Maybe CP is still waiting for some references to come back so Pete can't declare her 100% his 100% official gf quite yet... but wants people at the same time to know he's got first option on this woman... in the event that all the references are satisfactory... at which point she will get the official CAN stamp on her back, PA will be seen drinking coffee with her and OK! will get their shoot.
Do you remember this CAN contract they wanted 3AM to sign. Can you imagine if CP has a file "magazine conracts" "gossip columnist contracts" "future girlfriend contracts" "future babyminder contracts":D:D
This time the fairytale between 3am.co.uk and Peter Andre is over for good. Grab a coffee and we'll tell you why.
By 3am 27/01/10 | 01:08 PM
Peter Andre, we ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
Do you know where we're supposed to be right now? At a central London coffee shop, waiting for five glorious minutes with Peter Andre.
However, instead we're going to tell you exactly why we won't be obediently trotting along to meet him.
The other day we brought you the "news" that Peter had signed up with Costa Coffee to promote some new tasty beverage or other (even though he normally heads elsewhere when he needs a caffeine fix). Off the back of that, we were invited to today's promotional event (as were all of his Twitter followers), where we would be able to watch Pete serving drinks for five "lucky" fans, before sitting down for a five minute face to face interview with him.
We jumped at the chance. When we fell out with Peter last year over those pictures of him in his pants, he phoned us personally, apologised for the bullish approach of his management, offered us a cuddle and said he wanted to do something special with us in the future, so we've been looking forward to meeting him since then. We thought he seemed like a nice guy. We still do. But he's a nice guy who seems to have some serious delusions of grandeur - or, at least, the people around him do.
Now, since a lot of people have a lot of top secret meetings and spend a lot of money to work out these sorts of partnership deals, they generally come with a few stipulations that various publicists and managers have conjured up to "protect their brand" and make them feel all sexy and powerful. We accept that, to a point. And we know you like to read about Peter so, whether the strategically-placed item he's clutching is a skinny latte, a perfume bottle or a grinning child, we're happy to give the requested plugs if it means we can get something interesting out of him at the same time.
To a point.
But the contract that Peter's notoriously controlling management CAN Associates sent over last night is nothing short of ridiculous. We've all seen contracts like this before, particularly those of us who've worked on celebrity magazines, but nobody is more controlling than CAN, who might want to look into changing their name to CAN'T.
You can see the document they sent us in full above, but here are a few selected highlights:
"The interview will be about Costa Coffee and the event only. 3am online understands that they cannot ask any questions regarding anything else; anything asked will not be answered and will be removed from the copy without exception."
"3am online agrees to give Can Associates Limited full copy and headline approval of the interview, if approval is not agreed upon 3am online understands that they cannot run the feature."
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
"3am online, under all circumstances, must accompany the photographs of Peter Andre with positive text/captions/headings."
Do you remember this CAN contract they wanted 3AM to sign. Can you imagine if CP has a file "magazine conracts" "gossip columnist contracts" "future girlfriend contracts" "future babyminder contracts":D:D
This time the fairytale between 3am.co.uk and Peter Andre is over for good. Grab a coffee and we'll tell you why.
By 3am 27/01/10 | 01:08 PM
Peter Andre, we ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
Do you know where we're supposed to be right now? At a central London coffee shop, waiting for five glorious minutes with Peter Andre.
However, instead we're going to tell you exactly why we won't be obediently trotting along to meet him.
The other day we brought you the "news" that Peter had signed up with Costa Coffee to promote some new tasty beverage or other (even though he normally heads elsewhere when he needs a caffeine fix). Off the back of that, we were invited to today's promotional event (as were all of his Twitter followers), where we would be able to watch Pete serving drinks for five "lucky" fans, before sitting down for a five minute face to face interview with him.
We jumped at the chance. When we fell out with Peter last year over those pictures of him in his pants, he phoned us personally, apologised for the bullish approach of his management, offered us a cuddle and said he wanted to do something special with us in the future, so we've been looking forward to meeting him since then. We thought he seemed like a nice guy. We still do. But he's a nice guy who seems to have some serious delusions of grandeur - or, at least, the people around him do.
Now, since a lot of people have a lot of top secret meetings and spend a lot of money to work out these sorts of partnership deals, they generally come with a few stipulations that various publicists and managers have conjured up to "protect their brand" and make them feel all sexy and powerful. We accept that, to a point. And we know you like to read about Peter so, whether the strategically-placed item he's clutching is a skinny latte, a perfume bottle or a grinning child, we're happy to give the requested plugs if it means we can get something interesting out of him at the same time.
