Beyoncé’s new Tiffany & Co commercial is DIVINE

Beautiful

Beyonce looks beautiful, as always. Her voice on this is perfect. But, I'm sorry Jay-Z's hair makes it look like if Buckwheat had grown up and did a romantic film with Lena Horne.

Is that what you wear to hang around the house, Jen?

No? Me, neither.

She looks beautiful and I love the choice of song.

I'm surprised that they have her wearing the Audrey Hepburn yellow diamond that Lady Gaga wore to the 2019 Oscars, without even resetting it after Gaga's ensemble into something unique for Beyoncé.

Romantic. Guess she is over wanting to beat the hell out of him and humiliate him for banging other ladies.

R4 The song and her outfits and styling are all pulling from Breakfast at Tiffany's. (Which was about a hooker...)

R6 she never beat him.

Also, Solange attacked Jay 7 years ago. Time to move on.

Tiffany is mall-level basic.

Tiffany is expensive and for the rich.

Let's be real. Tiffany lost its cache decades ago. It's no longer considered "expensive and for the rich". Unless you mean the "nouveau riche". Which is exactly why Tiffany hired these two. They are targeting a specific demographic here.

What’s all this I hear about Beyoncé and Tiffany?

R12 these two? Beyoncé worth over $500 million and Jay worth over $1.7 billion. Those two?

The commercial is clearly targeting customers of color, meaning that Tiffany realizes it has overlooked a growing market and it's now making an appeal to expand its customer base. Its pop culture currency is stuck with a movie from the 1960s whose cast is dead and included Mickey Rooney playing an offensive Chinese stereotype. They're updating references and trying to bring in mew customers.

It's a sign of the times, along with bringing Garcelle Beauvais onto the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. People in business just realized black people can be rich, too, and they also like nice things.

As for whether Tiffany's is luxury or not today, I don't know the first thing about jewelry, but two things:

First, back when Breakfast at Tiffany's was made, so were movies and TV shows that featured Macy's department store in NYC. From I Love Lucy to Miracle on 34th Street and the annual parade, I grew up hearing of Macy's and it seemed so fancy and so...Manhattan. When Macy's expanded into the DC metro area about 29 years ago, I found out it does not live up to that reputation. It replaced a Sears in my local mall and it has seemingly scammy "once a year sales" every week. So, so much for a fancy NYC store that was advertised through storyline placement decades ago.

Second, again re the Real Houswives of Beverly Hills, some of the woman are so fucking gaudy and obnoxious with their designer brand logos. Dorit is almost always a human billboard with designer names written all over her, and the lowet third regularly shows sunglasses that cost $25-50k snd $100k purses. Seeing this has devalued all those brands in my eyes. There is zero resson for any of those prices other than showing off wealth, and it's kind of grotesque in this age.

Tiffany's old brand image was more about high-quality, elegant jewels than showing off wealth with brand names everywhere. I'm not sure that has a fit in the luxury pop culture market today. People want tacky Versace clothes that are ugly and scream IT'S VERSACE. So if Tiffany has changed to appeal to less-super-wealthy people, good for it.

However, one of the jokes in Breakfast at Tiffany's was that Holly (Hepburn) could only afford to buy one thing in the store: a sterling silver-plated telephone dialer. So its old image was expensive and unattainable except to the very rich.

Gotta get that ghetto fabulous money 🤑

Cringey and tacky, op sounds like a frau.

Am I the only one who find the constant flaunting of their wealth really tacky and insensitive to how many people are financially suffering at the moment.

You're not, R18.

Stop replying to yourself. We get it. You’re a racist who is upset when they see successful black people, while in the next breath saying poor black people need to get up and work hard.

You’re unhappy either way.

JayZ's hair ruined the commercial.

They were chosen because they’re a powerful couple. They were chosen because they’re incredibly rich. They were chosen because of Beyoncé mostly, who is a household name all over the world.

And yes, they see there are wealthy black people too who can wear their jewelry.

Tiffany’s has never ever gone out of style with the rich, btw. A lot of female celebs are always shopping there. Women in Manhattan are always buying from there.

Tiffany never recovered from being owned by Avon----they'd become old fashioned but retaining your cache and appealing to new generations is a tough act to pull off and they didn't exactly do it. For years, their best selling item as a pair of Frank Lloyd Wright candlesticks----definitely not mallware, but not exactly unique. The last time I was in one of their stores, to buy a gift, the service sucked (it was Atlanta, after all) and the store itself was missing the kind of special elegance you'd associate with the brand.

Beyonce does okay--she seems to be straddling the breathy, generic sound of every other pop singer these days with the classic arrangements of this song. The result is nothing special.

Atlanta is a fun city.

Oh come on R20, you can't flash the racism card everything a black person gets critized for doing something stupid.

Only you all are criticizing them for nothing r25. It’s literally your own racism and insecurities.

Tiffany is for the middle class. It’s still a reliable place to buy a perfectly respectable and tasteful gift. You can’t go wrong with Tiffany. And it’s still aspirational for a demographic.

I’m surprised they went with Beyonce, but maybe they’re doubling down. Money is money.

People with real money purchase from jewelers no one’s ever heard of.

R25 it's a stupid the stupid beyawnce fan motto, call everyone a racist who doesn't like her talentless fake ass.

*It's the stupid

That ad is beautifully produced.

A week or so ago Beyonce and Jay-Z were called out by for this in an op- ed in the WAPO related to the history of diamond mining and its exploitation of workers.

-Sorry, Beyoncé, but Tiffany’s blood diamonds aren’t a girl’s best friend-

Diamonds, I’m sorry to say, aren’t Beyoncé’s best friend — even if the Grammy Award-winning artist and her new corporate partner, Tiffany and Co., would like to make it so.

On Monday, Tiffany released a new campaign featuring Beyoncé, husband Jay-Z — and the famed 128.54 carat yellow Tiffany diamond, discovered in South Africa in 1877 at the Kimberley Mine by Charles Lewis Tiffany. His iconic company gleefully lauded the fact that Beyoncé is only the fourth woman — and first Black woman — to wear the glamorous necklace; her predecessors include Audrey Hepburn, who wore the stone in publicity photos for her 1961 movie, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.”

Tiffany may be trying to rebrand, but it has badly misjudged the ethos of the moment. Its campaign does not celebrate Black liberation — it elevates a painful symbol of colonialism. It presents an ostentatious display of wealth as a sign of progress in an age when Black Americans possess just 4 percent of the United States’s total household wealth. If Black success is defined by being paid to wear White people’s large colonial diamonds, then we are truly still in the sunken place.

As social media users were quick to point out, there is an ugly story — a tale of white supremacy and colonialism — behind the beautiful stone around Beyoncé’s neck. In South Africa in the 1870s, when the Tiffany diamond was found, British forces launched battles of conquest and harsh discriminatory practices against African tribes and laborers. South Africa’s conflict-ridden mining industry paved the way for apartheid. Tiffany labeled its new advertising campaign “About Love,” but there’s not much to love about that.

Indeed, it’s time that we expand the definition of blood diamonds and conflict minerals. For years, blood diamonds and conflict minerals from Africa were defined narrowly, as resources used by dangerous militias and warlords to finance their operations. But thousands of African lives were lost and communities destroyed in the colonial quest to control the continent’s resources. And today, South Africa’s White minority continues to hold most of the country’s power and wealth.

So, yes, it doesn’t go too far to say: Beyoncé is wearing a blood diamond.

And she, too, bears responsibility for this tone-deaf misstep. Beyoncé and Jay-Z are entertainers and capitalists, not activists. But as stars who wield immense cultural power and enjoy a huge public platform, what they do matters.

Beyoncé's husband has been willing to partner with organizations that have harmed Black people. Jay-Z controversially signed a deal with the NFL, which effectively blackballed Colin Kaepernick for protesting racism, and just recently admitted its practice of “race norming,” deeming that Black players had less cognitive brain function than White or other non-Black athletes for purposes of determining the damages they receive in the concussion litigation.

For those of us with African heritage and familiar with the history of colonialism on the continent, what makes Beyoncé’s decision to wear a symbol of White plunder so jarring is that just last year, in the “Black Is King” visual album, she was proclaiming her love for the continent — its people, aesthetic and music. Then again, she was making that project for us. The Tiffany ad seems clearly aimed at impressing wealthy, Whiter consumers.

Tiffany pledged that as part of its campaign it will give $2 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Beyoncé, for her part, has been outspoken about her love for HBCUs and dedicated her live performance at Coachella, as the first Black woman to ever headline, to the culture and sound of HBCU band music and Greek life. But still, the Tiffany pledge is an awfully small drop in the bucket compared with the needs of under-resourced schools and the profit margins of a mega-corporation like Tiffany’s parent company, LVMH, worth more than $300 billion. And, as a recent Post analysis shows, big corporations find it easier to donate to “safe” causes for Black people such as education, rather than controversial, but crucial issues such as police and criminal justice reform.

And therein lies the fundamental lesson of the era of racial justice capitalism. Black liberation cannot come from the same institutions that engorged themselves for decades on exploited Black labor. Charity will not save us. Only a fundamental reimagining of our society and sincere efforts at reparations will do that.

