Lindsay Lohan's E*Trade Suit Parallels the Decline of Her Career in Advertising
Lindsay Lohan's sad lawsuit against E*Trade (ETFC) for using the name "Lindsay" in its ads is likely an indicator of how desperate the actress's finances appear to have become. She was once the darling of the ad world, sought after by major brands for her endorsement. If she walked down Madison Avenue now she wouldn't get arrested.
Lohan is seeking $100 million from E*Trade, whose Super Bowl ad featured a baby girl interrogating a baby boy who stood her up. "And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" the baby girl asks. Lohan apparently thinks that's a reference to her, according to the New York Post.
Tabloids speculate that Lohan is near bankruptcy. A look at the rise and fall of her career in advertising shows that may be true. As a rule of thumb, the amount and status of a celebrity's ad appearances is roughly correlated to their financial needs, as evidenced by Kyra Sedgewick's sudden need to advertise orange juice following the loss of her investment fund with Bernie Madoff.
Lohan once had a promising career ahead of her in advertising. As a child actress she starred with Bill Cosby in an ad for Jell-O:
In the mid-200s, when she was the hottest property on the block, MTV used her in its promos:
Perhaps the best measure of her now-gone white-hot status was Proactiv's use of her for its anti-acne products. The current roster of Proactiv endorsers includes Katy Perry and Avril Lavigne:
But that was years ago. Since Proactiv, Lohan has failed to land a major endorsement. She made a bizarre, cheap campaign for clothing brand Fornarina (pictured at top) that was poorly received:
And she recently ended an association with the design house Emanuel Ungaro.
The E*Trade suit will, of course, be thrown out of court. Nobody thinks one of the E*Trade babies is Lohan. Before that happens, the judge might want to ask whether her lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, charged Lohan a fee for this frivolous, doomed suit.
Related: