In her haste to emulate superstars before her like John & Yoko, Demi Moore, Mick Jagger and Whoopi Goldberg (yikes) who once posed for Annie Leibovitz, Miley Cyrus seems to have forgotten one little detail—they weren’t 15 years old when they posed nude for the iconic photographer. And neither were their fans.

Sure, the awkward student by day / cool pop star by night storylines of Hannah Montana are far from original, and it may be a little weird that she’s single-handedly transformed her dad from one-hit wonder to Disney darling. But until pictures from her racy photo shoot for next month’s Vanity Fair surfaced, Miley seemed to have the formula for squeaky-clean success so down pat, even Mandy Moore started to wonder whether the ripped jeans she wore back in ’02 might have been a little too risqué for her fan base.

Is he her dad or her date?

Regardless of whether or not the moral majority approves of Miley’s racy spread, one thing is clear—she (or her managers, at least) neglected a cardinal rule of branding: empathize with your audience. And when your audience consists of impressionable pre-teen girls, empathize with their parents.

Annie Leibovitz has already dismissed the uproar over the photos, “apologizing” to people who “misinterpreted her art,” but it’s really Miley and her own parents who have become the subject of scrutiny from outraged parents and critics around the country. Everyone from Howard Stern to Hilary Duff is weighing in on Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus’ careless parenting and forecasting the horrible choices Miley is sure to make in the future.

So what’s a ‘tween queen to do when her throne is in jeopardy? Simple. Blame it on the photographer. Despite the fact that her omnipresent hanger-on—er, I mean dad, Billy—was present, statements from the Cyrus camp (including Hannah Montana network Disney Channel) imply the singer was duped by Leibovitz, who said the photos would look “artistic.”

Some may hypothesize this is the beginning of the end of Miley’s wholesome reign. Not quite. Although a recent NY Times blog groups her with other scandalized starlets Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Lynn Spears (topless photo and teen pregnancy scandals, respectively), the brand that is Miley will endure. My guess is the Christian values the Cyrus family has always touted, along with a barrage of finger-pointing, have probably do the trick.

But don’t be surprised if the pop star’s management throws in a few PSAs on the dangers of peer pressure in for good measure.

[Related story worth mentioning: In the tradition of “Eliot Spitzer Night,” minor league sports has given us yet another wildly creative discount night, courtesy of the Cyrus family. Tomorrow night, the Fresno Grizzlies baseball team will host “Hanna Montana Ride Your Kid’s Coattails Night,” a ticket discount promo being held “in honor of Billy Ray's opportunism, and his trailblazing path that can serve as a roadmap for parents of talented children.” Brilliant.]

There is much debate over companies using coupons as marketing fodder. Some argue it’s a good way to get people into stores/vendors/restaurants to make purchases. Others say it’s a sign of despair, that offering free or discounted items is a sign of weakness in the marketplace – and that truly successful companies profit on their own.

About two weeks ago, Starbucks launched an aggressive coupon campaign for the first time in company history. As a way to introduce the chain’s newest and more mild coffee line, Pike Place Roast, the company doled out hundreds of thousands of coupons for free tall-size coffees every Wednesday until May 28th. Street teams in New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC are also handing out coupons for free coffee any day – any time.

So, what gives with Starbucks’ decision to ramp up its marketing campaign? Why now? By doubling its marketing budget to $100 million, lots of analysts are guessing it’s a strategic turnaround to create more loyalty among customers. Something tells me that CEO Howard Schultz’s strategy might have something to do with the dramatic fall in company stock and sales decreases at stores across the country.

Blogger and marketing guru Seth Godin thinks Starbucks’ coupon strategy is futile; that coupons only work for people who use and like coupons. Larry Light, former Chief Marketing Officer at McDonald’s, says that sampling over a longer period of time (i.e. Starbucks’ weekly Wednesday sampling) is significantly more effective than a one-time freebie.

Only time will tell whether or not the coupons do generate more buzz and buy among Starbucks consumers. But, one thing is sure: Starbucks is listening to its current loyalists. On the company’s consumer-response generated blog, My Starbucks Idea, Starbucks fans said they want to be rewarded for their loyalty. Ideas submitted to the site ranged everywhere from loyalty cards (for every nine coffees you buys, the tenth is free) to free birthday coffee to free Wi-Fi at all Starbucks locations.

The success (or failure) of the coupons won’t be revealed for a couple more months, but what’s most important is that Starbucks is keeping the lines of communication open with its customers. Starbucks is encouraging them to offer feedback, suggestions and complaints so that it can provide consumers with what they want and need. The launch of a mild brew may just bring Starbucks back to life.

Ok, really, this is about all media. But since Primary Election Day has finally arrived in Pennsylvania, we’ll focus on the political media that has covered the presidential campaign for the past six weeks.

The past six weeks have been frantic for the candidates, crisscrossing the Commonwealth in the effort to woo voters. I know this because for each of the past 42 days, there has been a story in the papers about the candidates frantically criss-crossing the Commonwealth to woo voters. What else have we learned? Barack can’t bowl. Hillary can do shots. Sleep deprivation makes both candidates misspeak and/or lie, depending on your political leanings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtBBgn0I34E

So, while most folks acknowledge that we want change—certainly these two candidates have focused on that—the media has shown no inclination to change. It is still unable to cover politics in a new and different way. They are all either Beltway insiders, or they want to be. Their primary goal seems to be to ride on the back of John McCain’s Straight Talk Express or on Air Force One and have the chance to hang out with other political reporters, talking politics. Or, more accurately, talking about campaign coverage.

So here’s the main point—political journalists are largely oblivious to the lives of their readers and viewers. The media—whether covering politics, sports, City Hall, whatever—really don’t know how to give news to the news-consuming public.

They are still covering politics as if it were 50 years ago, failing to acknowledge that the world in 2008 requires a new way. When all you do is follow the candidates from photo op to photo op, it’s hard to see what really matters. I have a silly image in my head of Roman political reporters typing away on their laptops about the race for Emperor while the city burns.

It’s time to stop breathlessly following the candidates to all their little campaign stops. It’s time for political reporters to lift up their heads and take a look around.

Simply doing more of the same is not good enough.

The results are in from this week’s presidential debate between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama and the loser is… ABC News. Yup, that’s right. While there has been the traditional post-debate analysis on the candidates’ performance and remarks, much criticism has gone to the moderators for what many people are calling their unfair “gotcha” line of questioning.

ABC News’s Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos has received the lion’s share of the anger from viewers for focusing on issues such as Obama’s patriotism and his controversial friends. At one point, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his former pastor, saying, “Do you think the Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?” Not surprisingly Obama supporters are crying foul given the moderator’s long history with the Clintons.

It’s just a few dramatic questions; this is par for the course in a presidential election. So why all the hub-bub? It seems this strikes at the heart of what many Americans obviously still hold as sacred: the integrity and impartiality of journalists (or at least the perception of those qualities). It would appear that Stephanopoulos stepped over the line, and he and ABC News are hearing about it.

By this morning, more than 14,000 viewer comments had been posted on the ABC News website, the overwhelming majority critical of the debate moderators, who spent most of the first hour on what Stephanopoulos called “electability questions.”

The outpouring led Stephanopoulos to publicly defend his questions and his journalistic integrity.

“The questions we asked were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant and what you would expect to be asked in a presidential debate at this point,” he said. “The questions we asked … are being debated around the political world every day.”

Well that may be the case George, but apparently people want to debate when and where they feel like without your “slanted” questions. Remember this is America, where people like their trucks big, their pies apple and their journalists unbiased. So a piece of advice: leave the partisanship to FOX News and stick to the real issues. It’s only fair.

Way back in 1969, at a conference in Seattle, Washington, then-senator Gaylord Nelson introduced a plan to hold a nationwide demonstration on environmental health. The following spring, Nelson’s vision came to fruition when 20 million Americans took to the streets in cities and suburbs to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment.

From that demonstration Earth Day was born, and the issue of environmental health finally made its way onto the world stage.

Now that I’ve planted a seed of happiness, flash to the present and you’ll find Nelson’s grassroots, well-intentioned festival has been transformed into a marketer’s Christmas.

As Earth Day nears, marketers are using the holiday as a vehicle to push their products. Long gone are the days when Earth Day was strictly a celebration of sustainability and environmental wellness. Today, marketers latch on to any green promotion they can think of.

In response to increasing amounts of green platforms, many companies feel behind in the green game, and are rushing to catch up.

Few would argue that Earth Day itself is detrimental in any capacity, but the same can’t be said about the intentions behind two weeks of eco-frenzied marketing.

“It’s great that people are paying attention. It’s great that companies are starting to do something. But what really drives me crazy is when green marketing is used as a vehicle of greenwashing,” says Steven Addis, CEO of Addis Creson, a branding firm.

By “greenwashing,” Addis is referring to the idea that the public will be more willing to purchase a product if it’s portrayed as eco-friendly, regardless of the truth. What a tricky, and arguably, dishonest, way to sell.

Can consumers see through green messaging? Will excesses of green advertisements force customers to question marketers’ motives? Will green marketing translate into lukewarm feelings for the Earth Day and its pure intentions? I hope, for Mother Earth’s sake, that the answers are yes, yes, and no.

And perhaps most importantly, will our desires to be kind to our environment push marketers to develop products that truly are eco-friendly? Time will tell.