It seems as though no one can resist the temptation of the Britney Spears-bashing bandwagon: not even the most-revered financial newspaper in the world. Attacks from the tabloids and the likes of Perez Hilton have been relentless for years, but The Wall Street Journal's review (subscription required) of her new album is fairly scathing. Here are some of the high (low?) points:

A phalanx of producers and backing vocalists exert more of an influence on a disc that's not quite a mess but only occasionally rises above a muddle... as a vocalist, Ms. Spears sounds weary, snide and at times disconnected. On some songs, her voice seems grafted to the material as if an afterthought... At the bottom register, her voice is a throaty bleat... With "Blackout," Ms. Spears fails to deliver a recording that will re-establish her as a dominant pop star rather than a 25-year-old woman who seems bent on self-destruction...

The Journal doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about Spears, and the good things it does say about the album refer mainly to the production and background vocalists.

But all of this raises an interesting question: why is The Wall Street Journal reviewing a Britney Spears album anyway? Is that really her demographic? With the exception of Alan Greenspan, how man Journal readers will even consider buying her new album?

But then again, the financial press has a well-deserved reputation for calling stock sells precisely at their bottoms. So perhaps Britney's career is ready to rebound.

It's been three weeks since our Money Face-Off feature ran here at BloggingStocks and on AOL, offering you the opportunity to share who you though had the financial edge in a series of twenty head-to-head match-ups. So I thought I'd take another look and see how things have worked out.

It's hard to pick just one big winner. In terms of the largest lead over a rival, Ivanka Trump easily beats Paris Hilton with 89% of the vote. Others holding big leads over their opponents include Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, and Rupert Murdoch.

In terms of receiving the most votes, the clear leader is the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up, with just short of 150,000 votes. Other big vote getters were Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, Rudy Giuliani vs. Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs. In terms of the liveliest discussions in the comments, the winners are Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart, Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, and Bono vs. Angelina Jolie. Also check out the comments for the J.K. Rowling vs. J.R.R Tolkien, Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, and Ivanka Trump vs. Paris Hilton posts.

As for the face-off posts here that got the most attention, the clear winner is Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, with more than 13,000 hits. Lindsay Lohan vs. Britney Spears and Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart also attracted lots of readers.

Results for all the face-offs follow below, but keep in mind that the voting is still open. It's not too late to add your vote or let us know what you think.

At last! Evidence that it actually is possible to be such a hot mess that no one cares about you anymore! At least, according to Forbes' new list of the celebrities whose faces sell the most tabloids. Number 1 on the list this year was Jennifer Aniston, the former Friends star, whose also found success on the big-screen.

But Britney. Oh, poor little Britney Spears. According to Forbes:

The biggest disappointment at the newsstand? Yep, it's Britney Spears. Ironically, she landed 18 single covers during the six-month period, which also makes her the most popular cover-subject choice. With her face on the cover, glossies collectively sold some 600,000 issues below average, placing her last among cover subjects when it comes to sales. Also working against the former pop tart: an abnormally low appeal score of 3. In fact, the only celebrity faring worse was celebutante Paris Hilton, who scored a 2.

Apparently people just take for granted that Britney's personal life is a train wreck -- to say nothing of her career, whose current state was pretty much summed up by her possibly-drunken VMA performance. It's not even worth following anymore, because every new twist and turn is just unneeded confirmation of something we already know: Britney Spears is messed up.

It's been a week since our Money Face-Off posts ran here on BloggingStocks, and less than that since the Money Face-Offs were featured on the AOL welcome page, and the response has been terrific. Many of the face-off polls have had more than 50,000 votes, a couple of them approaching 100,000.

The biggest response came to the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up. So far, about 75 percent of respondents feel that Oprah is the more successful media magnate. Not that much surprise there, as Oprah's fans are legion. Interestingly, though, of the twenty-some comments the post has received, most of them are pro-Martha.

Another clear leader is Bill Gates over rival Steve Jobs. About three quarters of poll votes have gone his way, despite all the buzz recently about Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and the popularity of its products. Maybe readers are just happy that Gates is stepping down. Let us know what you think.

Alan Greenspan seems to be everywhere these days, promoting his new book, including Comedy Central's The Daily Show and NPR's Fresh Air. In our match-up of the current and former Fed chairs, Ben Bernanke vs. Alan Greenspan, more than 70 percent of respondents have voted for Greenspan. Comments to the post are mixed, but seem to me to focus on Greenspan, whether pro or con.