Companies cannot so easily #BlackGirlMagic their way into sudden social relevancy and supposed corporate responsibility. “I got diamonds on my neck / got diamonds on my records,” Beyoncé sings in her song “Kitty Kat.” Good for her. But the “About Love” campaign makes another line from that song come to mind, “I’m not feelin’ it.” The bad news for the singer and Tiffany: I’m probably not the only one.

- Karen Attiah, Washington Post, 8/26/2021

R26 Lol being tacky and definitely grounds for mocking these imbeciles that think they're God's to be worshiped. Fuck off beyonce fan.

The character of Holly Golightly was not a hooker . Read the novella by Truman Capote that it was based on . There is nothing wrong if the character was a hooker as you state in such a old fart , moronic way but a hooker she was not.

She was a courtesan, which is basically a hooker. Paul also was a hooker, too---a kept boy who probably preferred boys.

Not a hooker. You still don’t get it. You are basically stupid.

R38: We get it, her hookerish ways are offensive to you. I'll bet you once had a "sponsor" or "mentor" or wished you did.

Not at all ,I acknowledge she was being kept by different men and sleeping around but your simple minded description of the character is so idiotic that I felt the need to say something .

I had a benefactor.

We’re all whores, darlin’. There’s a difference between what Holly was, and a streetwalker, but pretty girls (and boys) find a buffet of transactional options.

Beyonce is still a pig at the trough, as we can see.

Nowhere else on the internet can a single thread encompass diamond colonialism and its brutal history, gossip about a current mega-famous, wealthy couple, and an argument on the interpretation of the Holly Golightly's movie persona and whatever her profession was or wasn't.

Datalounge, I can't quit you.

Certain people on DL have a disgusting race obsession. It’s actually kind of scary.

They are criticized for being shallow, self centered and insensitive R26, and rightfully so.

R42, the Beyonce ad references “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. Discussing whores is not out of left field. It’s relevant.

Nothing makes me think romance like Jay-Z’s ugly mug.

Perhaps I should have been clear, r45. I wasn't complaining at r42.

This Cartier commercial is by far the best commercial ever made. how many years ago and I still look it up to watch it once in a while. It is aimed at everyone so it gets to all their targets. This Tiffany commercial may be talked about a little bit then it will die down and be forgotten

Geez, I just watched this with sound and I couldn't believe how bad her interpretation of Moon River was, and I usually like her a lot as a singer. I remember she butchered Sam Cooke's A Change Is Gonna Come some years ago too. You need to have substance to do these songs justice.

Oh come on, Beyonce was not motivated by colonialism or by luxury. She was offered a fat paycheck to make a commercial and she took the fat paycheck as nearly anyone would.

I get the complaints about colonialism etc. on an academic level. Yes, absolutely.

But the online trollkids who try to take down everyone for everything—how do they live their lives? They use Uber, which exploits and abuses its drivers. They use banks that are rooted in capitalist colonialism. There is no escaping it. That doesn't mean to be unaware, but attacking a spokesmodel for taking money from a company because it sells diamonds is mighty hypocritical of most. We all participate with industries and companies that have long histories of exploitation.

Strangely bland. They don’t look glamorous, they look like pathetic consumers. And fuck Beyoncé for wearing fur. She has that in common with her equally bland, unconvincing, try hard BFF, Gwyneth Paltrow.

Side question: WHY do women think long fake eyelashes and long scary plastic nails are attractive? Do straight guys think they are? This has always puzzled me. They make a woman look like a deliberately over the top drag queen…that can’t be the aesthetic they’re going for…

Jay-Z is such an ICONOCLAST in SO MANY WAY-Zs!!

r51 makes accurate observations and I write as the one who cut and pasted the WAPO article above critical of Beyonce and Jay-Z.

I've always been indifferent to Beyonce and Jay-Z as performers.

I perceive them both as more assembly-line, pop marketed, pretty, unusual looking (him), mid-level talents who came off the Aisle 6 shelf of PopStars R Us.

Which makes their marketing might and stardom fascinating to me. It doesn't matter that I don't see what their fans do. The fact is, they have money and clout in pop culture.

Jay isn’t “unusual” looking. he’s just homely.

I think an example of “unusual” looks might be Adam Driver. He looks good in shots, terrible in others. Weird face. Not handsome but striking.

Jay Z always looks plain ugly, no matter the angle. His “appeal” is his wealth.

To add, Jay Z is kind of a male version of SJP. Women love her because she’s ugly but wears (in their minds) glamour outs clothing, is famous. “That could be me!” thinks the average horse-faced frau.

loved that r48,

And if Beyonce and Jay-Z are being called out for enabling diamonds exploitation let's throw Elizabeth Taylor in there, too.

Still, I never stop getting a kick out of this