Music industry experts reckon 'Damita Jo' could be a victim of the adverse publicity the star has received this week...
Experts claim Janet Jackson ‘exposure’ at Sunday’s SUPER BOWL (February 1) could lead to damaging of sales for her new album ‘DAMITA JO’.
China Danforth, chief executive of urban label DKG Music, said: “I don’t think it will boost sales of the CD. I don’t think it was consistent with her image and the problem with it is that it came off looking just like a publicity stunt.”
According to Reuters, even a rush-release to radio of Janet Jackson‘s single ‘Just A Little While’, by Virgin Records, has done little to cash in on the publicity, with industry insiders saying that it may have done more harm than good.
It has already been revealed that the singer will not longer be appearing at this Sunday’s (February 8) Grammy Awards. Instead the presenting slot with be filled by R&B star Patti LaBelle.
Janet Jackson‘s publicist Steven Huvane said: “I can confirm she is not attending. I won’t give any more details.”
The singer was due to present an award during the glitzy ceremony, while Justin Timberlake is set to win a number of trophies, following his five nominations.
Meanwhile, the fetish shop that sold Janet Jackson the controversial outfit are fuming over the incident, claiming the stunt made it look as if the £140 garment was flimsy.
According to the New York Post, Manhattan’s DeMask manager Sam Hill said: “There’s no way (the bustier) would have ripped that way. We’re known for putting together solid, long-lasting pieces.”.
Now seeking an admission by the singer that the top was modified, Hill added: “They took off the studs that kept the cup in place and replaced them with snaps so the top could just come off. It would have looked like Justin Timberlake was assaulting her if he’d tried to rip it off before it was modified. It’s really easy to modify rubber. It’s not rocket science.”
for causing her and millions of other unsuspecting viewers “to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury”.
The documents, which are currently online at The Smoking Gun website, do not specify what kind of injury was incurred, though does not specify the amount of damages sought.
Carlin however, states that the punitive damages should not “exceed the total of the gross annual revenues of each defendant for the last three (3) years prior to the filing of this action”.