Adele turns down L'oreal $20m deal

[Deleted member 1957]

lovebscott.com


According to the mirror

Adele has walked away from a £12million offer to be the face of L’Oréal in a move that left the firm “gobsmacked”.
The superstar singer, 25, was months into negotiations and all set to brush aside Cheryl Cole by signing a four-year advertising contract.
It was a megabucks *deal that looked destined to make her the *cosmetic giant’s *highest-paid star ever.
Oscar-winner Adele would have joined a celebrity “faces of” roll call with Cheryl, Penelope Cruz, Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez.
A source said: “L’Oréal was in negotiations for the deal with Adele and it looked to be happening – but she just changed her mind on it.
“L’Oréal is gobsmacked that she turned down such a huge amount.” North London girl Adele has often insisted on her *reluctance to sell out, claiming she dislikes artists who are constantly in everyone’s face.
Landing such a high-profile role in the beauty industry would also have been one in the eye for fashion *big-shots such as Karl Lagerfeld who slated her for not being stick thin.
The huge offer came amid *speculation that French firm L’Oréal was looking to dump long-serving Cheryl Cole, who is on an advertising contract worth £500,000 a year.
Despite their sales rising during the popular Geordie’s stint on the X Factor, the company moved Cheryl, 30, to their *skincare campaign after she took to frequently changing the colour of her hair.
And it was less than impressed when she *revealed an elaborate *tattoo covering her rear in August.

I dont believe any of this coz
1. When did L'oreal start giving people 20million, Gisele wouldnt still be the richest model if they pay that much
@ Who turns down 20 million, even the pope wouldnt

 

[maxlinden]

m.hypebeast.com

 

[AtticusFinch]

I much prefer her choice than people who get paid millions for ads but refuse them being played in the US (only in Japan etc). Happily accept the money but then want to also appear to not have sold out.

 

[ALAUU]

Adele isn't a model, so offering her $20 million wouldn't affect Gisele's status at all. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Adele were offered such a contract. She's extremely talented and admired all over the world. She's also extremely private, so that might also play a role in hiking up her value from a marketing standpoint.

I'm glad she didn't take the offer. These days L'Oreal will give a contract to almost anyone. I don't know why they've been in such a hiring fever as of late. It used to mean something because it was so rare and only the biggest stars would get a contract with them. Now they've got Blake Lively and Evangeline Lilly and a couple more second-rate actresses. It's kind of like all you've got to do is have nice hair and blue eye color to get a contract.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Let's remember this is the person who turned down the chance to sing at the royal wedding. I don't find it hard to believe at all. It's not like she's down on her luck ...

 

[Luxx]

Let's remember this is the person who turned down the chance to sing at the royal wedding. I don't find it hard to believe at all. It's not like she's down on her luck ...

Exactly. The Mirror may or may not be correct about the amount, but it would make a lot of sense for L'Oreal to offer her a spot on their roster. They love to have the most popular female musicians signed to represent the brand and have gotten quite a few incredible women to appear in commercials saying "Because you're worth it." Even people who were never known to appear in ads - Diane Keaton for example - were swayed by L'Oreal.

Adele would be a major get as she's a celebrity very known for her distinctive makeup look and of course that voice

I like that she turned it down. Maybe she'll say yes to something else in the future, or maybe she never will but I have to respect any celebrity who gets that less is more. She doesn't need to be on adverts constantly or always in the public eye, she seems to really just focus on making music.

 

[YoninahAliza]

^I agree with everything you've said Luxx. I rather like that Adele isn't everywhere and it makes sense that she wouldn't sign a makeup contract, she's such a private person and I can't imagine her wanting everyone to see her face everywhere. I like that Adele's not in it for the money, she's all about making soul resonating music, not shilling for companies. I wouldn't judge if she did decide to promote a product but right now I can't see that happening, from everything that we know about her, she would have to think it was really worth it.

 

[TheoG]

Even though she would be gorgeous in commercials and ads I also think it was the best move for her, her focus is more on music rather than represent makeup. I guess they wanted to replace Cheryl Cole for Adele why would they even assume that or take that risk?

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

it would have been great seeing her, but L'oreal is no longer as exclusive as it used to be so I can see why she turned it down

 

[pixiedust1603]

She's always said that she'd never do adverts so her rejecting L'Oreal isn't a surprise.

 

[Phuel]

I think Adele is very pretty and has a great voice, but she's hardly Sinead O'Connor. Patti Smith, or Maya of M.I.A. who were/ are all controversial despite their popularity, as well as having garnered an alternative cache. Adele sings about heartaches and relationships and the majority of her fans wouldn't bat a lash had she agreed to the L'Oreal deal-- I'm sure they would identify with her more had she been the new face of the brand, actually.

I mean, good for her for not wanting to be a corporate face, but her music and image is pretty generic so I don't see how it would harm her artistically. With that kind of money, she could contribute so much to any social or political organizations if she doesn't want to keep the money for herself. Money isn't everything-- but try to do something, anything without it and you'll quickly realize how much of an importance it really is. I find it more selfish when stars turn down such deals for their artistic integrity.

