Whenever a crisis hits a brand, someone, somewhere will comment that: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” (Unfortunately, that someone in some cases is the CEO of the organization that is suffering from the crisis.)
That’s obviously not true, as we’ve seen in our own work. Some bad publicity is bad and will have far-reaching consequences: a collapse in sales, restructurings, a selloff or the abrupt end of promising careers in the company.
But on the other hand, it is true that some bad publicity is actually beneficial for brands and companies. Sales surge, stakeholders rally around it and the organization comes out of a potential crisis smelling of roses.
Some bad publicity destroys a brand — some actually makes it stronger.
So how can you know if you’re faced with “bad bad publicity”, and when is bad publicity “good bad publicity”? Defining this was on our to-do list for some time – until we came across a recent post by Mark Ritson, who proposes an extremely elegant and useful framework to look at crises. So with all due credit to Mr. Ritson, here’s how he looks at cases of bad publicity.
The Ritson framework: Fame, Blame, Same
Ritson says you have to consider three factors:
- Fame – How well-known is the brand?
If a brand is not well known, bad publicity might actually help the brand, because building awareness is usually the single biggest challenge for a brand. A sudden burst of publicity – even if it looks negative at first sight – might boost awareness to such an extent that it erases any damage that the negative press can do. Especially if you consider the second dimension:
- Blame – Where did the story come from?
Ritson argues, “If it’s derived from the direct, explicit action of the brand and its employees then it will prove potentially more damaging than if the negativity comes from outsiders with an axe to grind.” Meaning: did you shoot yourself in the foot, or is someone else trying to hurt your brand? If the latter, the damage will be less severe than in the former case.
- Same – Is the issue at the heart of the bad publicity and the brand’s stated position the same?
If the story undermines the brand’s messaging on its ethos or values, the reputational damage is likely to be worse. In other words: does the crisis affect the core of your brand promise or not? If it doesn’t, the damage of negative publicity will be lower than if it’s directly tied to your positioning.
Bad publicity can end up benefiting a brand…
Ritson cites the example of an east London bakery which hit the news recently after attracting the ire of locals upset by the so-called “gentrification” (and rising prices) of their neighbourhood. He argues that in the long run, this could expand its customer base.
Indeed, in a UK newspaper article, the bakery was endorsed by no less than celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, not just for the quality of its products, but for its commitment to the local community and social change through its trainee scheme.
This is a point in its favour which may silence its critics and, but for the bad press, may never have come to public attention.
Bad publicity isn’t always a threat — Ritson’s framework shows when to worry, and when to lean in.
Another instance of bad publicity made good comes from the recent news that messaging app Signal has seen a surge in downloads since it emerged that a journalist had been added to a group chat with high-ranking U.S. security and defence officials. Considering the framework, we can see that this helped Signal achieve more awareness (“fame”, which is still an order of magnitude smaller than that of Whatsapp). In terms of blame: it got caught up in the crisis by no fault of its own.
In both cases, the bad publicity was caused through no fault of the companies concerned, did not undermine their credibility, integrity or ethos and could be turned to their advantage.
.. but it can cause real damage
Contrast this with the damage inflicted when bad press comes from within. There is huge potential for current and ex-employees to cause havoc with their comments on company products, activities and culture.
This was highlighted earlier this year by the row over the publication of a new book exposing the inner workings of Meta by a former senior Facebook executive. Meta won an emergency ruling blocking publication on the basis that without emergency relief, Meta would suffer “immediate and irreparable loss”.
Or consider the damage that CEOs can have on their own companies. Few examples are as clear-cut as the harm wreaked on his own company by Ratners’ CEO Gerald Ratner in the early 1990s.
Having built Ratners into the world’s largest jewellery business, he destroyed it in moments, with a few ill-chosen words about the quality and tastefulness of its products (which he called “total crap”):
We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?”, I say, “because it’s total crap.”[7]
After the speech, the value of the Ratner group plummeted by around £500 million, which very nearly resulted in the group’s collapse.[8]
A competitor or even customers saying the same thing in public would have had nowhere near the same effect. With that one comment, he destroyed his company.
Ritson points to the headline-grabbing actions of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, which are no longer aligned with the company’s original ethos, tarnishing its image among large segments of its customer base.
He says, “Musk is now behaving in a manner directly opposed to the environmental, liberal, progressive stance that he and his brand once adopted – to horror of existing and potential target customers.” In Europe at least, Tesla sales have nosedived.
Fact check: bad publicity — when it helps and when it hurts
So to conclude our fact check: it’s clearly not true that there is no such thing as bad publicity – some bad publicity can and will kill organizations (or terminate their leaders’ careers).
Some bad publicity provides a boost. Ritson’s framework helps decide in what situation you are likely finding yourself – and can help you provide an appropriate response.