Forbes has released its annual list of the 100 most powerful celebrities. See Forbes’ website for a full portal that includes profiles of some of the celebrities and the full rankings (including rankings on subcategories). Topping the list is Oprah followed by Beyonce and James Cameron.

Buried at the bottom of the story is the methodology by which Forbes developed its list (the methodology is mentioned in this reposted story at Yahoo):

The Celebrity 100 is a measure of power based on money and fame. Earnings estimates, which include income from films, television shows, endorsements, books, and other entertainment ventures, are calculated between June 2009 and June 2010. Figures were rounded off where appropriate. Additional sources include Billboard, Pollstar, Adams Media Research, The Nielsen Company, and SNL Kagan. Fame is calculated using web hits on Google, Blog Search, TV/radio mentions on LexisNexis, overall press mentions on Factiva, and the number of times a celebrity’s image appeared on the cover of 25 consumer magazines. Social rank is calculated using metrics like Facebook friends and fans as well as Twitter followers.

I would be very interested in knowing the weights applied to each of these measures and broader categories (such as social rank). Take Lady Gaga for example: she is new to the list this year, does not have the media empires like some of the others on the list (Oprah’s big money advantage comes from an involvement in a multitude of media outlets), and yet benefits from a #1 ranking in the social rankings.

After a quick glance, money appears most important here. Perhaps having money prompts more media (of all kinds) mentions. Or perhaps the media mentions help build the money which then leads to a reinforcing cycle. Regardless, just having money may be a sign that you are a true celebrity. We as Americans may like our celebrities because they host a TV show or can do amazing things with a golf ball or can direct exciting movies, but just having money seems pretty interesting in itself.