Not long ago, when a magazine paid a celebrity more than a person might earn in a lifetime in return for a set of pictures, media critics questioned the ethics of both the publication and the star.
That is so passe. Writing an enormous check for a celebrity photo spread and interview has become pretty routine for People magazine and OK! weekly.
So the better question now is, is it worth it? Can a few snapshots of a baby or a bride, accompanied by a fawning article, really be worth millions of dollars?
On the whole it probably is, industry executives and consultants say, acknowledging that is a tough question to answer.
Million-dollar payouts were unheard of a few years ago, but that changed when the US version of OK! was introduced. Now there is about one a month. In March, People set a record, paying what industry executives say was US$5 million or more for the first public pictures of Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony and their newborn twins.
That kind of inflation makes it harder to argue that publishers get their money back directly. In most cases, the magazine is paying only for the exclusive rights to use the pictures for a week or two. (Magazines usually buy the photos through an agency, partly to avoid the appearance of directly paying celebrities for access, though publishers and editors no longer bother with any pretense about where the money goes.)
But executives at the magazines, while refusing to discuss specific photo fees, insist that the widely reported prices are wrong or misleading and that the true costs to their companies are much less. And they say that the most important factors are impossible to measure: the value of being known as the place to go for those pictures and of keeping them out of a competitor’s hands.
“The consumer’s expectation is if the photos are going to be available, I’m going to see them in People,” said Paul Caine, the publisher of People magazine, a Time Warner property.
“If we don’t get them, we miss that brand promise; we lose the halo that goes with that,” he said.
Larry Hackett, People’s editor, said: “Last year, we lost a couple of weddings because OK! magazine was willing to spend more money than we thought made sense.”
If that sort of thing becomes common, he said, “They’re going to get traction, and I don’t want any competitor to get traction where I can stop it.”
OK! does not turn a profit, said its publisher, Tom Morrissy, but it spends heavily for big exclusives to establish itself and gain a following. This may be working: The magazine, part of the British media conglomerate Northern and Shell, had a circulation of more than 900,000 in the second half of last year — far behind People’s 3.8 million, but growing fast.
Magazine editors need an acute sense of how a celebrity cover will sell at a particular moment, and sometimes they get it wrong. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have been money in the bank for years, but putting Christina Aguilera and her new baby on the cover in February did not do much for People’s sales. Anna Nicole Smith and those around her attracted readers while she lived, but were a bigger attraction in the months after she died.
“It’s always a bit of gamble,” said Sarah Ivens, editor of the US version of OK!. “You have to trust your instincts.”
An exclusive set of pictures, with one on the cover, can increase newsstand sales, but rarely by enough to sustain a payout of US$1 million or more. Even at the full cover price, analysts say, each extra copy that a magazine sells above its norm generates less than US$2 in income.
The domestic record for a sales increase may belong to the issue of People in 2006 with the first published pictures of Jolie’s and Pitt’s baby, Shiloh, which sold 800,000 more copies than usual.
More commonly, an important exclusive sells an extra 300,000 to 500,000 copies — providing less than US$1 million in added earnings. But that is just the US part of the ledger. Exclusive pictures have a greater effect on Web traffic: People.com briefly doubled its online readership when it featured Lopez’s twins, with about 4 million viewers in a single day. That kind of traffic can translate into more advertiser interest, but People does not disclose such data.
When a magazine pays a lot of money for pictures, it often uses the domestic rights and sells the international rights to someone else, so the net cost is much lower than the initial payout. That is what People did with the pictures of Lopez and family.
For OK!, a set of pictures can be used in magazines around the world. The US OK! is a spinoff of a celebrity weekly based in Britain that is sold in dozens of countries. Northern and Shell also licenses a dozen foreign-language versions.
The company paid a reported US$2 million last year for pictures of Eva Longoria and Tony Parker’s wedding, with audiences in several countries in mind.
“Desperate Housewives is a big hit in Europe,” Morrissy said. “Tony Parker is from France, and Eva Longoria translates very well internationally.”
British magazines and tabloids have a history of fierce competition and of paying for access. But at the start of the decade, no US publication was paying high prices for pictures, because People had the field nearly to itself.
That started to change when Wenner Media’s Us magazine went from monthly to weekly in 2000 and began to compete more aggressively, starting a circulation climb to almost 2 million today from about 800,000. In the next few years, Bauer Publishing introduced In Touch and Life & Style.
Suddenly, there were bidding wars for pictures, most taken by freelancers. Magazines were paying tens of thousands of dollars for run-of-the-mill pictures of celebrities leaving restaurants — pictures not considered good enough for covers. That contributed to an explosion in the number of paparazzi chasing celebrities, which in turn led to more pictures, and prices leveled off.
Then OK! arrived in August 2005, with Northern and Shell’s resources behind it and a willingness to pay six and seven figures.
People, widely acknowledged as the most profitable magazine in the US, followed suit; Us Weekly and Bauer have chosen not to compete at those prices.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US