Publicity befoRe policy

      69 Comments on Publicity befoRe policy

ted-cruz“I really think a filibuster is the political version of twerking,” comedian and satirist Bill Maher said on HBO Friday night, referring to Senator Ted Cruz’s 21-hour Senate floor filibuster last week. “He reminds me of Miley Cyrus…because he is not afraid to incur the wrath of even some of his fans for the greater good of drawing attention to himself.”

Cruz, a Tea Party hero, attempted to shame his fellow Republicans into shutting down the government if Obamacare isn’t defunded.  The heavy media coverage of Cruz’s lengthy, sometimes laughable, speech was generally negative, and comedians relished poking fun at Cruz’s reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” and his imitation of Darth Vader, among other Senate floor silliness.  Many high profile Republicans including Senator John McCain and Congressman Peter King were publicly critical.  King and his staffers have since endured terribly nasty phone calls from Tea Party supporters as a result.  “I think what we have to do is reach out to (Cruz’s) people and let them know that they’re following a false leader here,” King said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show.

I heard a reporter frame Senator Cruz’s filibuster as “putting publicity before policy.”  But despite the anger and often mocking coverage, Bill Maher may be wrong; Cruz might not have incurred the wrath of his fans.  In fact, according to The Huffington Post, “Only a few days before the speech, a YouGov poll conducted Sept. 20-21 showed 52 percent had no opinion of Cruz.  At that time, 24 percent had a favorable opinion of Cruz and 25 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion.  Among Republicans, favorable opinion of Cruz jumped from 46 percent in the earlier poll to 61 percent in the new poll, while those saying they were unable to rate Cruz dropped from 46 percent to 30 percent.”

Does this poll add proof to the old adage that “all publicity is good publicity?”  PR pros don’t believe that.  But Senator Cruz is certainly not the first politician to put publicity before policy.  With the debt ceiling vote looming, did Cruz sacrifice real responsibility in exchange for a high visibility performance?  Your thoughts?

69 thoughts on “Publicity befoRe policy

  1. jeremydbeck

    The entire purpose of filibustering is to make a change by bringing attention to a certain topic. Publicity doesn’t matter much here. People who are against the issue he is filibustering will support him and those who aren’t won’t, simple as that. The bottom line is it does nothing to help his cause and in the end of the day it’s about the bottom line results.

    Reply
  2. rachaeldurant

    This publicity stunt is a sad commentary on the state of politics in our society. Ted Cruz’s filibuster takes a political move that can be used for good (such as Wendy Davis’ infamous filibuster in Texas) and makes it somewhat laughable. Instead of focusing on the important issues at hand, it appears as though the American public is more concerned about laughing about Cruz’s attempt at filibustering. If it was a truly politically motivated move, it would have some sort of defense. This circus atmosphere in Washington has got to stop. Not all publicity is good publicity. American voters need to be confident that their politicians are focused on actual issues that affect them, not practicing publicity over policy.

    Reply
  3. Jeremy Epstein

    If Ted Cruz wants to get his name in the news and elevate his profile then he is doing a great job. But he is a Senator first and he is doing an awful job. Filibusters like this are why people are losing faith in Congress. Ted Cruz is putting his own self interest ahead of the people that elected him. So if he wants to get his name in the news, he is doing an incredible job but he is failing at the job he is supposed to do.

    Reply
  4. Alexandra Ciongoli

    I think that lately, with the buzz that has been surrounding Miley Cyrus and her outlandish VMA’s performance, people have forgotten the difference between popularity and infamy. I think that Senator Cruz, right along side Miss Cyrus, definitely sacrificed some self-worth and dignity, as well as a large chunk of his reputation to get the attention of Americans. Cyrus and Cruz both prove that not all publicity is good publicity; is Miley Cyrus now thought of as a hero because she grinded on Rob Thicke? Is she considered an outstandingly talented musician because she twerked half naked in front of the camera? No, she is most definitely not. As for Senator Cruz, he is a politician who is supposed to be fighting for what the Republican people want; he should always have their best interests at heart and should never put publicity before policy. Why draw attention to yourself for the sake of the limelight if you don’t even have something worthwhile to share? Senator Cruz and Miley Cyrus are pretty powerful people concerning who their audiences are, and they should be role-models to their fellow Americans, not embarrassing themselves to get noticed. Despite the statistics, the attention they are both getting is infamy, not popularity, and it would do them both some good to figure out how to obtain the later, and have less of the former.

