Wansum Li – Intro to Marketing

Thanks Beverly Chung for the interesting post on bad publicity!

Question: Is bad publicity better than no publicity?

Answer: It depends.

I think that in “A Serbian Movie”, as mentioned in Beverly’s blog, the bad publicity it received may have been beneficial to the movie’s promotion. The fact that it gets people talking is already a plus. Had the movie not played to such extremes, people may not have known about it at all. That being said, I would not watch the movie, but some people might. Perhaps stepping outside of the box and pushing boundaries are methods for media to cut through all the noise, to get people to notice. Perhaps that is the primary goal for many organizations: simply to be noticed. In that case, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

From a PR standpoint, bad publicity seems to be less of a plus. I’m talking about cases where an organization did not deliberately “create” bad publicity. Take, for example, BP. The devastating oil spill got people’s attention, it got them talking, and it increased the brand’s awareness. However, I would argue that the public view of BP plummeted drastically, and that can’t be a good thing. Where a company differentiate itself in the light of bad publicity is in its response. Organizations that own up to their mistakes and are proactive in fixing the problem(s) and preventing future ones are able to better mitigate the negative effects of bad PR. Companies that already have high brand equity also have an easier time bouncing back; they can remind their customers of what they have done right. Disasters like the oil spill also serve as a reminder to other companies in the industry to avoid making the same mistake, which is never a bad thing.