Abstract topic: Bad vs No publicity?

[Stofsk]

So we're told all the time that it's better to have bad publicity than no publicity, but wouldn't bad publicity put the customer off buying the product? You don't even need to consider it from a marketing point of view. What if it's about your reputation, wouldn't having a bad reputation hurt you more than having no reputation?

What do you think?

[Dark Silver]

they way they mean that, I beleive, is if you have a bad reptuation, at least your name is OUT there, you are known and are recognized, at least for something.

If you have no reputation/publicity, then obviously, your not going to be known, your name is not out there.

It's all a matter of if you want to be noticed or not I guess.

To me, I'd rather be known for good things, than for having a bad product or being a normally crappy person to know.

[Stofsk]

The way I see it is with 'No Publicity' your name hasn't been established yet, your rep is an unknown - which makes it better than 'Bad Publicity'. Because if you have bad publicity, you're known to make a shit product or be a shithead or whatever, which is hard to rectify. After all you can clean up your act but once people know you for being a bad rep, that stink is gonna follow you whatever you do.

On the other hand, if you have no rep to speak of, the opportunity is there for you to make of it whatever you will.

[Knife]

Rebels with out a clue, will buy your shit if you have a 'bad rep'. Nobody buys your shit if they don't know about you. So it comes down to; somebody, if small, buying your shit as opposed to nobody buying your shit.

[Josh]

It depends entirely on the nature of the publicity.

For example, "Nike makes its shoes in Asian sweatshops!!!!111!!" is ultimately good publicity because it reinforces the brand name, and most consumers don't care.

Now on the other hand, "Aquawash-brand soap melts your skin right off your body!!!!" is in no way good publicity.

Basically, it breaks down along the lines of public safety and public morality. Safety first, mass morality second, and a massive bell curve that largely represents the disinterested public.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Basically, it breaks down along the lines of public safety and public morality. Safety first, mass morality second, and a massive bell curve that largely represents the disinterested public.

Also, I guess bad publicity is more severe if happen to the product instead of the corporation/producer. For example, people are still buying Michael Jackson's album despite the publicity that says he's a pedophile. On the other hand, McDonald's sales was once severely affected by the 'wormburger' publicity.

Moreover, some kind of products can be more sensitive to bad publicity compared to others. Food and meal products are particularly sensitive to bad publicity. For example, would you still buy Dunkin' donuts if you're being told that they actually punch the donut's hole using their penis, advertently jacking off while doing so? Would you still drink milkshake at McDonald's if it turns out that the shake is actually made by gargling the milk then spitting it out into your glass? Would you still chew Wrigley's if it is discovered that the gum is actually made of used condoms?