Adele turns down L'oreal $20m deal

[Larek]

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

Yeah, it's really targeting someone they can't have with loads of money that they probably never though of paying just to make free buzz.

L'Oreal proposed 50bn dollar to Obama to be the new face and he refused!
oh my! who would have thought?

 

[AtticusFinch]

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.

Meryl Streep gave her entire salary from The Iron Lady to women's history and no one at her and her husband's charity receives a salary.

http://vitaminw.co/culture/watch-me...entire-iron-lady-salary-womens-history-museum

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/meryl-streep-charity_n_1311727.html

And Kate Winslet sued Grazia for airbrushing and gave 100% of the compensation to eating disorder support groups.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...onates-libel-win-eating-disorder-charity.html

It does happen but not every celebrity talks about it because their motivation is honest not to just get good PR.

 

[dsamg]

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.

Agreed. That is A LOT of money, imagine how much good 20 million would have done for a charity. It seems selfish to turn down that much money that would do so much good just to avoid 'selling out.'

 

[Phuel]

Meryl Streep gave her entire salary from The Iron Lady to women's history and no one at her and her husband's charity receives a salary.

Yay Meryl! I know there are stars who donate a portion of their hard-earned salaries to organizations, funds, etc privately without the need to make an even of it to boost their image, and that is to be commanded for.

I don't mean to pick on Adele, as she has absolutely no obligations to any humanitarian work, and if she really did turn that offer down for whatever reasons, it's completely within her rights, of course. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion-- but it's her choice, ultimately. Her situation is just an example I'm using as to how easy it is for someone of her position to make a huge difference in a compassionate manner without them breaking a sweat.

And if you're reading this Adele: I think you're a very pretty woman with a great voice-- I just don't care for your brand of music, and think you're actually a great match for L'Oreal since you're so much more appealing overall than the likes of Live or Cole.

 

[tangerine]

So celebrities owe it to the world to do commercial endorsements in order to give the money to charity, or they are selfish? I am having a little trouble with this concept. It's not like they get the money for doing nothing, they have to show up for the shoots and the events and they have to deal with whatever all those things entail. Couldn't she just give some of her income that she already makes to charity? Do we know that she doesn't? On what grounds are we entitled to judge her for what contracts she accepts, or how she spends her (theoretical) money? Putting aside for the moment the fact that I don't believe this offer was on the table in the first place.

I don't see how not doing commercials for L'Oreal makes her a selfish person, it's a mental non-sequitur for me.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ As mentioned, I don't think Adele-- or anyone in her position is obligated to be a philanthropist, or an humanitarian, a patron... or even a conscientious individual. It would be nice, though.

And the "work" isn't exactly hard, to be frank. Having to show up at events, or shoots made up and pose and smile is not hard work (it's the team behind the camera that's doing all the hard work). So turning down such a deal because she may not want to be associated with a corporation, or for "artistic integrity" is selfish, to me.

Some may find it admirable and respectable when the rich and famous decline such an offer because they're preserving their artistic integrity... but I find it extremely selfish when that money could virtually save lives.

 

[tangerine]

So now that she is successful, she is no longer entitled to concentrate on making music, her chosen path in life, and must not only donate to charity, but become a commercial product endorser to do so?

And again, how do you know that she doesn't donate money to charity? Does it only count if she advertises that she is donating money to charity?

Sorry, I still don't see it, it just seems like assumptions and arbitrary judgment to me.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ I never said she's not entitled to concentrate on her craft... and must to be a humanitarian, a crusader, a philanthropist. I only said that anyone in her position-- and it's only an extremely elite handful of individuals whom are handed such multi-million dollar offers for what amounts to just looking pretty, are selfish to decline in the name of artistic integrity-- as if that is more respectable and admirable of a trait than being a compassionate individual, who will do something that may be an inconvenience to them-- or a damage their artistic image, but has the potential to help many.

I don't expect any rich and famous individual to give any of their earnings away to any charity. And you're right-- I don't know if this deal is even real, and Adele may be the most generous individual. I'm only using her supposed L'Oreal deal as an example of how someone in her position can make a huge difference to so many-- with so little effort put into the "work" she has to do to earn the money.

