After working on tonight’s project about publics, mine and Brooke’s being on print media, I got thinking about how companies abuse the media for free marketing, even if this abuse is completely known about by the media.
For instance, if you read any entertainment news this week, I'm sure that you have seen that Paula Abdul will not be returning to American Idol. It was first written that this was over a salary dispute because Idol wouldn’t pay Paula as much as Simon or Ryan Seacrest. But after a week or so of this being played out in the media, I’ve come to wonder if this is really a salary dispute or just simply a publicity stunt? American Idol’s ratings last season were the lowest they have ever been. But with this “salary dispute” going on in the media, the show and Paula are getting more press than they ever have before.
And someone is feeding this information to the press. But my question is, is it ethical as a marketer/PR professional to let a story play out in the media when it is basically one GIANT exaggeration about your client? Or, is the idea of “negative press is better than no press” legit?
As a marketer, I feel that at some time, there will be a breaking point. IF it was to come out that Paula’s salary dispute was simply a publicity stunt and in the end she goes back to Idol, I think viewers will be mad that they were duped. On the other hand, it could just be a publicity stunt for Paula herself to get more work with the million other talent shows. But again, I feel like I’m being mislead and I can’t feel sorry for her for having to leave American Idol.
I think as marketers we have to be careful when “playing” with our audiences emotions and how they perceive out clients. Striving to be truthful is an understatement because we must also to be sure to correct the exaggerations in the media about our clients.
No comments:
Post a Comment