Posted on 10/06/2002 3:33:28 AM PDT by Happygal
Rosie O'Donnell, actress, comedian, newly 'out' lesbian, former daytime talk show host and now former publishing impresario, is nothing if not blunt. Here's 'the Queen of Nice', on why a magazine bearing her name would succeed. 'I knew two million Americans would buy it. How? Because that's how many bought my CD - and I can't sing.'
Upon such unvarnished marketing certainties are magazine empires built in modern America. Or so it was once believed.
In early 2001, O'Donnell, a stalwart of the 'confessional' mid-afternoon talk shows that dominate US television, signed a deal that would take the mix of celebrity interviews, lifestyle advice and discussion of social issues which made her TV show so successful and transfer it to print. Gruner and Jahr, an offshoot of German publishing giant Bertelsmann, described the project as ground-breaking.
In truth it was nothing of the sort; it was simply the latest in a line of magazine ventures seeking to profit off the back of a celebrity name.
Where Martha Stewart's Living and Oprah Winfrey's O Magazine had gone before, Rosie sought to follow. And for a while it succeeded. Sales rose to more than two million, emulating the success of its lifestyle rivals, but as the months passed Rosie began to lose its lustre. News-stand sales fell by half, to 250,000.
O'Donnell blamed editorial interference from Gruner and Jahr: the publishers blamed their star's obsession with social issues and her bizarre editorial decisions. The July 2001 issue carried a front cover photograph of Rosie holding up her badly infected finger - eye-catching, perhaps, but not what America's magazine buying public has come to expect.
'The brand - my brand - is not some skinny model on the cover who is on the cover of every other magazine,' O'Donnell explained.
An anonymous Gruner and Jahr executive commented: 'Commercial suicide.'
The relationship was further complicated when O'Donnell announced that she was abandoning her television show. This was then followed by the revelation in her autobiography, Find Me, that she is gay.
A few weeks later she did a stand-up show at a Connecticut casino during which she announced she was shedding her 'nice' image.'The bitch ain't so nice anymore,' she said.
What followed was as predictable as it was poisonous. Editors were fired, stories spiked and expensive lawyers hired until, finally, O'Donnell decided to walk away from the magazine bearing her name. 'In America you do not own someone's name, no matter how much you think you do, no matter what paper says you do. You are not allowed to take the essence and the name I have created for 20 years to stand for something and corrupt it,' she said.
Gruner and Jahr responded by issuing a $300 million lawsuit. 'We have been caught in the maelstrom of Rosie O'Donnell apparently abandoning her past. She has walked away from her television show, her brand, her public personality, her civility - and now her fans, her business partner and her contractual responsibilities,' said Cindy Spengler, the company's chef marketing officer.
Such acrimony seems a world away from the heady days when celebrity tie-ins were viewed as the future of the magazine industry.
'The appeal was simple. You watch Rosie or Oprah or Martha on television, then you buy their magazine,' says Samir Husni, journalism professor at the University of Mississippi and publisher of the annual Guide to New Consumer Magazines.
'Oprah gave you this down-to-earth feeling that makes you feel good about yourself. Martha gave you a sense that "Yes, I can do it". The same with Rosie. They were not using the magazines to champion causes, they were using them to champion a way of living that appeals to a mass audience. These magazines were like a drug - they make you feel good about yourself.'
So what happens when the drug is cut with poison?
While O'Donnell has been battling over her name, Stewart has been trying to stay out of jail. Allegations of insider trading against the Princess of Chintz took a serious turn last week when the assistant to her stockbroker pleaded guilty to concealing the real reasons for her sale of shares in Imclone, a company owned by her friend Samuel Waksal.
As part of plea-bargain deal, Douglas Faneuil claimed Stewart had been tipped off that Imclone was about to announce bad news when she sold 60,000 shares - an allegation that leaves her open to charges of insider trading, perjury and obstruction of justice.
'This public plea is designed to convince Martha Stewart to lay down her sword and admit that she traded on inside information,' said Seth Taube, a former Securities and Exchange commission lawyer.
