Is the good review, the bad, or even the ugly review just as good as a good review in the whole marketing scheme of things?
In a recent article Stanford researchers believe bad book reviews may help lesser known authors. You be the judge… The key point to make here is that researchers “looked at the effects the good, the bad, or the ugly review as a form of publicity had in well-known and obscure books over time. The results showed subjects who read negative reviews of well-known books were less likely to buy the book. But if applied this to any review at all what is the impact? Well, the word is out there and since there is so much skepticism in the world few believe anything anyone has to say.
Follow-up studies also pointed out that as time passes, readers may not remember the good, the bad, and the ugly review, but just that the subject was familiar to them. In a recent New York Times article Good News, Bad News. The author touches on the impact of the clothing maker Gap’s new logo and the intense negative reaction. So even amid the heckling, some speculated that the Gap’s logo makeover was in effect a publicity stunt, calculated to cause a fuss. That’s hard to believe (and the company denied it), but if skeptics are right, then it’s not impossible that it could function that way just the same. On the other hand, if the Gap ends up selling a few extra pairs of jeans this month, it may just have its logo debacle to thank.
To sum it up… the research indicates that new entrants may have little to lose when it comes to publicity of any kind – the key is simply to get seen. “Smaller [motion picture] producers,” the authors write, for example, “may want to allow, or even fan, the flames of negative publicity.” Indeed, bad press, they suggest, may even serve as a form of direct marketing that can “slip under the radar” and be unrecognized as such. Brand names, on the other hand, have more at stake.