There is no such thing as bad publicity, really?

If there is something that physically pains me every time I see it it's bad PR. I understand that being socially competent can be difficult at times, but when you're getting paid for representing your brand, you could at least do some research before diving into PR world or think twice as you press that 'tweet' button. The latest example of bad publicity must be Protein World's "Are you beach body ready," which suggested that women without a thigh gap and visible hip bones aren't good enough to enjoy themselves on the beach. The advert resulted in
this:

this:

and this:

and apparently in this too:

It's certainly not the first time that a physically fit model has evoked controversy and wide criticism. However, this time it was handled hastily and unbelievably fecklessly by the PR crew when they disregarded all respect towards consumers and PR ethics. 

This news got us discussing with my friends and we decided to agree on that 'publicity is publicity, right?' But is it really?

To me the saying 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' is a bit like 'winning doesn't matter what matter is trying' and 'money is not important'. Although in a perfect world there's a certain amount of truth to it, they're usually said by people who lose or don't have any money. The next day when we learnt that Protein World had made £1 million in four days and all thanks to the controversial campaign and its bad PR. 

Believing that all publicity is good publicity is like people never finishing their meals in films - a huge cliché. I'm sure McDonalds, Toyota and Tesco with its horse-meat scandal and are happy to support me. McDonalds has faced negative publicity what I'd even call public shaming for years and is now forced to cut its empire by hundreds of restaurants worldwide. Accusations of faulty machines towards Toyota resulted in huge fines and decreased sales, which resulted in losses up to $2 million. Thus no, not all publicity is probably good publicity. Although negative publicity increases consumer awareness, it lowers public's trust in a brand. Yet, there are certain situations when negative publicity can bring good.

If the subject is relatively unknown for the public then indeed bad publicity is better than no publicity. For instance a study by Stanford Graduate Business School indicates that negative reviews decreased established authors' sales by 15 percent. As to unknown authors, on the other hand, the sales had about 45% increase. Thus, even bad news and negative publicity draws the public's attention, which is ultimately the foundation of a brand's success. Protein World seems to have done just that, thanks to the backlash they managed to expand its market and ultimately increase their sales using the fit model and mind tricks.

Furthermore, there are certain scenarios, where the company is already evil in its nature. Thus, the negative media coverage isn't as shocking as we'd expect. For example with McDonalds, Coca Cola or Phillip Morris people already know how harmful their products and practices are but they are consumed nevertheless. Learning about McDonalds' horrid CSR or Coca Cola's fatal impact on groundwater in India is not as off-putting as it would be with brands with impeccable reputation.

And lastly, connected to the previous point, often the public holds certain expectations that may play a significant factor in negative or positive perceptions. For example, when Kim Kardashian released another sex tape the world probably wouldn't be as shocked as with Angela Merkel or Oprah Winfrey. 

Thus, to sum up. Yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity, but it can sometimes turn out well if handled well and the odds are with a brand. However, me mustn't forget that bad publicity is never desirable or considered as a good thing in theory. It's just sometimes PR people manage to pull off that jiu jitsu stuff, change the conversation and make it benefit the brand.