The Risks of Seeking Attention Through Bad Publicity: Why All PR is Not Good PR
The adage "There's no such thing as bad publicity" suggests that any attention, even negative, can be beneficial. However, in today's interconnected world, seeking fame through bad publicity can have significant adverse effects. Negative PR can damage reputations, erode public trust, and lead to financial losses. "All publicity is good publicity" is one of my least favourite terms! I have a mini rant about why it annoys me so much in this video:
The notion that all publicity is good publicity is a dangerous myth that can lead to significant reputational damage. While any exposure can momentarily boost visibility, not all attention is beneficial in the long run. Negative publicity, particularly when it involves scandals, ethical breaches, or controversial statements, can erode public trust and damage a brand's credibility. Once trust is lost, it can be so hard to rebuild, often requiring extensive time, effort, and resources.
Some believe that negative publicity can increase visibility, this approach is fraught with risks. I suspect that this stems from the desire for virality and people’s perceptions that any attention can be monetised when in fact negative PR can lead to a decline in customer engagement, a decrease in client numbers, and financial losses. Moreover, it can leave lasting damage on a company's reputation, undoing months or even years of positive PR efforts. It might work for those who are brokers in negativity - eg Right wing controversy attention seekers but if we’re talking about business and in fact even on an individual level the risks to relationships and reputation are significant.
Several high-profile incidents demonstrate the pitfalls of negative PR for individuals. A good example here in the UK is Gregg Wallace's Controversy. The former "MasterChef" presenter Gregg Wallace faced backlash for inappropriate behavior and comments, leading to his removal from the show. His failure to adapt to contemporary norms and his ineffective PR strategy resulted in a tarnished reputation. This is a good piece on the Gregg Wallace debacle.
Effective crisis management is crucial in mitigating the effects of negative PR. Transparency, accountability, and prompt action are essential components of a successful response strategy. For instance, companies that own up to their mistakes and demonstrate a commitment to rectifying them can restore public trust and minimise reputational damage. Making headlines is not the same thing as making profits. Brands have been successfully boycotted for not handling a crisis effectively and corporations spend millions of pounds to keep negative news out of the press. There is a reason why they have internal PR and comms teams and why they hire major agencies to handle their crises. Making the news is not always something to be proud of - this tragic story pertaining to Costa Coffee’s mishandling Hannah Jacobs’ serious allergy is an example of negative press that an organisation like Costa obviously could not shy away from but leave a mark on their reputation and brand.
Ethical PR practices are fundamental in building and maintaining a positive reputation. Engaging in deceitful or manipulative tactics, often referred to as "spin," can lead to public distrust and long-term damage. PR professionals should focus on fostering genuine relationships and trust with their audiences, rather than resorting to unethical strategies.
While the notion that all publicity is good publicity persists, the risks associated with negative PR are substantial. Organisations and individuals should prioritise ethical and positive PR strategies to build and maintain a favourable public image. Negative PR can lead to significant reputational and financial consequences, underscoring the importance of thoughtful and responsible public relations practices. So I hope that people can change their perspective and hopefully see that not all publicity is good publicity.