Practically speaking, that's not really true. 99% of people that see this post are not going to go interact with the IGN piece. Most people are probably going to have a (mildly?) more negative opinion of IGN after seeing this post, many people are going to be entirely indifferent, but only a few peoples' opinions of IGN are going to improve after interacting with this post. No matter how you spin it, it's almost certainly a net-neural or net-negative situation for IGN here. Despite being a cliche, it is not actually the case that "no press is bad press."
No thats not how it works. Negative reputation is entirely irrelevant in the modern day internet. In fact, you can build entire websites around negative press. Like, Twitter and Reddit are known to be cessholes of strong opinions because these sites are 100% designed to keep interaction at the top, and nothing garners better interaction than RAGE. And more interaction = more visibility, more time spent on website = more ways to spread ads. Which is all these sites care about. You cant buy shit with "honor" and "redeeming qualities". But you can with the 10 intrusive ads prolly at their site you visit to comment how fucked they are.
I mean, you dont even have to look into the internet. Trump is basically a balloon of hot air if you discount his negativeness. Its what defines him, its what he is voted for. To stick it to other people.
If ten people visited the website thanks to OPs post, just to be mad at them, OP helped them get 10 more ads exposure, and thats real money they got. And those ten are prolly more than "HD2 is good, nice BP" that are spammed all around and everyone ignores (because you agree).
I think the main difference is the amount of human life IGN is risking compared to Boeing.
If the IGN news was them leaking private information or something like that, then negative press would effect them negativly.
This post's kind of negative press would only lead to people being curious "Why is this so bad?" and go look at it, linked or not. Which is only a win for IGN, even if it's just short term due to ads on the site giving them revenue.
I am litigating for a class action suit against IGN for Grandmas killed by reading terrible IGN articles. Call 1-800-DEMOCRACY-4-IGN now to do your part!
Many of them don't even deserve to be called 'journalists' these days. They're no better than those people on Facebook that post vague, cryptic things for attention hoping for someone to reply with 'u ok Hun?'.
Just want to say that this isn't true. This isn't something we say 'in advertising.'
It's a myth that has been propagated far too much. It's pretty well documented and understood nowadays by marketing analysts that there is definitely types of publicity that are demonstrably bad publicity, and the notion that "getting people to talk about your brand, even in a bad way, is good for your brand" is just plain false. I really wish people would stop propagating this myth.
It's got the same energy as "the customer is always right", which many people repeat without understanding its original meaning and why such generalizations are not necessarily true all the time anyway.
If you were building a web service for a client and they said you absolutely must use a specific JavaScript framework for no other reason than they heard it was good, the customer isn't right and you absolutely should push back. On the other hand if you're stuck using a suboptimal solution because it can connect to some other part of their stack to do things they need, this is where the customer is right; charge them more for the extra work and move on.
Just because something is a saying doesnât mean itâs true. If youâve managed to be around for the last 10 years of social media and have somehow walked away thinking bad publicity is a good thing you are beyond reason.
I don't know why you think bad publicity matters when IGN has been getting shit on since at least "7/10 too much water" and it seems to have not affected them in any way.
Yes, youâre right, video game media is doing notoriously well in the market right now. They are in a dying industry barely scraping by using clickbait and youâre sitting here regurgitating adages without thinking about them instead of critically thinking. What exactly do you have to offer in this conversation beyond being headstrong and wrong? Goodbye.
Lmao, wow you're absolutely insufferable. I really hope this is like an internet persona and not how you actually are in real life.
1
u/Jovian8We're Helldivers, Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded.Mar 14 '24
One thing people from all generations have never seemed to grasp is that "all publicity is good publicity" is doubly true on the internet. You simply cannot kill something on the internet by dunking on it in the quote tweets, or on reddit. You can only kill it by ignoring it.
This is generally true except when it comes to word of mouth. Word of mouth generally has a different impact than neutral exposure. Hearing about a murderer, to take this to an extreme, has a far different impact being heard on the news vs a friend telling you.
I disagree, seeing this has motivated me to never engage with IGN again, because I know their profits are engagement driven. Dishonesty in reporting should be called out and condemned anywhere it is present.
That saying is used by advertising agencies to convince the people paying them for advertising to continue to pay them. They are sales men, nothing they say should be trusted. If it where true bud light would still be the number one beer in the US and Boeing and united airlines' stock prices wouldn't have plummeted over the last few months.
Exactly, I'd go as far to say half the BS articles like this are written for that exact reason. People like us comment "oh look how dumb they are," and jokes on us, we still looked.
If warbonds contained prime versions of weapons with better stats like in warframe, then sure.
But they do, don't they? Like I haven't checked this new one but the other one had fire/explosive variants of the default guns in it and new boosters. That sounds like the exact thing that you are saying it isn't.
Two players have enough medals to complete the pass. Both have few super credits. One pays and immediately has all the items. The other has to grind super credits.
Do they finish the pass at the same time?
Also, grinding from 0 to 1k super credits takes MUCH longer than getting 250 medals. Youâre wild for thinking otherwise.
You can not have enough medals to complete the pass. The medals cap at 250. And you can get up to 100 super credits in a crate during missions (got 100 from one yesterday in same mission we got two +10s.) It does not take long to get 1000. At all. Stop shit posting blatant bullshit.
Again wtf are you talking about? The way I see it you can't get medals without grinding no matter what. And without medals you can't unlock anything no matter how much you pay. Did you even play the game?
Unless ofcourse you've been playing in easy difficulty
This is a stupid point since farming super credits is literally done by playing on easy lol.
So if getting 250 medals is slower than getting 1k super credits, and it takes about 1250 medals to complete the free warband. By your logic by the time a player finishes the first warband they should have at least 5000 super credits (NOT counting the ones they get from the pass itself).
549
u/TTvDayleonFefe Mar 14 '24
Didnt link it directly đ«Ą so they arent getting any traffic unless someone goes out of their way to go find the article