Celebrity News:

It's reported that Aussie movie star Nicole Kidman is taking legal action against Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper for suggesting that she prefers another perfume to the one she's paid big bucks to endorse. But how much do we believe that stars actually do favour the brands they represent, or it it plain prostitution of their PR profile? Are there any star sponsorships that seem simply unbelievable to you?

Kidman's Chanel paymasters are apparently enraged by allegations that Nic was dabbing on a competitor's cologne while promoting her new flick in London. But do we really believe that stars use what they spruik?

It might just be possible that Pierce Brosnan usually wears an Omega watch, but do we accept that all the Socceroos eat wheat biscuit brekkies, for example? Or when the shoe's on the other foot, do celebs looks bad when the products they endorse are portrayed as duds? That happended recently with Maggie Tabberer's ill-fated sponsorship deal with a debt-laden Sydney retirement community company.

Whether Nicole Kidman is successful with her lawsuit of not, it creates no little PR dissonance when these rumours threaten to prejudice her lucrative sponsorship deals.