• • • Home | Subscribe | Login | Earlier Issues | This issue • • •

 


Can dailies rely less on advertising?
 
Dilip Cherian
(Consulting Partner, Perfect Relations)

Confusion about the merits of good versus bad publicity must certainly owe its origins to Oscar Wilde who famously said, �It�s better to be talked about badly than not at all.� He may possibly have regretted those breezy words often, later, since he had to contend with a great
deal of bad publicity that ultimately destroyed his life.

So the question is: �What is the bad publicity impacting?�

If, as we now know for certain, brand equity - especially at a corporate level or institutional level - depends upon a reputation for good quality, integrity, surgical prowess or similar USPs, publicity impacting this reputation negatively can often be disastrous. Today, image management experts like me, no longer have to spend a lot of time working with global CEOs and business owners, convincing them that it is necessary to protect and insure corporations against the damaging effects of poor publicity. It�s a given.

But for a film star, author or a member of some other creative fraternities, when the bad publicity does not knock the talent issue, it could still conceivably be good. Especially since it adds to what�s often most critical for those in some of the rather fragile and high-visibility industries like glamour, fashion or films. In fact it could be a valuable aid to a person�s recall value.

However, there is a caveat even here. If this publicity is unrelenting and evolves into something cruel, it could affect a �weak� person psychologically and will inevitably impact performance negatively. Also, it needs to be remembered that bad publicity can often drown out the good.
   

Prema Sagar
(Principal & Founder, Genesis Burson-Marsteller India)

Reputation is built on a foundation of deliberate and specific actions over a period of time. The communication of those actions builds reputation for a person, product or an organisation.
I have not known of a company that plans for bad publicity. If it does, its life will be shortlived. Bad publicity is just that - bad publicity. It adversely impacts employee morale, potential employees - in fact all stakeholders and, therefore, the reputation of the company. It may attract a lot of attention in the short term but whether it translates into sales is the question to be asked.

Even artists, actors and other public figures look at how their reputation is impacted by their actions and, so, work hard at a good reputation as they are constantly under the public glare. Think of Sunjay Dutt for a moment - does he look like he is enjoying the bad publicity?
In my view, no publicity is better than bad publicity. A case in point is Shapoorji Pallonji - low profile (read, no publicity) but hugely successful.
   

Shveta Brahma
(Celebrity Manager, Matrix India Entertainment Consultants)

No. �Bad� publicity is definitely not better than �no� publicity. Bad publicity may put a celebrity or a brand on top of the consumers mind, but it only erodes any equity that the celebrity or brand had in the minds of the consumer and is

harmful in the long run.

When a celebrity acts as a brand ambassador, he/she shoulders a lot of responsibility. Hence any bad publicity for the celebrity rubs off negatively onto the brand, and hence no brand or celebrity seeks - or should seek - �negative� publicity as a substitute for �no� publicity.

Sometimes negative publicity happens and the brand then needs to take affirmative action to correct it immediately - like what happened in the recent cola controversy. Both the brands immediately reached out to their consumers, using their spokespeople and their brand ambassadors and I think this has definitely helped the brands.
   

Roshan Abbas
(Managing Director, Encompass)

There is an age-old saying, �Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right.�

Janet Jackson titillates and the world stops to watch - overnight she is the most Googled-for

person. The West reacts to Paris Hilton by following her every move, a sex tape, wardrobe malfunction and a vow of celibacy. There is a vicarious pleasure in second-guessing her next move.

Closer home, Rakhi Sawant is liplocked by Mika, and unlocks a potential career as a spin-master as she pushes up the TRPs of Aaj Tak and other news channels. Salman Khan lives up the big bad image with brawls, car accidents and Black Bucks. Coke and Pepsi get drawn into a controversy that may sour our taste and theirs a bit more.

Positive or negative attention? I think we need to look at this in context to the relative anonymity of the brand or person concerned. Notoriety may be a quick road to fame for someone just starting out. Mallika Sherawat, a girl who had attempted to be in the industry before, reinvents herself, wears the notorious tag blatantly and rises like a phoenix from the ashes.

Front page stardom seems easier through the garb of notoriety. I remember a friend�s T-shirt in college - Good Girls Go to Heaven, Bad Girls go everywhere. With established brands, the reaction is different. The public has knowledge on its side and here they judge the offense or act in the private courthouse of their mind and then pass judgment. Pepsi and Coke may be threatened with bans, but have consumers stopped drinking?
 
Reported by Rachana Khanzode

 

   
MAIL THIS PAGE