They are NOT attractive. Not, not, not, not, and not!
They look like eels. Tell me they don’t look like eels. Who’s buying their crap now? Teenage girls. Are they doing so because the kiddos are attractive?
Dude, their careers are fairly well cemented. I wasn’t BSing when I said that they were worth a cool billion. They’ve got their own clothing line, production company (which produces direct-to-video movies starring the twins and music CDs featuring them “singing”), magazine, books, and make-up. They’ve got an fffing empire!
Mind you, I’m not saying the stuff they turn out is ]quality, but it is profitable, and sadly, that counts for more than anything else these days.
Their careers in the adult stage of their lives. They were cute n cuddly as babies - and incredibly annoying - and they can either not work again, living off the sales of their crappy videos and any residuals from Full House or they can attempt to be real, bona fide actresses who can play mature roles, a la Rick(y) Schroder.
If they choose the former, GREAT! Then I won’t have to see new crap from them on the shelves. If they choose the latter, I hope they get nowhere.
Frankly, yes. For the same reason that Cosmopolitan features sexy women on the cover of a women’s magazine.
Unless you’re a teenage girl, I’ll have to ask for some proof to back up that claim…
My guess would be that they buy the junk because MK&A are “cool” to them, not because they look sexy.
I take it you’re not in marketing, right?
Selling to young (and teen) women is a matter of getting them to identify certain celebrity traits with themselves. So if some other girl (famous) is attractive they’ll tend towards buying products with those images on them. They identify to such a degree that they believe (subconsciously) that if they buy products with attractive women on them they themselves will become attractive. It’s the same sort of thing that led to the ‘Madonna Wanna-Be’ phenomenon of the early and mid eighties.
It’s a large factor in why marketing to men and women are very different.
What do you put on magazine covers (that being what I know best) to get men to buy? Attractive young women.
What do you put on magazine covers to get women to buy? Attractive young women.
Just one of those fundamental differences in male-female psychology.
Granted, they wouldn’t be on a cover if they were incredibly ugly, like Tori Spelling or someone. But the reason they’re there isn’t that they’re attractive - it’s that they’re a known quantitiy that was once cute and now has videos galore to plug to the masses of prepubescent kids.
Well, I’d probably say they’re targeted at the tweens at this point, not the pre-pubescents.
They have those videos and such because they can appeal to those demographics. Granted, there’s a certain ‘self-reinforcing’ system going on here in that the videos push the image and the image pushes the videos.
But I stand firm that, if they hadn’t maintained their ‘cuteness’ factor they wouldn’t have been appealing to their market at this point.
Oh…
AND ONLY HERE, FOLKS!
Only here does a thread on child stars (with a certain fun bad-spiritedness) become a sort of academic discussion of marketing trends and targets!
I love this place.
You think that their current market would have liked them LESS if they were still cute and adorable? But you just said they’re on the magazine cover because they’re attractive.
No, you’ve got it backwards.
Staying ‘cute’ (and pushing that image) got them from adorable moppets on ‘Full House’ to full-fledged teen stars.
Maintaining that image (attractive, sexy, successful) brings in the tweener girls who want to be that way as well.
Sadly, they’re not attractive or sexy… just successful. And the tweener girls want to emulate them because they’re successful - not because they’re attractive or sexy. And they translate success - just a guess - as “making a lot of cheap-ass videos that are everywhereeverywhereeverywhere and cannot be avoided.”
Criminey, it’s like looking at those kids from Village of the Damned.
Speaking as someone who was very recently in high school (and continues to know many teenage boys/girls), Mary Kate and Ashley went out of vogue in about 2000, and the only people even paying attention to them then were 12 year olds and perverts. No teenage boy I knew thought they looked good, and no teenage girl would even mention one unless they were making a joke at the twins’ expense. In college, most people don’t know Mary Kate and Ashley are even teenagers yet.
High school teacher here, and many of the kids I teach (boys and girls alike) think Mary Kate & Ashley are hot.
Hey! Hey! Hey! We prefer the term “Humbertoldian Connoisseur.” “Pervert” is such an ugly word.
Crikey, come on now. The girls aren’t that bad looking. In fact, they’re not bad looking at all. Gorgeous, no. Ugly? Not even close, unless you’re setting them up to unreasonably beautiful standards set by women like Catherine Zeta Jones or Vanessa Williams or something. If you saw these two girls hanging out at the mall with the rest of the high schoolers, would you stop in disgust thinking to yourself, “Dear GOD, these children look like eels”? I really don’t think so. If so, I’d hate to know what you think of someone who is truly ugly. I’ve seen a LOT worse. God help them if they ever cross your path.
Ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, and ugly!
Okay, maybe not ugly. Evil, though. Yes, evil. Evil and creepy. You can hear them chanting, sometimes… “You … will… worship us… You will… obey… us…”
Satan’s spawn, MeanOldLady, and even worse, they’re two people! Two spawn!
Laughs uproariously
This seems to be digressing from the initial premise a little. It all started out as a pleasant little fantasy film-making exercise, and suddenly, we’re into consumer insight and marketing.
I want to see Mary-Kate and Ashley: Spring Break.
Okay… How about Mary-Kate and Ashley: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5?