Meghan Asha: Adventures in Fashion. . .

. . . or as I like to call it, “How Many Ways Can A Women Squat To Pee.”

fashion

Here’s the money shot, boys!  Am I good…or am I good!?!  Well, that is, with a little help from Canon.

So Meghan Asha is shilling for Canon, which means now she’s Steven Klien. Hobbies are fun, so I won’t be mean, but Megan Alagna? You look like you’re taking a dump.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Meghan Asha: Adventures in Fashion. . .

  1. totaljing says:

    Meghan’s limitless passion is shillcasting. Wow! We thought she found a new part of herself, discovered her calling, etc. Well, it looks like she did-Braying for Pay! Also, nice two line review inserts through the piece. It must have been difficult to go to CNET and get a pro and con for each camera!!

    • empire says:

      I should have read your comment before. I LOVE CNET!

      • totaljing says:

        If you don’t think she’s shilling than I totally respect your opinion. I think she is because Canon was one of the co-sponsors of the london tech tour she just did. They weren’t paid for that tour but they all got products to use on the tour AND KEEP in exchange. All of them had a uniform disclosure about this at the time.

        Meghan also has a long history, dating mostly back to the Lodon trip, of Canon “reviews.” Check them out here http://meghan.nonsociety.com/index.php?search=canon

    • wth? says:

      How do you know? Or just an educated guess? Did they disclose bray for pay on this on tmi? Last time (or recently) they said they always disclose?

      • totaljing says:

        Um, because she’s taking photos with free canon cameras….

        That’s called shilling….Am I missing something?

      • wth? says:

        I meant did she disclose they were free, or are we assuming (not a wild assumption, or anything obviously)

      • flatface says:

        there’s a canon rebel ad right alongside her weird psychadelic self-portrait

      • i don’t think she has ever disclosed sponsorship from canon, in fact in this post (http://meghan.nonsociety.com/lifecast/49048313–) she says she does not receive anything from canon. however it seems unlikely that she would own 3+ high-end canon cameras bought with her own money.

      • totaljing says:

        She didn’t disclose in the video. She said “I have all these Canon Cameras.” But Meghan and Julia have both lifecasted that Canon sent them free cameras to try out and use for various conferences. Meghan brought some of the cameras to London on the Bray for pay london trip.

      • i don’t think she has ever disclosed sponsorship from canon, in fact in this post (http://meghan.nonsociety.com/lifecast/49048313–) she says she does not receive anything from canon. however it seems unlikely that she would own 3+ high-end canon cameras bought with her own money.
        ps. she has received at least one free thing from canon: a ticket to a tennis match.

      • flatface says:

        the ad!
        canon bought an ad!
        and guess what? Moneyshot loves their product!
        Case closed.

      • link? and aren’t those google ads… has nothing to do with canon, they are just contextual based on words (brand names) in blog posts.

      • flatface says:

        fc,
        you’re probably right. i stand corrected

      • wth? says:

        “The ad!
        canon bought an ad!
        and guess what? Moneyshot loves their product!
        Case closed.”

        Maybe I’m naive but I don’t get it. What is their resistance to diclosure and transparency?

        Do they think this makes them somehow more effective at schilling? I am turned off of every brand they associate themselvles with. It makes me think the companies are as unscrupulous as these women are. Were they to actually do things in an honest, open way, I still wouldn’t care for them personally but at least I could respect their honesty and integrity.

        Honestly I don’t get what the problem is, why can’t they just disclose if they have sponsor or receive something for free that they review? They don’t see how sketchy and how unprofessional they constantly come across?

        If they got the cameras for free and didn’t disclos it, then they just blatantly lied in the recent tmi (in the comments I think for the smart car episode) when they said they always disclose any sponsorships etc about the topics they cover. Is that even legal for a business to say that and not do it? As I said maybe I’m just naive…

        I’d still not like them but I’d respect that at least an

      • totaljing says:

        Oops…posted this in wrong area:

        If you don’t think she’s shilling than I totally respect your opinion. I think she is because Canon was one of the co-sponsors of the london tech tour she just did. They weren’t paid for that tour but they all got products to use on the tour AND KEEP in exchange. All of them had a uniform disclosure about this at the time.

