Should Companies Profit Off of Negative Coverage? J:4460

Should Companies Profit Off of Negative Coverage?

In the media today, companies will do anything to get coverage of their products or services. Over the summer, Summers Eve released a series of advertisements that could have been considered racist. This eventually stirred up controversy with the users of their product. Although the ads were controversial and were eventually taken down, Summers Eve still received coverage because of the controversy that had arisen during the ads.

It is probable that even though the ads were controversial and had to be taken down that Summers Eve was still able to turnover product and make a profit from the negative coverage. The ads may have been raunchy, but Summers Eve still profited from the negative coverage of the product. How ethical is it that a company or an organization can promise that their product will do something that it won’t or target certain stereotypes in their advertisements? Sounds unethical to me.

In an article released by PRSA this past week, they discuss the “Ethical Perils of Paying for Positive Media Coverage.” (http://prsay.prsa.org/index.php/2011/09/13/paying-for-media-coverage/) But what happens when the company doesn’t have to pay for the coverage in the slight? Plenty of companies have made mistakes in their product launches and advertisements and still profited off of the negative spin. How ethical is it to be able to produce a controversial ad, have it taken out of the media, and still be able to profit off of their mistake? Could it be possible that companies brand their products in a negative way that they would turn over more product in doing so, rather than spinning the product in a positive light? I believe that it is very possible. 

As PR professionals, we must have the capability of stopping a client from advertising their product in a negative light. No one should profit off of a racist advertisement, even if they claim that they didn’t think that the ad was racist. As PR professionals, we are the link between our client and the consumer. Any negative coverage the client receives, we are the ones that has to spin it. Companies who do this do not realize that there are repercussions of releasing negative advertisements, even advertisements that promise to do something that the product will not do. If the client receives negative coverage, we, as public relations professionals, have to take the heat and defend the client.

Unfortunately, it is both public relations professionals and advertisers who must make the decision whether or not the advertisement or article that is about to be released is ethical. Clients expect us to be able to foresee whether or not an advertisement or news release will receive negative coverage or if the advertisement/news release could hurt the company’s image. We should be able to decide whether or not a certain race could be harmed by an advertisement or product release. We should also be able to make the decision of releasing the advertisement or product release if it is racy, raunchy, etc. Our clients deserve the best coverage, even if they could profit off of negative coverage. Come on guys, it just doesn’t look good for a company to have stereotypical or racist advertisements as their whole campaign. We, as public relations professionals, should have known better and said, “Hell no, I’m not going to write a product release on this stereotypical advertisement where people may be offended!”