Long time Tiger sponsor Nike stuck around throughout the abbreviated scandal and redemption period, only to emerge this week (the eve of the Masters), with a TV commercial that acts as something of a belated public pillorying of Woods.

The spot depicts a silent and seemingly contrite Woods being gently chastised by an undated voice-over of his deceased father.  Right before the black and white spot flashes to the Nike swoosh though, the voice of Earl Woods (in a very Mike Brady moment) is heard asking his son “Did you learn anything?” Because the man who masterminded Woods’ career from the age of two through international super-stardom would surely  have been that calm and accepting of potential career fall-out from Tiger’s skanky tales.

If you haven’t seen the spot yet, which aired exclusively on ESPN & The Golf Channel, I’ll try to provide appropriate pop culture analogies.  Think Psycho’s Norman Bates fighting off the voice of his dead yet still hectoring mother+a side order of Big Love‘s Alby Grant’s dearly departed dad disapproving of him from beyond the grave, with the Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole duet from the hereafter as the soundtrack, and you’ll have a better idea of just how creepy this sales spot is.  More than creepy though, it’s inappropriate and the timing is off.

I’m sure Nike’s marketing department had a very good reason for giving Woods a public spanking.  Perhaps they wanted to appease their investors with an acknowledgment of the fact that they too had been wronged by Woods’ “transgressions” but loved him (and sales generated) still.   Perhaps they felt that portraying Woods as a loving son gone wild after the passing of his father would generate further sympathy & sales.  Or perhaps they just wanted to see how far they could push Woods in his pursuit of continued percentage off the sales of his (golf) balls and (sports) equipment.   That last one might have been something of a low blow, but racy puns aside for the most part people don’t much care about Woods’ private life anymore, they just want to see the finest golf player in the world doing what he does best.

So Tiger, in the words of your most loyal sponsor “Just do it” and move on- the sports world has.

Rachel, who secretly wonders about the new term$ of Elin Woods’ continued spousal endorsement

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? E me at rachelblogs@gmail.com

I’m quoted in an interesting article on CNN on the new-ish direction that TLC is taking with the addition of uber producer Mark Burnett’s new Sarah Palin reality series (now with added controversy!).

successful and even die-hard Folds fans were disappointed.

In the last week, Folds, identified as ‘Merton’ uploaded videos of himself creating piano improvisation on ChatRoulette.  For the uninitiated,  ChatRoulette, is a vaguely creepy ( and very popular with teens and other exhibitionists) service created by a 17 year old Russian boy, in which random strangers with webcams chat anonymously until they rather rapidly bore of each other and click to the next available chatter.

In the videos, Folds combines his dual personalities as piano virtuoso and goofy performer and improvises songs based on the suggestions or actions of his chat partners.

While other celebrities claim to have visited or used the service, Folds turns it into a cultural statement, creativity challenge and goofy, depressing and heartwarming experience all at once.

It’s fascinating to keep watching/listening as someone whose medium is fairly traditional- a guy and his piano, experiments with technology to challenge both himself and his craft.

According to Hollywood gossips, being lauded as best actress can lead to the dissolution of your marriage, if Oscar winners including Hillary Swank, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet & Halle Berry‘s break-ups are anything to go by.  Male Oscars winners are quick to dispute the theory though.  Denzel Washington appearing on a nightly entertainment news program (don’t you just love that contradiction in terms?) disparaged the notion saying his marriage was secure and the concept was ridiculous.  Or is it?

In the last 12 years, 8 female awardees have found themselves without the mates they had at the time of their win.  Sure it can be chalked up to coincidence, but why is the notion of a woman wanting to ‘have it all’ still considered a curiosity, while it’s commonplace for a man to want to balance a successful career with a fulfilling home life?

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t particularly care about celebrity infidelities, since my assumption is that they married for love or publicity and were amply protected by a legal laundry list of what is or is not permitted.  I was however rooting for tough, tender and talented Sandra B. to have found simultaneous success in both her career and personal life.

If we believe the cliche that like Jeff Bridges and his loyal and career-free wife, behind every great man stands a great woman, do we have to subscribe to the notion that behind every great woman stands an insecure or philandering man? I’m counting on Best Actress winners Dame Judi Dench, Meryl Streep & Helen Mirren to continue to prove that theory wrong too.

Rachel, who persists in believing in happily ever after in some form or another….

I’m not talking about the newsletters from magazines that promise 847 NEW ways to please your partner/fake great abs & cook meatloaf all while spending quality time with your kids, but rather sanctioned corporate communications from corporations or organizations.  Instead of keeping to their formerly professional tones, they seem to erroneously believe that by adapting an overly familiar bordering on smarmy tone peppered with awkward pop culture references, they’ll seem more hip and relevant.

