. Amy irreverently celebrates her issues in her music with songs like “Rehab” and “I’m No Good.” She’s got nothing to hide, except maybe in that beehive of stiff hair. At least she’s honest… Roger Clemens take note!
Be honest February 16, 2008
Did he do it? Another public figure finds himself in court today.
Roger Clemens is taking his defense all the way, insisting before Congress that he did not use steroids. The main problem with Roger Clemens’ situation is that the chances of finding definitive evidence, one way or the other, are slim to none. Perhaps that is why he claimed innocence in the first place.
In the meantime, the public has made their decision. They think he did it. Realistically, he’s a professional baseball player with records to break and championships to win; and if everyone’s doing it, why not Roger?
In the media, you are guilty until proven innocent, and it is extremely difficult to prove innocence. He should have publicly admitted to using steroids, and apologized to his fans. Fans devote a part of their heart to their idols, and they do so with a certain amount of trust. By lying to the public, celebrities are betraying that trust.
Be honest, everyone knows baseball players use steroids, which makes the Mitchell report a colossal waste of $20 million.
Reality Check for Amy Winehouse February 8, 2008
Celebrities are known, in fact glorified, for their run-ins with the law. DUI’s are this season’s must-have item, and celebrities are checking in and out of rehab or prison every day of the week. How is it that these people are developing lengthy criminal records without serious consequences?
In the surreal world of entertainment, bad publicity oftentimes boosts the professional careers of these actors, musicians, and athletes.
Amy Winehouse finally receives a reality check when the American Embassy rejected her Visa application, denying her ability to work in the U.S. The Embassy based their decision on Amy’s legal violations, a recent interview with the police, and a video of her smoking crack cocaine.
The refusal prohibits Amy from performing at the upcoming Grammy’s (February 10).
However, not to inflict any real-life consequences on Amy, she will be performing via satellite.
At the end of the day they are still professionals with employment commitments to uphold. At some point, these crimes and misdemeanors interfere with performances, tour dates, and international travel, and celebrities become a liability to employers instead of an asset.
Hello world! January 31, 2008
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