        Meghan also has a long history, dating mostly back to the Lodon trip, of Canon “reviews.” Check them out here http://meghan.nonsociety.com/index.php?search=canon

      • wth? says:

        OK just saw the clarification about the ad being a Google ad, But that doesn’t change the disclosure issue if the cameras really were given to them by Canon. And please ignore the floating phrase at the end of my last comment. I’m really tired today and not proofreading very well.

        I’ve never wanted to email them before but for once I actually feel like emailing Meghan (I’m not going to though) and asking if they have received these cameras and/or other free gifts from canon and if they have why it wasn’t disclosed in the tmi episode. And I really hesitate to even call it an episide. I thought tmi was weak before but now it’s more like a home video than a “show” in my opinion

      • i think it’s highly unlikely there is not shilling involved. yep, they got a lot of gadgets free from the traveling geeks trip. at the very least, i’m sure meghan doesn’t personally own all those cameras; they may be “business expenses/tools”. and she has written a LOT of canon “reviews”.

        mary, julia, and meghan are resistant to disclosure, i believe, because they built their business model around the idea of “trusted friends” who give each other recommendations, etc. (they’ve talked about this in many videos, and keep going back to the fact that their worth to a brand is that they are perceived as “friends” to the audience). and friends shouldn’t have to disclose, right? who wants nasty ethical/technical/legalese when we’re among friends?

      • wth? says:

        No Total Jing I think you misunderstand me. I’m guessng it most likey IS schilling. I was initially trying to clarify if you knew for sure/they had actually disclosed for once or if you were just making an educated assumption.

        Now I’m just saying what is their deal with not disclosing? What’s the resistance? Why not just offer up a sentence saying Canon graciously provided these cameras as part of such and such trip or whatever the deal is?

        I won’t accuse them of schilling for certain in this case since I can’t KNOW for sure, but I’m not doubting it. I’m just questioning why the hell they can’t just disclose for God’s sake, if not in this case then certainly many others. I don’t understand being that dishonest especially since they just said on tmi that they do disclose on that show. Why even bother saying that stuff if they know they won’t ever do it?

        And if they see nothing wrong with this businss model of theirs then why are they reticent about being open about what they’re doing, espeically since it’s so sketchy and unethical not to? Besides it makes them look unthrustworthy and deceptive, how that that serve their business interests? But I guess as long as free things and money keep coming in they don’t care how it makes them look?

      • wth? says:

        fuck camping,

        I can see that theory being what they’re thinking. But if that’s the case why even bother saying you will disclose then not do it. It makes no sense to me but maybe expecting them to make sense is expecting too much.

        Anyway too bad all their little “trusted friends” nondisclosure appraoch does, IMO at least, is have the opposite effect, making them look completely untrusthworthy, dishonest and deceptive, and like no friends I’d ever want to have.

      • totaljing says:

        WTF? Got it! I was confused. Understood.

        Meghan, in my observations, NEVER discloses. When she went on the London trip, she never made the disclosure about tech equiptment while the other blogger who attended all had a disclosure. She never discloses her relationship to Blue Print and Jet Blue. She was on one of the first Jet Blue trips to LAX and she took her sister along. This was a freebie/shill trip, with hotel included, from Jet Blue. Other NYC bloggers, and tech people, some at Gawker, went on the trip also. Meghan NEVER disclosed and talked up the Jet Blue trip the entire time.

      • flatface says:

        TJ,
        I believe you mean “moneyshot” never discloses.
        that is all

  2. i quite like the shots of kate and liz. what i don’t like is meghan recycling everything from the tmi episode as posts on her shillcast. plus, she has no idea how to review a camera. “i like it”, “it’s cute”, or “it takes nice pictures” do not a review make. a $700 camera is not recessionista friendly.

    but i’m just jealous because my life isn’t one big photoshoot.

    • totaljing says:

      Shots of Kate were really good, actually. amazing that she can fit that fatty into a single frame!

  3. Delineated Closet says:

    What in the squat is this??????? I actually like the other photos, but this is just bad.

  4. empire says:

    a repost but wth????

    Kate’s trying to climb in the window because she’s grounded and she’s sneaking in? She doesn’t look a day over 25.

    • zandra says:

      how old is kate? to me she looks like an 18 year old… a really morbidly obese, fatty-fatty-boomba, porkchop protege 18 yr old.

  5. shamoolia says:

    Little girls playing dress up. YAWN. And what am I supposed to learn or take away from three bulleted pros and cons for each camera? I could learn 100X more on friggin’ Amazon.

