The Everest horse race: All PR is good PR… or is it?
WE Buchan's Gemma Hudson considers if the old adage 'all PR is good PR' applies to the recent Everest horse race ad controversy.
Ten years ago I worked on the PR launch of a new drug. A few days ahead of the planned launch, news outlets in the US reported that the drug in question caused people using it to have suicidal thoughts. This story, of course, travelled the globe and was plastered all over our local news. In response, my team kicked into issues management mode, and we planned how we were going to handle this unexpected and difficult turn of events and put in a call to our client. His response to this worldwide negative media attention has stayed with me ever since: “All PR is good PR…”
Hmmm.
I remember being shocked at this old school ‘PR’ mentality, and I couldn’t have disagreed with him more if I tried.
But watching the controversy that erupted over the use of the Sydney Opera House as a billboard to advertise “The Everest” horse race play out in our media over last week got me thinking: is there ever a time when those five little words are, in fact, true?
The Everest ad, which was outshone by thousands of protesters last week
Racing NSW came to the party with a clear goal: to make The Everest a NSW horse race to rival our southern state’s Melbourne Cup. So it’s understandable that they thought it fitting to choose NSW’s (and in fact our country’s) most iconic building to promote it. However, they were probably not expecting what came next.
After the Opera House’s CEO declined NSW Racing’s request to project the barrier draw for the $13 million dollar race on its sails, Alan Jones took it upon himself to champion the cause, and NSW government stepped in, overriding the decision.
Subsequently more than a 1,000 protestors gathered in front of the Opera House to protest against the projections on the world heritage-listed building and a quarter of a million people signed a petition that opposed the projection. And all of this was played out in the media. There was even coverage in the New York Times!
Of course, there’s two sides to whether or not the projections were a good idea.
On one hand, the controversy earned The Everest more media coverage than it may otherwise have gained had the advertising stunt proceeded without the furore, or if it had even proceeded at all. So in this case, was all this PR, good PR, irrelevant of the debate? Judging by the 8,000 extra race-goers attending Randwick Racecourse on Saturday compared to the previous year, some would call this promotion a success.
Yet on the other hand, what is the resulting impact on the three brands – NSW Racing, NSW Government and the Opera House – caught up in this debate?
Consumer expectations from brands continues to rise. Consumers are holding brands to account, demanding that brands act responsibly, ethically and sustainably. In light of this, you have to consider whether it’s worth taking risks that might end up getting caught up in such a heated debate and throws up implications in terms of ethics and governance.
In the case of The Everest, was the brand responsible for NSW Racing’s decision to use our nation’s iconic arts building as a screen to promote a horse race on which many people wager, in a country that has a well-known gambling problem? Was it ethical for NSW government to force the Opera House to be beholden to big business and use its sails for commercial purposes? In a consumer landscape where ethical and responsible behaviour is expected, I’m not sure this was a good move by either organisation.
While the Opera House’s brand reputation may have fared better than that of the other two by declining the promotion to stay true to its principles, there’s also a whole group of people who really can’t understand the problem. That said, will this stunt and surrounding debate dissuade people from visiting Australia’s most famous landmark, or convert staunch anti-horse racing protestors to take a 360 on their views? Probably not. But will the implications be more long lasting for NSW government? The next election will tell.
And so now back to my original question, is there a time when “all PR is good PR” is true?
While on a professional level, I wouldn’t have chosen to go ahead with the Opera House stunt, I can’t argue that the PR in this case – good or bad – did deliver against its objective. There’s probably not a single person in the country who didn’t know about the world’s richest turf race.
Gemma Hudson is managing director at WE Buchan.
I think the expression is ‘There’s no such thing as bad publicity”.
Any way well done for bring even more attention to an issue that had almost gone away and will do anytime soon. The Opera house was built with gambling money and to this day is heavily subsidised. The Everest event attracted a few bucks to the NSW economy and everyone had a good time. Lets all move on.
User ID not verified.
If people are gathering in large numbers, at short notice to protest against your brand this is definitely not good PR.
User ID not verified.
With this line of thinking, would you also have no concerns if what was being promoted was alcohol? After all, they sell drinks at the Opera House.
User ID not verified.
What the story teased about but ignored was what the PR outfit did for the drug launch?
User ID not verified.
The other aspect to this is the bad PR for some people’s personal brands…
I for one won’t forget when it comes to voting day – take note, Gladys, ScoMo, Albo, and sadly, even Tanya.
Alan’s brand was already trashed IMHO… he’s a bully and really needs to go.
User ID not verified.
This is a pretty clear case of bad publicity.
User ID not verified.
Good to know for any current and prospective clients of WE Buchan (prior to the publication of this article) that they’ll be wheeling this utterly outdated BS out in the evaluation meeting after a crisis and negatively weighted sentiment on a failed project.
User ID not verified.
The race has been held? I missed that. I heard lots about the Opera House though.
User ID not verified.
To be fair i had never heard of the Everest race until this ‘stunt’ so from a PR perspective – yes it worked – people who didn’t know about it now do. However from a branding perspective i think it flopped. People now know about the race but hate it…so is all PR good PR…me things not.
User ID not verified.
Who “hates” the Everest?
If you didn’t like horse racing before this stunt than i doubt your opinion has changed much in either direction, but i doubt any horse racing fans were put off by all the drama.
In the end it was quite a spectacle and the crowd numbers were great, so overall it’s an objective success for racing. For the Opera house, maybe not as much as it’s triggered all the outrage brigade with nothing else to complain about at the moment.
User ID not verified.
That whole piece didn’t really seem to say anything or offer an opinion. So if the question is still about whether all PR is good PR (alt. even bad publicity is good publicity) then the answer, IMO, is no.
The real questions remain. Does this shape public opinion (in the long run) of the brand (and racing in general), which is the role of PR? This single question is critical, because in absence of any attitude reports or studies, and having only attendance to go on, then it clearly isn’t, because indicators were south.
It was advertising first and foremost, and only became PR as media jumped on and spread the alt views; I didn’t hear much out of Racing NSW or The Everest (probably good). Had it been a horse race, would it’ve been different? What if it promoted the Grand Final?
The debate rages on, though I will always take the no position on bad PR = good PR.
User ID not verified.