Mr. Wonder Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Not really.. It's quite clear Janet didn't make $360 million on one movie.. Or pocket all of the tour profits... Common sense really Anyone who translates the article into her being a literal billionaire needs hooked on phonics "The 47 year old has also banked an impressive $304 million (£196 million) from her box office roles in 2000's The Nutty Professor Ii: The Klumps, Poetic Justice and For Colored Girls." How is that not misleading? "Banked" implies that was the net income. When someone is reportedly a billionaire, it's kinda implied that that's how much the person has in the bank or that amount in assets combined with what they have in the bank. For example, Bill Gates doesn't have $56 billion+ in his bank accounts. He has that amount in physical, if you will, money plus his assets (Microsoft and its respective products). If he were to sell everything he owned (or has ownership in), $56 billion+ is how much would be generated. Similarly, Janet can't liquidate $304 million in films because there's no value. It's just misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 "The 47 year old has also banked an impressive $304 million (£196 million) from her box office roles in 2000's The Nutty Professor Ii: The Klumps, Poetic Justice and For Colored Girls." How is that not misleading? "Banked" implies that was the net income. When someone is reportedly a billionaire, it's kinda implied that that's how much the person has in the bank or that amount in assets combined with what they have in the bank. For example, Bill Gates doesn't have $56 billion+ in his bank accounts. He has that amount in physical, if you will, money plus his assets (Microsoft and its respective products). If he were to sell everything he owned (or has ownership in), $56 billion+ is how much would be generated. Similarly, Janet can't liquidate $304 million in films because there's no value. It's just misleading. That's from the media... which is reporting Janet as joining the billionaire club... not from the actual variety article. The point of it all is just ride the wave of positive PR. Don't make a big deal out of something that puts Janet in a positive light. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 "The 47 year old has also banked an impressive $304 million (£196 million) from her box office roles in 2000's The Nutty Professor Ii: The Klumps, Poetic Justice and For Colored Girls." How is that not misleading? "Banked" implies that was the net income. When someone is reportedly a billionaire, it's kinda implied that that's how much the person has in the bank or that amount in assets combined with what they have in the bank. For example, Bill Gates doesn't have $56 billion+ in his bank accounts. He has that amount in physical, if you will, money plus his assets (Microsoft and its respective products). If he were to sell everything he owned (or has ownership in), $56 billion+ is how much would be generated. Similarly, Janet can't liquidate $304 million in films because there's no value. It's just misleading. When I hear the word "banked"... I don't think of net income... I just think of a lot of money It's quite obvious she didn't make $300 million from NP, PJ, & Tyler Perry I mean c'mon Aussie... Use that intelligence.. not everything needs to be spelled out for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock & Roll Hall of Game Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 That's from the media... which is reporting Janet as joining the billionaire club... not from the actual variety article. Despite Variety being the same Medium you speak of... you're right. There's no debunking necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 Despite Variety being the same Medium you speak of... you're right. There's no debunking necessary You know what I meant... Variety being the original source and other media outlets reporting it somewhat differently... better? Better scans of the Variety article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 When I hear the word "banked"... I don't think of net income... I just think of a lot of money It's quite obvious she didn't make $300 million from NP, PJ, & Tyler Perry I mean c'mon Aussie... Use that intelligence.. not everything needs to be spelled out for you Banked, when used as a verb, by definition means to deposit money into a bank account. When you think of "banked" and "just think of a lot of money" are you are confusing "banked" for "grossed". It's misleading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotboy06 Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Forbes is on their way to get us right together anyway.. But yeah, "banked" in that context means that she deposited that money. I don't care what anyone says..she's a BILLIONAIRE. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Banked, when used as a verb, by definition means to deposit money into a bank account. When you think of "banked" and "just think of a lot of money" are you are confusing "banked" for "grossed". It's misleading. You know the stans of the other gals can't read anyway LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloLove Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 yall reading too much into it...dang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 Banked, when used as a verb, by definition means to deposit money into a bank account. When you think of "banked" and "just think of a lot of money" are you are confusing "banked" for "grossed". It's misleading. Variety doesn't say anything about Janet banking that money. They just gave her career stats. If the other media outlets want to attribute it to meaning her personal wealth