    Does anyone think that their TMI contract is ending soon? They really seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for topics and ideas and after that flogging they took on the livecast, it seems like their higher ups would know that they only audience they have exists to make fun of them. And weren’t they supposed to do another monthly taping this week? It’s been crickets as far as them begging for ideas, too.

  6. empire says:

    I use cnet for reviews.

  7. partypants says:

    So she’s doing the ads for American Apparel Couture?

  8. Sausage Snappers says:

    Why are all of the models CUT IN HALF. And wtf with Producer Meghan. NO TORSO. UGH JUST AWFUL.

  9. shamoolia says:

    Uh… does Meghan know what “money shot” means?

    • web20morons says:

      Isn’t that when Daddy Parikh does his monthly wire transfer?

    • partypants says:

      Yes. It means a post where she says Canon and they send her money.

      • i’m sure canon is thrilled to be in the same sentence as “money shot”… “this money shot brought to you by canon. paper towels courtesy of brawny.” i could go on all day with the brands…

        (i think meghan think “money shot” = crotch shot?)

      • juliaspublicist says:

        She says “Here’s the money shot, boys” which means that she wants men to feverishly masturbate over her friends and her sister.

    • Good Thoughts says:

      Hee–I was thinking the same thing. I very much doubt that she knows where “money shot” derives from. She often seems to use words and phrases that she overhears around and either spells them wrong or uses them incorrectly, or both.

    • for serious??? says:

      obviously not and it comes as no surprise….

    • Jacy says:

      I am thinking not. I am surprised — she’s usually so bright.

    • flatface says:

      megs,
      Sweetheart? Babygirl? Sit down a second. There’s something you should know.

      I don’t know a nice way to say this. So I’m just gonna say it. You’re old enough. And if you’re a big enough girl to post your thoughts and feelings and dress-up projects on the internet, well, then you’re old enough to hear painful news.

      A “money shot” is the climactic shot in a pornographic movie. It is when the camera goes close up on the man’s erect penis. And he ejaculates. He can ejaculate on his partner’s face or belly or ass. Wherever. But the “money shot” is him ejaculating. The thinking being that a porn movie isn’t worth what the customer pays for it unless the actor “completes” the act.

      Sorry. I know that was hard to hear. So as you can see a corporate sponsor probably doesn’t want to be associated with porn. Especilly when the pictures in said project are seemingly designed to be provocaive shots of your girlfriends. On the bright side, Canon excutives are probably like everyone else – and they don’t read your “blog”. So maybe they won’t drop you like a weird, childish, hot potatoe.

      And on a personal level, not knowing what a money shot is makes you look, well, dumb. And sheltered. And ditzy.

      In the future, when you’re tempted to use words and phrases that you heard somewhere – like at the grown-ups’ table, or on “cable tv” – but that you don’t really understand, you should run the post by someone. Someone smarter. Before you publish it.

      Or, you know, don’t post it online. Just post it in your little pink diary. Or on the beauticul imaginary website inside that empty head of yours.

      You’ll thank me someday for this.

  10. Jacy says:

    I will give her credit for one thing — Jackles is not in any of them. And that probably pissed the Queen of the Fauxto Shoot off.

    • flatface says:

      Is it me? Or did Ms. Asha just give herself a new name that tops meghanise?

      Is Meghan Asha now “Money Shot’ Asha?

      Oh my god…

  11. to quote julia’s publicist, fuck me sideways
    now it says “Pièce de résistance” under that picture… no money shot in cite/sight/site.

    • wth? says:

      So not only does JA apparently follow here in real time but MoneyShot Asha does as well?

      • interns… or the non-existent google alert.

      • wth? says:

        They should thank rbns for our free proofreading and editorial services. I think every creative spelling and other error they’ve corrected has been from posts and comments pointing them out here. You’re welcome, NS, and it wouldn’t kill you to thank your hardworking edit staff every once in a while Miss Money Shot!

      • melissa0sue00rbns says:

        fuck thanking us, wth?, they should fucking PAY us.

  12. Fauxga Party! says:

    HAHAHA you guys, she changed it to “pièce de résistance.” Who knew Meghanaise even knew how to find accents?

  13. flatface says:

    ah, cleaning up after the money shot. Isn’t that what their army of unpaid interns is for?

