By Aaron Darc
Archive for January, 2010
JENNIFER HAWKINS STARTS PR DAMAGE CONTROL… BUYS KITTEN…
Jan 9th
The Jennifer Hawkins charity stunt fallout continues. Time for some damage control! Let’s take a look at how stunts turn into desperate media strategies of salvation…
Oh, Jennifer. You’re in a little over your head, aren’t you, darling? It all seemed like a good idea at the time – far from being a PR disaster, it must have had the markings of a fool-proof PR coup. Of course, it’s really the job of your agent, Sean Anderson, who made this deal, to see a little further down the track; but the celebrity industry of the big smoke isn’t known for being comprised of those who understand social backlashes of this nature. But what a backlash it’s been. Even when I was writing my original article, only minutes after the first stories started to appear, I had no idea that Jackie Frank’s ridiculous stunt would become national “news”. I even slated it in the “social” category, because I felt labeling it thus would be a little over the top. But now, this is well and truly “news”. Which, when it’s all said and done, is a good thing. Frank claimed to have wanted to start a discussion. She got one. And it’s left the former Miss Universe in a precarious position. “I didn’t do this for PR,” she told Herald Sun, “…just to help a cause.” Needless to say, that’s rubbish – Hawkins is savvy enough, by now, to know what was behind the dealings of her agent and Marie Claire. There was a cause, alright – but it had nothing to do with eating disorders. And the irony? This is all now coming out from fresh publicity manoeuvrings of the most desperate kind – the quick leap to save poor Jen from a potential image spiral. Karma’s a bitch. She probably had better things to do, this week, than be shoved out in front of any reporter who would give her the press coverage to salvage the wreckage. But, hey, at least she managed to squeeze in time to buy a kitten for her parents. More >
CHANGING CHANNELS – LIFE BEYOND COPENHAGEN
Jan 6th
The world is saying no to the question of a green future. Sorry to the Greenies who frequent here – you know that even though I’m not exactly a placard-carrying Greenie, I’m utterly sympathetic to your cause, and good on you – but that, my friends, is the case. Copenhagen was the end, as far as I’m concerned. Firstly, because the world’s leaders basically showed the reality of that somewhat innate human instinct of numero uno that will, when push comes to shove, be the reason why, if our world is going to die, it will. And secondly, because we didn’t even care. Because, truth be told, we’re all numero uno, too. “What about our fathers and sons?” asked John Farnham. What about them? Screw ‘em. That’s what we’ve said, now. That’s how it will be.
JENNIFER HAWKINS SAVES WOMEN OF AUSTRALIA
Jan 4th
Marie Claire editor, Jackie Frank (of Australia’s Top Supermodel “fame”), enlists the help of our most beloved beauty, Jeniffer Hawkins, for a naked shoot that hides PR in the cloak of charity…
If there was ever an example of just how poisoned and delusional the harmful world of women’s lifestyle media is, surely this is it. Last month, Marie Claire, which has always had a knack of dressing up trash as credible infotainment, surveyed their readers and found that only a dismal 12 percent were “happy with their bodies”. Of course, the irony of the women’s lifestyle industry is that this is, far from an alarming figure, a comforting picture of the very anxiety that fuels sales. If women weren’t happy with their bodies, sex lives and wardrobes, they… well…. wouldn’t need to fork out money for cokehead hacks from Potts Point to tell them what they should be looking like. But Marie Claire cares – it wants Australian women to know that even though it’s 200 plus pages of dribble are almost entirely devoted to aspirational material, whereby the ideal is offered as a solution to its readers’ anxieties and doldrums – completely reaffirming every facet of the modern body-image crisis – we’ve really all missed the point, and it is simply trying to do its bit to help its female readers feel better about themselves. Today, it stated its case via a publicity stunt that is neither fresh nor meaningful, but rich in hypocrisy and calculation. It has begun a tiresome “debate” that will all end exactly where they want us to be – finding the image in question in our supermarkets and newsagencies, and putting our money in its pockets. Let’s consider the many good reasons not to. More >