# No such thing as bad publicity?



## BWFoster78 (Apr 9, 2014)

People are calling this article a great example of all the things an unknown author shouldn't say:

If JK Rowling Cares About Writing, She Should Stop Doing It | Lynn Shepherd

But you do have to admit that it got her name out there...

Career killer or genius move?


----------



## Graylorne (Apr 9, 2014)

I saw negative reader comments are spilling over to her Amazon & Goodreads reviews, so I'd say it doesn't help her reputation.
If I were her publisher, I'd not be pleased; it's an extremely silly article.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2014)

I agree. The article doesn't make the author seem very intelligent and would certainly put me off buying anything she wrote.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2014)

More career killer than genius, and it depends, but really neither.  Rowling is successful, it's expected she will get these kinds of attacks and that she can take it.  It would be a career killer to go off on an unknown author for silly reasons, but attacking pop for being pop is kind of m'eh, whatever.  It might turn off some of her fans, but mostly there's a little distance now, people are more level headed.  And some people might agree with her.  There's a chance she's appealing to her niche, at the expense of people who won't like her work anyways, although I doubt it.

The thing is, there's nothing in this article which made me want to read more by the author of this article.  If anything I felt an urge to read Rowling's new works to see if her points were valid or not.  Maybe if I were running a blog, and she approached as a guest author, it might make me take a look.  But then again, I wouldn't want to share in her turn off of Harry Potter fans.

It depends, of course.  It might fit perfectly with her overall brand strategy, but I think it mostly washes out.

((edit))

I do feel that I should say, it's ridiculous for her to criticize adults for reading Harry Potter when she hasn't read even a word.  But I know people who think this way, who also read.  I'm familiar with where she's coming from.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

I read that article months ago. 
The author speaking is, imho, an idiot. JKR fans will do everything in their power to kill her books before they ever have a chance now.  
Bad PR is bad for business. I'm sure she was trying to start a rivalry thus improving sales, it has worked in the past. However, she went about it poorly and just comes off as bitter, resentful, and a jealous waste of space. 
I'm not a huge JKR, after the Potter books, fan by any means, but give the woman some credit. She came up with a book idea that set the world on fire, re-energizing children everywhere and many adults too, to read once again, not to mention write! 
We should all be kissing her feet and thanking her. Not trying to tear her down.
Part of the problem with her newest work is that it is not for children; or even young adults. She's been type cast per say. So, when she does something that does not fit within peoples set expectations, it is not received as well as if it were yet another child themed/marketed book. JKR, should not be expected to write just for kids, or just about magic, she is trying to branch out, stretch her literary legs, and people should allow her to do so. Without the name calling and demands for her to hang up her quill.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 9, 2014)

I'm really of two minds on this.  On one hand, she comes across as an entitled dolt and does nothing to recommend her work at all.  On the other hand, were it not for this article and the hullabaloo about it, I'd never of even heard of her.  Is it better to have people know your name even if it's with a negative connotation or to have them never to have heard of you at all?


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

IDK we all know who Hitler is/was, but if his memoires were published I doubt there'd be a line to buy the book...


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm really of two minds on this.  On one hand, she comes across as an entitled dolt and does nothing to recommend her work at all.  On the other hand, were it not for this article and the hullabaloo about it, I'd never of even heard of her.  Is it better to have people know your name even if it's with a negative connotation or to have them never to have heard of you at all?



No. There's not likely to be a benefit in the latter in terms of selling books. How many people are going to say "Hey, this person sounds like an idiot. I think I'll buy this book." I buy books from unknown authors when I stumble across them for one reason or another. So at least there was a small chance I'd buy her book at some point, if I happened across it and it looked interesting. Now that I know her for this article, there is zero chance I'll buy anything she puts out.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 9, 2014)

My dad sent me that Huffpo article a few weeks ago.   He also sent me a blog post by the writer of the Monster Hunter International series, Larry Correia. Correia said that Ms. Shepherd is a classic example of "defeatism" in writers--the idea that "I can't get published because that person is taking the spotlight" instead of just putting one's nose to the grindstone and working to achieve the best no matter what. 

His blog post is rather harsh and scathing, but it offers some good thoughts on the subject of working really hard as a writer. http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/02/24/fisking-the-huffpo-because-jk-rowling-is-nice-and-im-not/

Anyways, I digress a little from the topic of this thread, which is whether or not this will hurt Shepherd's reputation.  But, considering that at least one published, successful author tore her article to shreds and I have seen far more negative comments than positive, I think that this is a case of "bad publicity." 

She starts her article with saying


> When I told a friend the title of this piece she looked at me in horror and said, "You can't say that, everyone will just put it down to sour grapes!" And she does, of course, have a point. No struggling but relatively ambitious writer can possibly be anything other than envious. You'd be scarcely human otherwise. But this particular piece isn't about that.


