The document discusses a negative social media campaign against Nestle's KitKat bars in March-April 2010. [1] It outlines the timeline of the campaign on YouTube and Facebook and how it went mainstream in the media. [2] Surprisingly, sales data showed that KitKat sales actually increased 3.6% and 4.2% in the months after the campaign. [3] The document then reviews theoretical frameworks around the idea that any publicity is good publicity, how negative publicity can hurt brands, but may increase awareness and sales through greater word of mouth. Studies on Michael Jackson, Russell Crowe, and New York Times book reviews are cited. The conclusion is that negative publicity can both hurt and help sales, depending

1. When negative publicity is
good...
Istvan Csaba Gergely

2. Timeline of the anti-KitKat social
media campaign
• Wednesday, March 17, altered KitKat
advertising video posted on Youtube
• First negative comments on Nestle’s facebook
page
• Friday, March 19, the issue of Nestle’s
negative comments went mainstream
– The Guardian, SkyNews, AdvertisingAge, PR Week,
BNET UK

3. Increased sales after the anti-KitKat
social media campaign
• “…new data from IRI has revealed that Kit Kat
sales have actually increased since the
campaign was launched in March.
Value sales of Kit Kat four-finger bars rose
3.6% year-on-year to £5.8m in March this year
and by 4.2% year-on-year to £5.3m in April.
Volume sales also rose, by 0.2% in March and
1.3% in April.”(Phillips 2010)

4. Theoretical framework
• “any publicity is good publicity,”
• negative publicity can be “devastating”
(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000)
• it decreases product and brand evaluation
(Tybout, Calder, and Sternthal 1981; Wyatt
and Badger 1984; also see Huang and Chen
2006). (Berger et al. 2009)

5. Theoretical framework
• may have positive effects, if it increases
product awareness.
• greater word of mouth should lead more
consumers to be informed about a product,
and thus lead to greater sales (Godes, Mayzlin
2004).
• negative publicity positive effects if it “re-
informs” consumers (Berger et al. 2009)

6. Theoretical framework
• Study 1 Michael Jackson
• Study 2 Russel Crow
• Study 3 New York Times book review and sales
(Berger et al. 2010)

7. Discussion
• Consumers may be aware that a product
exists, but its existence is not always salient.
• Information varies in the degree that it is
accessible or top of mind (Bruner 1957;
Higgins and King 1981; Wyer and Srull 1981).
(Berger et al. 2009)

8. Conclusion
• Negative publicity can definitely hurt sales in
some cases, in others, negative may actually
be positive.

9. Bibliography
1. Beth Phillips: Greenpeace attacks fail to dent sales of Nestlé’s Kit Kat bars, The
Grocer, 2010
2. Berger, Sorensen, and Rasmussen: Positive Effects of Negative Publicity
Marketing Science 29(5), pp. 815–827, ©2010 INFORMS
3. Jonah Berger, Alan T. Sorensen, Scott J. Rasmussen: NEGATIVE PUBLICITY: WHEN
NEGATIVE IS POSITIVE 2009
http://www.stanford.edu/~asorense/papers/Negative_Publicity.pdf

10. Thank you!