Neutrogena has partnered with Self magazine and Jennifer Garner to unveil what the company calls The Roadmap to Healthy Skin, a viral campaign discussing sun safety and skin cancer awareness.
   The Roadmap appears in the May 2008 issue of Self, stressing the importance of self-examination to prevent skin cancer and promote early detection. Self encourages women to download a mole map, located at www.self.com, to track skin changes that could signal cancer.
   An e-card campaign enables women to send e-cards to friends and family to encourage them to perform self-examinations and to visit the dermatologist for an annual full body check. For every five e-cards sent, Neutrogena will make a donation to help support skin cancer research.
   Self.com also has an exclusive video about sun safety featuring Jennifer Garner, and an interactive map highlighting important facts about sun safety across the US.

More details are emerging about the Naomi Watts advertisements for Thierry Mugler Angel, from the New York, rather than French, end of the business:

Naomi Watts was the inspired choice for Thierry Mugler, over and above her beauty and her star image. Displaying a modern touch, the actress projects a personality that blends sensuality, voluptuousness and evanescence to evoke the many facets of Angel. A blond fragility, a natural tenderness, an emotional seductiveness …
   Rather appropriately, it was in Los Angeles, city of the angels, and in the Hollywood Center studios, that the commercial was shot, following a scenario by Thierry Mugler and directed by director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls). A Hollywood fairy-tale surrounded by a profusion of Angel stars.
   To immortalize this mythical moment, Thierry Mugler called on photographer Ali Mahdavi to produce the advertising visuals of his Hollywood dream. A worldwide campaign, glamorous and magical, will begin in October 2008.

Chanel has chosen Jean-Pierre Jeunet to direct the next No. 5 advertising film, starring actress Audrey Tautou starring in the lead role.
   Jeunet had directed Tautou already in the César- and BAFTA-winning Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain (Amélie in English) and Un long dimanche de fiançailles (The Long Engagement). The Chanel advertisement will be the third collaboration between Jeunet and Tautou.
   Tautou, born in the Auvergne region, is best known for Amélie and the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, with Tom Hanks.
   The advertisement will be shown in 2009.
   Chanel is no stranger to artistic commercials. Its 2007 film for its Rouge Allure lipstick was directed by Bettina Rheims and starred Swiss model Julie Ordon.

Actress Naomi Watts is the new face of the Thierry Mugler Angel fragrance, it was announced ahead of her début at the Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
   The company says that Watts is ‘A true embodiment of the fragrance itself and all it represents’. The campaign breaks in October in the US and features Watts.
   On May 5, Watts, dressed in vintage Thierry Mugler, makes her début at the gala, representing ‘a selection of the unique works of art created by Mugler himself.’

People has released its ‘Most Beautiful People in the World’ issue for 2008 and we have a few videos from our colleagues there from behind the scenes. Special LA correspondent Julie Jordan takes us through why Kate Hudson became the cover girl and narrates some footage of shoots for the magazine.

Gisèle Bündchen, whose face promotes products from Disney to Nivea and Aquascutum, is the world’s top-earning model, according to Forbes.
   The magazine’s latest table of what it calls the top 15—there are actually 16 models—puts Bündchen’s earnings over the last 12 months at US$35 million, more than double that of Heidi Klum, in second place at US$14 million.
   It said that Bündchen’s US$5 million Victoria’s Secret contract, which ended in December 2007, was included in the totals. But even without it, she still comes up top, thanks to the value of some 20 contracts.
   Klum was helped by her television ventures and campaigns for Diet Coke, Jordache, Mouawad, Volkswagen and Schwarzkopf.
   In third place was Kate Moss (US$7·5 million), followed by Adriana Lima (US$7 million) and Doutzen Krœs ($6 million).
   Krœs managed to get into the top five after scoring a Victoria’s Secret contract on top of her Calvin Klein and L’Oréal deals.
   In sixth place was Karolina Kurkova (US$5 million), with Natalia Vodianova (US$4·8 million), Carolyn Murphy (US$4·5 million), Daria Werbowy (US$3·8 million) and Miranda Kerr (US$3·5 million) rounding out the top 10.
   Isabeli Fontana (US$3 million) appears on the list for the first time at number 11; Gemma Ward (US$3 million), the second Australian on the list, ties for 11th; and Selita Ebanks (US$2·7 million) is 13th.
   Valentina Zelyaeva (US$2·3 million), Estée Lauder face Hilary Rhoda (US$2 million) and Liya Kebede (US$1·5 million) take positions 14 to 16.

