Quote:
Originally posted by youkneekorn
Both JT and Janet were in on it but JT wimped out with little to no collateral damage while Janet suffered the brunt of the (undeserved) backlash and had to pay for it with her career ? how is that fair ?
|
The worst way to handle non-controversy, like Nipplegate, is to acknowledge it. Acknowledging a non-event makes the non-event into an
event. One of the best ways to deal with controversy is to
go back to work. When you sit down with interviewers and give a forced apology or shed crocodile tears, it only makes matters worse.
Take Martha Stewart vs. Paula Deen, for instance. Martha Stewart went to prison, came out, and went to
work. She didn't sit down with these sleazy interviewers to "try to explain herself" or "gain sympathy" by going on an "Apology Tour." She went back to hustling, and that's why she's still one of the strongest selling forces in the world of domestics. Compare that with Paula Deen, who, like Janet Jackson, ruined her own career by doing an unnecessary "Apology Tour." The general public never,
never, believes an "Apology Tour." Why PR agents still use that crisis management tactic is beyond me.
People like to blame Justin Timberlake for ruining Janet Jackson's career, but Janet Jackson ruined her own career by going on that "Apology Tour" with literally every interviewer that would have her. But did you notice what Justin Timberlake did? He went back to
working. And that's why he came out of that wardrobe malfunction "controversy" unscathed, because he hardly even acknowledged it to begin with. Timberlake and Stewart had good PR agents, Jackson and Deen did not.
Janet Jackson should have stayed silent, went back to work, and never apologized.
...Vin
