Accolades and Media Mentions

Since the Wall Street Journal front page article about the Celebrity Baby Blog came out last Saturday ("Dress-Up: MomsPut Their TykesIn Stars’ Clothes"), there have been a few posts on other blogs commenting on the article itself and the so-called obsession over what celebrity children are wearing.

The Wall Street Journal’s own "The Juggle" work-life balance blog, posted "Gotta Get Suri’s Shirt! Parents Spend Time Trying to Dress Their Kids Like Celebrity Babies," New York Magazine’s fashion blog, "The Cut," posted "Babies Really Don’t Need to Dress Like Suri Cruise," and Scripps News Service posted an editorial called "Baby fashion goes too far." The common theme in these three posts is that they reduce Celebrity Baby Blog readers’ (especially mothers’) interest in celebrity babies to an unhealthy obsession with their fashion and their interest in their fashion to an obsession with wanting their kid to look like celebrity kids. I don’tsee it as any different than what most magazines are covering nowadays –what celebrities themselves wear.

It’s unfortunate that all three blogs as well as the original WallStreet Journal article reduced the CBB to a blog simply about celebritybaby fashion, because we pride ourselves on our wide coverage of newsand photos of celebrity pregnancies and their children. Yes, we dodiscuss fashion and gear, but we also deal with parenting topics,health, and do exclusive interviews with celebrities.

The examples of reader purchases thatRachel used, and then these blogs picked up on, were actually quite minor such as shoes, hair clips, and socks that cost under$35. To me, this is the equivalent of buying a lipstick when you want a new look. I think it’s quite tame and it makes me laughthat these pieces have blown them so out of proportion. If it makes you feel good to buy your kid some super cute shoes, even if they cost 4 times what a pair at Target costs, what’s the harm in that? How are you teaching your infant something negative by buying them the same hair clips that a celebrity baby has?

I think our obsession with celebrities in general is a little much, but it’s ridiculous to focus on parents who buy their kids’ stuff that celebrities have for their children. There is a much larger obsession with celebrities in general, and especially what adult celebrities are wearing or doing, yet no one draws that parallel in those blogs. For the extremely image and fashion-focused New York Magazine to call attention to the problem of celebrity fashion obsessions shows a lack of introspection, to say the least.

It’s pretty obvious to me that CBB readersare not putting themselves out to buy these items. Yes, occasionally,readers do buy higher end items but I’m pretty sure it’s not JUSTbecause a celebrity owns the item. Having a celebrity using a product or brand gives it cache but I have a feeling that having a celebrity use the products more often gives exposure to a product that would normally not be seen at the mall or Target/Wal-Mart/K-Mart. Most of the products we call attention to have limited distribution and would never be seen by commoners such as ourselves if not for celebrities being gifted with them. I just don’t see the harm that these reaction stories imply.

Check out the purchases CBB readers have made from our I Bought It! columns (above photos are featured CBB Readers’ children).

• The first post in the column
• Focus on pediped
• Focus on BabyLegs
• Focus on places to sit
• Focus on strollers

If you’ve made purchases based on what you’ve seen on CBB, tell us why!

I am excited to announce the premiere of the Celebrity Baby Blog in the Wall Street Journal, on the front page no less! In an article titled, Dress-Up: Moms Put Their Tykes In Stars’ Clothes; Magazines, Web Sites Monitor Hollywood; Sneakers Angelina Buys, the Celebrity Baby Blog and its readers are featured, including a WSJ signature engraving of me!

This is a huge moment for all of us at CBB and we are so excited.

If you don’t read the print version, you can read it online here.

And while you’re at it, check out our exclusive interview with Gabrielle Reece, in partnership with Best for Babes.

If you’d like to see the photo that the engraving is based on, click Continue Reading.

Click to continue reading »

A new article in Forbes tackles the weighty issue of postpartum weightloss — specifically, the speed with which celebrity moms have been known to shed their pregnancy pounds.  To that end, Forbes spoke with CBB Publisher Danielle about why there’s such urgency attached to the diet and exercise regimens employed by famous mamas.  Said Danielle,

For A-listers it’s not as much of an issue.  But if you’re C-list or a TV actor, an extra five or 10 pounds makes a difference between you and somebody else at the same level.

The article also includes an interview with Harley Pasternak, a trainer who began working with Milla Jovovich two months after she delivered daughter Ever Gabo, now 6-months-old.  Milla’s reported 70 lb + weight gain during the pregnancy was for the most part embraced by CBB readers as a refreshing change from the celebrity norm, but for Milla, a professional commitment to the film The Perfect Getaway meant that the weight would need to be lost sooner rather than later.  Harley spent 25 to 45 minutes a day with Milla, five days a week over three to four weeks, where he oversaw her cardio, strength and core training program.  Milla also ate a diet consisting of five daily meals that incorporated protein, fiber, healthy fats, low-carbs and a sugar-free beverage, Harley said, adding,

Most people’s jobs don’t depend very heavily on aesthetics.  Whereas celebrities, because they are performing music, [in] the arts, acting, modeling … it’s key to your identity. You have motivation that’s tremendous.

