No such thing as bad publicity?

[The Blue Lotus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.