Britney Spears, it turns out, won't be posing for Playboy -- she's reconsidering the idea with her rather imperfect post-baby body, and according to the National Ledger, she's now only worth $400,000 to Hugh Hefner. She won't take less than seven figures (note she was offered $2 million several years ago). Even with her clothes on, however, everyone's favorite has-been is still making cash over the barrelhead.

Nope, it won't go into her kids' college fund; she's not making the money. Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), and just about every company that covers the entertainment industry is making money just for the idea. It may have been a mistake for Vanessa Hudgens to let a nude photo of herself bounce around the internet, but it's hardly a blow to Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), for whom she stars in movie after movie after teen musical movie. In fact, she's the biggest search term on the internet today.

It's not about sex or nudity or retouched photos: it's about Googling for them. Your two- and three-word search phrases (even the misspelled ones) may not take you to NSFW web sites. But they're working overtime for the companies who serve up the content. If you're reading this post right now? You're making money for Time Warner, just looking at those ads. The amazing fact about media: sex sells, even when no one's having any.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

Did you ever wonder what it would be like to slip into the world of the mega-famous? Right now I'm going to give you a chance to think about that. Imagine that you get to spend your days rubbing elbows with Hollywood's A-list elite. Now here's the angle, imagine that circumstances have caused you to be put in a serious dilemma, and you are now required to choose a female pop-star business partner. You have been given only two choices, either Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan. The choice is yours and there are multimillions of dollars now riding on your decision.

For those of you who missed it, I envy you. After watching MTV's Video Music Awards last night, my friend summed it up well: "OMG, Britney sucked HXC!" That's pretty much all there is to be said. Britney looked out shape, bored, arguably intoxicated, and just... messy. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch it here.

Given that Britney was the most exciting thing from this year's VMA's (not including Sarah Silverman's skewering of the former pop princess), I can only imagine what the Nielsen chart for the awards looked like. High ratings when Britney began her performance followed by a sharp drop-off as people with children and stomachs changed the channel, and then an Enron-like descent after she was done.

This may be a blessing, though, for Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA), parent of MTV, because people finally are talking about the VMAs which lost thier relevance sometime during the Clinton Administration.

But the nice thing about watching Britney self-destruct is that she's not a major talent. It's not like Billie Holiday, or even Amy Winehouse, where we can watch the dysfunctional descent and say: "What a shame. So much talent and she's throwing it all away". No. With Britney, all we can do is laugh, and maybe feel a little bit sorry for her children... and any other children who happened to be watching.

It's hard to imagine why Britney even bothered: She was stumbling around on stage and barely danced at all. Did she really think the headlines would be anything other than what they were? Here's a sampling:

Spears bombs...

Spears' MTV comeback a big letdown

Spears disappoints in MTV comeback.

Britney Spears disaster: a dead career bounce

And of course Perez Hilton, who put it this way:

So it may finally be time to declare Britney's career completely over. I would say Novastar Financial (NYSE: NFI) is a better bet here.

Since relocating to New York about a year ago, one of the more surprising realities I can't get over is the sheer ubiquity of celebrities -- they're simply everywhere! Walk through any subway train -- from an Inwood-bound A train to a Z train headed for JFK -- and you'll find those stars and starlets shining down on you. Lindsay! Britney! Paris! Lindsay! Brangelina! TomKat! Lindsay! All gloss and glory, beaming at you from the pages of the ever-present In Touch Weekly.

Power lunchers, design majors, single moms, goth queens -- even your own friends and families -- they're all reading these magazines. And don't think it's just women -- fellas are just more sly about it, brandishing blurbs about A-Rod's latest effort while sneaking peeks at Page Six.

Hey, I'm not making this up -- the Audit Bureau of Circulations confirms this celebrity fetish. Figures released yesterday show the gossip glossies are flying off the checkout stands.

OK! Weekly, put out by Britain's private Northern & Shell -- which also publishes some of London's sauciest fishwraps -- saw circulation bound 54% higher during the first half of the year, selling 809,000 copies per issue. Also reporting jumps in circulation were US Weekly (did you know it was founded by The New York Times (NYSE: NYT)? Thanks, Wikipedia!), In Touch Weekly and Life&Style, the latter two both owned by Germany's Bauer Publishing, Europe's largest private publisher. Alas, BloggingStocks' distant Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) relative, People, slipped 2%, though it remains proudly at the top of the heap, with more than 3.7 million copies of each issue sold.

