March 17, 2011
OPEN Forum Message
Test Your Business Skills
Take one or more of OPEN Forum's Crash Courses on topics like Leadership, Search Engine Marketing, Facebook and more.
Learn more
I normally start writing with an idea about the conclusion I will reach. That isn’t the case this time. We are in an unprecedented era of global communications with a reach and speed that is almost unimaginable just a few short years ago. News media spreads stories in a blink of an eye. Blogs create firestorms of controversy, often regardless of the merits of their position.
Thus, the question at hand: Is any kind of publicity—good or bad, negative or positive, conciliatory or inflammatory—good publicity? I guess it depends on what the goal might be. If the goal is to simply have as many people aware of a product, a person, an event, or an outcome, then perhaps it is. If the goal is to form a positive impression, one that encourages a purchase or support as a result, then the nature of the publicity surely matters.
Take the case of two celebrities and a star athlete: Charlie Sheen, star of the TV series Two and a Half Men and drunken, ribald escapades; movie star Lindsay Lohan, star of several movies and lately the repeated court appearance; and Tiger Woods, a star who needs no introduction. All have proven their talent in their chosen fields. All have also proven their ability to generate exposure—albeit recently, most of it negative—in the media.
Toyota autos would certainly have an opinion about publicity in the form of negative exposure to its brand caused by unintended acceleration claims. It doesn’t seem to matter that most of them were due to driver error. This was the case decades ago in a similar set of circumstances with Audi, that had largely the same outcome—but few recalled that one this time.
Want more on publicity? Check these out:
However, Toyota still had real (not imagined) problems with floor mats and faulty accelerator pedals, resulting in massive recalls. Finding its cars part of million-car recalls has become far too commonplace—perhaps the downside of its vaunted consistency in design and production. When they make a mistake, they make it consistently across a wide range of models. I think that Toyota and most consumers would agree that this kind of publicity is not good in any respect.
Lady Gaga thrives on outrageous publicity, which seems to drive more and more attention her way, and presumably increases attendance at her concerts. The MTV series “Skin” has generated a lot of buzz, but its risqué content resulted in major sponsors withdrawing. It seems that Lady Gaga exploits are working and MTV’s may not be. On the other hand, if “Skin” draws more and more viewers, then some kind of sponsors will pay for access to that audience, no matter their perceived morals.
Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has had catalogs banned and panned. Underwear makers like Calvin Klein have had outdoor billboards panned and pulled down. Famous athletes like the aforementioned Tiger Woods have gone from adulation to indignation to outrage and finally humiliation, in a few short months. And yet, Tiger’s competition in a golf tournament still leads to higher TV ratings, and his protracted absence from the PGA Tour dropped all tournament ratings, even the so-called “majors” until his return.
Thus my initial question, which represents a conundrum: Is all publicity good publicity? It seems that if the goal is sheer awareness and exposure with out judgment or merit, the answer is yes. If the goal is favorable perception and positive image, then the answer is no. If the goal is simply notoriety, as in the case of performing celebrities, one might conclude that even “bad publicity,” ala Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan is not “bad” per se, as long as their performance quality is sustained.
So there you have the de-facto answer: “it depends on why the publicity is desired.” If “awareness,” without any particular opinion/result is the goal, then the more outrageous the publicity, the better it is. If the goal is admiration, emulation and favorable purchase intentions, then the kind of exposure matters a lot. Unfortunately, the riskiest form or promotion or publicity is based on the behavior of people, notably fallible human beings.
Thus the warning for companies, advertisers and sponsors—be careful, be very careful—because every now and then, even the most desirable celebrity icon (Tiger Woods) is found to have “feet of clay,” and must be replaced by safer ones (Jack Nicklaus, for example). However, if exposure (pun intended) is what a promoter wants, then a Lady Gaga could be the ideal choice. “Caveat emptor” is the phrase to remember—“Let the buyer, beware!"
Check your balance, review recent transactions and pay your bill on the go.