Unfortunately, I do put it down to sour grapes. I don't say this to bash her by any means, but if this isn't sour grapes, she has seriously misrepresented herself.  I don't really like how she then appears to justify her envy by saying everyone else is.  

She may be a delightful person and I don't mean this personally against her.  But again, she has seriously misrepresented herself and painted herself in a poor light. More people might know her name now, but everyone is going to associate her with the phrase "sour grapes."  One thing that you learn in expository writing is that people remember the first paragraph and the last paragraph of an essay more than they do the content, and by putting "sour grapes" and "envy" (definite buzzwords) she has forever tied herself to those concepts. 

I don't really see how a writer can recover from that kind of publicity.  I definitely think this one was a career killer.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2014)

Yeah, it's not so much the jealousy, though that's bad enough, but the sheer stupidity exhibited by the writer. She appears to believe that J.K. Rowling publishing books has magically reduced her own ability, or the ability of other writers, to do so. It's a combination of sour grapes and cognitive defect, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm really of two minds on this.  On one hand, she comes across as an entitled dolt and does nothing to recommend her work at all.  On the other hand, were it not for this article and the hullabaloo about it, I'd never of even heard of her.  Is it better to have people know your name even if it's with a negative connotation or to have them never to have heard of you at all?



Right now I think her name is.... Lynn What'sit?  I didn't notice the name of the site at all.  Tomorrow I won't even remember that it's Lynn. 

The question of "bad publicity" is a big one that's discussed in Marketing.  And it's not easy to explain when and why bad publicity can be helpful.  In this case, I think the potential for being black listed by book reviewers looking at her website outweighs the name recognition.

But it's one of those areas where you just never know.  Is it perceived as bad publicity _within the niche that her work appeals to?_  And then there's other questions.  For instance, I'm put off by the article, but I'm also a little put off by the backlash to it.  At some point, for some people, that kind of reaction can turn into support.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 9, 2014)

The Blue Lotus said:


> The author speaking is, imho, an idiot.



We can't really know whether or not Shepherd is an idiot, but I think we owe it to her (and ourselves) to be the "better man" and not stoop to her level of slinging insults around.  That being said, what she wrote was rather idiotic in nature.  She has done herself a huge disservice; and as you said, bad PR is bad for business. 



> ...she went about it poorly and just comes off as bitter, resentful, and a jealous waste of space.



That is so true.  Whether or not she is a jealous waste of space, she presented herself that way.  And, unfortunately, first impressions are always the ones that last. 

I think we can all learn a lot from Ms. Shepherd; the things we write and say now can reflect on us for the rest of our writing careers.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 9, 2014)

I don't understand the logic used to come to these conclusions. If anything, books that are wildly successful can popularize a niche genre.   

Look at all the paranormal romances which have had success after the runaway Twilight train finally slowed down. The same could be said for the entire YA genre in fact. It's had an enormous bump in readership, much of which is attributed to books like the Potter series. Percy Jackson anyone?  

Truth be told, some people are always going to look for excuses to explain away their own failures. Others see opportunity.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

No, I stand by my assessment, anyone who shoots themselves in the leg by mistake is not the sharpest crayon in the box.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 9, 2014)

To Devor and Steerpike,

Not that I advocate doing something that appears monumentally stupid for the sake of getting your name out there, but there does seem to be some benefits.  I'm not sure that the notoriety from this article can help her sales directly, but, if she's a lot more savvy than the article makes her appear, can the notoriety be leveraged?

I remember when I used to watch The Apprentice.  There was this lady, Amorosa, who came across as a total whiny witch.  She managed to profit quite a bit from that exposure and participated in a number of other reality shows because she stood out.

It seems like, in this day of social media, fame, even for doing something stupid, comes with some kind of reward if you take steps to harness it.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 9, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, it's not so much the jealousy, though that's bad enough, but the sheer stupidity exhibited by the writer. She appears to believe that J.K. Rowling publishing books has magically reduced her own ability, or the ability of other writers, to do so. It's a combination of sour grapes and cognitive defect, as far as I can tell.



That is one of the things that Correia noted in his "fisking" of her article.  Her reasoning is, to say the least, poor logic.  And if she can't think through something like this issue, how can she think through the composition of a novel?  This is the face she has presented to the world.  Definitely a bad move on her part.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 9, 2014)

The Blue Lotus said:


> No, I stand by my assessment, anyone who shoots themselves in the leg by mistake is not the sharpest crayon in the box.



LOL! Fair enough, my friend.  Fair enough.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, it's not so much the jealousy, though that's bad enough, but the sheer stupidity exhibited by the writer. She appears to believe that J.K. Rowling publishing books has magically reduced her own ability, or the ability of other writers, to do so. It's a combination of sour grapes and cognitive defect, as far as I can tell.