To a point.
But the contract that Peter's notoriously controlling management CAN Associates sent over last night is nothing short of ridiculous. We've all seen contracts like this before, particularly those of us who've worked on celebrity magazines, but nobody is more controlling than CAN, who might want to look into changing their name to CAN'T.
You can see the document they sent us in full above, but here are a few selected highlights:
"The interview will be about Costa Coffee and the event only. 3am online understands that they cannot ask any questions regarding anything else; anything asked will not be answered and will be removed from the copy without exception."
"3am online agrees to give Can Associates Limited full copy and headline approval of the interview, if approval is not agreed upon 3am online understands that they cannot run the feature."
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
"3am online, under all circumstances, must accompany the photographs of Peter Andre with positive text/captions/headings."
Do you remember this CAN contract they wanted 3AM to sign. Can you imagine if CP has a file "magazine conracts" "gossip columnist contracts" "future girlfriend contracts" "future babyminder contracts":D:D
This time the fairytale between 3am.co.uk and Peter Andre is over for good. Grab a coffee and we'll tell you why.
By 3am 27/01/10 | 01:08 PM
Peter Andre, we ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
Do you know where we're supposed to be right now? At a central London coffee shop, waiting for five glorious minutes with Peter Andre.
However, instead we're going to tell you exactly why we won't be obediently trotting along to meet him.
The other day we brought you the "news" that Peter had signed up with Costa Coffee to promote some new tasty beverage or other (even though he normally heads elsewhere when he needs a caffeine fix). Off the back of that, we were invited to today's promotional event (as were all of his Twitter followers), where we would be able to watch Pete serving drinks for five "lucky" fans, before sitting down for a five minute face to face interview with him.
We jumped at the chance. When we fell out with Peter last year over those pictures of him in his pants, he phoned us personally, apologised for the bullish approach of his management, offered us a cuddle and said he wanted to do something special with us in the future, so we've been looking forward to meeting him since then. We thought he seemed like a nice guy. We still do. But he's a nice guy who seems to have some serious delusions of grandeur - or, at least, the people around him do.
Now, since a lot of people have a lot of top secret meetings and spend a lot of money to work out these sorts of partnership deals, they generally come with a few stipulations that various publicists and managers have conjured up to "protect their brand" and make them feel all sexy and powerful. We accept that, to a point. And we know you like to read about Peter so, whether the strategically-placed item he's clutching is a skinny latte, a perfume bottle or a grinning child, we're happy to give the requested plugs if it means we can get something interesting out of him at the same time.
To a point.
But the contract that Peter's notoriously controlling management CAN Associates sent over last night is nothing short of ridiculous. We've all seen contracts like this before, particularly those of us who've worked on celebrity magazines, but nobody is more controlling than CAN, who might want to look into changing their name to CAN'T.
You can see the document they sent us in full above, but here are a few selected highlights:
"The interview will be about Costa Coffee and the event only. 3am online understands that they cannot ask any questions regarding anything else; anything asked will not be answered and will be removed from the copy without exception."
"3am online agrees to give Can Associates Limited full copy and headline approval of the interview, if approval is not agreed upon 3am online understands that they cannot run the feature."
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
"3am online, under all circumstances, must accompany the photographs of Peter Andre with positive text/captions/headings."
Oh yes they threw their toys out of the pram for a PR person wanting to protect their client and see positive spin. Of course no other PR gurus (max springs to mind do this, they have other pulls that work rather than contracts)
Oh yes they threw their toys out of the pram for a PR person wanting to protect their client and see positive spin. Of course no other PR gurus (max springs to mind do this, they have other pulls that work rather than contracts)
Lol indeed, you would think that they (CAN) had demanded 1000 sacrificed kittens. :D:D
Oh yes they threw their toys out of the pram for a PR person wanting to protect their client and see positive spin. Of course no other PR gurus (max springs to mind do this, they have other pulls that work rather than contracts)
I ain't disagreeing with you but don't you find it even slightly 'wrong' (even if others do it.)? xx
Sounds reasonable to me. They want a positive, controlled interview. What great management they are.
To take just one example............if the mag/paper printed the interview with a pic of KP included the KP brigade on here would be screaming that HE was using her image to promote himself. You know you do,you naughty people . So really they ought to all be praying to the Godess KP in thankfullness for a clause like that.
