But I do get what you are saying, with PR that isn’t too bad, most people just remember the name of the person and not the PR incident.

Noticed that your personal branding is not really tied to spelling/grammar/word choice … in this article, it should be “laughing stock” not “laughing stalk,” unless you’re talking about a new kind of hilarious vegetable.

Now, of course, I’m branding myself as a nitpicking librarian type. Arggh.

For example, bad PR (especially in the online world) could easily make you more money than if you are not getting any attention at all. If the bad PR leads to a huge flood of traffic there is always the opportunity to redeem yourself in some matter and turn the bad attention into something good. Of course it depends on how negative the comments or action you took was perceived and the type service you are offering.

I reread this a few times and it still doesn’t compute. The idea of creating negative press on purpose just doesn’t make any sense to me. I spend so much of my time trying to clean up the aftermath of bad press.

I do agree that some people have found a way to profit from notoriety, but it’s a very big gamble.

For personal branding, yes, there is bad PR. Because if you are known for scams, for being wrong all the time, etc. You will not get a job, or people will not hire you as a freelancer.

However, when it comes to consumer brands, I also believe there is bad PR, however, 99% of the marketeers have it wrong on the question ‘what is bad PR’. For example: cycling (sorry, big cycling fan). The doping stuff. Floyd Landis gor bad PR and it ruind his career. that’s bad PR. His sponsors however I doubt if they would suffer. WHen Festina had it’s big dope schandel (with Virenque and co) that year more Festina watches were sold then any other summer. Also more Festini ice creams (with no other explination then the Festina dope problem). So when it comes to consumer brands, there is no such thing as bad PR unless it directly comes from your probuct (cars that break down, bad service, etc).

So I totally disagree on point 2. People remember the name, not the reason for the PR and so in many cases, bad PR is good PR. Only when the bad PR is a direct result from the product or service.

For a personal brand, it’s the same. If you are a fraud, if you did scams, delivered badly, it’s bad PR. If someone is just thashing you, people won’t remember.

On the reverse, Paris can now leverage that bad press after going to jail to potentially make millions writing a book, interviews, and fund-raisers taking that negativism and creating something marketable. Thus re-branding her image, what otherwise wasn’t possible.

Re-branding can occur after displaying to the community that you’ve done right for your negative actions. In some cases this could be possible and in the OJ Simpson case not.

Just my crazy thoughts…Great discussion topic Neil.

“Seven out of ten British consumers will not click through to a company’s website if search results contain negative comments about them. ” From e-consultancy

There is a difference between inciting criticism (which can be good) and looking like a fool. Both are probably better than getting no attention at all.