You can turn on the dial and there’s no shortage of reality T.V. shows. There’s always some celebrity (or person who knows a celebrity) willing to get in front of the cameras and offer up their lives as entertainment. The following celebrities will probably never sign on the dotted line to have a film crew keep up with them, but it would definitely make for must see TV for us nosey folks if they did.

metro.co.uk

Prince

The Purple One serves face like no other. He could give visuals for an hour and then some. A look is worth a thousand words and Prince could give us all something to talk about in the morning. He’s been a bit of a recluse for the past few years, and we all know he’s toned down his image big time over the years. But a glimpse into his world, how he makes his music, and what his love life is like these days would more than satisfy our curiosities.

I thought I’d seen the light at the end of the tunnel when the NY Post reported that the Kardashians were no loner sought after celebrities. The publication pumped out statistics that viewership of “Keeping up with the Kardashians” had dropped 14%, magazines with the sister’s faces on them were flopping, and they quoted one Chinatown nightclub owner who said instead of paying Kim $600,000 to host a party at his nightclub, he’d pay her not to show up. But thanks to Forbes—and actual reporting—it’s come out that the Kardashian’s are still Kashing in and their days (sadly) are far from over.

So what’s the real story? According to E!, this season of “Kourtney and Kim Take New York” is actually averaging its highest views in four seasons with over 3 million total viewers each week, which is up 43% from the prior season. The most recent Sunday night premiere also broke records as the most-watched ever, averaging 3.3 million viewers.

The Post almost got it right with the other stats but they were really just breeding false hope. Sales of magazines with Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney did decline slightly in December but that’s only because they were on the cover of four different publications, which over saturated the market temporarily. Even then, US Weekly, In Touch, Life & Style and OK! still reported average or slightly below average sales. And Travis Bass, the co-owner of Tribeca’s Red Egg, did say he wouldn’t pay Kim Kardashian to come to his club but not because she’s Kim Kardashian. The club has never paid a celebrity to host a party, plus he says the move wouldn’t appeal to his clientele.

One other rumor they fed was that Kim was replaced by a dog in the latest Skechers ads, but that’s not true either; her contract was just up. Bottom line? These girls aren’t going anywhere. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Let’s Be Real: Things in Life You Need to Blame Yourself For From Time to Time
• Color on Campus: What It Really Feels Like to Be the Only Black Girl
• The Most Painful Things A Woman Can Say To A Man
• 10 Artists That Blew Up…But Shouldn’t Have
• We Are Family: Shocking Celebrity Relatives!
• Vitamin B(eautiful): Nutrients To Help You Stay Healthy and Gorgeous

I came to Kardashian hatred late. Actually, I don’t hate the girls, I’m just oversaturated and amazed by the fact that their empire seems to be growing exponentially with the disgust many people claim to have for them.

I remember the moment it hit me. I was in Sephora and two pre-teens came next to the Makeup Forever section where I was standing. One of the girls picked up a shade and said, “this is the one Kim Kardashian wears;” her words were like nails on a chalkboard. I literally wanted to take her in the corner and give her a book or something but then I remembered just because I’d never been the type to search out celebrity makeup trends didn’t mean the girl was in trouble, but I did have to ask myself why do we care about these girls so much?

If you’re wondering who “we” is, I am too. I know that there are young girls like the ones I encountered in Sephora who want to be beautiful like Kim and I know that Ryan Seacrest is going to ride the Kardashian train until every last replacement wheel falls off, but who is this we that makes these women marketable and profitable? Pre-teens and teens only have so much money, who’s paying for this?

As if they didn’t already have their hands in some of everything already, this week, two huge expansions to their reality TV takeover were announced. The first is a magazine that will be all about them, because c’mon, who else really matters? And the second is a deal with Matell to develop a line of Barbies. Now there has already been enough problems with Barbie and her effect on young girl’s self esteem that this should scream “bad idea” but everyone wants a shameless piece of the Kardashian pie. I don’t even want to think about how they’re going to design Kim’s body.