It's an advantage that the rich and famous have over most of us to earn a huge income while doing very little actual work-- like endorsing a product. I'm pretty sure such a contract would not hinder, or harm her abilities as a singer/ songwriter.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^^^ As mentioned, I don't think Adele-- or anyone in her position is obligated to be a philanthropist, or an humanitarian, a patron... or even a conscientious individual. It would be nice, though.

And the "work" isn't exactly hard, to be frank. Having to show up at events, or shoots made up and pose and smile is not hard work (it's the team behind the camera that's doing all the hard work). So turning down such a deal because she may not want to be associated with a corporation, or for "artistic integrity" is selfish, to me.

Some may find it admirable and respectable when the rich and famous decline such an offer because they're preserving their artistic integrity... but I find it extremely selfish when that money could virtually save lives.

How do you know it's not hard work? Have you done this type of work?

And could you remind me what you are doing to save lives? Every little bit counts ... I can provide exact numbers, if you like. Whatever you make, saving a life in the third world is very affordable. If you are doing nothing ... would that fall under the category of 'extremely selfish'?

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Because I am one of those people that work behind the scene to produce a product: Pre-production, production and post-production. Models are an important component of the production, of course, but they get to go home at the end of the day, while oftentimes, I'm still working post-production deep into the morning hours. So, I do speak from experience.

I do contribute to the production and marketing for various humanitarian organizations, all free of charge. So I also speak from experience in this arena as well.

I hope to contribute more in time when I'm in a position to make more in my income.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[MulletProof]

The only thing that made me laugh about this is the reasoning for why Adele is declining: selling out. I mean..... I have a hard time conciliating the fact that this is the same woman behind the musical nightmare that was shoved down our throats to no end for like 3 years straight, the only reason she can get away with comments like this is because she currently can pretend there was ever mystery and publicity control because she has nothing out and why do I know this? because someone would be playing it on my ear right now.

What's even more contradictory is this notion of being concerned about craft and overexposure, when as a songwriter she seemed more than willing to give up the essence of what she makes a living of and one would think would hold more meaning for her (songwriting and performing) and let it be used to campaign for consumerism through the usual cars/cereal/diapers advertisements, not necessarily these products lol but same purpose... I'll believe someone's concerned about selling out when they get their hands on that crucial side of how their art is being put out, not when they've pretty much become the Anja Rubik of music.

That said, I respect anyone declining a beauty contract and refusing to be chained to a years-long contract that makes the public start acknowledging you more as a beauty parameter and your art becomes secondary. Not that she has to worry about it going by the crazy publicity of her music though...

As for her makeup, I don't blame L'Oreal for approaching her... while Blake Lively's face only has become memorable due to makeup and may deserve a lifetime contract, Adele doesn't need it but she's by no means the au naturale beauty... it's been part of her image since the start and she doesn't seem to suffer it.

 

[Phuel]

... while Blake Lively's face only has become memorable due to makeup and may deserve a lifetime contract...

You really cannot help yourself, can you?

 

[Les_Sucettes]

I say good for her. I do not see her as a singer that would worry about selling out, her music couldn't be more commercial, but i can understand she may feel she does not want to be compared to the artistic nullity that is Cheryl Cole.

 

[Deleted member 1957]

I still dont but the $20 million ammount unless of course part of the deal was her penning a song and shooting a video specifically for L'oreal and maybe them sponsoring her tours, album covers et al like the Beyonce Pepsi contract

 

[eternitygoddess]

^^^ I never said she's not entitled to concentrate on her craft... and must to be a humanitarian, a crusader, a philanthropist. I only said that anyone in her position-- and it's only an extremely elite handful of individuals whom are handed such multi-million dollar offers for what amounts to just looking pretty, are selfish to decline in the name of artistic integrity-- as if that is more respectable and admirable of a trait than being a compassionate individual, who will do something that may be an inconvenience to them-- or a damage their artistic image, but has the potential to help many.

Don't agree with your reasoning. No one should have to evaluate personal decisions by the metric of "doing this has the potential to help many". If Adele feels that for whatever reason(s) (artistic image or other) she doesn't want to agree to this deal, then she shouldn't go along with it. Why is there this assumption that she should be/going to be donating all the money in the first place?

Good for you if you place a lot of importance on humanitarian efforts. Not everyone is similarly concerned about such things, and they shouldn't be judged by your personal preference barometer.