is a billion dollars, so be it. Forbes has no reason to get her together... especially if you don't press the matter with them Also, with her and Wissam's income combined she is well over a billionaire, so either way Janet wins. Now let it go and celebrate this BRILLIANT bit of PR orchestrated by Janet's team! lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breathless Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 The shade is no matter HOW you misread that article Janet with her husband is worth over a billion dollars alone or together. LOL 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 The shade is no matter HOW you misread that article Janet with her husband is worth over a billion dollars alone or together. LOL #CLOCKED lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Icon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Well, well, well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 Like I said on Twitter, You didn't see the Madge stans rush to be the first to call the stories circulated about Metamucil being a billionaire a lie. You didn't see Beyezebel stans be the first ones to question and/or tweet Forbes to prove her and the camel weren't a billionaire couple. THAT is the problem with the Janet stans. There is no solidarity and ya'll nitpick something that's actually positive to Janet in terms of PR. WE know the variety article says she's generated a billion dollars during her career. WE know that other media outlets ran with the "Janet Jackson is a billionaire" story and that they had it wrong. Sometimes ya'll actually do Janet a disservice as fans. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Did Forbes ever clock Bey and Jay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
switchblade330 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 yall reading too much into it...dang #Testify!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 Did Forbes ever clock Bey and Jay? No, I don't believe they have. However, I don't think the Bey and Jay story really blew up the way the Janet and Madonna stories did. I could be wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Like I said on Twitter, You didn't see the Madge stans rush to be the first to call the stories circulated about Metamucil being a billionaire a lie. You didn't see Beyezebel stans be the first ones to question and/or tweet Forbes to prove her and the camel weren't a billionaire couple. THAT is the problem with the Janet stans. There is no solidarity and ya'll nitpick something that's actually positive to Janet in terms of PR. WE know the variety article says she's generated a billion dollars during her career. WE know that other media outlets ran with the "Janet Jackson is a billionaire" story and that they had it wrong. Sometimes ya'll actually do Janet a disservice as fans. It's hard to tell what you write on Twitter sometimes as you're on it 24/7-_- Let's not at being a "disservice" when me and Austin (who I think were the only ones questioning it) have done more for Janet on her forum than some in here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 It's hard to tell what you write on Twitter sometimes as you're on it 24/7-_- Let's not at being a "disservice" when me and Austin (who I think were the only ones questioning it) have done more for Janet on her forum than some in here. I'm not on 24/7. I just spend more time on there now compared to here. I'm not just talking about "questioning" it, BU. Pay close attention to what I said. I think I have done just as much, if not more for Janet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I'm not on 24/7. I just spend more time on there now compared to here. I'm not just talking about "questioning" it, BU. Pay close attention to what I said. I think I have done just as much, if not more for Janet... I see you tweet all hour every hour of the day I see you mad too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarrylf Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The shade is no matter HOW you misread that article Janet with her husband is worth over a billion dollars alone or together. LOL # Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I like to take PR that is CORRECT. That way we don't run around the internet talking about Janet is a billionaire, and then Forbes clocking the tea, and consequently ppl look stupid. Variety called Janet a "billion dollar entertainer" (or some shit), which is misleading, which was my point to begin with, and even pointed out that that billion dollars is what "Janet Jackson" the brand has generated, not what she's actually taken home. Now that Forbes has recognized Janet as anything but a billionaire, ppl look stupid. The article was misleading from the start. Factual PR > Good PR. 'Tis all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I like to take PR that is CORRECT. That way we don't run around the internet talking about Janet is a billionaire, and then Forbes clocking the tea, and consequently ppl look stupid. Variety called Janet a "billion dollar entertainer" (or some shit), which is misleading, which was my point to begin with, and even pointed out that that billion dollars is what "Janet Jackson" the brand has generated, not what she's actually taken home. Now that Forbes has recognized Janet as anything but a billionaire, ppl look stupid. The article was misleading from the start. Factual PR > Good PR. 'Tis all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Though the fact that Janet has generated $1billion+ revenue overall has surprised a lot of non-fans . I've been reading comments and people have said stuff like "wow I didn't think she was that big" etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.