Time, another corporate cousin, saw its genre-leading circulation drop by 700,000 -- apparently owing to its excision of promotional tie-ins that weren't pulling their weight and a redirection away from waiting room subscriptions. Circulation for newsweekly challengers and financial magazines stood pat, with the curious exception of the enigmatic London weekly, The Economist, which posted a 15.5% jump!

So what's on the uptick? Stoic, faceless financial analysis and paparazzi pap! Wrap your head around that.

Magazine sales in general held steady year over year, which is more than the Audit Bureau can say for the newspaper industry, unfortunately. Predictably, among the few major papers to post higher sales in the most recent newspapers report were the tabloid New York Daily News and its rival, The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp (NYSE: NWS), the new guardian of The Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps fearing Jessica Simpson pinups in Rupert's new plaything (Item!), fans of the Journal's gravitas are flocking to The Economist's stuffy pastures.

With March Madness on the books and the World Series a long way away, the world's gamblers need another race to follow. With Prince William newly single, the odds-makers are placing stakes on who England's most eligible bachelor might be courting next.

On the list, with fairly generous odds of 20-1, is reportedly rehabilitated pop starlet Britney Spears, who was rumored to have engaged in email flirtation with Prince William five years ago. Other potential suitors for William (and therefore possible heirs to the throne of England -- how frightening) include Paris Hilton, with 14-1 odds (!), and Heather Mills (formerly Heather Mills McCartney), who has proven talented at earning the love of beloved Englishmen and then dragging their names and fortunes through the muck.

I'm not a gambling woman by nature, but I must say these odds are not ones I'd take. I just can't conceive of the chances being all that good for a Britney/William union (or a Paris/William match-up, for that matter). By means of comparison, bookmakers have set odds of 30 to 1 on the Cincinnati Reds winning the World Series (300 to 1 for the Washington Nationals), and there are certainly fewer teams in Major League Baseball than there are eligible young women interested in Prince William's hand.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and watch out for more Battle of the Brands posts.

Some people drink Pepsi, some people drink Coke,
The wacky morning DJ says democracy's a joke.
-- Cake, Comfort Eagle

Unless you are a rare RC Cola drinker, your carbonated beverage decision in the supermarket comes down to the two heavyweights: the flagship products from the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO) and PepsiCo Inc (NYSE: PEP). But the battle between these brands spans much further than the supermarket shelves. From which brand restaurants stock, to what countries each operates in, this rivalry is all-encompassing and global. But instead of a list of countries or restaurant chains, lets take a deeper look at the actual products.

Cola and Beyond

We don't have space to list, nor would you have time to read, every different variant of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which would force me to include failed ideas such as Crystal Pepsi. Suffice it to say, you won't find many original ideas here, and when a successful idea comes from either company, an imitator just as quickly appears from the other. Coke/Pepsi, Diet Coke/Diet Pepsi, Cherry Coke/Wild Cherry Pepsi, Coke with Lime/Pepsi Lime, Coke Zero/Pepsi One, Coca-Cola Blak/Pepsi Cappuccino. Had enough yet? Because that was just a list of comparable colas. Both companies also make lemon-lime sodas, orange sodas, and other similar carbonated and noncarbonated beverages. So then what differentiates them? Certainly not their product arsenal, but taste and marketing.

Apparently the latest rung on Britney Spears' downward spiral of destruction is flavored with Merchandise 7x. According to an "insider" at the erstwhile pop princess' rehabilitation center, Britney is coping with her myriad of issues by gulping down 24 cans of Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) per day. One can only imagine what effect the syrupy goodness and caffeine (delicious in moderation, but a can an hour? inarguably excessive) is having on poor Brit, who is already reportedly battling postpartum depression, addictions, and general humiliation and shame.

Of course I immediately thought of Spears' infectious "Joy of Pepsi" commercials (which I downloaded in MP3 form six years ago, thank you very much). I wonder if PepsiCo (NYSE:PEP) views this new development as a betrayal, or a slight relief?

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

If we didn't need reminding, this morning's news from China and Afghanistan re-alerts us to how sudden turbulence from afar can smack financial markets.

