Generally and broadly speaking, media can be divided into two main categories: physical and online (social). Both works to present an image for a brand or person that highlights what or who they are. With media also comes publicity, which is essentially coverage of an event or person at a given time. Depending on the caliber of brand you represent, publicity can be hard to obtain. When you are a giant in the media world however publicity can be easy to receive. Though this may be the case, it is generally easier to receive bad publicity rather than good publicity.
In the context of public relations, the presidential campaign seems always be a flowing source of examples. We could talk about publicity all day when discussing our two candidates but we’ll just touch on it lightly. Both candidates have had more than their fair share of negative physical publicity thrown at them but that does mean there are not a flock of supporters behind them. Media interviews and high tier addresses are approached by both candidates with a certain state of mind and professionalism… most of the time. That doesn’t mean there aren’t slip ups here and there that can easily land them in hot water. Here’s a few examples of why Trump may want to hold back on his bold approach on certain topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHzwdmU3Sg
Social media now is a whole other game where basically anything goes. In the same context of the presidential race, social media has turned into a form of entertainment rather than professional media at points. For whatever reason that just seems to be the way it works and whoever is the funny can win the moment. Take this back and forth between the two for example:
Though really nothing more than a silly internet joke, Hillary Clinton won the day on social media with that one.
At the end of the day, I suppose it’s about knowing the game you’re playing and using it to build your brand. Given the way media works, why is the general perception that it is harder to gain good publicity rather than bad?