Agreed. If her work were as good, and she landed the right agent willing to do what Little did for JKR she too could be massive. But one of the two is off, so... I mean whose fault is that?


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems like, in this day of social media, fame, even for doing something stupid, comes with some kind of reward if you take steps to harness it.


Well That is true, but the question is would then be, is she smart enough to do that? From the whining, she's done at this point I'd have to say no. But hey, I could be wrong. In which case, good for her, but I'd not hold my breath.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Not that I advocate doing something that appears monumentally stupid for the sake of getting your name out there, but there does seem to be some benefits.
> It seems like, in this day of social media, fame, even for doing something stupid, comes with some kind of reward if you take steps to harness it.



I realize you weren't talking directly to me, but fwiw, I really do get what you're saying.  I mean, think about what happened with Miley Cyrus and the VMAs.  That was extremely negative publicity, but she profited from it.   However, she did not say something like, "the only reason I am not that popular is because Katy Perry is." (Maybe that's why she tried making out with Katy Perry!)  

Is it possible that some monumentally stupid things can be harvested and leveraged, but others can't?


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Apr 9, 2014)

deilaitha said:


> I realize you weren't talking directly to me, but fwiw, I really do get what you're saying.  I mean, think about what happened with Miley Cyrus and the VMAs.  That was extremely negative publicity, but she profited from it.   However, she did not say something like, "the only reason I am not that popular is because Katy Perry is." (Maybe that's why she tried making out with Katy Perry!)
> 
> Is it possible that some monumentally stupid things can be harvested and leveraged, but others can't?



I'd assume as much, I mean, look at Britney Spears' Career... Or that guy from 2 and a Half Men, the one who played the kid... They wrote him out never to be heard from again. Not Sheen, he was a star before the drama, but even he has been relegated to the FX channel, where not many people watch well anything tbh. If the Kardashian's (sp?) started running around in their underpants and giving nipple shots, sure it would be funny to watch for a bit, but then it would get stale. There is a reason Kim does not make s3x tapes anymore... She used it to get her where she wanted to be and then cleaned up her act to stay there.


----------



## Devor (Apr 9, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure that the notoriety from this article can help her sales directly, but, if she's a lot more savvy than the article makes her appear, can the notoriety be leveraged?



Okay, yes, absolutely.  If you asked a PR expert it's not even a question.  She can "get ahead of the story" and use the entertainment value of the drama involved to, well, entertain - which is what writing is about.  There's noise around her, if she leaped into it she could get control of what's being said and turn it into something positive.

It would require a lot of active participation on her part, and could not simply end with, "What do people think of this post?"  But that possibility does exist.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Apr 9, 2014)

Let's look at it this way.  All the examples we've been using of instances where bad behavior - and thus bad publicity - translates into good exposure are all from the television, movies, and music aspects of the entertainment industry.  While we are also in the entertainment industry, we belong to a different part, and for us there is absolutely such a thing as bad publicity.  Where our success is hung on our reputations and on the word-of-mouth of our fans, when we do or say stupid, mean, or disgusting things in public (and the internet is the most public of places) then our careers suffer.  Yes, it may spread our names further - but it is because everyone is talking about what jerk we are, not about what good books we write.  That sort of publicity doesn't make new fans.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 9, 2014)

True, but I would say that all of that applies to the author of this article. I regret having read something so full of jealousy. Why should JKR stop writing so others can have a chance? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard all year (and its only April)!


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 10, 2014)

So... when I pull back my bow string, I do it with purpose.  I consider my stance, my aim, my draw.  Even when instinct shooting, talking shit with the archers on the line, and generally goofing off, I KNOW what is right and what is just stupid.  If I aim at a target, I might miss and land my arrow in a hay bale, but if I just go around shooting at random, I break arrows on trees or metal, or lose them in the woods, or MAYBE HURT SOMEONE.  My point?  People observe.  And they aren't stupid.  They watch me and judge.  We all do.  Is this a person I want to hang out with?  Is this a person I might ask advice from?  Is this a person I want to get to know better?  Is this a person who makes me feel good?  

So many questions we don't consciously ask ourselves and almost never voice aloud, yet in our heads, decisions are made based on those subconscious answers to the questions we never ask.  Would you like to hang out with this person?  Would you seek her advice?  Would you want to know her better?  Did she make you feel good?

Obviously, shooting arrows and writing blogs might seem a ludicrous analogy, but for my purposes here, they compare.  This blog article was not unlike me loading four arrows onto my string to "see what happens", and that's all before I began to read the actual article.  After the deliberately idiotic title, Lynn slams million of readers who enjoyed HP and I being one of them, couldn't help but feel it was a bonus level of stupidity we bore witness to.  I'll call that "sky shooting for fun" or aiming up as high as you can and just letting fly with your arrow.  I mean... go find that one.  No really, I dare you to try and find it.  WTF did you just do that for?  Why throw your arrow (credibility) away like that?  Dumb.  REALLY dumb.

