Myth – All PR is Good PR
The statement that “All PR is Good PR” isn’t new, yet recently I’ve seen it being used to justify and even celebrate some sticky press coverage that have painted companies, including PR agencies themselves, in an unfavorable light. Explosively bad PR can propel traffic to a company’s Web site and create name recognition for an otherwise unknown entity if the situation is particularly bad.
But does that equate with a positive end result? I don’t think so.
If that was the case a true PR strategy would be unimportant and practitioners would simply suggest off-the-wall stunts and antagonistic statements to garner attention.
Recording artist Chris Brown is an example of actions and the resulting publicity souring an image. After his assault of Rihanna, media heavy weights including Oprah weighed in on the controversy and even our grandmothers who may not have known Chris Brown from Chris Columbus suddenly equated the superstar with domestic violence. Sponsors have withdrawn their money and a Google search of Brown summons news stories of the beating before a link to his official site appears.
Product recalls are another example of unfortunate publicity, which are often times the result of a supplier issue and not of the manufacturer. Sigg felt the sting recently when it was uncovered that it’s allegedly BPA free bottles actually contained trace amounts in the liner. Apparently an important co-branding partner dropped the company after hearing the news. Did the increase in mentions result in an increase awareness? Absolutely. Did it boost sales, word-of-mouth endorsement or positive consumer feedback. I doubt it.
We can probably all agree that not all PR is created equal and especially in crisis situations, good PR is an invaluable tool to communicate effectively with audiences and avoid becoming infamous. What do you think? Does the buzz that comes with bad publicity negate any bad messaging? What are some examples of bad PR alienating fans or customers, or instances where bad PR was a blessing in disguise?
Rachel Kay
photo credit: nyki_m
“All PR is good PR” is exactly what you stated, Rachel – A Myth. If anything, the buzz that comes with bad publicity enhances bad messaging. Time and time again there have been “minor incidences” which drew major publicity to a figure, product or company resulting in these incidences being blown hugely out of proportion. Bad messaging that might have been successfully “slipped under the rug” otherwise is instead amplified. But that could lead to a discussion on spin, and that is not our jobs as PR professionals…
But to see it from another side, look at (a text book case) the Tylenol PR crisis of 1982 when seven people died of cyanide poisoning. There was major negative publicity brought to the company, but because their PR pros handled it in the best way possible given the circumstances, Tylenol still stands today as a well-trusted brand.
Kate, I like that you bring up the classic textbook case of Tylenol – and how to successfully manage a crisis. However I feel like although a good example perhaps a little biased? I believe in that case, the bottles were tampered with which resulted in creating the safety seals that so many companies use today to protect their medicine. I think Tylenol although had to take blame for it – still didn’t do the meddling themselves.
On the other hand – when handling publicity for entertainers/musicians like Chris Brown, it has to be difficult when your client is the one at fault. There is no going around that your client was without a doubt wrong and actually harmed another person on purpose.
I do agree with both Kate and Rachel and it is truly a myth that “all PR is good PR.”
Kate,
I love your example of the Tylenol case, one of the best examples in our history of crisis communication. I agree, they did a good job and it goes to show the importance of a strong crisis team and strategy. I’d say though that despite the uproar it was negatively publicity they would have loved to have done without. Definitely an example of not all publicity being good even if it does get people talking.
Rachel
Like many things in the business world, a lot of this comes down to a case-by-case basis (sorry for the worn-out cliche there). Like Kate said, there are numerous examples where bad PR almost always negates the media coverage that someone gets, and ultimately, ruins the key messaging that those of us in the business try so hard to get our clients and organizations to nail in interviews as a means to drive home their key business points.
But there are also situations where a bad situation, when handled very well, has turned positive for a company. A lot of it comes down to how forthright a company is with its constituents once something goes wrong, and how sensitive they are to people’s needs. This actually gets me back to a point you made before about crisis communications. So much is talked about in terms of how PR practitioners handle those situations, how quickly we respond and now, through what traditional and digital mediums. What I think often gets lost is the human side of this equation, namely, how well do we act like normal people do? Are we sensitive to our constituents like we would hope a company would be with us if the roles were reversed?
