This is all now Chaos PR. What was pro-active has now become reactive, after their brilliant ad backfired and left her image, far from what it was originally envisioned as, in jeopardy. The calls have been made to hungry journalists, more than happy to facilitate this publicity (it's now selling papers, as well as Marie Claire, of course), and Hawkins has been marched out to repair the dent and protect the product - herself.

 

"I don't see myself as a postergirl for body image," she declared. Funny, because I keep seeing the poster for this stunt everywhere, and it is, after all, self-declared as just that. And are you not also telling us that the only reason you did this was for "a cause"? Weren't they looking for a postergirl for body image? Isn't that, after all, the cause? And weren't you happy enough to be it? What did you see yourself as, then, if not a postergirl for body image, in this situation? If you're not the right postergirl for this cause - and you're not - why, then, didn't you suggest maybe... you know... someone else who was better equipped? Too good a PR op to pass up, perhaps?

 

Jen then goes on to blame the evil media for "concocting" the controversy that really shouldn't even be a controversy. But it's the nature of the evil media that publicity stunts like this thrive on and are entirely based on (without a "story" being embedded in the campaign, it has no value); for a manufactured publicity stunt to accuse the journalists of manufacturing publicity is well and truly calling the kettle black. Mind you, this is an incredibly standard PR response (for those here that followed my dissection of Big Brother, we'll remember it was a tactic that show was very fond of); but what I think is often overlooked is that what this response is really addressing is not simply the way in which journalists have taken the stunt on a different direction than it was intended to, but that the public - and other figures in media and entertainment - have not responded with the reaction that was all part of Frank and her team's calculations. They fucked up - they wanted the controversy, but not in the way they got it. Tough. You're going to play the controversy card, then don't cry foul when your manipulations are failures because people can see through them - something that, needless to say, the evil media are more than happy to sell their papers with. That's the game these people play. If they had managed to pull it off, then media would have been more than happy to have been their best friends in all this, and would have happily promoted the cover in the way they wanted them to. The evil journalists didn't so much as "manufacture" here, but "exploit potential". The potential was there, it erupted, and, sure, the media ran with it. Go figure. I'm not saying that's without its own problems (far from it). But it's a bit much to blame them, just because they jumped on a very logical reaction within a lot of the pubic that, hello, something was not right here.

 

Certainly, it was their nature to exploit that led them to hunt for anything that could add to it. They knew what they were doing, for example, when they called Myer to see what their comment was. By this stage, it was all a game, from all sides of media - everyone desperately clinging to their products: Marie Claire was riding the attention (they're going to fare better from this than Hawkins will - ten bucks says they're selling that magazine like no tomorrow); Hawkins was protecting her now tarnished public image; the papers were realising the topic was emotive and profitable, creating any angle and interview opportunity they could; Bianca Dye was - let's not be too one-sided to the point of naivety, here - doing pretty well out of it, even if she does have more substance, considering her initial shoot that was, let's face it, legitimately positioned; The Butterfly Foundation was defending its move the best it could (which was abysmal - but they're in deeper over their heads than anyone in this whole thing, because they're really lambs in a den of lions here); and now, Myer were now needing to work out how best to control its stakes in this, considering it is the biggest dealer with Brand Hawkins (they pay her a million a year to translate the public affection for her into affection for the Myer brand). 

 

Myer, it must be said, win a gold star for their response: careful, beautifully ambiguous, covering all bases, sidestepping and milking in equal amounts. Their buzz word? "Surprised". Gotta love that term. It says, after all, absolutely nothing. It absolves, but it's careful not to put forward an actual position - something important in a controversy so steeped in ideology and emotion, like this one is. What was their actual ideological position? Who knows?! Too surprised, I guess, to have one. And the slap across the wrist of Jen's agent? Brilliant. "We control Brand Myer," Director Bernie Brookes declared; "but we do not control Brand Jennifer. That is up to her manager, Sean Anderson, to do that. We were disappointed that we were not advised, or at least pre-wired about the shots." Gold. What this does is walk that line, so that it appeases those who want Myer to be angry about the whole thing - because, as Bernie puts forward, they're not happy campers - but, again, gets out of having to put forward an actual ideological position (which could endanger their own brand with those who think those disagreeing with the shoot are politically correct wowsers), because they're not necessarily disagreeing with the move... just that they weren't told about it. What would they have thought, if they were told? We'll never know - because they didn't. But sheesh, what a surprise!