I finally came across the full text of the press release attacking Massey University over its story on its alum Rhonda Grant, Miss Universe New Zealand’s second runner-up.
   You can read the statement from the Association of University Staff’s president, Assoc Prof Maureen Montgomery, via Scoop. I think she was pretty persistent, sending it out to the NZPA as well as other news sources—she really disliked the story.
   It’s a shame Dr Montgomery has received anonymous hate mail over this today, when her release is filled with good targets for debate.
   I respect her right to hold an opinion and I think she was right to circulate it, but I wonder just how it might benefit the Association of University Staff, or any institution promoting tertiary issues.
   A lot of the arguments are addressed in our own release, which pageant director Val Lott asked me to write. I was more than happy to put the record straight, something that Dr Montgomery gave me a good opportunity to do.
   You can tell Dr Montgomery failed to do what I thought academics should do first and foremost: get sufficient evidence and maintain an open mind.
   The story on Rhonda Grant was no better and no worse in quality terms than the puff pieces about alumni on the Massey University website, so we know she has been singled out.
   Dr Montgomery writes, ‘Massey’s story reads like the formulaic sort of thing that aspiring beauty queens are expected to say when interviewed on the catwalk.’
   As I said in our release, the reality is the interviews are tough—and there are no expectations of formulaic answers at Miss New Zealand.
   I defend the pageant because I know how tough the judging got: Rhonda was allowed to talk about nutrition, and other contestants were quizzed about everything from the moral repugnancy of bank charges to genetics versus socialization, depending on their university specialization.
   ‘One might expect a university public relations office to do more than piggy-back off what comes across as a publicity statement produced by the Miss Universe organisation,’ she said.
   Publicity statements from the Miss Universe Organization seldom focus on second runners-up but, whether we like it or not, Massey has engaged in journalism. We might argue over the quality.
   I share some of her concerns over objectification but I believe that was sufficiently addressed when Rhonda’s bikini-clad photograph was removed from the Massey University website in favour of something more conservative.
   Once that was done, then the complaint really is a case of the lady protesting too much, unless all alum puff pieces are equally, to use Dr Montgomery’s word, ‘banal’.
   And as deep journalism, maybe that’s not unfair—but it should apply fairly to all puff pieces, not just Rhonda’s.
   If it were couched in such terms, I would gladly stand by her.
   Dr Montgomery’s complaint on Rhonda’s piece specifically might be better directed at government educational policy that has supposedly bred a generation of sex-obsessed high school graduates who might find Rhonda Grant’s figure the reason to join Massey University.
   Actually, on the sexualization of youth, I would also gladly stand by her.
   But for now, as a colleague here at Lucire said to me today, ‘You have to ask yourself: what does Maureen Montgomery get out of it? It’s none of her business. Why has she been allowed to be involved?’
   I suppose the answer comes, rightly or wrongly, from the anti-American stances of liberal universities around the world, and Dr Montgomery’s own informs them. It helps the profile of the University of Canterbury, where she works, and cements its liberal position.
   My own father equated Dr Montgomery’s release to Rosie O’Donnell’s outburst on The View against Miss Nevada 2006 and Donald Trump: ill-considered, narrow-minded, poorly investigated and founded on opinion.
   Where Dr Montgomery and I do share some basic views is how images can shape agenda. I know this. I publish fashion magazines. Let’s not kid ourselves. 
   She wrote, ‘Massey University has provided an excellent example of how the desperation to market universities as “attractive” places to gain knowledge and transferable skills intersects with the use of the sexualized female body as a site of desire.’
   There is an element of truth to such statements, but I question if university choices are made based on attractive alumni—even with my rant yesterday on sexualization.
   When I went to university, I had far more pressing concerns such as degree programmes and career prospects.
   Vitally, we are talking about a story that is hard to find on the Massey University site—a site that had proxy errors in the small hours of this morning that rendered it inaccessible. If it were not for her own strong and widely disseminated disapproval, it would have been seen probably by a few dozen people—perhaps one prospective student.
   I’d personally have saved the energy for when universities started putting out alumni swimsuit calendars.
   By all means, speak out—I do on even lesser issues. But consider the effect of the publicity: right now, it seems Rhonda Grant is going to be promoted to national stardom on Close-up and Campbell Live, and the pageant will get prime-time coverage on the same day Miss New Zealand Samantha Powell did her Good Morning interview on TV One. Earlier today, Paul Holmes promoted this as a major item on his radio show in Auckland.
   We couldn’t have dreamed of this profile.
   This has played into the hands of the pageant exceptionally well and, as a judge, I thank Dr Montgomery, even if I do so somewhat selfishly.

