Coming this summer, Ashley Dupre stars in the inuendo laden new reality show: “Behind Bars”

Fashion week has ended here in NYC and with Oscars and London Fashion Week right on it’s heels, I wonder how anyone in the media sleeps during February.  Although there is never any shortage of gossip during fashion week (runway tents are virtual celeb pressure cookers), the usual reports on frivolous cat fights over seating arrangements was overshadowed by the biggest celebrity of 2009 – The Depression. YAY.  But honestly, what can be said about the recession and fashion that isn’t self explanatory? Looks are cheaper. Styles are less over the top.  Some fashion houses have folded. Designers had to cut back costs associated with the show etc. I scoured the pages searching for something I didn’t already know. The only other topics the media seemed interested in was the cast of Gossip Girl showing up to just about every runway show.  Snore.  Tori Spelling got a little huffy at the Christian Syriano show for no apparent reason. Sigh.  Ashley Dupre gets a front row seat at Yigal Azrouël’s runway show. BINGO.

(more…)

when confronted with a potential mate, DABA girls will circle twice and then sniff his wallet.

Dawn,

So, damn, you’ve been getting some ridicule and I’m pretty sure it’s not what you thought you were signing up for when you sat down with Ravi Somaiya for that little piece in the Times. But actually, wait, maybe I’m wrong about that. Did you really (really?!) not know what you were getting into (I mean, feasible enough since you overlooked the bumps in the road associated with that whole marrying a banker thing). I don’t know how on top of your Gawker you are, but it doesn’t take an RSS feed to figure out your story is their meat or better yet, you are. And yes, they’ll make you a webelebelibrity if that was your goal. Book deals don’t just fall out of the sky–except when they do, whatever.

But hey, maybe you could have gotten one on your own? The dreamy girl jobs, the promotions, the long shiny hair? I guess you just get tired of waiting for it especially when a short-cut was so there and, well, seize-able. So, Carpe Diem? Girl leaves Maine, gets big city job, meets big city people, marries them, sells-out, gets laughed at, writes book.

Love,

Ryan

Ms. Pac-Man

Our crack research team (i.e., myself) has been crunching numbers and tracking down interesting data points (i.e., what genders are Kristian Laliberte, Jamee Gregory) and we have discovered something pretty weird, actually.

Recall my last post, wherein we learned that 17 of the 25 People Magazine Hottest Celebs were women.  That is 68% of the list.

Of the top 50 Fame Game profiles as of November 20th, 2008, 34 were women.  This is 69.39% of the total.

The numbers are almost the same, which raises a few observations:

First, a banal one: it may not be as surprising as it seems at first, since the lists come from the same time period (roughly) and purport to measure similar things.  Note, however, that the actual individual celebrities in both lists are different, so it would seem we are seeing some sort of wide effect, and not simply repeated analyses of the same data.

Second, it’s interesting to think about the industries the two lists draw from.  People is overwhelmingly movie and tv stars, while Fame Game looks more at socialites, fashion moguls, and politicians.  It is a little counterintuitive that the proportion would be so similar between two different areas.

Third, of course, none of this is statistically solid–yet.  I plan to get into the larger Fame Game database and perhaps find out some more solid trends.

And of course, look forward to some work on race and celebrity.

ladies in red.

I sought a theme (for a blog post), and sought for it in vain.  Until, that is, I discovered People Magazine’s list of the 25 hottest celebs.  One thing leaps off the page as something many of these people have in common: most of them are ladies.

Fully 17 out of the 25 are women–that’s almost 70 percent.  Two divergent responses occurred to me:

1) It’s good that there is an area of society where women are comfortably in the lead.  These women are wealthy and successful.

2) It’s troubling that women dominate the celeb arena, an arena that is driven by interest in sex, glitz, and scandal.

To be honest, it is not immediately clear what to make of this.

Some other interesting factors include the power of celebrity couples (tomkat are sitting at #1 and #2) and the whiteness of the faces.  Perhaps there is something to be analyzed about the race of celebs in a future post.

Look for a follow up soon wherein I study the recent famegame 2008 wrapup with an eye towards race and gender.