The Shanghai Composite Index tumbled 8.8% today on fears of new Chinese government austerity measures. And other Asian markets slumped in harmony. Meanwhile, the Dow opened down 134 points and the NASDAQ fell 45.

But that's not all. This morning also featured a failed assassination attempt on Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan. And US saber rattling against Iran raises the possibility that the price of oil could hit $125 a barrel in the event of a US air strike on Iran. The reason is that Iran could blockade the 20-mile wide Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world's oil exports must flow in order to reach the market.

Meanwhile a weak durable goods orders report is reinforcing fears stoked by former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that a recession is in the cards for the US economy. With Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) announcing this morning that it will tighten its subprime mortgage standards, the hissing sound of a deflating housing bubble just ramped up its decibel level.

No wonder Americans would rather bury their heads in news of Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. And for frightened investors, the best refuge may be money market funds and gold.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Fannie Mae.

This WSJ article, which forecasts how cheap chic will stay chic and trendy, is definitely good news for savvy and fashion conscious consumers, like me.

Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) revolutionized its discount warehouse image with a trendy advertising campaign, and more importantly, added the Isaac Mizrahi line of affordable designer apparel for women, sold exclusively at Target stores. And so the love affair began ...

Now Vera Wang will be adding her own line of thrifty chic to the Kohl's Corp. (NYSE:KSS) stores, and Gwen Stefani will be expanding her L.A.M.B. line to include fragrances to be sold by Coty Inc.

Vera Wang, who currently is unparalleled when it comes to wedding-gown lines, will be offering her chic dress designs for Kohl's customers at a mere $69. I cannot imagine this line line not selling, and well at that. Gwen Stefani, who is intensely popular with tweens, teenagers, and hipsters, has had a Midas touch effect on everything from pop music to culture and clothes. Her fragrance will surely outdo the sales of Britney Spears' "Curious" or Danielle Steel's "Danielle," both trademark Elizabeth Arden (NASDAQ:RDEN) products.

This post is written as part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst 2006. If you think that Britney Spears makes too much money, cast your vote.

Poor Britney Spears, picked on for her parenting gaffes and apparent lack of social graces. But award-winning pop singer and dancer Spears has sold more than 70 million albums worldwide, making her one of the most successful female artists ever.

Born in Mississippi, she rose to prominence as a member of the New Mickey Mouse Club, such hit songs as "Oops, I Did It Again," and for her very successful Pepsi commercials, which reportedly earned her more than $7 million. In 2003 Forbes called her the most powerful celebrity in the world. Antics such as appearing nude on magazine covers, appearing seemingly nude in public performances, and her infamous kiss with Madonna during the 2005 MTV Music Video Awards have brought her criticism from the parents of her legions of preteen fans, many of whom look to her as a role model; Spears has denied being a role model.

In early 2004 she was very briefly married to a childhood friend, and then married dancer Kevin Federline later that year. Spears and Federline had two children before Spears filed for divorce in late 2006. Despite her break to have a family, the Britney Spears brand continued to prosper, with a highly popular perfume, Curious, released in 2004, which reportedly made about $100 million. A Britney Spears best-of album was also released in 2004, and a comeback album is reportedly planned for release in 2007.

The Most Overpaid Celebrity is shaping up to be the monster category in the Money Best & Worst of 2006, with almost 30,000 votes so far. Category leader Paris Hilton has garnered nearly 14,000 herself (more than any other nominee in any category), easily outstripping her recent party pal, Britney "Going Commando" Spears, at the bottom of the category with only about 2,200 votes.

Besides everyone's favorite pop tart, there are other Best & Worst nominees crying out for your help. How can Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) founder Bill "I Wish I Weren't the Richest" Gates be in a distant fourth place as the Tycoon You'd Send to the Poor House with less than 250 votes? Only Warren Buffett's Signature specs have fewer votes than that. And how about Michael "Flaming Batteries" Dell of Dell Inc. (NASDAQ:DELL) trailing in the Fall from Grace category with 500 votes, Overused Buzzword "Web 2.0" with 400+ votes, or Krispy Kreme (NYSE:KKD) bringing up the rear as the Stock We're Rooting For with only 1,000 votes? Where are you, doughnut lovers?

You can, of course, support these and other Best & Worst underdogs by casting your vote. Remember, voting ends Christmas Eve. Results will be posted December 28.

And watch for profiles of nominees to in the Dumbest Business Decision and Money Story of the Year categories, coming soon.