Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DynaSpain
I still dissagree.....but I do agree that just bad publicity without any follow up
actions might be harmful. If you handle bad publicity properly you will come
out stronger than before.
In your Danone example sales might drop for a while....but once it gets clear
that Danone doesn't have rat feces in their products wether it's achieved by
a lawsuit or anything else.....danone as a brand will be stronger than ever before.
You're Dutch so I can use the example of IGLO frozen food. It's a good
example coz instead of a rumour it was a fact that years ago they had
traces of somekind of poisen in a number of their products.
People were saying IGLO, Indien Giftig Langzaam Opeten. It made the
brandname IGLO famous...and in the long haul they have profited from it
in terms of brand recognition.
 |
You're Dutch, so I can use the Buckler beer example. Dutch comedian Youp van 't Hek made the brand look completely ridiculous, and effectively killed it off in The Netherlands.
The thing is, publicity leads to visibility, and the better visibility, the better it is for business. That much is true. However, the "bad" part of bad publicity can outweigh the visibility benefits. This is especially the case with brands that are already established (and thus benefit less from increased visibility), and which rely strongly on either an image of reliability or coolness.