  14. shamoolia says:

    Well shit. I always knew Julia read here and I always assumed Meghan was functionally illiterate and couldn’t read here, but I guess she’s proven us wrong.

    HI MEGHAN!! THE HAIRY TIMES ARE FAMILIAL!!

  15. for serious??? says:

    The breakout star of The September Issue is Grace Coddington, you say?

    Really, Meglet?

    Where on earth did you hear THAT? Maybe everywhere:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=breakout+star+grace+coddington&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Also, comparing yourself to Anna Wintour? Very funny.

    • shamoolia says:

      And doing one test shoot and thinking that she’s found her “calling” as a photographer because she took a couple of decent shots with a Canon Rebel (not that hard)?

      BITCH PLEASE.

  16. Anna says:

    Oh, noooooo…. this is embarassing. I almost (but not really) feel sad for Megan.

  17. empire says:

    Her reviews of the cameras are not so comprehensive. Read this from another reviewer about the Powershot 200x : http://www.productwiki.com/canon-powershot-sx200-is/

    Pros:

    12x optical zoom
    +2agreedisagree

    records video in 720p
    +2agreedisagree

    available in black, blue or red
    +2agreedisagree

    classic aesthetic
    +2agreedisagree

    accepts a wide variety of affordable, capacious storage (SD, SDHC, MMC, MMCplus, HC MMCplus)
    +2agreedisagree

    Provides Manual as well as auto/scene modes (The main competition, Panasonic TZ5/6/7 only provide automatic settings I believe)
    +1agreedisagree

    3 inch LCD for easy viewing

    Cons:
    Slow continuous shooting mode (less than 1 frame per second)
    +2agreedisagree

    Mono sound recording
    +1agreedisagree

    No optical zoom while recording video
    +1agreedisagree

    Popup flash always pops up even if flash is off

    • flatface says:

      weird.
      it’s almost as if the role of nonsociety is unneccesary. Hmmm. Strange.

      Because I thouht what the world needed was more superfcial coverage of fashion and food. And with money shot’s camera project i was blown away: she’s done it! I mean, we all know there are a lot of electronic products out there. But what if someone could tell me which ones were awesome, and which ones were merely great, before I bought them? What if someone could “review” those products the way critics do with movies and albums?

      And just to take it a step further: wouldn’t it be perfect if the person “reviewing” those products was actually getting paid – or angling to get paid – by the makers of those very same products? It’s like a perfect storm! And like all genius innovations it seems so obvious in hindsight. Why didn’t someone think of this before?!

      But hold it. Now you’re telling me other people have begun doing product reviews before Moneyshot? What are the chances? It’s like having two Leonardo Davinci’s working seperatley and each coming up with their own Mona Lisa. Unbeknownst to one another!

      Ceazy! Crazy world!

      • empire says:

        I have this great idea about men on the moon but I am afraid people are going to think I am crazy.

      • flatface says:

        I like to go to the bar sometimes and have an ice cold beer. And the other day, I was thinking: Geez, I love this beer. But why do I always have to drink it here. Imagine if I could have a cold beer wherever I wanted. At home. At my friends’ houses. Wherever.

        Of course it would never work, I thought. Carrying around a beer would be imparactical. It would spill out of the glass and stuff.

        But! Then I thoought: is there a way to put a tiny lid – I called it a “cap” – on a bottle of my favorite beer? And then I got nuts: what if I culd carry more than one of them all in the same “pack”? Like seven of them?

      • Jacy says:

        Flatface, this was one of your classics.

      • pelt tip snarker says:

        marriage is in order, flatface. LOVE. (x 2!)

  18. money shot asha (love the name) is a really creepy photog.
    http://meghan.nonsociety.com/lifecast/36214485

  19. shamoolia says:

    Did Julia sell out her twitter background to advertisers??

    http://twitter.com/juliaallison

  20. gawker is taking tips from the money shot school of grammar:
    “has Matthew Barney has left his hipster elf wife Björk for sometimes-lesbian painter Elizabeth Peyton?”

    http://gawker.com/5352881/have-bjork-and-matthew-barney-split-up

  21. Bunsy says:

    She’s no Meisel.

  22. Yip says:

    It’s so… been done a million times, everywhere. Megan taking a cue from J.A., creating a fake last name to *cough* hide what a loser she has been at age 30, and copying everything, then parading it as her “work.” Klassy!

Comments are closed.