I ain't disagreeing with you but don't you find it even slightly 'wrong' (even if others do it.)? xx
No because that's how PR and spin works (same in politics), they protect and promote the most positive image for their clients, the media either play along if it sells there papers or not if it sells their papers:) Just IMO I think 3am threw their toys out of the pram for more than that, I think turned down and woman, women scorned don't forget else they would have moved on a long time ago but as I say just a personal opinion:)
No because that's how PR and spin works (same in politics), they protect and promote the most positive image for their clients, the media either play along if it sells there papers or not if it sells their papers:) Just IMO I think 3am threw their toys out of the pram for more than that, I think turned down and woman, women scorned don't forget else they would have moved on a long time ago but as I say just a personal opinion:)
No because that's how PR and spin works (same in politics), they protect and promote the most positive image for their clients, the media either play along if it sells there papers or not if it sells their papers:) Just IMO I think 3am threw their toys out of the pram for more than that, I think turned down and woman, women scorned don't forget else they would have moved on a long time ago but as I say just a personal opinion:)
It certainly explained all the fluffy stories he was receiving at the time. I should know newspaper/magazine articles are not all what they seem. It does fascinate me all of the behind the scenes stuff. The deals they have in place. I honestly thought in my niavity that it was totally bias free reporting.
It certainly explained all the fluffy stories he was receiving at the time. I should know newspaper/magazine articles are not all what they seem. It does fascinate me all of the behind the scenes stuff. The deals they have in place. I honestly thought in my niavity that it was totally bias free reporting.
Just confirms what some of us already know. When it comes to PA, not all that glitters is gold!
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
Proof there that they don't use KP's association for headlines, contrary to what I've read from her fans.
Anyone with a brain would expect bad press from the 3am 'writers', and try their best to counter that.
Doesn't mean that at all, just means no images. PA is very passive aggressive and has made backhanded digs at KP on multiple occasions and used Princess's burn incident to promote himself as the better parent.
Do you remember this CAN contract they wanted 3AM to sign. Can you imagine if CP has a file "magazine conracts" "gossip columnist contracts" "future girlfriend contracts" "future babyminder contracts":D
This time the fairytale between 3am.co.uk and Peter Andre is over for good. Grab a coffee and we'll tell you why. By 3am 27/01/10 | 01:08 PM
Peter Andre, we ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
Do you know where we're supposed to be right now? At a central London coffee shop, waiting for five glorious minutes with Peter Andre.
However, instead we're going to tell you exactly why we won't be obediently trotting along to meet him.
The other day we brought you the "news" that Peter had signed up with Costa Coffee to promote some new tasty beverage or other (even though he normally heads elsewhere when he needs a caffeine fix). Off the back of that, we were invited to today's promotional event (as were all of his Twitter followers), where we would be able to watch Pete serving drinks for five "lucky" fans, before sitting down for a five minute face to face interview with him.
We jumped at the chance. When we fell out with Peter last year over those pictures of him in his pants, he phoned us personally, apologised for the bullish approach of his management, offered us a cuddle and said he wanted to do something special with us in the future, so we've been looking forward to meeting him since then. We thought he seemed like a nice guy. We still do. But he's a nice guy who seems to have some serious delusions of grandeur - or, at least, the people around him do.
Now, since a lot of people have a lot of top secret meetings and spend a lot of money to work out these sorts of partnership deals, they generally come with a few stipulations that various publicists and managers have conjured up to "protect their brand" and make them feel all sexy and powerful. We accept that, to a point. And we know you like to read about Peter so, whether the strategically-placed item he's clutching is a skinny latte, a perfume bottle or a grinning child, we're happy to give the requested plugs if it means we can get something interesting out of him at the same time.
To a point.
But the contract that Peter's notoriously controlling management CAN Associates sent over last night is nothing short of ridiculous. We've all seen contracts like this before, particularly those of us who've worked on celebrity magazines, but nobody is more controlling than CAN, who might want to look into changing their name to CAN'T.
You can see the document they sent us in full above, but here are a few selected highlights:
"The interview will be about Costa Coffee and the event only. 3am online understands that they cannot ask any questions regarding anything else; anything asked will not be answered and will be removed from the copy without exception."
"3am online agrees to give Can Associates Limited full copy and headline approval of the interview, if approval is not agreed upon 3am online understands that they cannot run the feature."
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
"3am online, under all circumstances, must accompany the photographs of Peter Andre with positive text/captions/headings."
