Chapter 14: Public relations and publicity
Discussion Question 3: There is a saying that ‘any publicity is good publicity’. Discuss what you think about this statement and consider how this relates to the Australian Royal Commission into banking (
https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/banking
), Australian strawberry contamination (e.g., Strawberry needle scare: Growers to look to metal detectors to
contain contamination crisis - ABC News
)
, and a more recent crisis you can recall.
Your answer:
The saying "any publicity is good publicity" suggests that even negative attention can ultimately benefit someone or something by increasing awareness or engagement. However, the validity of this statement depends on the context.
In the case of the Australian Royal Commission into banking, the extensive media coverage exposed numerous instances of misconduct and malpractice within the banking sector. While this negative publicity tarnished the reputation of banks and financial institutions, it also compelled them to address systemic issues and implement reforms to restore trust and accountability. Ultimately, the scrutiny led to increased transparency and regulatory oversight, which could be considered beneficial in the long run.
On the other hand, the Australian strawberry contamination crisis in 2018 had devastating consequences for growers and the industry as a whole. The contamination, where needles were
found inserted into strawberries, sparked widespread fear and consumer distrust, leading to significant financial losses and reputational damage. In this case, the negative publicity had predominantly adverse effects, highlighting the potential harm of certain types of attention.
Therefore, while publicity, whether positive or negative, can generate awareness, its impact on individuals or organizations varies depending on the nature of the publicity and the ability to manage and respond to it effectively.
Another example: Maggi noodles
The startling findings of lead and MSG in Maggi was confirmed in April 2015, the mainstream
media picked up the issue, a month later, on May 20th.
There was a one month window for the food giant to get its act together.
They
could’ve recalled the product voluntarily
(Nestle did that in USA in 2014 over one
complaint of incorrect packaging of
Häagen-Dazs ice-cream
)
, and come clean saying that the
safety of Indians takes precedence over everything else.
But instead:
1) They
blocked all lines of communication
with consumers. For more than a fortnight,
barring a computer-generated statement, there was no word from Nestle. Nearly all beat
journalists, including myself, wrote and re-wrote to Nestle for a more human, in-depth
response, but Nestle was too arrogant for a 2-minute reply.
4
