Thursday, March 10, 2011

Um...Winning!

    It's hard to imagine that anyone has been able to shield themselves from the recent television appearances that Charlie Sheen has been in.  From 20/20 to the national and local news stations, everyone seems to be talking about this one of the Two and a Half Men.  In case you haven't heard, the show Two and a Half Men (a popular sitcom that airs on CBS - well, used to).  CBS decided to cancel the show before the most recent season ended, putting Sheen and his co-workers out of work.  They canceled the show when Sheen failed to show up for work on multiple occasions because he was on drugs.  He was taking depressants and hallucination drugs regularly, and didn't stop until one overdose almost killed him.  Sheen has passed drug tests on TV, and seems to be clean but fans are beginning to worry if Sheen is mentally stable.  He has aired an internet TV show about himself which has been looked at by many psychologists whom are now also very concerned about his mental health.

     However, despite his drug use and questionable ethics people still seem to think that he is winning, and according to Sheen, he most certainly is.  He is currently working on suing CBS for canceling the sitcom, living with his girlfriends (he refers to as "the goddesses"), and reviewing applications for his new "Internship;" for which there were over 70,000 applicants.  He is now in the Guinness Book of World Records for the fastest person to get 1,000,000 followers on twitter.

     From a marketing perspective, despite Charlie Sheen's popularity, I still feel as though I wouldn't want this person to represent my product, or television station.  I just can't help but wonder if negative marketing is just as good as positive marketing.  Based on Sheen's success in marketing himself, I absolutely agree with him, he is winning; but are consumers?  Is it a good thing that consumers are paying attention to what Sheen is doing and enjoying it?  Could it be possible that negative marketing is actually effective marketing?
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Kathleen R. JohnsonMarch 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    Interesting post. Negative marketing may sometimes be "good" for the bottom line but is it good for the person? Consider Tiger Woods and all those impacted by his actions (especially his babies). There can be no winners when you consider the non-monetary impact. Does Charlie Sheen seem to care about what people think of him personally and his character? Perhaps he is too doped up to tell, at the moment. He may not feel the full ramifications of his actions for years to come. So I think we too often separate the personal from the business impact of marketing. Should those be separate? Probably not, and if more people (including Sheen and others like him) did not separate those two, then I think we'd be asking different questions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. dougsackMarch 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM

    I responded to this blog.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)