What’s scary is that you can almost imagine the girl’s adapting their lives to extend their “relevancy.” Kim gets a divorce, now we have to know what life’s like after. Kourtney is pregnant again, now we have to know how she handles being a mommy of two. My guess would be the same way 70 million other women do. I was feeling pretty good about the fact that the girls are approaching their mid-30s and Hollywood doesn’t care too much about women past that point, so I figured the reign was almost over. But now with the stepsisters getting older and becoming more front and center I feel like their 15 minutes is getting stretched to a good 30-45.

Just once I wish someone in their camp would speak up and say, “hey let’s try the Beyonce way of doing things.” And then they could disappear, actually do something, and then reemerge with a product, idea, anything that actually makes people respect the hustle.

Part of me feels bad because I don’t exactly know what it is that bothers me so much. I don’t look at Kim and automatically think Ray J sex tape, although occasionally my mind does recall that sordid fact and then I think of Montana Fishburne saying she is her role model, and then I think we’re all screwed. But it’s more so the fact that I look at her and I don’t see anything—anything by way of talent, I mean. Kris seems to be carefully orchestrating these girls’ lives and “careers” if you want to call it that. Every deal they make she seems to be there, which just makes them look like puppets. Yes, Kim’s raking in more money than imaginable off solely being nice to look at, but when it comes down to the bottom line I think it’s hard for a lot of people to respect that. You can say she’s genius for this whole wedding scam but some things like credibility and integrity just don’t have a price.

If these girls want to have their lane and be great at something so be it, but all they’re doing is dibbling their fingers in a whole lot of everything and doing a whole lot of nothing—but slapping their names on it and making us watch. I’ve seen that show before and I think I’m pretty much over it. What about you?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• It’s Bad Boy For Life? Artists Whose Talents Are/Were Wasted Under Bad Boy Records
• Should I Confess My Affair?
• Can D’Angelo Make A Comeback Without Bringing Swexy Back?
• Ask a Very Smart Brotha: Freshmen Woes & Possessive Types
• S*** Black Girls Say vs. S*** White Girls Say to Black Girls
• Six Fashion Trends Sistas Need to Change. Now.

Usually one of the most influential categories in most popular anything, celebrities also set the trend for many baby names in 2011. David and Victoria Beckham, for example, gave parents a hand in helping name their little girls.  Once the newest Beckham, Harper, was born, the name saw a rise in status, hitting number 60 on the girls list.  Movies also rubbed their influence on a name decision, but in a superhero kind of way. Names like Clark (Superman), Oliver (Green Arrow), Peter and Parker (Spiderman) all saw a surge in trend. According to BabyCenter, the top 5 girls names of 2011 were: Sophia, Emma, Isabella, Olivia, and Ava.  The top boys names were: Aiden, Jackson, Mason, Liam, and Jacob.  For a complete list of the top 100 baby names of 2011, click here http://www.babycenter.com/top-baby-names-2011. Take a look at these top 8 celeb trendsetters; did your little one make the cut?

As we all know, raising boys to become men is a critical and delicate matter. If parents nurture them too well, they run the risk of raising someone who can’t stand on his own two feet. But we all know what too little nurturing can lead to as well…

Congrats to all the women who can churn out the men who know how to handle their business and be gracious at the same time. Unfortunately, this here ain’t the slideshow that’s going to celebrate those wins. We’re here to illustrate the losers.

