Yup.  That’s how bandmate Gilby Clarke introduced Lukas Rossi, lead singer of the band Supernova after winning last fall’s reality TV show "Rockstar: Supernova".  You can read Jane Stevenson’s review as written in the Sun here.

All Canadian ignorance aside though, reading Stevenson’s review and some of the other related thoughts on their inaugural show, I can’t help but wonder about a few things with respect to reality TV for the purpose of creating a new celebrity money maker.

• What are the factors that made Kelly Clarkson, Kelly Underwood and Clay Aiken rich and all the other American Idols to flop?  Same with the Canadians.  Some of it could be argued as talent I suppose, but certainly not all of it. 
• How much longer will record labels pump money into artificially generated fan bases?  And is that considered a higher or lower risk compared to signing an indie band based on the size of their email list and the number of records they sold off the stage?
• Do fans that were developed via reality TV have higher, lower, or the same lifetime value to the artist on average compared to fans who actually discovered a band, or actor, or porn star, or any other celebrity through more traditional channels.
• Who makes more money–the producer of the reality TV show, the winning contestant, or that contestant’s interested third parties (agents, labels, movie studios, lawyers, etc.)?  And how does that compare to shares of the pie in a more traditional business arrangement like a major label record deal, independent record deal, movie deal, etc.?  Is this really just the media/entertainment industry fleecing the boy and girl next door?

How would you rather become famous?  The "old fashioned way" (whatever that entails) or the reality TV way?  Which would be more lucrative?  More sustainable?  More fulfilling?