I say ugh.

Don’t get me wrong, part of my personal brand includes frequently dropping my professional tone, regularly referencing pop culture and being fairly chatty with all of you – but that isn’t mutable simply because I seek to cash in on a trend. After years in my field(s) I understand which parts of my professional personality attract readers and/or retains clients.  Or at least that’s been my experience until now.  To keep relevant, I regularly evaluate my personal & professional brands & tweak as necessary.

But that’s what works for me- that doesn’t mean it works for my accountant or bank manager.  In fact, adapting the wrong tone can alienate people and make it hard for them to take you seriously when you segue to serious topics.

For that reason, before you hit send on the next e-mail in which you declare yourself the undisputed king of Social Media consider this:

1. Betty White & Lady Gaga are equally hot on the pop culture spectrum these days. Know which reference suits your demographic.
2. You can be funny on your own time.  If your career of choice requires serious behavior, you’ll need to find another outlet to display your fluency in Klingon.
3. Not every company has to appeal to the 21 and under set.  Tailoring your tweets to appeal to a demographic that doesn’t suit your product or messaging only serves to makes you universally irrelevant.

Rachel, who would rather be Betty White than Betty Draper

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com

Okay, not really, but as Stuart Elliott reports in today’s New York Times, Mattel is licensing four of the Mad Men characters for a series of limited edition dolls.

Joining a a less curvaceous, plasticine version of former Roger Sterling mistress/office manager extraordinaire Joan Holloway, will be sorta smarmy Sterling Cooper agency head Roger Sterling, the always suave Don Draper and decorative and depressed (former) wife Betty Draper.

How incredibly meta, since for all intents and purposes the Mad Men characters are mostly based on Atomic Era invention Barbie and her dysfunctional dream world.

Watch a couple of reruns of the first few episodes of ’60s sitcom Bewitched, if you really want a better idea of what probably inspired Matthew Weiner‘s characters in the first place.

Sure Darrin was goofy, but he was the lead ad man at 1960s Madison Avenue advertising agency McMann & Tate (led by equally silver less foxy than Roger Sterling, Larry Tate) and witchy wife Samantha whose ice princess pedigree and wardrobe clearly inspired much of Betty Draper’s grooming and fashion (though hers and much of blond America at the time, was clearly inspired by Grace Kelly, but I’m avoiding more meta for a moment).  Plant their happy home in upscale suburbia and throw in a mischievous redhead – Endora vs. Joan anyone? and you’ve got yourself a slick series based on a madcap comedy.

Which leads us back to Barbie.  Though the anatomically incorrect Roger Sterling & Don Draper dolls are going to have a heck of a lot less fun than the TV versions.

Rachel, who (not so) secretly covets the Mad Men Barbies

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com

My thought process went along these lines: Firefighters and police officers put their lives on the line on a daily basis for a pittance of what overpaid celebrities are paid.  Teachers give their professional lives to improve the lives of children and for the most part are considered over the hill at 40 (Yeah Mayor Bloomberg, I’m talking to you and your ridiculous policies) and truly made to sing for their suppers.

Public servants, the real heroes in the career world,  are treated as just that- servants, while actors are paid millions of dollars to play dress up and pretend to be other people.  For this, celebrities are not only deified, but sometimes even awarded gold statuettes.

My professional trajectory was such though, that I was involved in the back end of numerous awards ceremonies in one way or another for a long time- either as a celebrity makeup artist, after party event producer, or while on assignment writing about celebrity style.

But who are we kidding? No one really watches the Oscars to find out who won for best [insert your favorite arcane category here], we’re really watching to see who’s wearing what, who’s dating who and who’s really bad at concealing their disappointment.

I learned a lot while watching the Oscars last night, some lessons even worthy of translating into real life lessons.

1. Good Things Come To Those Who Wait (and/or have excellent family credentials): I was thrilled to see Jeff Bridges take home the award for best actor last night.  It made me feel all warm and fuzzy when he repeatedly looked heavenward and acknowledged his parents (though not brother Beau) and made me wonder if he’d have had the success he did/does if not for the Bridges surname.  Don’t get me wrong, the Dude totally abides, one just wonders to what extent his pedigree has helped him on his professional journey.
2. Gracious is Good: Though German actor Christoph Waltz was pretty much considered a shoo-in for best supporting actor for his role in Inglourious Basterds, he was modest and inclusive in his thank yous.  After every award won, his speech reflected not only his delight in winning, but also true gratitude for director Quentin Tarrantino and the entire film cast.  Elegant and appreciative.
3. You’ve Come A Long Way Baby (though not far enough): Director Katherine Bigelow took home the statuette for best director for The Hurt Locker, a first time win for a female director. Yay! The band even played a schmaltzy rendition of female power anthem ‘I Am Woman (Hear Me Roar)’ Thrilling. Unless you consider the fact that this country has not yet had a woman president.  We shouldn’t notice these distinctions- we should be at a point where we take it for granted.