Click ‘continue reading’ for more from the interview.

Click to continue reading »

In honor of Mother’s Day, LifeScript recently published an article on "5 Famous Moms Making a Difference" — and they looked no further than CBB Publisher Danielle for input on just who those difference-makers are.  LifeScript singled out Angelina Jolie for her humanitarian work, Jenny McCarthy for bringing autism awareness, Julia Roberts for her commitment to the environment, Brooke Shields for speaking out about her battle with postpartum depression and Jennifer Garner for her decision to take a year off from acting in order to focus on daughter Violet Anne, 2.

When asked by LifeScript whether motherhood has "softened" some celebrities, Danielle noted that "when you become a mother, you put things in perspective."  She added,

You live for your child now and everything else pales in comparison.

For more quotes from Danielle’s interview that didn’t make the article, click ‘continue reading.’ 

Click to continue reading »

Some of you may remember that I was scheduled to speak at SxSW in Austin, TX a few weeks ago. My panel, Independent Success: Bloggers Who Made It, also included Jill Fehrenbacher Publisher/CEO of Inhabitat,Ken Fisher, Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica,Monish Bhatia Executive Publisher of MacNN.com/LeftlaneNews.com, and was moderated by Federated Media’s Neil Chase.

• Silicon Florist blogger Rick Turoczy twittered my comment that prior to starting CBB, I was a blog widow.
• I don’t know who this guy "funkatron" is but at SXSW, he twittered "I likey Danielle Friedland."
• The ballroom we were in was intimidatingly HUGE. They had the keynote speaker in there after us- that’s how big it was.
• On the TVO blog, The Agenda, Steve Paikin noted that one of my milestones of blogging success was having Josh quit his job to take care of Anya.
• For more highlights of the panel, read Austin Statesman’s Lilly Rockwell’s blog post.

Here are some photos that audience members took. I’m third from the right.

Click to continue reading »

The Celebrity Baby Blog has garnered some attention lately in the form of several new media mentions! 

• SeacoastOnline.com, the website of the Portsmouth Herald, cited a CBB discussion from last year in its own dissection of the ongoing debate over whether young boys (and their moms) should be forced to undergo the momentous first haircut before both parties are really ready. 
• Bitch Magazine’s blog gave CBB credit for being so "gosh darn nice" in our coverage of celebrity moms and their children, an approach they said they found "refreshing" in comparison to other celebrity-related websites. 
• And on Feb. 25, CBB was featured on CW11 Morning News WPIX-TV Channel 11 in New York, during a segment on ‘mommy blogs.’ 

"Baby bump."  Much like "preggers" and other terms used to describe expectant mothers, many people have an opinion on the phrase — they either think the term is lighthearted and cute, or they can’t stand it! The Washington Post asked our publisher Danielle about the origins of the phrase, and her thoughts on the use of it in the media. Danielle shared,

The term appears to be British in origin and was in use,though not as much, over four years ago when I created the site. Now it’s used in conjunction with othersimilarly annoying terms like bump watch or womb watch. I never caredfor the term myself (so we try to use it minimally at CBB) as I find itcutesy, obnoxious and juvenile. I complained about the term four yearsago here.

Aside from ‘belly,’ there’s no other colloquial term touniquely describe the outward physical anatomy of the pregnant womb so’bump’ has become the word everyone uses. Part of its popularity stemsfrom its descriptiveness — a showing pregnant belly is round andappears to emerge from the abdomen differently than just a full stomach– but also because we are squeamish about describing human femaleanatomy correctly … If you want to get technical, uterus or wombwould be completely accurate but uterus watch or expanding uterus justdoesn’t have the same alliterative catchiness of baby bump.

The Post’s Celebritology columnist Liz Kelly’s opinion falls on the other side — she finds it more cute than obnoxious.

I kind of like "baby bump." It’s fun(unlike the snoozy "expecting"), doesn’t carry any baggage (like theloaded "in the family way"), doesn’t rhyme with a processed breakfastfood ("preggo") and is — to a girl who styles her writing for a sitethat can be a little squeamish — refreshingly non-graphic. Itliterally makes a molehill out of a potential mountain of landmines.

Source: The Washington Post ‘Celebritology’

Photo by Dan Nourie.

What are your thoughts?

What do you prefer to call the pregnant belly? Alternately, any particular phrases that drive you crazy?

I was interviewed for an Associated Press article called "Celeb moms make big $$$ with baby shots" about how celebrity baby photos  can demand a big payout. Unlike the last piece for the Washington Times, thankfully, this article did not quote me out of context! I am excited to see that it has been picked up by numerous media outlets like Forbes.com, Boston.com, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, SFGate.com, CNBC.com, CTV.ca, and many local news sites.