The more I think about this, the more I am coming to the conclusion that no, any press is not good press, but a bad situation can be marginally negated and eventually, turned into a positive if a company uses the opportunity to express its human side. We all have the basic want and need to connect with others. Even in a bad situation, we need to find a way to harness that and engage with others in a meaningful way.
Keith Trivitt
@KeithTrivitt
The best way to find out if your PR is good PR is to consider what the publicity does for your reputation. Maybe in shallow (no offense to anyone in them!) industries like celebrities, all publicity is good. But companies should not aim to generate publicity in exchange for diminished credibility.
I completely agree and thinks for chiming in. There are too many positive ways to get people talking!
I agree with you that it’s a myth, a la “bad publicity is better than no publicity at all,” except as you say maybe in the entertainment industry. Kate mentioned the Tylenol case, and good crisis PR slowly turning a negative into a positive.
Attention span is something else: how long to live down a bad reputation, how long will people hold a grudge? Example: Today ExxonMobil is making big profits. Yes the price of oil is a big reason, but it also suggests that plenty of people are still pulling into Exxon stations. FWIW.
Good example with ExxonMobile – a company with that heritage certainly has to endure a lot to put it out of business. I’m sure though, there are many bad stories that companies like that would gladly erase! Thanks for chiming in!
Rachel, what is your advice then? Don’t screw up? If you do stumble, then what? Ignore it?
There will probably always be wife-beating, prostitute-seeking celebrities. Corporate polluters will be around forever. Anyone can get hit out of the blue with a bolt of stupid. It seems to me the more effective defense is to admit error without excuses, then move on. There may well be losses but an honest apology is about the only thing to mitigate those losses.
Tom,
I certainly didn’t suggest that they ignore it – crisis communication is a very different post that I’ve tackled before and will probably again.
My intent wasn’t to give personalized advice to Chris Brown or Sigg on how to deal with bad publicity.
My point with the post is that I’ve heard a lot of people suggesting that even the most detrimental coverage is a benefit because it gets people talking. I disagree with that. It’s important that clients, companies and anyone enlisting PR counsel understand that simply seeing a name in a headline doesn’t equal “job well done.”
Thanks for commenting!
I don’t completely disagree, but I think it depends on a number of factors. I hate to bring up the name, but Kanye lives off of negative publicity. Controversy gets people talking. I think if you can stir things up, without crossing the line (Chris Brown), then it could be considered good publicity.
Of course, just like positive publicity, it doesn’t matter if you can’t leverage the buzz afterwords.
So perhaps, it’s not the type of publicity that actually matters, but what you do with the buzz that follows. In this space we hear it all the time. Turn a customer with a problem into an evangelist by showing you truly care about their needs. Well if you do something bad, that gets a lot of publicity, how you deal with it afterward can actually build more support than you had in the first place.
@DavidSpinks
I agree with you example Rachel, but I also think it’s important to look at who is the person getting the PR.
This is slightly a stretch if you aren’t me — but go with me on this one for a minute:
Kim Kardashian gets a lot of ragging for her sex tape, her airhead behaviour on screen etc.,
I personally think it’s terrible publicity and I think she’s a terrible role model. On that note, she might just “want to be famous” and milked her scandals to get her there. In her case, besides for her sex tape, which even I don’t think she was “sorry for” (if you saw her Tyra Banks interview and the segment on Keeping Up the Kardashians where she went to the Tyra Banks show), but the point is — all of PR, even the bad stuff, to her, might have been abso-frickin-lutely great stuff.
It’s subjective.
Chris Brown, like perhaps, Michael Jackson are extreme cases that really go against a social norm. In the case of Kim, well, Paris Hilton did it first…and well, some people LOVE her.
It’s a great post Rachel, excellent topic. I wish more people thought about it like you. But alas, it’s not a perfect world.
Best wishes,
Sasha