Paris Hilton Most Overexposed Celebrity

Not all press is good press, no matter what the publicists say.
Consider
celebutante Paris Hilton, whose every move from club hopping to friend
feuding has grabbed gobs of tabloid ink. But rather than adoration for
the “Simple Life” star, the media onslaught has resulted in eye rolls —
and worse.
According
to studies by Los Angeles-based E-Poll Market Research, which provides
appeal rankings for more than 3,000 celebrities, 70 percent of the U.S.
population would use the term "overexposed" to describe Hilton, up
slightly from a year earlier.To put that in perspective, most celebrities average between 3 percent and 7 percent at the peak of their careers.
But
Hilton isn’t the only star to have worn out her public welcome. Among
others of whom audiences have tired: Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan and
the ever-present Olsen twins.
While
overexposure may have less to do with the precise number of headlines
than with the public’s perception of the celebrity, the 15 stars on our
list have proved that familiarity can — and does — breed contempt.
So who's to blame? The stars or the tabloids that cover them?
E-Poll
Chief Executive Gerry Philpott says the press can only build somebody
up or tear somebody down so much. He argues that the 24/7 attention
provided by the Internet expedites the fame trajectory — and the
exposure that comes along with it.
The result: "You can go from zero to 60 in exposure like that," he says. "And, for that matter, 60 to zero."
Take
“The Hills” bad boy Spencer Pratt, who comes in at No. 11 on our list.
When we ran this list last year, the general public knew little of the
MTV reality star or the feuds he caused.
Fast-forward
to 2008, and the controversial beau of Heidi Montag, best friend turned
enemy of “The Hills” star Lauren Conrad, is headlining both the
glossies and the blogs, even scoring an advice column in Radar magazine.That kind of attention can be a turnoff for
some stars, especially those like Tom Cruise or Lindsay Lohan, who are
looking for respect as artists.
But
for others, like Pratt and Montag, overexposure may not be a bad thing,
opines Jake Halpern, author of “Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truth Behind
America's Favorite Addiction.” For these stars, Halpern says, it's all
they have. And more important, without it they cease to be celebrities."You're only a celebrity as long as you’re in
the dialogue of popular culture," he explains. And if you don't have
your work, be it a movie or album, to keep you in that dialogue, you
are forced to rely on exposure.
Former
Playboy Playmate Pamela Anderson, who ranks fourth on our list, is
another example. Without the acting career she hoped would take off —
Anderson's most recent flick, “Blond and Blonder,” bombed — it's her
tabloid presence care of multiple marriages (and divorces) and
provocative ways that continues to open doors for her celebrity.
"For
certain celebrities, it becomes almost a survival instinct," says Us
Weekly Editor in Chief Janice Min. "And after a period of time out of
the press, there's sort of a hunger or craving to get back in."
But how easy is it to win back the people's favor, and thus the press', once you've lost it?
Very,
according to Philpott. "In this country, we love to build people up,
tear them down and then build them back up again," he says.
But
Ellis Cashmore, author of “Celebrity Culture,” argues that staging a
comeback is far easier for some than it is for others. The dividing
point, he claims, is talent. And without it, he questions what the
celebrity can come back with.