Gordon in the morning: Gordon in the Mail

There's an interesting chance to see not one, but two, of our successful tabloids at work this morning, as Adele is linked to a sponsorship deal.

Gordon breaks the story - and I'm using "breaks" generously here, as it seems to be little more than a collection of things that, theoretically, could happen:

MOST bets on the only brand with a chance of signing up ADELE would have been on Diamond White cider.

But that could all change thanks to a £10million pay cheque.

If they've actually negotiated a price, then the deal must be done, right?

Cosmetics giants including Estée Lauder, L’Oréal and Dior are fighting it out to make the singer the face of their skincare ranges.

Or it could be Cover Girl. Or Number Seven. Or Superdrug.

The vagueness of the story is underpinned, solely, by an unnamed source:

A source said: “Adele is in big demand. She would only accept if the campaigns were to her taste and incorporate her music.

“The last thing she wants is a cheesy ad with a naff catchphrase.

“They would have to be in keeping with her personality.

“It’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get her to agree but, right now, it looks as if she’s close to signing a deal.”

The last sentence there swings violently between suggesting that coming to a deal would take a lot of work, implying it's a distance off, and then saying it's nearly a done deal. Like it was being made up on the spot.

And, given that L'Oreal solely make cheesy ads with naff catchphrases, either the "source"'s claim of the sort of ad she might do is wrong, or Gordon's list of adverts being considered is wrong. Or both of them are wrong.

Gordon reminds readers that Adele has, in the past, been fairly firm about not wanting to do such a deal:

Adele has previously slated fellow stars for taking up similar beauty deals — and said she was concerned endorsements could “taint” her image.

He is generous, though, at this change of heart:

You can’t blame Adele for considering the big money offers. Despite banking £25million from the incredible successes of her albums 19 and 21, an extra £10million in the coffers would be hard to turn down.

So, a fairly typical Sun filler story - vague enough that if nothing happens people will forget it, but if Adele ever does turn up in an advert a 'you read it here first' piece can be built on the back of it - "a source said 'Adele had considered L'Oreal, but chose instead to get naked for PETA...'"

But nobody with half a mind would read this and come away thinking that Adele is already mouthing "get the London look" into a mirror, and planning where to put the money.

Luckily, Lucy Buckland suffers from no such restriction, copying the story across to the Daily Mail website.

Except by the time it arrives in the Mail - with a cheerful admission that the only source is what Lucy read in The Sun - the story has become more of an attack, shorn totally of Smart's 'good luck to her, who'd turn down that sort of offer':

Adele 'tempted to sign $10 million cosmetic sponsorship deal and move to LA' - despite slating stars who 'sell-out'

Oh, yes, there's an addition to the story, which is that Adele is moving to LA. Apparently this is somehow bad, too - though, to be fair, the Mail has always been consistent in its hatred of the idea of migration:

According to sources renting a house in LA was relaxing and after making friends with Robbie Williams' wife, Ayda Field she is becoming more attune to shipping out of Britain for good.

Word together threw, half-assed punctuation attempting not work.

'Adele and her man Simon are looking at a pad in one of the exclusive gated communities of Beverly Hills,' a source told The Daily Mirror, 'because Robbie and Ayda have told Adele that she would be able to have enough land not to feel too trapped, and she could have the privacy she so desperately needs to enjoy life.'

Oh, yes, that bit the Mail lifted from the Mirror, so at least it's a story with two sources.

Naturally, the Mail is unhappy at the idea of a British institution becoming so enamoured of American audiences that she might consider putting their needs first.

Although, let's just look at that headline again:

Adele 'tempted to sign $10 million cosmetic sponsorship deal and move to LA' - despite slating stars who 'sell-out'

Oddly, the Sun's ten million quid has turned into ten million greenbacks - and elsewhere her earnings are rendered in American money. Almost as if that British institution has become so enamoured of American audiences that it's putting their needs first.

Still, the Mail does at least try to add some journalism to the mix:

Adele's spokesman refused to comment after being contacted by MailOnline.

Being contacted about which story? Both? What did MailOnline actually ask? When did the Mail contact them - after these stories appeared late in the day on rival paper's websites, and was the refusal to comment a 'we have no comment', or 'I'm not in a position to comment on this'?

So, from a vague piece in The Sun, the Mail has decided that Adele is on the verge of selling out. I often wonder who believes what they read in Bizarre. I think we've now got our answer.