Then, after my quiver's empty, (Lynn's potential argument about the space on bookstore shelves is spent), I looked back over my actions and what?  If it were me, I'd have felt pretty stupid.  I'd have seen the destructiveness and wondered why I made such a brash move, wasting my resources and hard work.  I mean... crafting arrows (developing a writing career) isn't easy.  Even if they aren't the awesomest in the world, they were mine.  I built them with my sweat and blood (literally in my case.  The analogy refers to every writer's pain and journey).  Why would I throw away those things I fought hard for?  But I did.  I just caved in a weak moment, followed my gut and acted rather than thinking.  (There had to be a point when she read over...spellchecking or whatever...and decided to hit "POST")

Again, I realize the analogy is a strained one, but when you consider how in any other field, forum, or hobby/career, this kind of move would only backfire, it answers the question of publicity.  Bottom line, she squandered whatever positivity she had on her side and morphed it into negativity.  She put up weak arguments and let's be honest, we're writers.  If we want to sell someone on an idea, we have our methods of doing so.  Firstly, we might begin with an argument that makes sense--rather than bashing readers, mentioning "sour grapes", and admitting our friend waved a red flag in our face but we were too blind to see it.  

Will I remember her name?  no.  Will I remember her book titles?  no.  Will I remember I saw an archer on the line today that no one wanted to hang out with because he was being deliberately careless?  yep.  And did I laugh when I watched him lose all his arrows, break his bow, and put a wood shaft through his hand?  Not really.  It was sad more than anything.  But he was a jerk so none of us really hurried to help him, right?  Again, if it weren't about authors, but something else, it just becomes so much stupider.  She took a mediocre career and shot a hole through it, bashed a pro, brought her credibility to zero, beat the dead horse of "JKR is taking up all the shelf space and not allowing other books in bookstores", and basically incited a multitude of conversations about her personal character and what a sad, pathetic thing it must be to have inspired an article comprised completely of drivel and pettiness.

I'm sad for anyone who feels the need to complain in this sort of public way.  If you have a serious need to make a point (even an unpopular one), the best way to do it is to write a concise article that expresses your opinion and back it up with a couple well-placed, thoroughly-researched points.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 10, 2014)

Caged Maiden,

I get your point.  I really, really do.  And I do not advocate in any way following the course that I'm about to outline, simply stating that it exists.

The modern reality of social media seems to be that notoriety carries the potential for profit.  Getting people to know you exist is the first hurdle to jump.

Because there are so many voices seeking attention, and so many venues from which readers can choose, some voices, and some venues, employ the strategy of making outrageously inflammatory statements that can't begin to be supported by fact.  The strategy is hardly laudable, but it presumably provides the voice/venue with profit.

Given that the strategy in the paragraph above is well-known to work (at least in some instances), why is it not a viable path?  Is it, in fact, a path that is easier than the path many of us choose?

Again, not advocating that anyone follow this path and I share your revulsion for the tactic.  However, I find it interesting to discuss the tactic on its potential for results rather than on its merits.

I don't think this author was that calculating.  Frankly, she came across as an entitled idiot instead of someone who was being deliberately inflammatory.  That being said, I think she has the potential, if she can harness the wave of publicity, to turn the lemons into some pretty satisfying lemonade.


----------



## Graylorne (Apr 10, 2014)

I think in principle you are right, Brian. Only in this case I guess it won't happen. I was curious enough to google around a bit and the author in question keeps absolute media silence. Her website hasn't been updated since; nowhere a word in response except for a half-hearted apology in the Guardian that harmed more than it helped.

Meanwhile she has collected a wagon-load of 1-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads. Even if she tries to ride out the storm by keeping mum, these won't go away. 

I remember another genre author a few months ago, saying something the twitterworld misunderstood and gaining him heaps of negative comments. He excused himself a million times all over the web, he answered each and every angry tweet and he even gave a sizable donation to a relevant charity. That is the way to handle a gaffe. Playing dead won't do it.

So I'm afraid her lemons will remain sour for a long time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 10, 2014)

Graylorne said:


> I think in principle you are right, Brian. Only in this case I guess it won't happen. I was curious enough to google around a bit and the author in question keeps absolute media silence. Her website hasn't been updated since; nowhere a word in response except for a half-hearted apology in the Guardian that harmed more than it helped.
> 
> Meanwhile she has collected a wagon-load of 1-star reviews on Amazon and Goodreads. Even if she tries to ride out the storm by keeping mum, these won't go away.
> 
> ...



If that's the way she's handling it, you're absolutely right.  Interesting to discuss (for me anyway) how one should handle such a situation should one find oneself in it.


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> If that's the way she's handling it, you're absolutely right.  Interesting to discuss (for me anyway) how one should handle such a situation should one find oneself in it.