It’s not that we haven’t kept up with the row over the Miley Cyrus photographs taken by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair, which sexualize the teenage star, but I have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to news coverage.
   There are quarters in fashion publishing which would deem these photographs appropriate and artistic, just as Leibovitz claimed, and we ourselves have featured teens in and even on the cover of Lucire, looking probably older than they really are.
   But if a subject comes to me and tells me that she is embarrassed by a series of photographs, and for a cover decision she may well be in the know, then that’s good enough reason for me to have a meeting or a big office poll about it.
   And that’s just what Cyrus, star of the beloved Hannah Montana series, has said of her half-naked bedroom shot.
   In normal circumstances, this matter would be worked out privately between the Cyrus family and Vanity Fair’s publishers.
   Which makes this all rather odd: has the crisis surrounding these images been manufactured? One commenter on a Murdoch Press website seems to think so and, knowing how cover decisions are made, especially those that are potentially controversial, I am seriously tempted to agree.
   Reports suggest that Cyrus’s father, singer Billy Ray Cyrus, was present through most of the shoot.
   What I do know is that the modelling agencies we would work with are protective of their talent and we agree on many aspects of the shoot prior to starting when it involves a young girl—and that means overt sexualization is out.

For once many of the press have taken a moral high ground and that is, at least, pleasing to see, even if I have questions on their consistency. The Fairfax Press noted:

Every artist wants to subvert hypocrisy and artifice. And childhood, after all, is the ultimate artificial construction. It exists only because responsible adults deliberately set out to protect children from predators and situations their young brains are not yet wired to deal with.
   But in an era in which all taboos must be broken, the reigning philosophy is that every truth must be told, every emotion liberated, no matter how destructive, or unreasonable, because there is nothing worse than repression.
   Well—news flash—yes, there are worse things: child neglect, sexual abuse, childhoods cut short, depression, eating disorders, academic failure, violence against women, and all other manifestations of the premature sexualisation and objectification of girls in our culture.

   Interestingly, the op-ed in the Fairfax Press touches on similar subjects to a blog comment that I wrote in discussion with William Shepherd, a marketing expert based in California—one of those smart netizens who reminds me of the days in the 1990s when most people on the ’net were of a certain intellectual level.
   He wrote, on the topic of pornography in Brazil:

However, I find it hard to imagine that Brazil has an issue with porn. They should have a concern with AIDS, the cheap sex and underage labor that Brazil offers to Sex Industry. …
   [W]ill blocking wordpress sites stop white slavery, sexual abuse towards young children, men from going to Brazil to engage in power driven sex events that hurt the fiber of global culture, and humanity? …
   Sex is what it has always been. Yet, the online media has tried to make porn a staple of global culture and economics.

   When I think about these words today, it’s not just the online media, as Vanity Fair and others have shown us.
   I do, after all, see the irony of citing the Murdoch Press when it popularized the page-three girl and sensationalist stories founded in sex.
   At the risk of offending fans of certain TV shows, I responded:

The sex economy, the fixation on sex, are not good things for us to be so focused on, yet I don’t like it being constantly propagated even through prime-time shows such as the old Friends or Desperate Housewives.
   I do not regard myself a prude but you are right: there are more pressing things to be concerned about, and I’m far too busy to find double-entendres in every sitcom appealing.