Doesn't mean that at all, just means no images. PA is very passive aggressive and has made backhanded digs at KP on multiple occasions and used Princess's burn incident to promote himself as the better parent.
completely agree with this too. Katie on the other hand, mostly has good things to say about him when he's brought up in interviews and yet she's the bad one
completely agree with this too. Katie on the other hand, mostly has good things to say about him when he's brought up in interviews and yet she's the bad one
Did you see her on today's Loose Women?
Carol Voderman was responding to KP's statement that she hated the paps following her everywhere. Carol said something about using the children in her shows so how could she demand privacy (or wtte). KP replied by saying that she doesn't include the children in her shows, unlike their father.
Did you see her on today's Loose Women?
Carol Voderman was responding to KP's statement that she hated the paps following her everywhere. Carol said something about using the children in her shows so how could she demand privacy (or wtte). KP replied by saying that she doesn't include the children in her shows, unlike their father.
She too likes to have her digs.
Price has a very selective memory which makes it difficult to interview her. I think many Chat Show Hosts and Interviewers would dearly love to call her a liar but they are not allowed. Price trades on this and she has the added advantage of no feelings of guilt. After all it is what it is, take it or leave it, move on.
Did you see her on today's Loose Women?
Carol Voderman was responding to KP's statement that she hated the paps following her everywhere. Carol said something about using the children in her shows so how could she demand privacy (or wtte). KP replied by saying that she doesn't include the children in her shows, unlike their father.
She too likes to have her digs.
Unfortunately, I live in Australia so haven't seen it yet and so I can't respond until i do. However, if we were to compile a Peter vs Katie list of public interviews done post separation then divorce, we'd see just how often Peter has spoke badly either directly (on his show) or indirectly ( through sly digs) unlike Katie who mostly still has some good words to say about him.
Unfortunately, I live in Australia so haven't seen it yet and so I can't respond until i do. However, if we were to compile a Peter vs Katie list of public interviews done post separation then divorce, we'd see just how often Peter has spoke badly either directly (on his show) or indirectly ( through sly digs) unlike Katie who mostly still has some good words to say about him.
I don't think there's a competition as to who slags off the other most!
If and when you see the programme, you'll see she couldn't wait to have a dig at PA. I was merely replying to your post about her saying mostly nice things about him. No one asked her about PA, so I don't see why she needed to mention him
Unfortunately, I live in Australia so haven't seen it yet and so I can't respond until i do. However, if we were to compile a Peter vs Katie list of public interviews done post separation then divorce, we'd see just how often Peter has spoke badly either directly (on his show) or indirectly ( through sly digs) unlike Katie who mostly still has some good words to say about him.
Have to disagree. I know that Australia is upside down to us here and did produce Peter Andre. However, my recolation of the two in being interviewed, or in their actions in general, is obviously affected by my Northern Hemisphere closeness. To me it's the Price that comes out as the one with the real problem. But everyone to their opinon in this topsy turvey world.:)
Comments
I say dinner up west. Him in a shiny suit. And the shadow of CP evident behind a pillar.
Do you remember this CAN contract they wanted 3AM to sign. Can you imagine if CP has a file "magazine conracts" "gossip columnist contracts" "future girlfriend contracts" "future babyminder contracts":D:D
This time the fairytale between 3am.co.uk and Peter Andre is over for good. Grab a coffee and we'll tell you why.
By 3am 27/01/10 | 01:08 PM
Peter Andre, we ain't buyin' what you're sellin'
Do you know where we're supposed to be right now? At a central London coffee shop, waiting for five glorious minutes with Peter Andre.
However, instead we're going to tell you exactly why we won't be obediently trotting along to meet him.
The other day we brought you the "news" that Peter had signed up with Costa Coffee to promote some new tasty beverage or other (even though he normally heads elsewhere when he needs a caffeine fix). Off the back of that, we were invited to today's promotional event (as were all of his Twitter followers), where we would be able to watch Pete serving drinks for five "lucky" fans, before sitting down for a five minute face to face interview with him.
We jumped at the chance. When we fell out with Peter last year over those pictures of him in his pants, he phoned us personally, apologised for the bullish approach of his management, offered us a cuddle and said he wanted to do something special with us in the future, so we've been looking forward to meeting him since then. We thought he seemed like a nice guy. We still do. But he's a nice guy who seems to have some serious delusions of grandeur - or, at least, the people around him do.