In this case, if she asked me what to do right after posting it, I would've suggested she read some Harry Potter cliff notes and make a post defending her position with a slew of HP references mixed in, make a joke of it.  Then follow that up with an apology, something along the lines of, "I admit to letting myself vent my jealousy into a blog hoping to score a little controversy and grab a few hits.  I would've put more thought into my words and opinions if I had realized that anyone would react so strongly to something I said online."  And so on.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 10, 2014)

While I totally get that "bad publicity" can be profitable, (I watch MMA and it seems to run on that sort of thing), I do not believe this particular case is a viable example.  She got emotional, said something stupid, and like Devor said, could have done the right thing, but what we're seeing is simply an unintelligent person scrambling after doing something stupid.

If I found myself in a similar mind frame...say disliking JKR for expanding into other genres, I might begin my article very differently.  In fact, no "might" about it.  I'd start differently.  I'd mention how the books didn't do well without her name on it and how sometimes, retiring with dignity is more important than extending the dream for one's own personal ego.  I mean... any sort of correlation between her point and something resembling a fact would have gone a long way.  But to bring up space on a shelf?  Really?  

Yeah, I guess I tried to say that in my response, that this was too stupid to sound plausibly like a marketing strategy.  Might not have been clear.  

It is interesting to debate potentially "bad" public stunts that would maybe skyrocket an artist to stardom by helping them stand out from the crowd.  This was just such a sorry example, it couldn't have been seriously thought out.  And marketing representative would have told this woman to take that blog down immediately and follow a course like Devor said.  This was a vigilante justice gone wrong...a singular attempt to make a disjointed concept and over-emotional response into something resembling a cohesive argument.  And honestly, I knwo people who would be "that guy".  So... I'm sure it won't be the last time we see something this sad.


----------



## Graylorne (Apr 10, 2014)

The most remarkable thing is, that she holds a PhD in English and worked for years as P.R. for Guiness...
(The info comes from her own website).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 10, 2014)

Devor said:


> In this case, if she asked me what to do right after posting it, I would've suggested she read some Harry Potter cliff notes and make a post defending her position with a slew of HP references mixed in, make a joke of it.  Then follow that up with an apology, something along the lines of, "I admit to letting myself vent my jealousy into a blog hoping to score a little controversy and grab a few hits.  I would've put more thought into my words and opinions if I had realized that anyone would react so strongly to something I said online."  And so on.



Really?

Would the opposite tact be better, to become the person that people love to hate?  Really go out on a limb and skewer Rowling?

Not sure there's really any way to convert the hatred to love, but is there value in being hated?


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Really?
> 
> Would the opposite tact be better, to become the person that people love to hate?  Really go out on a limb and skewer Rowling?
> 
> Not sure there's really any way to convert the hatred to love, but is there value in being hated?



To being hated?  No.  _Somebody_ has to like you for it to have any value.

Also, kind of an aside to your question, this was in my news feed this morning:

When Controversy Sparks Buzz and When It Doesn't - Harvard Business Review


----------



## Chessie (Apr 10, 2014)

I totally would have deleted that blog post and replaced it with a formal apology. Then again, I could never bring myself to post something so embarrassing. 

Brian, I think I understand where you're heading with this...but really, NO publicity is better than a crappy one. If this author is receiving one star reviews on Amazon, one would think she would do what it takes to get better reviews, or take a look within and see what isn't working for her. I don't believe in competition. There's enough to go around. But let's say that JK Rowling stopped writing books...how would that create any sort of possibility for this author? From her reviews and obvious insecurity, shelf space is the least of her problems. Just saying, I rather be unknown.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 10, 2014)

Devor said:


> To being hated?  No.  _Somebody_ has to like you for it to have any value.
> 
> Also, kind of an aside to your question, this was in my news feed this morning:
> 
> When Controversy Sparks Buzz and When It Doesn't - Harvard Business Review



Cool article.

Regarding being hated, I guess I'm thinking more of being paid to generate content than for selling books.  If people hate you so much that they'll click a link just to disagree with you, that provides value to the venue, right?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 10, 2014)

Chesterama,

I've kinda moved on from the OP to a discussion on whether or not (or how) you can use negative publicity for your benefit.  I agree that the author's post was pretty darn moronic and, even worse, she's done nothing to even try to capitalize on the notoriety


----------



## Devor (Apr 10, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Regarding being hated, I guess I'm thinking more of being paid to generate content than for selling books.  If people hate you so much that they'll click a link just to disagree with you, that provides value to the venue, right?



Ehhh, maybe yes, maybe no.

