Only one baby paid back its wage.

The verdict is in: Nicole’s baby has outsold Christina’s baby. The issue with NIcole and Harlow sold 1.8m for People mag and Christina and Max sold 1.2m. Apparently, Christina was not happy about these low figures (even before she found out about Nicole’s baby cover besting her) and fired her manager and publicist.

Now, magazine “insiders” are pointing out that Christina never does well on covers and explaining the difference like this:

There’s also a greater element of
curiosity with Nicole. She’s gone public about being a heroin addict.
Her boyfriend is covered in tattoos. By default, she’s got the more
interesting baby. People want to see how she settles down. They want to
see what kind of baby someone with her background has.

Here’s what I think:
1. The whole thing is a bit yuck. Babies against babies?
Perhaps it wasn’t the mothers’ intentions although Christina did specify in her contract with the magazine that no pictures of Nicole’s baby were to appear in the same issue as hers. Again, yuck.
2. The sales figures are not entirely fair. The other cover story on the Nicole issue of People (albeit smaller than Nicole but still prominent) is Angelina and the first photos of HER pregnancy. Angelina is gossip mag gold so I think it could be safe to say she would have helped lift NIcole’s sales. On Christina’s cover? A big photo of their nursery (!) which is approximately Care Factor Zero.
Personally, I find it hard to understand why anyone would buy either when you can see the pictures free on the internet!!!

FYI – Nicole’s pictures apparently
cost about half as much as Christina’s. But wait….do I hear something
about donating the giant fees – or even part of them – to charity?
Maybe to some of the kids who won’t be appearing on a magazine cover
any time soon and are actually not even getting regular meals or proper
health care? Nah, didn’t think so.

Advertisement
JOIN THE CONVERSATION

More articles