    Reply
  5. Rachel Tom-Quinn

    “all publicity is good publicity” is true depending on what business you are in. If you’re in a business where all you need is people to know your name then by all means. With politicians it depends if you’re in politics to get your name known or make change for the greater good. If Cruz wants to be one of those showy politicians like celebrities with crazy clothes or drug habits then he absolutely succeeded. If he wants people to believe in him and make a positive difference he should probably sit down.

    Reply
  6. Lindsey

    All publicity is absolutely not good publicity. It takes very little time for the public to turn on a controversial figure. Since people would much rather believe negative versions of the truth than positive, a move such as the one Cruz made definitely painted him in a negative light in the eyes of informed Americans. Politicians, especially at a time like this should be focusing on trying to reach a compromise with their “friends” on the other side of the isle rather than making it their mission to diffuse each other’s efforts. Politics is not defined by how well one can weaken a rival party’s efforts.

    Reply
  7. Olga

    I absolutely disagree with the statement that “all publicity is good publicity”. All publicity is only good for a one minute glory, which is really doubtful achievement for those who get it. A minute glory always raises a question: what’s next? And is there any continuation possible? What will the star singer do after appearing completely undressed in public? Will she start to get dressed more and more? Or will the politician, who has presented himself in a foolish way, start to build an image of rational, wise, intelligent public person, capable of being a leader for masses? Who will believe him?
    Cruz did sacrifice real responsibility in exchange for high visibility performance, and this will disrupt his image of a potential leader in the future. As this entire escapade only witnesses his lack of confidence in himself. But people want to see in their leader a confident person, who knows what to do and which way to go.
    The same inferiority complex makes Miley “let the music business make a prostitute of herself.” (http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/10/02/sinead-oconnor-miley-cyrus-open-letter/)
    I do agree with Sinead O’Connor, that the young singer should realize, that her records are good enough, and she doesn’t need to sacrifice her dignity to be successful.
    Whether you are a politician or a singer, dreaming about being popular, you should always remember, that reputation and real fame (that will last) is something that can’t be built in a minute. It is a matter of time, efforts and step by step hardworking.

    Reply
  8. Michael Yehuda

    I personally think that Senator Ted Cruz did the right thing for reading the whole entire Obamacare. I personally don’t know how he did it for 21 hours, he must have some great determination and eager to know the wholesome truth about the Obamacare. I just don’t understand why the Obama Administration is so secretive about the Obamacare. What are they hiding?

    It is about time that someone has the guts to read that whole book and share it with everyone. It is very important for all Americans to know what is in that book. How will it affect our lives concerning health care? Will there be higher taxes? Will per-scripted medicines become even more expensive? Will making an appointment with a doctor will be like making a DMV appointment? And many more. I just hope it will be all good because now we are stuck with it no matter what.

    Reply
    1. jmorosoff Post author

      Michael: The Affordable Health Act is a public document that can be read front to back by anyone who would like to read it. It’s easily found online. What is unfortunate is the deluge of misinformation out there about the law.