Cheryl Cole's adverts fine, apparently

This is a bit of an open-and-shut case, right? Cheryl Cole appeared in an advert for Nestle L'oreal, punting some hair gunk which said could give her hair like hers. Except it couldn't, because she had hair extensions in. Oh, and you can't even use the product if you've got hair extensions. Not the worst piece of duplicitous advertising, but still, worthy of a reminder not to fib, eh, Advertising Standards Authority?

Apparently not.

We considered consumers would understand the message of the ads to be that the product could have some positive and achievable effect on their weak, dull, limp and lifeless hair but that they would not be misled into believing that, by just using the product, it would replicate for them the fullness of Cheryl Coles hair, because hers had been professionally styled. We concluded that the ads did not misleadingly exaggerate the effects of the product.

That's a bit weird - 'it's okay to illustrate your product with a totally impossible result because, hey, the schleps who slap L'Oreal on their heads are already crushed by life enough to know they're never going to look like Cheryl Cole" - but I can understand the logic.

But advertising a product that you can't use with hair extensions by using a model with hair extensions in - that, surely, is wrong, ASA?

We noted ad (a) showed Cheryl Cole wearing hair extensions but did not state that the product was suitable for use with extensions. We considered the text "Styled with some natural hair extensions" was likely to be interpreted as suggesting the models hairstyle included extensions, not that the product was suitable to care for them. We also considered viewers were likely to understand that they would need to check before using a product on their particular type of hair extensions. We concluded that the ad was not misleading.

Why not go the whole hog and just get someone in wearing a wig and a hat?

Still, nice to see self-regulation knows the job is to always err on the side of the advertiser than logic or honesty. Because they're worth it.

Gordon in the morning: Choices, choices

For Alexandra Burke the city was crowded, her friends were away, and she was on her own:

While other chart stars had headed off to Bangor in Wales to perform at Radio 1's Big Weekend, Alexandra chose to thrill the crowds in the capital.

She played GAY - which really has become just another tick box on the list now - rather than playing the big, high-profile Bangor event on the TV and the radio and the onlines. That much is true. I'm doubting there was very much "choice" involved, though.

Meanwhile, Cheryl Cole is burbling on about how GREAT it is to be thin:

The 5ft 3in X Factor judge, who weighs 7st, revealed a fan keeps her image on the fridge as motivation for gym sessions.

She said: "I like to think I can be inspiring someone like that."

Surely that would only work if you took your fridge to the gym? Wouldn't it be better to have the picture of Cole on your gym locker? Or does she just despise Cole so much, she can't stand to be in the house if there's a photo of her on the fridge?

I wonder which picture of Cole the fan has put on the fridge door? Perhaps this is the one she uses to "thinspire" her:

But it's not all great for Cheryl, you know:

But Cheryl, 26, finds being a beauty icon "cringeworthy".

Well, if by "being a beauty icon" she means "appearing in Nestle's L'Oreal adverts", yes, that is pretty cringeworthy.

Gordon rounds off his piece with this helpful background detail:

The GIRLS ALOUD star is rumoured to follow the blood group diet, which limits foods to a person's blood type.

That's unlike the rest of Girls Aloud, who enjoy all the blood groups in their diet.alex

Cheryl Cole gets stuck on her hairspray

You think it's all fun being paid a ridiculous sum of money to endorse products?

Oh, if only that was the case:

CHERYL Cole's fashion advisors fear she is LOSING this season's glamour battle with rival judge Dannii Minogue - because she is BANNED by L'Oreal from changing her hair.

Girls Aloud star Cheryl, 26, has to keep her tresses the same as on her ads for the hair company under the terms of a £500,000 sponsorship deal.

Meanwhile glamorous Dannii, 38, has been sporting various funky styles including an Elvis QUIFF, Cleopatra FRINGE, pixie CROP and Bardot BOB.

To be honest, if someone gave me half a million to look a little less desperate for attention than Dannii Minogue, I'd consider it money for jam.

Cheryl is also reported to be finding it difficult sticking to demand that she doesn't beat the crap out of minimum-wage toilet attendants for the length of the sponsorship.

Still, she's lucky that other parts of the Nestle empire aren't so fussy. L'Oreal might be insisting she uses their products, but at least KitKat aren't making her force a couple of fingers down before each programme.

Hmmm. She's taking a lot of money from Nestle, isn't she?

How much does L'Oreal pay Beyonce again?

It's money well spent, isn't it?

"I actually don't like wearing make-up, I'd rather be natural. My hair is natural and when I go out I don't need to spend hours deciding what I will wear or which make-up to put on. I know exactly what I want."

Oh, yes, Beyonce is worth it, alright.