Why no publicity is good publicity

The worst thing about good publicity is the enhanced possibility of lousy publicity. The Tata Nano is a case in point. When it came to communicating the car to audiences around the country and the world during launch, publicity worked. Every other media publication and channel carried the story of the miracle Nano. It was all hunky dory then.

Now the picture's altered dramatically. The very same media outlets are now picking up a story of the Nano going up in flames and beaming it worldwide (case in point, Pasadena Star-News). What a lousy bout of bad publicity for the car! Has its image been dented? Though these are still early days my gut tells me the damage's being done.

Will the Nano bounce back? It can and it must. That means no more going up in flames and hopefully media stories on how well the car's doing. Also no bad-mouthing by users. Is that a tall ask? Sure it is, but that's the only way out for the Nano. For its sake, I hope that's the way things turn out.

The lesson in the flaming Nano?. Its one of minimal publicity. At times its better to release a brand with minimal fanfare. Now that means no publicity. Which is good because the initial testing period with real consumers will be a quiet one, and should mishaps happen, the firm can correct the brand without a dose of negative publicity.

The moral of the story is, it pays to be quiet. Quite well.


Popular Posts