      Reply
  9. Emily Green

    The statement “all publicity is good publicity” is not true in any sense. In some cases, publicity is a great thing (for example when a company donates large amounts of money to a charitable service), because the public is aware of the company’s contributions and will probably be more likely to support that company or person. However in other cases publicity can be an awful thing (for example when celebrities make poor choices such as deliberate drug use), because the public becomes aware of this as well and may choose to no longer support that company or person. I did not see Senator Cruz’s filibuster last week, but from reading this blog it seems that he found it important to be publicized for something, becasue even bad publicity is better than no publicity. While some people might appreciate him more now that he has done this, he also lost many supporters. If he was smarter with his decisions, he could have both kept his supporters and gained more, which would have put him further ahead than he is now.

    Reply
  10. lmansl1

    Considering the government has been shut down for almost two full days now I believe Cruz’s 21 hour rant was immature and uncalled for. Knowing that time was of the essence I believe he put his own needs and fame before the needs of the country. Those are 21 crucial hours that could have been spent better negotiating.
    Similar to the coverage Miley has been getting in the media, I think bad publicity such as these two examples portrays immaturity and a need for attention. It will take a long time to erase from the public’s mind the association between Cruz and the government shutdown as well as Miley and her inappropriate performance on the VMA’s.

    Reply
  11. Robert Ryan

    Although this bold move has Cruz having a temporary jump in polls in approval I don’t see him having an over all positive reaction in americans. Right now his 21 hour speech is a hot topic and something people are talking about, but when people forget about how hip he is actual political enthusiasts will still be angry that he delayed the government. He filibusted until he knew he could get the government to close and try to defund a bill that has already been passed.

    Reply
  12. Danie Zolezzi

    After seeing how this played out and seeing government actually shut down, one can only say that this was publicity doing what it was meant to do. It got people talking and ultimately fulfilled its goal. However, polls may show a favorable opinion of Cruz now, but in a few years when this 21-hour filibuster is long forgotten, opinion of him may fall in the opposite direction. Extremist tactics are what garner a larger disapproval in the long run. So is it a good thing? Is all publicity good publicity? It’s hard to say. Maybe it is, and maybe it’s only temporary. All I know is, how many people didn’t who Senator Cruz was before this and now do?

    Reply
  13. daniel1nelson

    In Cruz’s case, I believe that all publicity was good publicity as far as his base is concerned. Those who vote for him, and will vote for him in the future, want to see Obamacare defunded at all costs. His 21 hour filibuster clearly got him the attention that he was looking for, and I think that when he goes back to his home district, he will be received favorably. For the rest of the country, however, Cruz looks ridiculous. The publicity he has received, and with videos of him reading Dr. Seuss on the floor circulating the web, most of the country has received him as an obstruction to democracy.

    Reply
  14. Richard I

    I believe the statement “all publicity is good publicity” is not entirely true, but not entirely false. When events like Miley twerking and Cruz’s filibuster occur, that specific person is doing exactly what he/she intend to do. In order to stay relevant in our society, you must push the boundaries and limits in order to consistently have some kind of fan base. Cruz, a Senator, is well aware of how publicity works in an election, considering that he has won before. He realized that he was slowly fading into the background of other politicians and needed to stay relevant again. Therefore, he went against his own party, caused controversy and with that attention got more people to gravitate towards him. Did it hurt his image within the party? Maybe, but it definitely established him as a member of the Republican party and gained him a platform that he can use in the future to help further his career.

    Reply
  15. janecapants

    I disagree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity” 100%. If someone’s goal is just to get their name out there then they will do anything whether it be good or bad. Cruz is a senator, not a celebrity and his job as an elected senator is to contribute to the greater good of this country. Miley is an actual celebrity and publicity for her is just part of the job. If the senator’s goal was to get people to know his name then he succeeded, but he went about it in the completely wrong way.

    Reply
  16. Adria Marlowe

    I think that Senator Cruz sacrificed his credibility in an effort to steal the spotlight in the Obamacare debate and, in doing so, showed a lack of respect for the political system and his colleagues. While his favorable numbers may have risen immediately after his speech, I don’t think his actions – using a publicity stunt to promote his personal agenda over the best interests of his constituents and attempting to shame his colleagues (including a few influential and respected Republican Party members) – will do anything to reinforce his reputation in the long run. Since it seems that politicians, unlike some celebrities, still need to maintain public trust and respect to be successful, I don’t believe that this will ultimately prove to be positive publicity for Senator Cruz.