Did you read the Pixar conspiracy post a while back?  Someone posted a theory that all of the Pixar movies were set in the same world, where there was a horrible apocalyptic war between humans, sentient animals, and sentient robots.  It was kind of cool, kind of unlikely, and wildly popular, with millions of hits in no time at all.  HBR did an interview with the guy, and they asked if he made any money off the post.  His answer?  He made thousands of dollars off of that one post, but only after somebody from Wordpress called him and told him how to set up the ad systems right.  He would've made nothing otherwise.

So it all comes back to the same answer.  You've got to know what you're doing and be fast to adapt to whatever response you get.  You can't just spew a lot of angry nonsense and expect it to work out for you.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## deilaitha (Apr 11, 2014)

I am really enjoying this thread.  It raises some neat questions.  I don't have much more to contribute, but I just wanted to say, for the record, that this thread has been a blast to follow.


----------



## Addison (Apr 11, 2014)

No such thing as bad publicity? ....Ever hear of a tabloid? Does anyone remember high school? Whether it's a rumor that turns into a toxin and a popularity stunt that kicks your legs out from under you. 

For example there's an episode of I Love Lucy in which Lucy and Ethel, desperate for money, agree to help a publicity stunt for a martian movie. They dress as aliens and climb to the top of the Empire State Building where they proceed to scare a bunch of tourists (their employer among them) and take their employer "hostage". Everything goes well soon after, they get five hundred bucks each. But their stunt incites panic all through New York and the New England area. (Also their husbands find out that it was really them.) The newspapers print all sorts of crazy reports of alien sightings as the husbands dress up as aliens and scare the girls, steal their money, and let them shiver.  In the end the newspaper did run that it was believed to be a publicity stunt, but after all the panic I don't think the movie did so good. The girls got their money backa nd beat up their husbands. 

So, in my opinion, there is bad publicity. Granted in some cases, bad publicity is better than no publicity. But still if you do get caught in some bad stunt then I hope you have sturdy pants because it will sneak up and bite you in the butt. 

If I sound cross I apologize, I just went through this. Don't-ask-what.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 13, 2014)

Missed this post from before, but there is a famous wrestling booker/executive named Eric Bischoff who wrote a book called "Controversy Creates Cash." Meaning if you do something against the norm, something shocking or strange, it will pique attention. It works a lot with celebrities but not so much with writers. 

I do believe controversy works to a certain extent, but only when someone creates said controversy and doesn't back down. Instead of issuing a half-hearted apology, Lynn could have taken her newfound notoriety and used it somehow. Not necessarily to sell more books, but to get people talking about the struggle for new authors. To become the face of the struggling authors out there (OK, that's stretching it, but who knows?) Everyone knows it's hard and we all have to start somewhere, so she could have used the negative backlash and maybe got people talking more about how they can figure out how J.K. Rowling got her success and try to duplicate it somehow. I think Larry Correia (who was linked earlier) mentioned that himself. 

If you're going to make a controversial post like that, you're doing it for several reasons:

1. To get attention on yourself
2. To bring attention to an important topic

It seems Lynn only used the post to get attention on herself. It worked, but it backfired. Her critical mistake (a huge one) is that she mentioned having never read any of Rowling's work. That killed absolutely any argument she had. Plus, may of the 1-star reviews she's getting mention that exact fact: "I have never read Lynn's work, but I don't need to to know it's 1-star." 

So there may be some kind of nugget of discussion she wanted to foster, but it was drowned out by the fact that she came off saying, "I write REAL adult fiction. So pay attention to me." So off to the races we went.

This idea that someone bought this so they didn't buy that works in some way I believe. Wal-Mart has crippled small businesses in many towns. People are in fact giving their dollar to Wal-Mart and not to the smaller guys. Does this work the same way for books? Probably not. Book lovers buy books. Lots of them. Feasibly if someone buys Harry Potter books, they'll be looking for more books like it next. They may pick up Tolkien because they like fantasy now. Then in turn may pick up Sanderson or Abercrombie or any other writer. Then in turn may say, "Hmm...I wonder what these indie authors have to offer" and pick up some of those. Just because someone gave their money to J.K. Rowling doesn't mean, "Oh, shucks, spent my book money for this month. Guess I can't buy this other one now." People will buy something if they want it. It may take them a little longer, but they'll get it somehow. 

So while I don't completely get her argument, the point I think she was trying to make was "it's hard out here and the competition is fierce." However, her "controversial" approach didn't work and she made no effort to stand up for what she meant. I think that was the nail in the coffin.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 13, 2014)

"No struggling but relatively ambitious writer can possibly be anything other than envious."

So I'm supposed to be envious because J.K. Rowling made it? Should I also be jealous that there are two famous authors from my hometown, a member of this forum on several top 100 lists, and many thousands of people who write for a living? Should I be bitter because the writing profession exists?

I'll admit to the occasional moment of weakness ("Why is s/he a writer and I'm not?"), but I wouldn't take that weak moment and put an article out there with my name on it.


