"No publicity is bad publicity" -- I heard this many times, maybe you heard it too. Why is this such a nonsense and a bad practice mantra? Well, it's kind of obvious, but let's try a few exercises. Consider the following situations:

• Tell this mantra to Coca-Cola who had to deal with a PR catastrophe when people died drinking a batch of polluted soda. To car manufacturers who had to deal with human deaths because of bad engineering. Or to an airline after a crash. See if they agree.
• Tell this slogan to every communication professional who had to deal with a brief that states that "this brand name has negative association" and had to come up with ways to clean up the mess. But run after you tell them.
• Tell this to brand consultancies who had to recommend companies to change name and management and start fresh in order to get rid of brand broke beyond repair. Don't forget to ask about the costs, also.
• Tell this nonsense to PR people working in political marketing who are trying to keep their "merchandise" as clean as possible and are capable of any stunt just to draw attention from any possible bad publicity. And after you tell them, stay at home for a while.

If "No publicity is bad publicity" than how come that advertising agencies even exist? And PR companies, and brand consultancies and design studios? How come there is a whole industry that tries to create value by building positive brand name associations?

My company's business is reputation -- because branding can be defined like reputation building and management. And I never met a client to say "I don't care if my reputation is good or bad, just build me a random one, quickly!"

When communication professionals declare "No publicity is bad publicity" they are claiming their own absence from the picture. And not as a profession, but as individuals. And they are right, also. Their companies would be better off without them because their model of thinking is a waste of corporate time and money.