So far, Stewart has shown no such inclination, hiring a succession of lawyers and PR consultants to tell anyone prepared to listen that it is business as usual - a hard sell, given that shares in her company have dropped by more than 60 per cent in the past year. Meanwhile, sales of Stewart's Living magazine have remained stable, but if the case ends up in criminal court, as most observers expect, it seems unlikely the American public would have much appetite for interior decorating tips from the occupant of a prison cell.
All of which leaves Oprah Winfrey the only member of the holier-than-thou trinity who has managed to steered clear of her lawyer's office. But even her hitherto unbreakable hold on the public is not what it was, with news-stand sales of her magazine down by almost a third.
It is this litany of lawsuits, criminal allegations and declining popularity which has had many analysts wondering if the reign of America's daytime TV lifestyle queens is coming to end. Opinions differ, but there is a common belief that the troubles facing Rosie and Co have revealed a fundamental truth about the magazine business: beware the celebrity tie-in.
Publications tied to broader concepts rather than a single person are easier to maintain, says Melissa Pordy, a senior executive at the media group, Zenith Optimedia. 'With a broad-based magazine there is a usually a plethora of materials and pro- grammes they can focus on. It is not a one-trick pony. With Rosie , it was her magazine and her premise and eventually, if she is no longer a part of it, there is nothing left.'
This maybe true in the case of Rosie , which will publish its final edition in December. But with some skilful rebranding the magazines launched by Stewart and Winfrey could outlive their celebrity - and personal difficulties.
'If you ask me will we have a Martha Stewart or an Oprah Winfrey magazine as they currently exist in ten years' time, I would have to say no,' says Husni. 'In order to survive they have to rebrand the magazines and that is what is happening. With Martha Stewart's Living , the word "Living" is now the bigger than her name. It's the same with O magazine. They have to focus more on the content rather than on the person."
What is certain is that publishing companies will no longer be so quick to invest in a single name, no matter how famous. The risks are too great, the personalities too combustible, the celebrity too fleeting. The mistake people made was believing that celebrity concept magazines were the future, rather than a chance to make a fast buck.
'If you think about it,' says Husni, 'the only person who was able to brand his name and make it last for ever was Jesus Christ.'
That's the only time I ever agreed with rosie o.
Watch it Rosie. You don't know where that finger has been.
BWWHAHAHAHA! Yer Christian charity is in full swing today!
Now you are after giving me an awful mental picture. Bleurghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :-)
I think this sparked the beginning of her demise. If you ask me, she's spent way too much time with her liberal Hollywood cronies and lost touch with her mainstream American fans (many of whom are now ex-fans).
She may think that spouting all this anti-gun/lesbian coming out-of-the-closet cr@p is the noble thing to do (and I'm sure her Hollywood peers whole-heartedly agree), but her fans are disgusted.
This whole thing is weird. so is anyone who was a fan of hers
I agree. Rosie was always nasty,even to the point of a couple of the celeberties who did her show the first couple of months came out and said they would never appear there again because of how mean she was to her staff. I can't remember right now who it was,but a "A-list" star mentioned how she required all her staff to call her "Ms. O'Donnelly" and how she had reduced a intern to tear by humiliating her in front of everybody back stage. That wasn't enough,so Rosie fired her. She fired a LOT of people the first few weeks,and the word is that she didn't stop until word started leaking out about it.
Anyhow,back to Selleck. He may have been one of the worst possible celebs for her to attack. His public AND private personas are both of a very nice harmless man who bothers nobody,plus MANY American women lust after him. The same women Rosie needed to keep her empire going. Sellecks behavior on that show made her look even worse too,since he sat there and was very mild in his own defense,while Rosie just look shrill and viscious. Remember,this was the cause of her losing her K-Mart contract too,and this alone cost her $12 million a year.
Me,too. If she has to testify in court,her abrasive personality is bound to come out,and make her opponets case for them. Maybe she will sell her human pets to Babs Streisand if they bankrupt her?
Kmart sure can pick their spokeswomen, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.