    Reply
  17. Ishan Kumar

    I don’t know much about senator Cruz but coming to the point that “all publicity is good publicity,” I don’t completely agree with that. To some degree it surely does make one feel in the limelight but negative publicity these days can hurt any individual’s reputation. Anthony Weiner and many others can be cast as an example, which further compels me to believe that negative publicity can’t always be good publicity.

    Reply
  18. Sharlys Leszczuk

    I do not think that “all publicity is good publicity” is completely true, especially in politics. Credibility, responsibility, and a positive public image is very important. Any politician that believe that any publicity is good is under the wrong impression. I believe that Cruz’s filibuster was a mistake. He kept his supporters who shared his position on defunding Obama care, but to those who did not initially share his opinion, he looks very foolish which will take a toll on his public image.

    Reply
  19. Nick Stiles

    I don’t believe Cruz was doing this for publicity, he is just very set in his opinions and was doing whatever it takes to make his point. Unfortunately this is fairly common in American politics as opposing sides grow further apart and make it harder for anything to get done. In my opinion “all publicity is good publicity” is not true in this scenario. This behavior reflects poorly not only on Cruz but on American politics in general.

    Reply
  20. Alyssa O'Brien

    Ted Cruz’s Green Eggs and Ham shenanigan is extremely perturbing. It is not that I am concerned with Ted Cruz’s politics, but more infuriated with the system. It is unconscionable that our elected officials are so incapable of compromise. Cruz’s stunt reflects the extreme polarization of our nation and demonstrates the immediate need for Constitutional reform. Allowing such filibusters to occur does not further the progress of our nation. It simply allows politicians to uphold the values of their constituents, in order to secure their jobs, which in turn leads to futile gridlock. We do not elect our Congress men and women to preach values at one another. We elect them to make decisions that will be beneficial for our nation. The decisions our leaders make are extremely complicated and dabble with gray areas; they are not strictly black and white. This particular congressional debate will not be solved effectively with simply red or blue ideals. In order to fix this predicament and further progress our nation needs compromise (purple if you will). Allowing stunts like the one Cruz pulled, shows a dire need for political leadership. If the prediction that Cruz’s filibuster gained him publicity for the 2016 presidential race is true, I fear that our nation is seeing the humble beginnings of constant stagnation. I hope that our political leaders remember the purpose of their jobs: to make decisions with the best interest of the nation in mind, not their job security. For these reasons I think that Senator Cruz’s actions are not a fault of his own, but of our congressional system. Until reform occurs such mockeries will surely continue.

    Reply
  21. apate93

    All in all, I don’t think he really cares about publicity near as much as he does policy, even if he has a twisted way of showing it. From what I’ve seen, most people outside the Tea Party thought pretty poorly of this stunt. I mean, if John McCain, the guy who ran for president (!) against the very guy whose law you’re trying to stop is bashing you, you’ve done something wrong. And getting compared to Miley Cyrus…even worse.
    But, it all seems a moot point now. Government is officially shut down. Remember when Congress did there job? Yeah, me neither.

    Reply
  22. taylorcebutler

    I personally am kind of torn on this. Senator Ted Cruz went a bit overboard by reading things like Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham and some Duck Dynasty quotes. Then again, maybe he was making a political statement. I also took his extreme behavior as making fun of Congress. The fact that this “Affordable Healthcare Act” which is detrimental to most U.S. citizens is even being allowed to be funded is a joke. Then again maybe I am connecting dots where they need not be connected. Maybe he did this to get media attention, so that they would be rolling film when he brought in valid points. One of those points I would say is exemptions. If this bill is good for the people, why are congressmen and lobbyist getting exemptions? If the law applies to only some, then it should not be applies to anyone at all. Just my two cents.

    Reply
  23. Cody Dano

    I have to be honest that before today in class, I had never heard of Senator Cruz. However, after reading this I have to agree that Cruz’s actions probably did more harm than good. Not only did he make a fool of himself, he lost the support of major Republican players like John McCain. In the long run, he will always be associate with this 21 hour ordeal. If Cruz did ever want to become president, the public would remember him as the green eggs and ham man.

    Reply
  24. Nancy Haas

    Ted Cruz’s desperation to get his point across about wanting to defund Obama Care led him to his own demise. Although polls show that his approval rate has increased since the filibuster, that in no way justifies his condescending and foolish speech. Cruz might have created a buzz, but the public will eventually forget his antics and move onto the next controversy. This filibuster relates in some ways to the outlandish advertisements mentioned in the previous blog post. People will do anything to prove a point or get noticed. However, risking ones own reputation for the sake of making a statement is immature and unwise. All publicity is not good publicity. Organizations, politicians, and individuals in general need to realize this and take a more practical approach to getting their word across.

    Reply
  25. Maria Pascarella

    I think that even though now more people know Ted Cruz’s name, his filibuster won’t be beneficial to him in the long run. Maybe some Republicans are supportive of his efforts to get Obamacare defunded, but it’s obvious that the law will never be reversed, so Cruz just wasted almost an entire day and made himself look pretty silly. I think this publicity stunt, while gaining attention and getting Cruz’s name in the news, will ultimately end in a loss of credibility.

    Reply
  26. Hector Bonilla

    Measuring the long term beneficial effects of bad publicity is as tricky as measuring the effectiveness of filibustering. As someone pointed out, Miley Cyrus’ record sales actually jumped post-VMAs despite all the negative press. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she will be able to keep that up when she finds key executives in the industry hesitating or outright refusing to work with her. Similarly, Cruz may find his rise within his Party stonewalled by the veterans such as McCain, whether out of petty jealously or an attempt to protect their own reputations. What people seem to often forget is not all publics are the same; they will all be human and consequently all have opinions, but there is a fine line where those opinions will coincide. Those who are willing to overlook Cruz resorting to something as asinine as quoting Dr. Seuss are desperate, and desperation does not equate loyalty. Just as Cyrus’ newfound fans will likely abandon her for the next big thing, so will Cruz’s followers when he doesn’t give them the miracle they’re looking for.

    Reply
  27. Laura Schioppi

    “All publicity is good publicity” …in this case is not true. It is sad that celebrities and politicians have to make a fool of themselves in order to make the public aware of them. It is hurting their personal image and making them look like a joke. The only reason there was a rise in polls was because people agreed with his opinion of Obama care. The senators’ public display was shameful. These shameful acts are the only way for the public to generate buzz. However, these acts are also a distraction for their main point and key message.

    Reply
  28. caitlin

    I do not agree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity” simply because it does not always prove to be effective for individuals or organizations. It really depends on the situation and what you are trying to achieve. Senator Ted Cruz’s 21-hour senate floor filibuster was a clearly a way to grab the media’s attention just like Miley’s “twerking” incident. However, I do believe that it was affective for Cruz because before it happened many people had no opinion on him but after they clearly did.

    Reply
  29. Jaime Silano

    I completely agree with my classmate who said all publicity is good publicity when the public is not educated on whatever it is the publicity is exposing. In terms of appealing to the uneducated with publicity stunts, I think politicians are even more guilty than celebrities sometimes. Cruz’s filibuster was absolutely not good publicity. Although maybe the general public will now identify him and remember this incident, that doesn’t mean he’ll get more votes or higher approval. When looking at the bigger picture, temporary gratification and attention is not as important as consistent credibility.

    Reply
  30. Brittany Witter

    I personally do not believe that all publicity is good publicity! Take Miley for example, what is going on with her public image is not okay for both her public and personal life. I think that the only reason Cruz saw a rise in polls is because people were agreeing with him on his opinion of Obama care not him or his display. If 54% for people didn’t pay you any attention before, of course when you make a fool of yourself and draw attention to yourself they will see you. And when they realize through all the jokes that you are talking about your disapproval of Obamacare, something they disapprove of as well, your polls will rise. But just because they agree with your opinion doesn’t mean you will get their final vote. Personally I wouldn’t vote for a fool.

    Reply
  31. Rob Moran

    I’m not sure if “all publicity is good publicity” all of the time, but any publicity definitely raises the awareness level of any topic. And I think that is powerful enough, especially because we’re living in this information age where anything that catches one’s attention will most likely lead to a google search. Which is what I think happened in this Cruz situation. I saw some places labeling Cruz’s speech as a 21 hour rant, so naturally when someone thinks some professional being had some sort of meltdown they’re probably going to investigate it. As for the polls, I would guess they increased based on pure Obamacare hatred, so once they found out this guy was opposed they sided with him.

    Reply
  32. adrianazappolo

    I do not believe that “all publicity is good publicity.” In many cases this statement may be true, but not always. I think it depends on the situation, as well as how the story is portrayed in the media. You could say that Senator Cruz’s filibuster was good publicity because people are still talking about him. But at the same time, I think that it could ruin his reputation in the long run. I think that instead of being known for his policies, now he will be known for his foolish filibuster. Although he is receiving much attention for it now, it is not the appropriate attention that should be surrounding a political figure. Sometimes no attention is better than negative attention.

    Reply
  33. acasole

    All publicity is definitely not good publicity. Miley’s twerking, and Cruz’s filibuster are clearly ways to grab the media’s attention, but they also could potentially damage their image as well. This huge risk to damage one’s personal image is something that I feel is a negative way to get attention when there are plenty of ways to get attention in a positive manner. I feel that these tactics offer a way to get short term attention, but in the end they risk losing the respect of the public and damage their reputation.

    Reply
  34. Max N.

    All publicity is good publicity when the public isn’t educated on the issue. There has been so much misinformation about the affordable care act and the debt ceiling that most people don’t even know what to think anymore. I think there would be more of a backlash against Ted Cruz making a fool of himself on the Senate floor if more people knew about the issue. Ideally if people knew enough they could form their own opinions see through his charade.

    Reply
  35. marilynoliver

    While I do believe that not all publicity is good publicity, I don’t consider this filibuster to necessarily be bad publicity, just silly publicity. It definitely made an impression on a much larger audience than most other congressional speeches so in that case, well done! It was blatantly silly in many parts so I took that to mean that the content wasn’t as important to Senator Ted Cruz as the sheer length of his speech and what that implied. A 21 hour speech implies that this Senator is so against Obamacare that these are the lengths he’s willing to go to to stand against it. Whether this was a smart decision or not, I think the speech did what Senator Ted Cruz intended it to do.

    Reply
  36. Adriana Fitting

    Senator Ted Cruz’s pseudo filibuster communicates loud and clear that he is more interested in publicity stunts than in policy making. People find it difficult to seriously respect his discourse when it includes a full reading of “Green Eggs and Ham”. It seems the media coverage of Cruz’s filibuster was focused more on Green Eggs and Ham than on the budget, or the affordable care issues, or any other critical public concerns. This kind of publicity for this kind of role does not work in advancing his cause.

    Reply
  37. nicole_lombardo

    I do not believe that all publicity is good publicity. I did not see Senator Cruz’s filibuster but from what I have read about it it sounds as so he threw his responsibilities out the window on this one. Its one thing to do something different to be noticed and leave an impression but when you fail on your duties than people won’t respect your choices. Being the Senator, people look up to them for making good choices for their well being and his actions were just bad publicity. In a way it just puts a bad taste in your mouth about him and now when someone refers to him people will think of his filibuster.

