Is all Buzz Good Buzz?

We're working with a client now who has had some bad online press in the past. We've created fresh new content highlighting this client's side of the story and then put our Buzz team to work spreading the word.

The question was this: do we only promote this client's news to "friendly" sites or do we pursue the "hostiles" as well? In this case, "hostiles" were bloggers, discussion boards and websites that have been critical of our client in the past.

While promoting to hostiles potentially will draw more fire, we decided to move forward. Here's our take:

The choice is not "will the hostiles will talk about the client or not talk about the client." The choice is "will the client take part in the conversation or not?" In most cases, especially where the hostile outlet has a large readership, or a very targeted one, we believe in joining the conversation. It's better to get your story out there and in front of readers, than to sit back and take the abuse.

A few other notes:

You may be saying to your self: "Self, this is terrible advice, the hostile sites would never publish our release, news, events, contest, etc." We have found this to be wrong. Quite simply, if the news is very relevant to the site's topic, they may feel a sense of Internet journalistic integrity and publish it. We recently had some of a client's most hostile sites publish our release, as-is, with no biting rebuttal.

By hostiles, I don't mean unhappy customers and clients. They should be embraced. Find them, make them happy, fix what is broken, send them a new mixer or lawn chair or whatever made them unhappy. These folks are friends waiting to happen. Hostiles are those sites that make a professional or serious amateur living disliking you or your clients.

Be prepared for some heat. Inevitably, some editor will publish your news and then blast you. That's okay, he would just blast you sooner or later anyway. You might as well be the one that initiates the blast and it's best to at least have your opinion represented.

Links, links, links. Even bad press can result in links back to your site. And, the links are probably on sites that are full of your keywords, so there can be some search engine optimization benefits.

Comments

[LonelyBloggers]

Would love to know exactly WHY your client got bad press in the past. Maybe he deserved it and there's probably a good reason why it happened in the first place.... Was it a question of ethics?

You can't run a business around being afraid of bad press or negative attention in the blogosphere, however things also depend again on why there was a problem in the first place.

I do find it amusing in your post all the wonderful marketing speak about engaging your audience and all that fluff - thinking that will magically fix everything.

Bloggers don't forget and if you deserved it before - you are going to get it again.... So once again, it all again comes down to why you created that negative reaction in the first place.

Despite what marketers will have you think, it doesn't turn out roses all the time..... Unless you state the reasons WHY your client got bad press, this post is pretty much.. well marketing fluff.

[Don The Idea Guy]

I disagree with LonelyBlogger's "marketing fluff" label. I think the details about the client and their specific situation are secondary to the info being shared about a strategy of confrontation vs. duck-and-cover. The client mentioned in the article is like Hitchock's "MacGuffin" technique. The MacGuffin was simply a plot device to motivate the characters and move the story forward -- but had little relevance to the story itself.

[Bill]

Thanks for the comments. As with any WOM marketing agency, we have to make choices about what clients we represent. We do not represent anyone who we believe is not being ethical or who we fundamentally disagree with. We believe that good WOM starts with a great product. Bloggers say that Honda makes the best small engine not because of a great WOM campaign, but because Honda makes great small engines. In the case I'm referring to, it wasn't about bad service, bad business practices or a bad product. It's a fundamental and scientific disagreement between researchers and writers in a specific vertical. Almost Coke vs Pepsi type of isssue.