Along with OK! editor-in-chief Sarah Ivens, x17 photo agency owner Francois Navarre, andpublicist Howard Bragman, I was asked about the whole "celebrity baby boom." Here’s what I said.

There’s no such thing as a celebrity baby boom.

Celebrities always have children… it’s just that we’re paying somuch more attention to them right now. The more thatwe see of them, the more we want.

Everyone wants to be the first to spot a pregnancy so they’re quick to "announce" it.

What happens with all these rumors is that suddenly everyone’s apregnancy expert nowadays, so they see that somebody has a little bitof a belly and automatically assume that that person is pregnant. Most women don’t start to show, unless they’re super superskinny, for at least four or five months. People are always saying, ‘Ohyeah, she’s pregnant,’ but maybe she just had a hamburger for lunch.

The real signs of an early pregnancy.

With Angelina, it was like, ‘Here she is drinking water, she’s wearinga flowy dress [at theSAG Awards].’ That in itself didn’t scream ‘pregnant’ to me. To me whatscreamed ‘pregnant’ was (she was) very buxom — more buxom than usual.

Read the article for the entire story.

Source: Associated Press via Forbes.com

Click here for this week’s previous story on the topic, which has a great discussion going in the comments!

Advertising Age reported yesterday that the first images of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony’s twin babies — scheduled to arrive on Saturday, if rumors are true — will most likely yield a record purchase price, as People magazine is prepared to shell out anywhere from $4 to $6 million for the photo-shoot.  Although all parties involved — including reps for Jennifer and People’s Managing Editor Larry Hackett — denied that there is a deal in place, people "familiar with the negotiations" say that one has, indeed, been reached. 

The specifics call for People to retain the rights for domestic use of the images and OK! magazine to assume control of all international use, Advertising Age reports. If the Lopez-Anthony twins do go on to fetch the $4 to $6 million figure quoted above, they’ll eclipse the buying-price for the first images of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, turning 21-months next week, which garnered a rumored $4 million.  Shiloh’s parents — Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt — donated the proceeds to charity. 

Why are we so interested? OK’s Editor-in-Chief Sarah Ivens says it’s all about the positivity aspect.

There’s nothingnot to love about watching these woman blossom and their bodies changeand then having babies. It’s all just such fun, lovely, positive stuff,isn’t it? Part of the reason that the demandis so huge – and everyone is so excited about it — is because it’s such anice antidote to all the other celebrity news that’s going on at themoment

Our own Danielle Friedland agrees, but thinks that the interest is also part of good old supply and demand. She tells the Associated Press,

Celebrities always havechildren … it’s just that we’re paying so much more attention to themright now. The more that we see of them, the more wewant.

In related news, Gawker reports that a deal for the first photos of Harlow Winter Kate Madden, 5 ½-weeks, has been finalized.  Nicole Richie and Joel Madden will take home $1 million courtesy of People for introducing their daughter in the magazine.  And, last but not least, Christina Aguilera graces the cover of People this week with her newborn son Max Liron, 5 ½-weeks; She and husband Jordan Bratman were reportedly paid $1.5 million for the rights to the photos.

Larry refused to confirm the price, however, telling AdAge "I just don’t talk about it."

No matter the sticker price, many in the industry are wondering whether the Richie-Maddens and the Bratmans plan to donate their reported payments to charity. Following the precedent set by the Jolie-Pitts, Bridget Moynahan donated proceeds from baby John’s first photos to two children’s charities, while Sheryl Crow sold first images of Wyatt in exchange for a large donation to the World Food Program. Nicole and Joel also started their own charity, The Richie Madden Children’s Foundation, and industry insiders are questioning whether the cash will make its way there, or end up in their own bank accounts instead.

Either way, as Getty Images’ Roxanne Motamedi tells the New York Daily News, a celebrity parent selling photos of their newborn is often the smartest and safest way to go about introducing their child to the ever-adoring public. 

It’s more beneficial for celebrities to cooperate with a company likeus to do their baby pictures versus not doing it, because thenpaparazzi will chase them and will not stop until they get the pictureof that celebrity with the baby. But once the picturesare out, there is really no value of paparazzi chasing them and tryingto get the baby shot.

Everyone is curious to see. The bigger the celebrity, the more people want to know what thebaby looks like. It sells magazines.

LA publicist Howard Bragman agrees, adding,

When you hit the level ofTom and Katie and Suri, you can’t shut it down. It’s pure economics. If you put those out inthe world, those pictures, which they did, and they controlled whichimages were out there, then suddenly the monetary incentive for thepaparazzi is taken away from them.

Sources:  AdAge; Gawker; NYDN; AP

Thanks to CBB reader Sharon.

What’s your opinion? Should celebrities sell their baby photos or wait for paparazzi to snap them out in public? Should profits go to charity, directly to the parents, or do you not care either way?

LilSugar, the Sugar Network’s baby blog, interviewed me for their special Valentine’s Day "Lil Loves" feature. Check it out!