Photograph of Governor Spitzer, with his wife Silda Wall Spitzer, during his apology to his family and the citizens of New York by Mary Altaffer/AP

I used to work at a publishing house, and one day I overheard a conversation between two publicists.  An author had called, having just read a terrible review of his book.  The publicist had told him that there was “no such thing as bad publicity.”  As she recounted this story to her co-worker, they both had a good laugh.

They both seemed pretty sure there was precisely such a thing as bad publicity, and the bad review was a fine example of such.

I bring this up apropos of the recent news post on Fame Game that describes the trends and attention we have tracked this year.  It’s worth reading in full, but the one that caught my eye was:

Top NY Politicos: New York Locals Win the Race, Scandal Propels Spitzer to New High . . . Eliot Spitzer (6) rises to the top 10 in the wake of scandal.

So Eliot was getting attention, but is there anyone who thinks that it was good attention?  He will almost certainly never be a politician again.

The other thing that is clear from the list is that Fame Game has got to expand to other, less-great cities.  Politicians and socialites seem pretty geographically bounded (obviously), and it would be interesting to see the other local ecosystems.

It seems to have been a good year for Fame Game.  Perhaps one of the tasks of this blog in the coming new year can be to add depth and analysis to the raw data we collect so well.

at least signatures are unique

A recent item on the Popwatch blog caught my attention with an opening sentence that recapitulates a common view about celebrities:

“In an era when manufactured “celebrities” are as common as drab backyard sparrows, Eartha Kitt, who died on Christmas day of colon cancer at age 81, was the kind of strange, wondrous, exotic bird you lay eyes on once and never forget.”

Celebrities, now as in the past, are not common, and they are not drab–one of their main features tends to be attractiveness.

The author, it seems, is making a generic distinction: Eartha Kitt, goes the claim, was unlike any other celebrity, a rarity even in that rarefied company.  And this got me thinking: what are the genres, or types, or cylon-style models, of celebrity?

The first that comes to my mind is the young, female pop star.  Madonna (once upon a time), Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Miley Cyrus.  All balance innocence and lasciviousness in a way that awakens the interest of millions.

Or the young comedy male.  Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Jim Carrey–all of whom balance awkwardness and a heart of gold to attract women and men alike.

Perhaps these shorthand sketches miss a lot more than they capture, but I think there is some truth to the idea that there are cultural niches that exist, and celebrities inhabit them for a time.

trick question: you win.

As I have noted in the past, one thing many celebrities share is an unusual level of visual appeal.  They tend to be visually striking, to be memorable.

Now I have found a website that makes it possible to blend different celebrity faces together, and the results are intriguing. Morphthing provides a stable of celebrity headshots and gives you the ability to morph them together. Aside from the delicious irony of creating an Angelina/Jen hybrid, the resulting photos give me a sort of confused feeling.

Because celebrity faces are like brands: they are iconic. It looks weird to see traces of Jennifer Aniston lurking in an unknown face. The faces of celebrities are part of our subconscious cultural library.

Contrast this with the simpler experience of a site like Face Research, which I have frequently used with fascination, but with no resulting confusion.

Both tools can create faces of haunting attractiveness, but only with the celebrities does the result touch on our internalized cultural referents.  It’s a sort of uncomfortable equilibrium: attractiveness (which is related to conforming to a cultural norm) is a great help to becoming a celebrity, but once you are a celebrity, your unique look becomes one of your most valuable assets.

celebrating, artfully

The act of celebration has been permeating the American streets since the election was called a little before midnight Tuesday night. In New York, Barack Obama supporters congregated to celebrate victory in a rare moment of patriotism and even bonding with strangers. It was a night of fireworks, high-fives, hugs, song, oh and booze…

No celebration is complete without an iconic bottle of bubbly or another festive beverage of choice. Or so we have been told. This is an idea alcohol marketers have been clinging to since marketing and advertising were first introduced. The task (beyond making your campaign interesting) has become finding a way to distinguish your brand from all those other celebratory spirits. Who is having the most fun at their party? And what makes that party so special?

A good starting point, from the marketers prospective, is to find that person with whom you want to be celebrating or want to feel like while celebrating. Identifying is key. It provides both a context and implies a certain ideal. And done tastefully, celebration itself can be an art form.

(more…)

congress enacted a new law requiring all obamaniacs to stand behind glass

What is an endorsement? Quite literally, endorsement means approval or sanction. So, in a political context, it means, basically, giving a particular candidate your blessing. But of course, then there is this year when each candidate represents something much greater than the policies he stands for. Through endorsement you are really subscribing to a brand, which then brands your brand for as long as other people remember you’ve formed that association. So, you best choose wisely.

The news cycle is a reality and a faux pas can only be front page news for so long, but this election will go down in history as one of dwelling, rumination, and might we even say obsession. Meaning, a bad decision on behalf of your own brand has the potential to raise its ugly head later defying any sort of news cycle “rules.” Now on this decision, from a branding perspective is it even really a choice unless you are, oh I don’t know, selling shotguns?

(more…)

Cafe-Press had this thing up within 5 minutes. Beat that, internet.

According to the New York Times, he was mentioned 24 times during the debate last night; he is the new “from Wall Street to Main Street,” the overlooked drinking game buzz-word. I knew he was headed for stardom at my debate watching gathering as soon as he was coined “J to the P” by about the 10th mention. It has a nice ring to it. Like, a he could be in hip-hop videos kind of ring. What an idea! How do I get him? Who’s his publicist? It must be someone good considering three news trucks were parked outside his house last night and echoes of his interview with Katie Couric seem the city’s soundtrack today. Oh yeah, and you can find him: Here, Here, Here, and Here. And everywhere.

Book deal? Who has the movie rights?! One thing’s for sure, by the end of this week, J to the P can most definitely afford his own small business (and pay those economy wrenching small business taxes we hear so much about), but maybe he won’t want to plumb no more? I hear fame can go to your head or something? Fuck it. I’m still being him for Halloween.

Of course, at the very least, I’m buying the T-Shirt.

Exhibit 1a

Charlize Theron always knows what time it is. Or at least she should, in theory, to earn her paycheck. As the face of Raymond Weil, she is expected to adorn the Swiss watch in public , but recently she was seen with (gasp…) a Dior clad wrist. She is, in addition, the face of Dior perfume.

So what does this mean? A multi-million dollar law suit. But no, really, what are the greater implications here? First, both frightening and not surprising, the media jumped on her “slip-up” in real time. In a respect, she had one simple task. Wear her choice of lavish Raymond Weil wrist watch for just over a year, then embrace full time-telling liberties. Simple enough. But then, we have to examine what makes Charlize a celebrity or anyone a celebrity and factor that into the equation. Basic principle is that celebrities don’t have to abide by the same rules/standards that we do. (Right, no one is asking us to wear things for millions of dollars, but if they did, we would sure as hell wear 7 pieces at a time perchance there is an extra credit opportunity). And that is why we admire them. A certain element of defiance should be expected of celebrities, that only makes us envy them more.

So, Raymond Weil is pissed at Charlize for behaving in a manner we want and expect of her, behavior that only reinforces her stardom. If she never said ‘fuck you I am Charlize Theron’ to citizen rules, why would we care about her? She would never be elevated to her current status in the first place. Hotness aside, they would never want her selling their watch.

The result: Maybe Charlize loses millions of dollars, but in doing so, she earns bar upon bar of media attention. Maybe her deviant ways will attract some edgier brands, she gets the money back, and suddenly becomes so much more than the face of Raymond Well. She is playing and she is winning. One can’t but wonder how much of a “slip-up” that actually was and if Charlize plays a dirty but brilliant Fame Game.

Lady in Red

In my obsessive reading about the financial crisis I stumbled on an interesting little section of an interview with Erin Callan, former CFO of Lehman, wherein she described her experience of becoming a Wall Street celebrity:

What mistakes did you make?

You can’t be naive about the press. I had a lot of positive exposure but didn’t recognize the opportunity for significant negative exposure. Exposure becomes celebrity, and you get a persona. That persona got away from me and the firm. There were so many pieces to it, not least of which was the phenomenon of a woman CFO on Wall Street.

