“There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
In today’s media-controlled world, it is unlikely that ambitious corporations or public personalities will leave their reputations up to chance. Most willingly spend money on paid public relations and marketing management, with the objective of creating a distinctive and favourable impression in people’s minds. Conventional wisdom suggests that ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’, and this common saying rests on the assumption that as long as the general public talks about the brand, the publicity is advantageous regardless of its nature as it keeps the name of the corporation or public figure prominently at the top of people’s minds.
However, it is an unwise exaggeration to claim that negative publicity is non-existent or negligible due to the assumed overriding merits of public attention. We live in an information age today where a variety of electronic and visual mediums function as digital archives — it is therefore nearly impossible to erase negative publicity as they remain etched not just in the minds of people but also in digitised sources. Furthermore, technology today creates multiple platforms for the general public to engage in discussions and even produce user-generated content.
The reality is that companies and public figures have little control over the market’s impression and reception of them. It is therefore imprudent to assume that publicity would always be beneficial even when public perception is unfavourable as stakeholders have little control over public reception.
The Rumour Mill: Is it always better to be seen and heard?
One of the biggest prevailing assumptions is that bad publicity is short-lived and hence, negligible in terms of damage as the benefits of public relevance and awareness outweigh the initial injury to reputation. Such thinking is misguided and overly optimistic.
The openness of the Internet and various other mediums of information today poses as a notable threat to the reputations of corporations as well as prominent public personalities. This is because the Internet is an extensive cavern of information that is easily categorised and accessible. It is a goldmine for anyone deliberately looking for dirt or alternative perspectives to the reputations of companies and public personalities. Not only does the Internet retain negative publicity and information about the company, it is often a tool for spreading vitriol or unfounded rumours that potentially destroys reputations.
Fast-food giant, McDonald’s, has been the target of countless urban legends and negative rumours regarding unusual or unethical substances in their food products. Dating back to 1978, when a rumour circulated that McDonald’s used worm meat in its hamburgers, sales decreased by more than 25% despite the unbelievable nature of the rumour. Bad publicity about McDonald’s food quality continues to circulate today, and even though such negative publicity about food quality may be outrageous in nature and mostly, McDonald’s still suffers a loss in their revenue whenever such bad publicity hits. Hence, bad publicity can exist in the form of unwarranted rumours and uncontrollable online gossip, which often impacts the sales of companies even when they least expect it.
The “everything-will-work-out” assumption
Some may assume that bad publicity is inconsequential as there are many public relations strategies one can employ to mitigate reputation damage, such as public apologies, compensation, and even new marketing campaigns. No matter how many measures there are to publicise and create new impressions in the people’s minds, it is sometimes near impossible to change negative public perception, especially when bad publicity comes in the wake of an exposed lie or inaccuracy.
Take the example of Lance Armstrong, a revered cyclist known for his extraordinary feat of winning the Tour de France seven consecutive times from 1999 to 2005. However, Armstrong incurred public outrage and anger when it was discovered that his athletic achievements were due to performance enhancing drugs as part of his elaborate doping ploy. Tiger Woods, one of the most highly paid athlete and outstanding golfer, fell from grace when it was exposed that he was a serial philanderer. Similarly, Michael Phelps, widely admired for being the most decorated athlete in Olympics history, tarnished his own reputation with reported news of his troubles with alcohol and marijuana.
The public has not viewed the above athletes the same ever since and they have lost public prominence in recent years. Once holders of countless advertisement deals and subjects of public admiration for their athletic achievements, these public figures have fallen from favour and have since been unable to regain their former popularity. It is therefore untrue to assume that bad publicity is inconsequential. A loss of public trust in the name of a company or a public figure can be irreversible damage that remains etched in the minds of people.
Scandals in Popular Culture
Moreover, negative publicity can directly impact revenue and even threaten the survival and continuation of the brand name. It is no surprise that bad publicity hurts and that nothing churns the news cycle like a scandal.
Toyota, a firm that once had a spotless reputation for reliability, made their big mistake of slackening its quality control as it expanded its manufacturing operations outside of Japan. In 2009, poor workmanship caused the company to recall hundreds of thousands of vehicles for safety reasons and the company’s then CEO, Akio Toyoda, was dragged before the Japanese Congress and chastised. Sanlu, a Chinese company that was revealed to be selling melamine-tainted milk is now bankrupt and its top executives are in jail. Similarly, British Petroleum was lambasted in the press for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The incident is one of the largest public relations disaster in corporate history as the explosion killed 11 workers, and split 206 million gallons of crude oil into the sea, costing the company billions of dollars to cover legal lawsuits, mitigate damage to marine life and manage its public reputation.
The exceptions to the rule: When is ‘Bad Publicity’ good?
Yet, given that there have been rare instances where negative reviews or ‘word-of-mouth’ have actually increased product sales and brand prominence, the notion that ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’ may not be completely untrue.
In 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that a wine described as “redolent of stinky socks” saw its sales increase by 5 percent after it was reviewed by a prominent wine website. Similarly, although the movie Borat made relentless fun of the country Kazakhstan, Hotels.com reported a 300 percent increase in requests for information about the country after the film was released. However, it is important to recognise that these are just accidental blessings in disguise that are rare and incidental. Bad publicity is still better to be reviled than ignored as it wreaks long-term damage on reputation and revenue most of the time. Furthermore, negative publicity appears to only work in favour for brands with low public awareness and accessibility, by spurring curiosity and interest amongst the public. Conversely, when public awareness of the brand name is already existent, native publicity would definitely hurt the pre-established reputation of the brand itself.
Conclusion
To conclude, although companies and individuals can sometimes regain public relevance and prominence even with bad publicity, the reality is often not the case. Bad publicity often plays out with serious consequences and damage that are usually long-lasting or even irreversible. Given the availability and accessibility of various information technologies today, publicity and brand information are digitally documented in a permanent virtual archive. It is therefore foolish to underestimate the consequences of bad publicity, as it requires immense time and effort to restore public trust and support.