Now, since a lot of people have a lot of top secret meetings and spend a lot of money to work out these sorts of partnership deals, they generally come with a few stipulations that various publicists and managers have conjured up to "protect their brand" and make them feel all sexy and powerful. We accept that, to a point. And we know you like to read about Peter so, whether the strategically-placed item he's clutching is a skinny latte, a perfume bottle or a grinning child, we're happy to give the requested plugs if it means we can get something interesting out of him at the same time.
To a point.
But the contract that Peter's notoriously controlling management CAN Associates sent over last night is nothing short of ridiculous. We've all seen contracts like this before, particularly those of us who've worked on celebrity magazines, but nobody is more controlling than CAN, who might want to look into changing their name to CAN'T.
You can see the document they sent us in full above, but here are a few selected highlights:
"The interview will be about Costa Coffee and the event only. 3am online understands that they cannot ask any questions regarding anything else; anything asked will not be answered and will be removed from the copy without exception."
"3am online agrees to give Can Associates Limited full copy and headline approval of the interview, if approval is not agreed upon 3am online understands that they cannot run the feature."
"3am online understands that no images of Katie Price can run with this feature relating to this feature at all."
"3am online, under all circumstances, must accompany the photographs of Peter Andre with positive text/captions/headings."
i remember that
control freaks or what!
Oh yes they threw their toys out of the pram for a PR person wanting to protect their client and see positive spin. Of course no other PR gurus (max springs to mind do this, they have other pulls that work rather than contracts)
Lol indeed, you would think that they (CAN) had demanded 1000 sacrificed kittens.
I ain't disagreeing with you but don't you find it even slightly 'wrong' (even if others do it.)? xx
To take just one example............if the mag/paper printed the interview with a pic of KP included the KP brigade on here would be screaming that HE was using her image to promote himself. You know you do,you naughty people
Proof there that they don't use KP's association for headlines, contrary to what I've read from her fans.
Anyone with a brain would expect bad press from the 3am 'writers', and try their best to counter that.
Pre-sactly. You read my mind.
I find it quite offensive.
Great minds....
I'm saying nothing.:D
No because that's how PR and spin works (same in politics), they protect and promote the most positive image for their clients, the media either play along if it sells there papers or not if it sells their papers:) Just IMO I think 3am threw their toys out of the pram for more than that, I think turned down and woman, women scorned don't forget else they would have moved on a long time ago but as I say just a personal opinion:)
OK.
Thanks for your answer. xx
It certainly explained all the fluffy stories he was receiving at the time. I should know newspaper/magazine articles are not all what they seem. It does fascinate me all of the behind the scenes stuff. The deals they have in place. I honestly thought in my niavity that it was totally bias free reporting.
Just confirms what some of us already know. When it comes to PA, not all that glitters is gold!
Doesn't mean that at all, just means no images. PA is very passive aggressive and has made backhanded digs at KP on multiple occasions and used Princess's burn incident to promote himself as the better parent.
BIB. Yup my thoughts entirely Mutts.
...or what! PR Agents doing their job thoroughly and very professionally...
completely agree with this too. Katie on the other hand, mostly has good things to say about him when he's brought up in interviews and yet she's the bad one
Did you see her on today's Loose Women?
Carol Voderman was responding to KP's statement that she hated the paps following her everywhere. Carol said something about using the children in her shows so how could she demand privacy (or wtte). KP replied by saying that she doesn't include the children in her shows, unlike their father.
She too likes to have her digs.
Price has a very selective memory which makes it difficult to interview her. I think many Chat Show Hosts and Interviewers would dearly love to call her a liar but they are not allowed. Price trades on this and she has the added advantage of no feelings of guilt. After all it is what it is, take it or leave it, move on.
Unfortunately, I live in Australia so haven't seen it yet and so I can't respond until i do. However, if we were to compile a Peter vs Katie list of public interviews done post separation then divorce, we'd see just how often Peter has spoke badly either directly (on his show) or indirectly ( through sly digs) unlike Katie who mostly still has some good words to say about him.
I don't think there's a competition as to who slags off the other most!
If and when you see the programme, you'll see she couldn't wait to have a dig at PA. I was merely replying to your post about her saying mostly nice things about him. No one asked her about PA, so I don't see why she needed to mention him
Have to disagree. I know that Australia is upside down to us here and did produce Peter Andre. However, my recolation of the two in being interviewed, or in their actions in general, is obviously affected by my Northern Hemisphere closeness. To me it's the Price that comes out as the one with the real problem. But everyone to their opinon in this topsy turvey world.:)