   While sex is as woven in to Desperate Housewives as it was into Benny Hill, and those watching it at its late hour (past the watershed?) know what to expect, it gets an awful lot of publicity in TV promos with their share of suggestive imagery at other times. OK, it wasn’t the best example of a TV show (which I watched at one point), but the old Friends certainly was. I think it’s difficult to disagree that we have become too obsessed with sex in our society and those early seasons of Friends depended less on characterization and more on innuendo, not often that subtle.
   At the idealistic level there is nothing wrong with this when it comes to showing behaviour between consenting adults—it’s less objectionable than seeing the extreme violence that has now made it on to prime-time television—but we now face the danger of it going further and further into promoting promiscuity among the young. Expand sex’s reach, and you arouse greater curiosity in our youngest citizens at an earlier age. It’s like lowering the drinking age to 18, as had happened in New Zealand: now it’s not 17-year-olds sneaking in three years before they are legal, but 14-year-olds with fake IDs.
   That curiosity around sex has always been there with those who are 11 or 12, as any of you reading this will know, but the signals are telling us that as adults we need to give more guidance, and we need to take a stand against marketing that encourages sex at a time when mentally, young people are not prepared for the consequences.
   And it was interesting to read that I am not alone in my assessment; in fact mine seems ill-educated alongside that of an author who has devoted a book to the subject. Fairfax again:

[Melbourne child psychologist, Michael Carr-Gregg] said internet porn, with hardcore sites available to children at a mouseclick, “has completely changed the sexual behaviour of young women, [particularly] the obsession with oral sex.” Young girls, he said, have been encouraged to behave “almost as predators, as if [a boy] is some sort of game animal they want to bag”.
   Again, he blamed parents for creating “a culture of entitlement and indulgence [in which they] are hesitant to set limits around sleep or internet use. Democracy doesn’t work in families. You have to have a benign dictatorship.”
   In a new book, Prude: How The Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls, Carol Platt Liebau writes that “an incremental but aggressive sexualising of [our] culture … [has created] a status quo in which almost everything seems focused on what’s going on ‘below the waist’.”

   As long as we sit back, tut-tut when the items make the news but fall back on not caring at other times, then we have lost yet another value. Add that to a huge list in the west—and the east—since the end of World War II.
   If certain institutions are being so aggressive as Liebau writes, then adults need to be as aggressive. ‘Benign dictatorship’, in the words of Carr-Gregg, probably describes the families many of us had—and we turned out all right.
   It was a sort-of democracy in my household because my parents involved me in every family-affecting major decision and I earned their trust so I never had a curfew. But that was earned—and I was probably lucky I had a good conscience or spirit guide, or something directing me.
   Not everyone is so fortunate, and in this day and age, it’s not a bad idea to be strongly involved in our children’s lives because that moral compass no longer comes from those cohesive, homogeneous communities of old, nor does it come from the media, at least not regularly or consistently. We, the regular people, are the last and possibly only resort in our respective families.

Jennifer Lopez at the 2007 Golden Globes wearing a 30 ct yellow diamond Right Hand Ring by Lorraine Schwartz (courtesy Diamond Information Center/J. Walter Thompson).

Jennifer Lopez will star in a reality TV show for TLC in the US, it was announced today.
   Lopez’s show centres around how the actress–singer–entrepreneur juggles her career with motherhood. She will also executive-produce.
   The show will follow her planning the launch of a new fragrance.
   Lopez and her husband Marc Anthony welcomed their twins, Max and Emme, in February.
   It is not Lopez’s first foray into reality TV: she has already appeared on American Idol and MTV’s Dance Life, which she also produced.

How reliable are these readers’ polls? The British edition of Glamour (May 2008) puts Kate Moss at number one for Britain’s best dressed woman, with Agyness Deyn not even making it into the top 50. It’s a switch from earlier polls, which had been putting Moss lower during the last four months.
   Britney Spears was named worst dressed, with Jodie Marsh and Amy Winehouse making it on to the same list.
   Following Moss were Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Rachel Bilson, Jennifer Aniston, Alexa Chung, Reese Witherspoon, Jessica Alba, Keira Knightley and Victoria Beckham.
   Glamour attributed Moss’s success to her Topshop range and her willingness to be experimental with her clothing.
   A month ago, the UK edition of Tatler, owned by the same group as Glamour, put Deyn at number one, and Moss at number two, though the list looks very different.
   Between the two polls, Moss, Chung and Knightley appear.