Any PR person (or famehungry microcel) knows you have to have a persona.  People don’t have time to get to know you and understand your context and personality.  They have time to look at a picture of you and a headline, and then they generate a web of inferences that informs their idea of you, or, more accurately, “you.”  Yet this description of the process is brief and incredibly clear.  You get “exposure,” and then follows “celebrity,” and then you get a “persona.”  If you were consciously playing the game you would have figured out your persona first, then set about seeking the requisite exposure to become a celebrity.

All this brings up the question (it DOES NOT “beg the question,” see here): does the way that celebrities come into being make any sense?  Is it fair?  Is it sensible to apply the concept of fairness to it?  And fair to whom?

These questions are interesting, but here in the post-post-modern 21st century we should go a step further, and redesign our approach to celebrity from the ground up.  Oh, wait, some charming young people have done just that (and they gave me a job)!

Sometimes it really happens like this

It’s been a bad week for anyone even remotely connected to the American economy–and it’s only Tuesday!  It’s been an especially bad week for people whose primary connection to said economy was a job at Nick Denton’s Gawker Media blogs.

Well, some of them.  Even as Denton announced that some of his sites would be cutting staff, he also revealed that some would be hiring.  So where does the cowboy of the frontier of the blogosphere see the future of the herd?  His memo splits up his blogs into three categories:  appealing, poised, and . . . experiencing layoffs.  Below is my quick gloss of the outcome:

APPEAL
Gawker; Lifehacker; Gizmodo; Kotaku
- New York celeb gossip, computers, gadgets, video games

POISED
Jalopnik; io9; Jezebel; Deadspin
- Cars, Science-Fiction, Women’s Interest, Sports

CUT
Valleywag; Defamer; The Consumerist; Fleshbot
- Silicon valley insider, LA gossip, consumer issues (the irony!), sexy time

This pattern seems to indicate that interest in celeb gossip and high-tech shinies will remain strong (at least, that’s Denton’s prediction). Gawker is perfectly capable of handling occasional California gossip, so Defamer and Valleywag make natural targets for cuts. Fleshbot was always, in my opinion, a weird part of Gawker media. Porn is not exactly rare on the internet, and commentary isn’t a big element of its appeal.

The real hilarity lies in the cuts at Consumerist, perhaps the most obviously useful during a terrible economic downturn of all the Gawker properties.  Seems like celebrity sells better, though.

In line with Chelsie, though, it seems clear that traditional celebrity isn’t going anywhere. Whither microfame, though? How much time will people have to overshare when they’re sending out resumes by the dozen? How much will can people muster to choose better idols when winter’s coming against a backdrop of punishing recession?

the myth, the man

So is Henry “Hank” Paulson a celebrity now?  He’s on the cover of Newsweek, and his recent Google Trends seem to indicate as much.

Well those are certainly numbers any up and coming influential would envy!  And he’s even sort of a New York City figure, having been the CEO of Goldman for a couple of years.  And yet, I find myself hesitating to celebrate him.

What rich, thick insights can be drawn from my intuitive resistance to Paulson-mania?  As I wrote recently, “celebrity” now carries with it a sense of shallowness, of inauthenticity, and of–how to put this delicately?–dumbness. Perhaps I resist thinking of Paulson as a celebrity because my subconscious framing is all wrong.

I find it interesting to meditate on these sorts of liminal cases.  Are politicians celebrites?  What about Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Once you become a “celebrity,” are you one for all time?  (Before you answer, think a moment on Corey Haim.)

as always, Paris Hilton will play the role of “control”

There are lots of ways to put this, but most simply, she didn’t have one, or a little less simply, she wasn’t aware that she was playing a game at all. Had the imminent spotlight been on her mind, maybe she wouldn’t have been taped posing questions about the vice presidency we asked the first or fine, maybe second time, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

An ill-managed Fame Game does not, however, affect exposure; in many cases, it increases exposure. After all, every grizzly head, glamour shot, bloody caribou, and pregnant teenager carries with it an inherent number of media attention points. So that’s nice. More US-based internet search traffic than Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Phelps and Barack Obama combined! The question, of course, for Ms. Palin becomes whether she can detract from the ridiculousness and redirect the attention towards the overarching mission of her beliefs to one day become richer, less gift in our laps blog fodder. It’s a lesson in quality over quantity and in sustaining after the spike.

Step # 1. Lose the banana clip. And from there? …