Oh, baby! Celeb photos deliver bundles of cash

In a climate where everything from box office hits to traffic stops makes headlines in blogs, newspapers and celebrity weeklies, it comes as no surprise that the more substantial life events of an A-lister — say, the birth of a baby — constitutes news.

Time and again, the if-you-build-it-they-will-come approach to covering the birth of celebrities’ babies has worked, but why? While there are some fans who might rush to an online baby registry and buy a token of congratulations, history proves that far more people will rush to a newsstand and part with a few hard-earned dollars so they may catch a glimpse of Celebrity X’s little miracle.

Lucille Ball didn’t have much choice
The precedent for covering the birth of a celebrity baby and the public’s appetite for the related details likely stems from the public’s love of Lucy.

By 1952, “I Love Lucy” was a certifiable ratings hit for CBS. However, its star, Lucille Ball, presented a problem no one was “spectin,” as Ricky Ricardo might say. Ball was in the middle of the show’s filming schedule when she found out she was with child for the second time, and CBS (and basically every other major network) maintained that pregnant women couldn’t be shown on television.

Ball was left with little choice: either challenge CBS on its stance, or don’t work. In the end, CBS negotiated with the parties who’d taken issue with her pregnancy and allowed Ball to stay on the show. Her pregnancy was written into the storyline, but it was agreed the word “pregnant” wouldn’t be spoken on air. (The episode that kicked off the storyline actually borrowed some French and was titled “Lucy is Enciente.”)

On Jan. 19, 1953, Desi Arnaz Jr., Ball and husband Desi Arnaz’s second child, came into the world, and Ball’s Lucy Ricardo character gave birth. Then on April 3, little Desi Arnaz Jr. appeared on the cover of the inaugural issue of TV Guide, and in turn, paved the way for the likes of Prince William, Apple Martin and the Jolie-Pitt children.

Why we care about the kids
Cher, Gregg Allman and their son, Elijah Blue, appeared on the Sept. 27, 1976, cover of People magazine and since then, People has devoted 28 covers to celebrity babies. More than half of those have run since 2000. (There’s no corresponding dollar figure for just how much money has been spent on celebrity baby photos since then. As point of reference, Jennifer Lopez received a reported $5 million for pictures of her twins, which appeared in the March 11, 2008, issue of People.)

INTERACTIVE Celebrity-baby magazine covers Flip through a selection of covers featuring exclusive baby photos of the offspring of Britney Spears, Lucille Ball, Brangelina and others.

Although there’s always been a nascent interest in the spawn of the rich and famous, the real baby boom has taken place more recently. “In the last few years the public has been increasingly interested in every aspect of celebrities and their lives,” Dina Sansing, Us Weekly’s entertainment director, said. “It’s not just about seeing stars in movies or on television shows, we want to see them in the grocery store, shopping for clothes and playing with their children.”

Babies in particular offer that up to the readers of celeb weeklies. “Having a baby represents an extremely happy time in their lives, but it’s also something that makes celebrities very accessible,” Sansing said.

“Now more than ever, we want our celebrities to be real and think of them as family,” noted Rob Shuter, executive editor of OK! magazine. “You don’t call her Angelina (Jolie), you call her Angie. You talk about celebrities like you talk about your best friends. Having a baby, getting married, it’s the most intimate thing you get to see from celebrities, and you have to turn to magazines to see it.”

Why celebrities cut the deal
It’s no secret that money changes hands when a magazine scores an exclusive, but this wasn’t always the case. One publicist, who we’ll call Publicist A, who represents for an A-list celebrity who is married and has kids with another A-list celebrity, said the financial aspect is a recent phenomenon that quickly took on a life of its own.

Video   Scoop on celeb babies and $$$ June 18: Will Brangelina's baby pictures bring in the big bucks? Msnbc.com's Courtney Hazlett has your Scoop. msnbc.com

“I’ve been in this business for a long time, and really, it never occurred to (anyone to) ask for money until the last five years or so. It became a negotiating tool around the same time more celebrity magazines flooded the market. People used to be the only game in town, and then Us became a weekly, and then there’s In Touch and Life & Style, and now OK! too. It’s all out of hand,” said Publicist A.

(The publicists who declined to be named did so because of the sensitive nature of current or future negotiations, or to protect the identity of their clients.)

It is hard to look at the current negotiations for the Jolie-Pitt twins (said to be between $15 and $20 million and could go up, according to a sources familiar with the talks) and not think the baby-photo market has reached ridiculous heights. However, aside from the high ticket price, the difference with the Jolie-Pitt photos and most others is the deal has nothing to do with fattening the family checking account.

After the birth of Shiloh and the adoption of Pax, the Jolie-Pitts donated the money earned from their exclusive deals with People to charity, which means despite the exorbitant sum for the photos (Shiloh’s photos alone, according to many reports, went for $4.1 million), the family didn’t appear greedy. They’re expected to donate the fee from the twins’ photos, too. (At press time, Jolie’s philanthropic advisor, Trevor Neilson, couldn’t comment on which charities would benefit from the twins’ photo deal.)

It never sits well with the public when celebrities appear to earn money they don’t need, so the charity option does save face. However, Publicist B, who represents an A-list celebrity who chose not to sell photos of his baby, and instead opted to cooperate with a magazine and its photographer for no fee, said the concept of reaching such a deal and claiming that the charitable aspect makes it OK is ridiculous.

“When you release a photo at least you get the paparazzi off your back, somewhat, anyway. I do understand that. But the same celebrities who sell the photos and donate the money to charity could afford to write a check to any charity they wanted anyway. At the end of the day it’s still selling your baby. It’s just gross,” said Publicist B.

MORE FROM CELEBRITIES

Celebrities Section Front

Polanski begins house arrest in Swiss chalet 10 fresh faces to watch in ’10 Rolling Stones’ Wood arrested for assault U.S. skater Davis calls comedian Colbert ‘jerk’ McCartney pushes Meat-Free Monday to EU 'Family Ties' mom: ‘I am a lesbian’ Four plead not guilty to celebrity burglaries Nick going on tour — minus his Jonas Brothers Film clip shows Marilyn Monroe smoking pot More charges possible for ‘Light’ composer Celebrities Section Front   Add Celebrities headlines to your news reader: