Tiger should go full-steam ahead and plant his flag as “the new Hugh Hefner,” or in my shorthand (trademark pending), “The New Hugh.”

I’m serious here.

Hugh Hefner has made a bloody fortune screwing beautiful women and leading the party life. But he’s ooollllddd. I can’t believe he’s still going strong, supposedly.

Hugh ain’t gonna last forever. We need a new role model, a new Adonis to do all the things we dream about: Tiger.

He’s incredibly handsome.

He’s incredibly rich.

He’s one of the greatest athletes in the world.

He’s one of the greatest commercial pitchmen in the world.

He’s perfect.

Go for it, my man.  Stock your mega-yacht Privacy with hot-and-cold running hotties, Cristal and pate, enjoy it and cash in on it.

You have nothing left to lose.

Miller

Young Times tech reporter Claire Cain Miller discovered the latest it-girl in Sili Valley PR, Brooke Hammerling, who, the story asserts, is at the forefront of a new trend because she is as keen on pitching influential bloggers and other industry leaders as she is on pitching the professional journalists in the mainstream media.

Holy Reporter’s Notebook, Batman — stop the digital presses!

Hammerling

Among Miller’s other “findings” in this 3,000-word stemwinder:

• That Ms. Hammerling is, among other things, obsequious to a fault, folding her strategic tent at the merest assertion of a different idea from her A-list client
• “In the new world of social media, P.R. people must know hundreds of writers, bloggers and Twitter users instead of having six top reporters on speed dial.”
• “Despite all these new channels, it’s still essential to know which mainstream publications to approach. If a start-up is seeking venture funding or new engineers … PR still looks to The San Jose Mercury News, VentureWire or TechCrunch to get the word out.”
• “She drops names like a boat anchor, so shamelessly, but at the same time, it’s, ‘Larry, Larry,’ and I think she’s lying and then I get on the phone and it’s Larry Ellison. She got him on the cellphone; I didn’t,” says a journalist who did not want to be identified.

OK — enough having fun at Miller and Hammerling’s expense. What are my takeaways?

• Yes, social media and the Internet have transformed PR and are making mainstream media relations less important and multi-channel PR more important.
• It’s still about a) who you know, b) who trusts you and c) whether you have a good story.
• Reaching out to other influencers in addition to journalists has been a PR tactic since, as a friend used to say, God got her ears pierced. I recall writing PR plans in the 90s chock full of such tactics, only it didn’t involve using Twitter and Facebook, it involved snail mail and in-person events. Tools change, strategies are more permanent.

There’s been plenty of handwringing and pundit-izing about Abrams’ plan, since it seems to flaunt one of the fundamental ethical barriers of journalism. My question, posed some months ago when Abrams announced his plan, was whether Abrams could actually deliver anything corporate chieftains might actually pay for, since journalists are not exactly known for their business acumen and shrewd business insights.

Abrams announced his business plan last November. It’s now April. So Dan? Got any clients? Got any case studies you’d care to share with the rest of us to give us an idea of how it’s going? Any lessons learned so far?

If I don’t hear from Dan via the web, I’ll try to ask him when he keynotes the Bulldog Reporter Media Relations Summit in May.

GM’s CEO inadvertently used the phrase “bankruptcy…could work,” at a media breakfast with the Wall Street Journal in attendance, and they didn’t miss the opportunity to write the following:

General Motors Corp.’s chief executive, once a staunch opponent of bankruptcy as a way of reorganizing the ailing auto maker, has softened his view, suggesting the company could possibly emerge from a Chapter 11 filing.

This interpretation of Wagoner’s comments so disappointed GM that the company posted a rebuttal on its blog called “Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story.” Tom Wilkinson, GM’s Director of News Relations, takes the Journal to task for taking Wagoner’s comments out of context and making more of his reference to bankruptcy than Wilkinson says Wagoner intended.

In the blog post, Wilkinson posts the entire exchange [as transcribed from a recording of the session], and here’s what Wagoner said”

A lot of people who write about bankruptcy, I don’t think have ever been in bankruptcy. And what I have learned after studying it in detail is that it brings significant risk on… what I have learned is that it could work. And it might not work.

After vehemently complaining that the Journal was out to write a pre-conceived story and that Wagoner didn’t mean what he was quoted saying, Wilkinson ended his post with this query:

Did The Wall Street Journal ignore what Wagoner really said so it could write the headline and story it wanted? I’ll leave it to you to decide.

OK Tom, I’ll take the bait and answer your question: No. I will grant you that the Journal may have unfairly taken Wagoner’s comments out of context and written a story that GM didn’t want written and one that may prove to be inaccurate, but I’ll also say that Wagoner should never have said what he said and essentially got what he deserved for uttering the words “bankruptcy… could work.”

No one forced him to say what he said. Every media training always includes the admonition, “don’t repeat a negative.” Meaning, if the question is, “Could bankruptcy work for GM?” you DON’T say, “bankruptcy could work.” You say something like, “that’s your word, not mine. We are focused on getting GM back on solid footing, etc.”

Even if the question wasn’t as simple as the above example, it’s the job of the spokesperson to avoid using negative words. Journalists are listening for the most controversial thing you are going to say, and they are going to lead with that. Your job as a spokesman is to make those words the LEAST controversial you can.

If you’re Rick Wagoner and you’re sitting at a media breakfast, it’s no time to get informal and utter the word “bankruptcy” if you absolutely don’t want that word to ever come out of the mouth of GM’s CEO.

Another thing: I’m guessing Wagoner has had to answer some form of this question 1,000 times, and on the 1,000th time, he finally let the words “bankruptcy could work,” slip from his mouth, even though he added “it might not” afterward. I’m sure he’s tired and under incredible stress, but again, it’s not the media’s job to look the other way. It’s the spokesperson’s job to keep repeating their talking points 1,000 times if necessary, not 999 times.

Yes, there are many times when you should go on the offensive, make yourself available to the press, and try to sway public opinion
to your cause. In fact, it’s really the heart of PR.

But when losers like the Illinois governor use these tactics, they set the whole profession back a step.

Worse yet is the gullible media that readily provide airtime to this guy, telling themselves they are being “fair” and “balanced.” Baloney! They’re being used, pure and simple.

Real PR in this situation: resign quietly. Lick your wounds in private. Emerge as a do-gooder after a respectful period of reflection.

I love it.

The lesson here [assuming there is one] is that for a publicity stunt to work, it has to have a “WOM” element — meaning Word of Mouth. As soon as I read about this, I had to tell someone (in this case, my wife).

So don’t bother with costly stunts that don’t have that WOM element. They will be a waste of time and money.