When bad publicity is good publicity

By Tina Ambos

In a study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, researchers say in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness. Whereas a negative review in the New York Times hurt sales of books by well-known authors, for example, it increased sales of books that had lower prior awareness. That bad news isn't always bad for business has also been the case for Sony Pictures Entertainment’s recent film ‘The Interview’.

For PR and journalism, an interview is one of the most important methods used to collect information and present views to the public. In the film the interview is a method to commit a murder: The film stars Seth Rogen and James Franco as journalists instructed to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un after booking an interview with him. This film has since been linked with one of the worst cyberattacks ever on an American company. Everything and anything had been taken by a group calling itself ‘Guardians of Peace’: Contracts, salary lists, film budgets, medical records, social security numbers, personal emails and five entire films. In December 2014 the ‘Guardians of Peace’ threatened terrorist attacks against cinemas that played ‘The Interview’. Due to this, Sony canceled the theatrical release of the film. The company was criticized by the White House, Hollywood stars and others who accused it of capitulating to extortionist threats.

Sony’s ‘The Interview’ has dominated international headlines for weeks. And so it’s no surprise that after Sony had decided to release ‘The Interview’ for rental or purchase through streaming services, and to show it at a limited number of selected independent cinemas, that the film became a sensation. After four days the film earned over 12.5 Million Euro through online rentals and purchases, becoming Sony’s highest-grossing online release. ‘The Interview’ is the top-selling Google Play and YouTube film of 2014 and as of 6th January the film has earned more than 25 million Euro online.

The publicity due to the cyberattack has called the attention of millions of people – and not just fans of political satire comedy films – to purchase ‘The Interview’. People buy and watch the film to fight their own little battle for freedom of expression. The film, with lower prior awareness, hasmade history thanks to ‘bad’ publicity.

 

Comments

[John Doe]

The findings of the study you are introducing your article with suggest that bad publicity can, in some cases and under certain circumstances, increase sales, indeed. But: The commotion over “The Interview” is precisely not such a case. Let me explain that:

In said study Berger et al. examine the influence negative quality-related publicity has on (cultural) products, the key word being quality-related. They find that such negative publicity can increase sales of previously relatively unknown products after a certain time delay, when the original negative content of the information fades away leaving a raised level of non-judgemental awareness for the product only.

It is obvious, that the great publicity of “The Interview” was of negative nature and it is no less obvious that it did raise sales. Nonetheless it did so because of reasons that are very different from the ones discussed in the paper. The movie did not earn overly negative reviews (although I heard it had little chance of winning a people’s choice award); the quality of the product itself was never in question. Instead, public interest centred on a cyber attack and the resulting political implications, neither of which is related to the quality of the film in any way. The fading of the negative aspect of the publicity created is thus not crucial here but it is for the subjects of investigation of the study.

In fact, the authors mention cases like this at the end of their paper (they give the example of Michael Jackson and his various scandals which also were not linked to the quality of his music) and they explicitly state that the “current findings on this issue are far from conclusive” and they recommend that “further research should examine not only direct negative publicity (i. e. product reviews) but also publicity that is of a more indirect nature” like the Jackson issue.

It seems to me a little as if you had only read the abstract which, if not carefully read, may lead to misunderstandings. Or maybe I just misapprehended you, in which case I would be very sorry.

[Tina Ambos]

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and the detailed explanation. It’s true that Berger, Sorensen and Rasmussen made quality-related studies to this subject and that they say in their general discussion in the end of the paper that negative press could also affect the success without mentioning the quality of the product. It’s also right, that the quality itself of “The Interview” was never in question. So I understand that you want to point out, that “The Interview” is an example of the last part of the paper and not of the first part, which I didn’t mention in the introduction of my contribution for the blog. Thank you for this additional information for our readers and expanding my bridge from the study to the example “The Interview”! The negative press about the cyberattack is for many people “the first time they hear about the product, and thus negative publicity may still have positive effects” (page 825; the general discussion starts on page 824).