Bad marketing

... at the very least. (That's Miley Cyrus, a/k/a Hannah Montana, from a Vanity Fair photo shoot.)

The obligatory apology: "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed... I appreciate all the support of my fans and hope they understand that along the way I am going to make mistakes and I am not perfect... I never intended for any of this to happen and I am truly sorry if I have disappointed anyone. Most of all, I have let myself down. I will learn from my mistakes and trust my support team. My family and my faith will guide me through my life's journey."

The photographer, Annie Leibovitz, said "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted. Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful."

I think that's correct, but how does Ms. Cyrus benefit from this? She's 15 years old and has a big following among mostly younger girls. It's a fairly innocent photo, but given the ongoing sexualization of young women, was this a very good idea?

Vanity Fair is in the magazine-selling business. But in what business is Miley Cyrus and, more importantly, her parents?