Nick and I were talking about this article/post we saw recently about a silly lawsuit over a kitty litter commercial.
Nick thinks this is a positive for The Clorox Co. because the plaintiff (Arm & Hammer) looks silly “Cats do not talk.” Really?
I understand why he might see this as positive publicity for Clorox, but I disagree. In my experience with retail, the old adage “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” does not always ring true; particularly in the mind of the client, there absolutely IS bad publicity.
In the fierce world of retail, a lawsuit like this could be seen as simply that, A LAWSUIT. What AE wants to hear “Your ad campaign got me sued?” Even if the plaintiff is grasping at straws and the suit is frivolous, it’s still a lawsuit. Many retail clients might think a lawsuit over a marketing message could deter other consumers from shopping their stores. And in retail, there is nothing worse than reduced foot traffic and reduced sales!
What do you think? Is a lawsuit like this a good thing or bad thing?
In advertising, pretty much everyone has been influenced by someone else. As we’ve been bringing you stories about ad legends like Bill Bernbach and George