There are loads more, but I was too distracted by the evening gowns to further comment.

Rachel, who always wanted Sandra Bullock to play me in my life story, but will probably have to rethink that bit of casting now that she’s an Oscar winner.

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com

We might find them to be charming or engaging and frequently entertaining and regularly informative, but for the most part are not warm for their form/hot for their bods or connecting with them on anything more than a professional level of sorts.

I say this because after conversations with friends, we’ve collectively concluded that there seems to be a proliferation of attached individuals who feel the need to issue loud and generally inappropriate warnings to their female followers that they are MARRIED, before proceeding to flirt in manners that can be deemed as highly inappropriate if wholly awkward.

For this reason and also because it’s snowing for the 800th day this winter and because I’m punchy and overworked, I’d like to share

with you some thoughts on what does or does not work when (over)sharing on your social networks.

1. Shouting about your Religion: Unless you’re cultivating a faith based initiative and unless I’ve expressed even the remotest interest, kindly don’t overshare your practices and preachings.  I respect your right to be a disciple of the devil – I just have no interest in reading your ramblings when I take my Twitter/Facebook coffee break.
2. Blathering about your Beloved: You’re attached. We get it. We even think it’s cute and some of the things you say make us go awwww.  But your guilty conscience or inability to set boundaries in your online flirting should not make it awkward or icky for those you come into contact with.  Please refrain from pontificating about the sanctity of your union while trying to see how much flirtage you can get away with otherwise.
3. Inappropriate Icons: Yes dear. We get that you’re trying to make a point that you’re so hip that you view gore or porny images metaphorically, but that grade Z horror movie image as avatar makes me choose not to follow you and to take you a lot less seriously if I do.

When choosing what to share online, choose wisely.  You may think you know a lot about me based on my tweets or status updates, but what you do in fact know are the peripheral details of my life and nothing that could ever be considered awkward or inappropriate.  Well, at least that’s my intention- to entertain, inform, share and interact and build mostly professional and some friendly relationships.  There are things about me that you’ll never find out from reading my books, blogs or tweets and that’s as it should be.  My private life is my own, as yours should be.

Flirting is fun.  So is silly banter and online socializing, but pay attention- you may be crossing lines or alienating others without realizing it.

Rachel, who tries to think before she tweets and then frequently deletes

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com

What’s not such a good thing though, is the fact that since the dawn of time or at least since the dawn of the internet, there’s been a battle raging between those that inform and those that inflame vying to get their points of view to the forefront.

Read any public blog or news outlet and your sure to encounter a steady stream of commentators eager to make their voices heard.  Some comment threads are incredibly helpful and move the conversation forward allowing ideas to grow and expand.  Some on the other hand, have a disturbing way of becoming a forum for fomenting hatred, or a place for those with incredibly twisted world views to present their ideas with some semblance of the stamp of approval of the website or outlet in question.

Over a decade has passed since the internet has become a household word and there has been no real change in the way that comments are gathered or presented.  One suspects that so eager are outlets ranging from Gawker to CNet to the New York Times to keep people coming back and interacting, that they still refuse to moderate the comments that do or do not appear after their sanctioned articles. Worse still, are popular applications like Twitter and Facebook which seem to regularly turn a blind eye to hate groups, allowing their numbers to grow and expand.

Let’s make this clear for once and for all, moderating is not censorship.  Journalists and editors work in tandem to create features that inform yet don’t always express the popular points of view.  Printed letters to the editor are chosen from hundreds if not thousands submitted and again, don’t always express the popular or safe point of view.

Popular online applications and publications on the other hand, seem to edit only internally.  By turning a blind eye to the input of others, they’re allowing their very pricey pixelated real estate to become a battleground controlled not by those who want to create a dialogue, but also those who hold hostage the notion of free speech in an effort to publicize their ignorant attitudes, spew hate or vent their collective spleen.

With so many people seeking employment, it would seem a no-brainer for the major online publishers to finally and incredibly belatedly hire full time moderators to at least create a sense of balance on their forums and comments.

Rachel, who grows weary of trying to navigate the minefields that online forums sometimes become

Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com