----------



## Ghost (Apr 13, 2014)

Man, I just made a long response then came back to reread the OP. I'd spent two thirds of my post taking the article apart, but that isn't even relevant to this thread. 

The author of the article probably didn’t have ill-will toward anybody. I do think the snobbery, the self-importance, and the whining tone don’t help her, which is why I don’t see it as the good type of “bad publicity.” It doesn’t tell potential readers to expect greatness of mind from her work. It doesn’t improve her image or make people curious. From what I've seen in comments elsewhere, many commenters took a dim view of Lynn _as a person_. I think she would’ve done herself a favor by ignoring her Rowling complex, doing some research, and engaging others for discussion on whether phenomenal successes hinder the mid-list and debut authors. Less self-pity and unsolicited career advice, more community engagement. I personally think it’d be more effective to aim for thought provoking posts rather than provocative reproaches.

I really don’t see how there’s a fair comparison between authors trying to cash in on negativity and reality TV stars doing the same. Part of the draw of reality TV is the over-the-top drama. Reality stars make spectacles of themselves or act provocatively because viewers will watch that. Networks know that and edit the shows to highlight or fuel the drama.

I doubt it works as well when the public persona isn't closely intertwined with the product. With reality celebrities, the persona _is_ the product. The personality is meant to be part of the package. There's a type of rapper can badmouth other rappers—same metal bands dissing other metal bands—but that's because aggression is part of the image. Controversy and being irreverent is kind of the point in those cases. Same with shock jocks. The farther you get from public performance and showmanship, the less viable negative publicity seems to me. Because writers are working in text, it's harder to connect the persona with the product. Some authors are known by their images and personalities, sure, but at some point the readers have to read the actual book. It's less direct, I think.

Buzz can help generate interest in your career. Backlash can kill it. If what you've written is in itself controversial, I think it would be interesting to flirt with that aspect and stir up a dialogue about the issues covered in the novel. However, the author mentioned in the OP probably didn't write a controversial crime novel about a struggling author's relationship to fame, or whatever. So the whole thing seems superfluous to me.

What happened with this Lynn person was more like a little-known actor saying Will Smith should retire so other actors can get roles. The flaw there is that even if Will Smith doesn’t get the role, it’ll go to Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, or Brad Pitt. That little-known actor isn’t even in the running. That’s not how Hollywood works. To bring it back to books, even if J.K. Rowling wasn’t the phenomenon she is, it’d be Stieg Larsson or Dan Brown who fills up the store displays. You need to do knock more than one person out of the running to finally see a ray of spotlight. It’ll take a long time to force all those best-selling authors into retirement...

I not only see Lynn's plea as sour grapes, but also a misdirected complaint. I’d expect an author to be better educated on the actual industry of publishing. Most of her complaints were about things beyond Rowling’s control. Still, I find it disgusting that people are tracking down her work just to give it one-star reviews. Why be like the author of the blog post? It's a disservice to other readers/consumers.

Hope that wasn't too scattered or irrelevant.


----------



## Devor (Apr 13, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> This idea that someone bought this so they didn't buy that works in some way I believe. Wal-Mart has crippled small businesses in many towns. People are in fact giving their dollar to Wal-Mart and not to the smaller guys. Does this work the same way for books? Probably not.



What Lynn was talking about is an economic phenomenon called the "crowding out effect," which is a little different than "they bought this instead of that."  The idea is that one product becomes so ubiquitous that it completely drowns out the competition, hindering their chance to compete all together.  It's not happening with Rowling - as people have said, the opposite is true, people are coming to books because they read Harry Potter.  But to illustrate the concept, if I had to point to an example where it _might_ arguably be happening in fantasy, it would be the large line of D&D novels.  I'm not saying they're good or bad, but for a while at least, for some people, you could argue that they had come to characterize the genre and crowd out other works.




Legendary Sidekick said:


> I'll admit to the occasional moment of weakness ("Why is s/he a writer and I'm not?"), but I wouldn't take that weak moment and put an article out there with my name on it.



I'll second the sentiment.  It's human to think "Man, I wish I was doing better.  How is _that_ guy doing so well?  I don't see it."  And maybe groan for a moment.  But you don't give in to that.  There are many good things in my life.  Why be bitter?




Ghost said:


> The author of the article probably didn’t have ill-will toward anybody. I do think the snobbery, the self-importance, and the whining tone don’t help her, which is why I don’t see it as the good type of “bad publicity.” It doesn’t tell potential readers to expect greatness of mind from her work. It doesn’t improve her image or make people curious. From what I've seen in comments elsewhere, many commenters took a dim view of Lynn _as a person_.



I really do think the reaction is surprisingly and unfairly strong, insomuch as it was just one badly conceived blog post that may not even reflect much beyond that one post.  People write truly stupid things all the time and don't get this kind of reaction.




> I doubt it works as well when the public persona isn't closely intertwined with the product. With reality celebrities, the persona _is_ the product. The personality is meant to be part of the package.