 

This led Jennifer to make a public apology to Myer - in fact, she thought their tactic was so good, she started telling us how "surprised" she was, too. By this stage, Sean Anderson must have been sitting in his sports car, with those hands nervously clutching the wheel, wishing he could find a black hole in time to drive through. 

 

Regardless, this was all direct-response Chaos PR (you're going to be able to apply for jobs in marketing, by the time I've finished with you!). They're well and truly cornered, and they have to respond to the actual questions. It's the very worst position for them to be in, because they'd rather the whole thing was just forgotten and the questions were no longer asked. They need to get that control back, and re-craft her image. This will be attempted through more pro-active PR that is really just Chaos PR, because the only reason why it's being done is to clean up this whole damned thing. Following? She needs to get on top of things, and put out a very different image of Jen - one that has nothing to do with any of this debacle on face level, but that is painting the persona we could never believe could be responsible for such a thing, come those moments when the media do ask these questions and we make a decision of her guilt.

 

It has begun. Nothing made me smile more, when googling the news today - for all the wrong reasons - than Hawkins' appearance in Confidential. As we know, Jen doesn't think much of the evil journalists when they're concocting stories that paint her in a bad light. But if they want to get together with her and create some really important piece of news, like... say.... that she went to Bondi Junction Westfield and bought a kitten for her parents, that's okay. Seriously, get a load of it.... http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/jennifer-hawkins-chills-after-nude-marie-claire-magazine-affair/story-e6frfmqr-1225817494130

 

What you have to remember - and should, every time you engage the celebrity press industry - is that these stories don't just magically appear. They're the result of deals, of carefully crafted decisions of content, through controlled channels of access and publicity. It wasn't like Jen bumped into Confidential whilst doing a bit of Friday shopping, themselves.

 

"Oh, hi, Jen! whacha doin'?"

 

"Oh, you know, just bought this adorable little kitten for mum and dad - theirs died, you know."

 

"Aaaaawwwww, he's lovely! Hey, is it cool of I do a story about this for tomorrow's Confidential?"

 

"Sure! Here, I'll give you some official quotes to beef it up!"

 

No. This is the result of two parties with co-mutual interests in something as shallow as Hawkins buying a kitten. Brand Hawkins must act fast to get the right image out there - of the lovely, Aussie girl who buys a kitten for mum and dad, after their beloved puss died (heartbreaking, isn't it?); Confidential need celebrity friends in all the right places, as well as exclusive content. Done deal. You scratch their back, and they'll scratch yours. Now, the next time there's an argument about Hawkins, you'll remember how she took time out from all this, as the world was pounding her for taking her clothes off in the name of charity, to amend the heartache of her beloved family. How could you think bad things about her?! What kind of a monster are you? When was the last time Bianca Dye did something like buy a kitten for her parents? Well, to be fair, until this week, nobody even knew who Dye was, so she would never have warranted such a deal. Sean Anderson is having a pretty grim week, but I bet Dye's agent is quite liking this start to the year.

 

That's not to say, however, that Hawkins will crash and burn. Such publicity, as we are now seeing, attempts to not only salvage these situations, but, if it's smart enough, capitalise on them. The saying "Any publicity is good publicity" isn't necessarily true. But it does, nonetheless, put the kind of spotlight on you that money alone can't buy. If they play it right, Jen could leave this with a higher profile - why Myer are hardly going to dump her or, heaven forbid, have an opinion, just yet. She may never be the postergirl for girls suffering eating disorders, no (thank God for that); but the sad reality is that there are many others things to be a postergirl for, and they come with a much higher return. Watch this space. Until then... meow.