If there was ever a sign that celebrities won’t be going away anytime soon when it comes to magazine covers and ad campaigns, the latest issue of French Vogue (widely known for always featuring models on its covers), just put Marion Cotillard on their latest issue.
And now Givenchy has enlisted Justin Timberlake to be the face of their new fragrance – a women’s scent, no less.
Already the face of "Play for Him", Givenchy has now tapped Justin Timberlake to be the face of the new "Play for Her" women’s fragrance, which comes out in October.
Even Timberlake questioned why they opted for the male singer, but he told WWD that when the idea for the scent’s commercial was explained to him he concluded, “Oh that kind of makes sense.”
The commercial in question was produced by Pierre Morel and features Timberlake frolicking on the Eiffel Tower with New Moon actress Noot Seear, while the corresponding print campaign was shot by Tom Munro.
I imagine the idea that Givenchy is going for is that if you wear "Play for Her", then you will attract a man like Justin Timberlake. But isn't that a bit narrow and demeaning? Must we assume that everything women do is always focused on attracting a mate?
Currently Givenchy is the only beauty brand that Timberlake has aligned himself with, but there have been talks about expanding his William Rast line in that arena with the singer/actor remarking, “If I was to branch out into anything else, it would be an extension of things I already have. If there were a men’s care line, for instance, I would push that through William Rast. With Rast, we want to make everything — we want to make furniture. I’m into everything. If it makes sense for the brands, then I will do it.”
Can’t wait to get your hands on the women's fragrance Timberlake found so enticing? Three weeks ahead of its launch date, on September 10th, Macy’s will sell 25 signed bottles on Fashion’s Night Out.
Prices for the fragrance – $47.50 for a 30-ml. bottle, $68 for 50 ml., and $79.50 for a 75-ml. size.
The Intense version is $73 for a 50-ml. bottle, and $85 for a 75-ml. size.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think Jessica Biel would have been a wiser, more attention-grabbing choice?