It's about the brand.  There are definitely things a rapper or TV show host or Brittany Spears can do that would kill their careers.  Drugs?  Streaking naked through the street yelling stupid things as part of a protest?  That's part of the brand.  But screw up a night hosting SNL, and it has repercussions.

An author's brand is different.  We're allowed to do and say stupid things, sure, but they have to fit with that collective image we have of an author.  Our dumbass opinions have to come with big words and complicated nuance to sound smart.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 14, 2014)

> Our dumbass opinions have to come with big words and complicated nuance to sound smart.



This is my new life motto!

Oh, wait.  It's actually been my life motto for a long time now...


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 14, 2014)

I agree with Devor.  I'd think that if Britney Spears or Omarosa, or whatever "star" publicly known pop culture icon put out say, a book... I'd be very skeptical about its value unless it sounded right.  For instance... would I read Omarosa's family Christmas recipes?  Probably not.  Would I read her biography about how the Apprentice launched her career?  Maybe if that sort of thing interested me.  Would I read Britney Spears' parenting manual?  I don't think so.  I"m not sure she could put out a book I'd actually read at all.  

My point is, if we begin as authors, before say, we get known enough to be recognized even by a few people, our image isn't as a wild teenage rock star who is probably likely to spend time in court for drunk driving and fighting with her boyfriend/ sister/ manager in a Beverly Hills mall.  Our image must be one of a professional right from the get-go.  I mean, let's be real... "stars" can play stupid and still be popular.  I've never watched television shows that give sneak peeks into stars' lives, but I can only imagine how they're edited to make the stars look stupid and their lives dramatic.  But would you want the same from your author?

While I'm not saying that all readers are extremely intelligent, I'm inclined to believe the same people who love Game of Thrones and hang on GRRM's every word and lap it up like it's going extinct, aren't the same people diving into Snookie tweets every afternoon.

While there is of course some overlap in everyone's lives--of those things cerebral and those things mostly mindless enjoyment, I can't imagine avid readers would want their authors to go around acting a fool.  That's a little akin to your favorite biology teacher throwing in his towel and bowing out to the class clown.  We expect more from those we respect and we laugh at those we don't.  

Now back to the "bad publicity" angle, I don't think being controversial is necessarily a bad thing.  My books are controversial.  I cover a lot of elements I predict huge amounts of people would find tasteless.  However, I'm not writing those elements to please those most moral-high-horse people.  If asked to defend my work, I would simply say that I write fantasy and the elements I choose to include in my stories (things like incest rape, abortion, drug addiction, and you know, shit tons more...) were all present in the ancient world and I am neither inventing those things, nor condoning them.  I enjoy writing about raw things, those things which I feel most make us human.  However, the things I choose to blog about are mostly informative, helpful, positive things.  If I instead blogged about negative, incendiary, inflammatory, things, I'd expect backlash.  I'd like a reputation for bravely forging ahead into the realm of the controversial, as an artist.  Not as a person.

How about banned books?  I think that might be a prime example of "bad publicity" turned into positive results.  If your work is controversial and gets attention for pushing boundaries, I think it's a fast track to notoriety.  Maybe even the kind that I'd feel was really successful.  After all, I DO like to make people think.  But a whiny, ill-thought-out blog post?  How mortifying.  I've been known to open my mouth at the wrong time and while I'm certain I'll do it again many more times in my life, that's the danger of speaking.  One NEVER NEEDS to have the same problem with a blog (unless one has a habit of blogging at 3am after an all-night alcohol binge, in which case... mistakes WILL happen).  There is a point when you have to decide whether to delete it or post it and in this case... deleting her venomous personal feelings would have been the right thing to do.

Let your work be controversial, as an artist.  Make people really think, if you feel inclined to do so.  But for me, I'll always remember to appear intelligent, humble, and respectful in public.  And for the purposes of this post... blogging is public. If I wouldn't feel comfortable shouting my unbridled opinion from a street corner, it doesn't belong on my blog.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 15, 2014)

> I agree with Devor. I'd think that if Britney Spears or Omarosa, or whatever "star" publicly known pop culture icon put out say, a book... I'd be very skeptical about its value unless it sounded right. For instance... would I read Omarosa's family Christmas recipes? Probably not. Would I read her biography about how the Apprentice launched her career? Maybe if that sort of thing interested me. Would I read Britney Spears' parenting manual? I don't think so. I"m not sure she could put out a book I'd actually read at all.



You may not be interested in those books, but I pretty much guarantee that any of those books would outsell my debut novel (at least until I build up an audience).  People buy stuff with celebrity names on it.  Celebrities have access to media that we can only dream about, and that access gets their book in front of a lot of people.  It's all a numbers game.  If you put a book in front of enough people, someone is going to buy it.


----------