Celebrities provide great examples of the types of people that are in the rest of the society – in this case, moochers. You know, those random members of your family who will take any opportunity to capitalize off your success.  We decided to highlight the infamous brothers of some of Hollywood’s celebrities.  These guys have milked the system aka their siblings” success and stand as the kind of men you do not want to be with (unbeknownst to them).

by R. Asmerom

The Kardashians probably already knew that endorsing a prepaid card was not the way to go in the first place but they certainly didn’t expect the backlash they received from the press and personal finance experts after the “Kard” was unveiled.  When celebrities like the Kardashians and Russell Simmons decide to put their name on a prepaid card, they tout the benefits of teaching non-bank holders and credit card holders about personal financial responsibility. What they often leave out is that these cards come with fees.  “The Kardashian Kard is not the way to help out their fan base,” said Ornella Grosz, author of Moneylicious: A Financial Clue for Generation Y. “The fees were exorbitant and the Kardashians don’t represent financial savvy. They can afford to spend $20,000 on a shopping spree while their fan base are in no position to.”

The Kardashian Kard was pulled after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wrote a letter Friday to the card’s issuer, University National Bank, asking about the legality of the card’s “pernicious and predatory fees.”

The Kardashian Kard was far more expensive to maintain than a regular debit card. According to CNNMoney, a 12-month Kardashian Kard cost $99.95 just to own, including a card purchase fee of $9.95 and 12 monthly fees of $7.95. After the first year, consumers would have to continue to pay the $7.95 monthly fee. On top of these initial fees, it cost Kardashian Kard users $1 every time they added money to their card, and it cost $1.50 to speak with a live operator. If they wanted to pay their bills automatically using the card, they were charged $2 per transaction.

Mitch Goldstone, an ecommerce business owner and a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against MasterCard, Visa and major banks over anticompetitive antitrust issues regarding credit and debit card fees, believes that although the Kard was a bad move on the Kardashian’s part, it served consumers well in a sense. “The Kardasian Kard event was epic, it helped draw international attention to unfair credit card [prepaid] fees,” he said. “I have been using social media tools to urge MasterCard to pull the prepaid “Kard,” my campaign seemed to work, but the plug was pulled by the Kardasian’s instead. My concern is the card was like a drug dealer, getting people hooked and then faced with debt.”

By Brittany Hutson

This week, the Kardashian sisters, Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney, became the latest celebs attempting to pry into your wallet with the launch of the Kardashian Prepaid Debit MasterCard. This must be the season for branded prepaid cards; last month, Mack Maine, president of Lil Wayne’s super group Young Money, revealed that the group would release a prepaid card though the exact date is unknown at this time.

Celebrity prepaid cards/credit cards are nothing new. We all know of Russell Simmons’ infamous RushCard and in 2004, Usher launched a prepaid MasterCard that is now defunct. What’s particularly scary about the Kardashian card is that it is being marketed to impressionable teenagers as young as 13 to teach them how to better manage their money, said spokeswoman Eve Sarkisyan. Parents are also lured in by marketing attempts which explain how they will be able to monitor their teens’ spending habits by cellphone.

The marketing and advertisement may sound and look pretty, but the fact is that the Kardashian sisters should in no way be considered role models for smart spending and money management. Who would want to take lessons on personal finance from Khloe, who owes $18,490.74 in back taxes TMZ reported in August, or Kim, who proudly boasts that she has a spent $2,500 on a pair of lace-and-python Christian Louboutin booties and dropped $30,000 for a crocodile-skin purse from the French boutique Hermes in Paris? This is the same woman who admitted on her show that she was battling a shopping addiction.

It’s doubtful that today’s teenagers, who are so engulfed with the lifestyles of the rich and famous, would be sporting a Kardashian card saying, “Kim is teaching me how to manage my money.” They will certainly flash it around to their friends and take it to the mall to swipe, swipe and swipe some more so they can “keep up” with their beloved “role model.”

Prepaid cards have appeal because there are no overdraft fees or interest, and can be used so long as there is an adequate amount of money deposited onto the card. But it’s still geared towards people who have low or no credit, and the underbanked—meaning they have a checking or savings account but rely on alternative financial services such as check-cashing places and payday loans. According to the FDIC, an estimated 31.6 percent of Blacks are underbanked.