 

[pixiedust1603]

But with Adele, she isn't an artist that relies on a core fan base or extensive dramatics in the way that M.I.A and Lady Gaga do. As 21's sales indicate, she isn't alternative and because of that she appeals to every type of audience. Her music speaks for itself, it always has done, and she doesn't need to become a brand ambassador or create an image to keep her in the public eye as her talent is what sells and gets her things like Grammys and Oscars.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^I agree with everything you've said Luxx. I rather like that Adele isn't everywhere and it makes sense that she wouldn't sign a makeup contract, she's such a private person and I can't imagine her wanting everyone to see her face everywhere. I like that Adele's not in it for the money, she's all about making soul resonating music, not shilling for companies. I wouldn't judge if she did decide to promote a product but right now I can't see that happening, from everything that we know about her, she would have to think it was really worth it.

so to speak

 

[Phuel]

But with Adele, she isn't an artist that relies on a core fan base or extensive dramatics in the way that M.I.A and Lady Gaga do. As 21's sales indicate, she isn't alternative and because of that she appeals to every type of audience. Her music speaks for itself, it always has done, and she doesn't need to become a brand ambassador or create an image to keep her in the public eye as her talent is what sells and gets her things like Grammys and Oscars.

She's very pop-- very of the moment, and I would conclude her music attracts a very mainstream audience. And so does L'Oreal. They're both a mainstream brand, so to speak. That's my point.

I understand she just wants to sing and doesn't-- nor wants to, stand much for anything important. That's fine. I'm not condemning her for that. I just think that if she has the opportunity to sign such a multi-million dollar contract and she's rejecting it for the sole reason she's a "private" person, then that's pretty stupid, to be frank.

I'm indifferent towards Adele since she's so bland. As mentioned, she's very pretty and has a great voice, but her music is so generic, as pleasant as it is, and in that sense, "sell-out" music, I don't see why she would feel that she's selling out if she's the new face of L'Oreal-- if that's the reason why she turned down the deal.

 

[pixiedust1603]

She's very pop-- very of the moment, and I would conclude her music attracts a very mainstream audience. And so does L'Oreal. They're both a mainstream brand, so to speak. That's my point.

I understand she just wants to sing and doesn't-- nor wants to, stand much for anything important. That's fine. I'm not condemning her for that. I just think that if she has the opportunity to sign such a multi-million dollar contract and she's rejecting it for the sole reason she's a "private" person, then that's pretty stupid, to be frank.

I'm indifferent towards Adele since she's so bland. As mentioned, she's very pretty and has a great voice, but her music is so generic, as pleasant as it is, and in that sense, "sell-out" music, I don't see why she would feel that she's selling out if she's the new face of L'Oreal-- if that's the reason why she turned down the deal.

I find Adele's position in the music industry incredibly to be unique right now as opposed to generic. Most female "singers" are dependent on their image, relationships and their antics to sell records as opposed to the quality of their music. To me, that is what makes a generic singer or a sell-out in this new contemporary age. Unlike the majority of singers in her peer group, she's got by on her voice and created fuss by simply standing there and singing.

By accepting an advertising deal, she'd be selling herself. She isn't like Cheryl Cole or Blake Lively who are both known more as media personalities at this point than their actual given jobs. She isn't a media personality. Her music is the only way we are allowed to access her making her one of the few mainstream singers with any sense of mystique around her. Becoming the face of L'Oreal would be completely out of character for such a private person and that would be selling out.

 

[Scott]

sounds to me like adele simply doesn't want to turn herself into a mere product and get drug into that soul-sucking celebrity image machine which i can honestly respect in this day and age. just from her quote alone speaks volumes she's just not interested at all in being a celebrity. i don't really believe it's got anything to do with her musical convictions directly but more a personal conviction. certainly her music has been very popular but like i said we do live in an age where notoriety and fame matter more than actual deeds and maybe she just wants to be appreciated for what she does than who she is,regardless of the market she courts.

to be honest with you,i'm very much a mostly indie kind of listener but i find adele far more interesting in her music styles than bland gaga. just to play devils advocate to your point phuel.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Oh gosh, please let's leave that gaga person out of discussions of talents. She's an awful hypocrite and I'll leave it at that.

I was harsh pegging Adele as bland-- Adele isn't bland; she's just not my preference, musically. And she does have an image: It may not be anything unique and OTT, but it's still an image-- one of a contemporary, fiery torch singer that's very accessible to the mainstream.

I can understand-- and appreciate, if she doesn't want to be associated with the superficial branding of a giant corporation, and in the companies of pointless celebrities like Lively and Cole. And, who knows what the contract actually enforces: Maybe she has to do exclusive shows at WalMart, or something... My point is, if all she's required to do is be the face of L'Oreal and do the standard public appearances for them from time to time, and she doesn't want the money, why not do it for philanthropical reasons...? She's not obligated to, of course, but the whole "I'm a private artist" or "I'm not selling out" reasons seem pretty weak to me because Adele is a famous and very accessible, commercial mainstream singer.

Anyway, I just think if a singer-- a famous person, for once, would gave away their earnings from a multi-million dollar contract to humanitarian purposes, would be so much respectable and admirable than to reject the money for "artistic integrity". To me, anyways.

 

[tigerrouge]

If I had already earned more money than most people could dream of, I wouldn't necessarily want to sign up to a life of having to behave myself according to some corporate contract, which includes wearing an immaculate face of make-up every time I might stand near someone's camera. I would consider my existing fortune as a gift that gives me freedom from so many things in life, I wouldn't be rushing to give that away.

And maybe twenty million seems like everything when $20 is still a big deal, but what does it look like when you've already got that much to your name and more?

 

[fashionista-ta]

I have great respect for Adele just wanting to live her life. I am not about to judge her in any way for not taking this contract. No matter what the money could be used for, any decision she feels would compromise her integrity should not be taken. It's just that simple. If it feels wrong, don't do it.

I operate exactly the same way ... but it's probably a little harder when people are waving $20M in front of your face She has all my respect for letting that make no difference whatsoever. If only more people thought like Adele, the world would be a better place--and I mean that.

 

[tangerine]

This is a great form of advertising, L'Oreal doesn't have to pay, Adele doesn't have to sell out, they both get publicity. Genius.

I call it a "Let's Not And Say We Did" campaign.