But essentially, the real root of evil associated with prepaid cards is the fees that come with them. Just like how the RushCard has come under scrutiny for its accompanying fees that in the long run keeps people in debt, the Kardashian card is no different. It will cost $59.95 to purchase the card with the inclusion of 6 months of monthly fees, or you can purchase the card for $99.95 with the inclusion of 12 months of monthly fees. After the initial purchase period, the monthly fee is $7.95. Among the fee-based services, there is a $1.50 ATM withdrawal fee and a $2.00 fee for bill pay per item.

It’s clear the Kardashian sisters have no intentions to impart on their fans responsible financial management. During their launch party on Tuesday for the card, Kim tweeted, “Thx 4 coming out 2 support our Kardashian MasterKard! Let’s go shopping!”

For what? A $30,000 purse? Sure Kim.

Madame Kim Kardashian was all smile as she exited NYC’s STK restaurant earlier this week — with her new boyfriend in tow. (Doesn’t he look a little like a young Russell Simmons in that picture?)

Read the rest of this entry »

Desiree Rogers is most famous for placing a capital “D” in the word Diva.  The former White Social Secretary is known for her acute fashion sense, exhibited by her spread in New York magazines and her visit to Fashion Week.

This is not to say that Rogers didn’t add her own festive mark to the role of White House Social Secretary.  Her populist approach to the role transformed the traditionally snooty White House into the “People’s House” and introduced more young brown faces to the White House than ever before in history.

However, one cannot reflect on Rogers short stint as White House Social Secretary without recalling the criticism she imbued after a State Dinner in which she, while sashaying  and upstaging  First Lady Michelle Obama, unwittingly allowed two uninvited guests into the dinner and within a few feet of the President.

After the colossal security breach which exposed Desiree Rogers (and many in the Secret Service)  as neophytes, reporter April Ryan took Rogers to task during  a daily press briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

In the contentious press briefing, Ryan referred to Rogers as the “bell of the ball”and asked Gibbs if Rogers was more concerned with outshining Mrs. Obama than in doing her job.

What Ryan may’ve been eluding to, and what many already knew, was that Roger’s lasting legacy won’t involve security breaches, or State Dinner checkpoints,  but her successful hand in the branding of the first African-American President.

Desiree Rogers failed at the job of  White House Social Secretary because well, that wasn’t really her job.  Rogers, a sleek Harvard MBA and marketing executive, was placed in the White House to build and protect what she herself called the “Obama brand”.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rogers gloated “we have the best brand on earth: the Obama brand”. Since when is the President of the United States of America a “brand”? And, if true,  what does that mean for the future of our democracy? Or the now muddied relationship between corporate America and government?

Two Words: Game Over.

Ever since the election, President Obama has endured criticism, mostly from Republicans, that  he is more of a celebrity than a serious political leader.

And as Naomi Klein so aptly pointed out in a recent article for AlterNet, “the Obama team has marshaled every tool in the modem marketing arsenal to create and sustain the Obama brand: the perfectly calibrated logo (sunrise over stars and stripes); expert viral marketing (Obama ringtones); product placement (Obama ads in sports video games); a 30-minute infomercial (which could have been cheesy but was universally heralded as “authentic”); and the choice of strategic brand alliances (Oprah for maximum reach, the Kennedy family for gravitas, and no end of hip-hop stars for street cred).”

Never before have we seen a President so closely associated with celebrities and brand names than in the case of President Obama.  Those in charge of branding Obama are banking on the fact that the American public will deem Obama a winner if he is associated with winners and the people we love even more than winners; celebrities.

How else would you explain Khloe Khardasian – who isn’t famous for anything but being Kim Khardasian’s sister, who isn’t famous for anything but being in a sex tape with Ray J, who isn’t famous for anything but being pop star Brandy’s brother -being granted a visit with the President?

So when we see Obama meeting with the L.A Lakers eight months after their NBA victory, there’s no need to wonder whether or not his handlers are making a mistake by playing into accusations that Obama is a celebrity.  Instead, know that Barack Obama is not only President Obama, but a brand.

And we should treat Obama much the same way in which we treat all brands, choosing wisely but always reserving a healthy amount of skepticism with regards to what’s promised on the product label.  Branding is a tool used for marketing, not a mechanism built for productivity, and certainly not designed for a “Yes We Can” type of revolution.

Yvette Carnell is a former Capitol Hill Staffer turned political blogger. She currently publishes two blogs, Spatterblog.com and GoGirlGuide.com.

Desiree Rogers is most famous for placing a capital “D” in the word Diva.  The former White Social Secretary is known for her acute fashion sense, exhibited by her spread in New York magazines and her visit to Fashion Week.

This is not to say that Rogers didn’t add her own festive mark to the role of White House Social Secretary.  Her populist approach to the role transformed the traditionally snooty White House into the “People’s House” and introduced more young brown faces to the White House than ever before in history.

However, one cannot reflect on Rogers short stint as White House Social Secretary without recalling the criticism she imbued after a State Dinner in which she, while sashaying  and upstaging  First Lady Michelle Obama, unwittingly allowed two uninvited guests into the dinner and within a few feet of the President.

After the colossal security breach which exposed Desiree Rogers (and many in the Secret Service)  as neophytes, reporter April Ryan took Rogers to task during  a daily press briefing with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

In the contentious press briefing, Ryan referred to Rogers as the “bell of the ball”and asked Gibbs if Rogers was more concerned with outshining Mrs. Obama than in doing her job.

What Ryan may’ve been eluding to, and what many already knew, was that Roger’s lasting legacy won’t involve security breaches, or State Dinner checkpoints,  but her successful hand in the branding of the first African-American President.

Desiree Rogers failed at the job of  White House Social Secretary because well, that wasn’t really her job.  Rogers, a sleek Harvard MBA and marketing executive, was placed in the White House to build and protect what she herself called the “Obama brand”.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rogers gloated “we have the best brand on earth: the Obama brand”. Since when is the President of the United States of America a “brand”? And, if true,  what does that mean for the future of our democracy? Or the now muddied relationship between corporate America and government?

Two Words: Game Over.

Ever since the election, President Obama has endured criticism, mostly from Republicans, that  he is more of a celebrity than a serious political leader.

And as Naomi Klein so aptly pointed out in a recent article for AlterNet, “the Obama team has marshaled every tool in the modem marketing arsenal to create and sustain the Obama brand: the perfectly calibrated logo (sunrise over stars and stripes); expert viral marketing (Obama ringtones); product placement (Obama ads in sports video games); a 30-minute infomercial (which could have been cheesy but was universally heralded as “authentic”); and the choice of strategic brand alliances (Oprah for maximum reach, the Kennedy family for gravitas, and no end of hip-hop stars for street cred).”

Never before have we seen a President so closely associated with celebrities and brand names than in the case of President Obama.  Those in charge of branding Obama are banking on the fact that the American public will deem Obama a winner if he is associated with winners and the people we love even more than winners; celebrities.

How else would you explain Khloe Khardasian – who isn’t famous for anything but being Kim Khardasian’s sister, who isn’t famous for anything but being in a sex tape with Ray J, who isn’t famous for anything but being pop star Brandy’s brother -being granted a visit with the President?

So when we see Obama meeting with the L.A Lakers eight months after their NBA victory, there’s no need to wonder whether or not his handlers are making a mistake by playing into accusations that Obama is a celebrity.  Instead, know that Barack Obama is not only President Obama, but a brand.

And we should treat Obama much the same way in which we treat all brands, choosing wisely but always reserving a healthy amount of skepticism with regards to what’s promised on the product label.  Branding is a tool used for marketing, not a mechanism built for productivity, and certainly not designed for a “Yes We Can” type of revolution.

Yvette Carnell is a former Capitol Hill Staffer turned political blogger. She currently publishes two blogs, Spatterblog.com and GoGirlGuide.com.