    Reply
  38. Will Martinez

    For Senator Cruz and his filibuster, the idea may have been to risk personal image in order to gain any publicity. Although not a bad tactic to garner press, the filibuster gained Cruz negative publicity within the political parties. I like Bill Maher’s comparison of Cruz to Miley Cyrus; it seems that some stars feel the need to just be noticed.

    Reply
  39. Brie S

    I really like Bill Maher’s comparison between Senator Ted Cruz and Miley Cyrus because he really is “not afraid to incur the wrath of even some of his fans for the greater good of drawing attention to himself.”
    I actually have been contemplating the saying “all publicity is good publicity” a lot lately, more now since the buzz on Miley Cyrus and her twerking and new videos. If the goal for Cruz and Cyrus is to simply just be talked about (good or bad) then they have certainly succeeded and I would then say yes that all publicity is good publicity because the goal is to have people remember you or what you are all about (like the PETA campaigns). However, if this is an attempt for a better image and is just poorly communicated to the public (for both Cruz and Cyrus) then I would say no it is not good publicity. PRSA defines public relations as “a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” For all we know there is a strategy behind all this madness I just don’t see how it is building a mutually beneficial relationship between orgs and publics. Some Cyrus fans are peeved with her ongoing behavior and some of Cruz’s followers are unhappy as well. I agree with Lauren when she says visibility before responsibility. They are both acting without thinking of the consequences of their actions and the messages portrayed from those actions. They are supposed to be role models and leaders and instead of being praised they are being talked about negatively because people are disappointed.

    Reply
  40. rachelcarru2

    There are appropriate times and places for publicity seeking stints. Miley Cyrus is a pop icon, thriving in a world that does not necessarily positively influence the public in a substantial way. She serves a very casual audience, where as Senator Cruz serves a professional and very influential audience. His 21 hour filibuster last week was quite the performance, during which he made several odd and out of place jokes. His filibuster seemed to lack validity, however, he did catch everyone’s attention. Not all publicity is good publicity, but that depends on what one wishes to gain. Cruz’s audience was once much smaller than it is now. Currently, Cruz has attracted attention from individuals who don’t usually cross into his realm. They will continue to remain interested in his actions because of the incredibly inappropriate filibuster her performed. If Cruz was shooting for the expansion of his audience, then he succeeded, but he will forever be looked down upon by those in his original and professional world. Long after the publicity is over, Cruz will have left a bad taste in his coworkers’ and fellow politicians’ mouths.

    Reply
  41. Laurel Smith

    I believe the senator’s impressive jump in favorable votes exemplifies an important fact that PR representatives should always keep in mind: that the majority of the general public is not fully informed. Let’s take the voting process for example.
    The process can be a tedious one, especially for new voters. Even those who have voted numerous times or for those voters who are a little less in touch with current events (yes, that means you grandma) the process is not always so clear. You walk into a specified location, look at your e-ballot or piece of paper or whatever you may have, and listed are a bunch of names. Now comes the tricky part. Who are all these people? Mr. So and So and Mrs. What’s Her Face? Well, I have to vote for one of them so, who will it be? The one with the prettier name? The one that’s listed first?
    These are all thoughts that may run through a person’s mind. Which brings me back to my initial point. In most scenarios, people do not do all of their research. This is when having your name out there, as Mr. Cruz has done, comes in handy. You know the name, therefore you check the box. Is there such thing as bad publicity? Yes. But, though many would argue despite the fact, I agree that when it comes down to it, bad PR is better than no PR.

    Reply
  42. Jordan Richmond

    I think it depends on what one considers “good publicity.” If all someone cares about is getting the name out there, then all publicity is definitely good because it’s doing exactly what the PR professional intended – getting the word out there. However, if one takes it a step further and only wants something shown in a good light (which is hopefully the desire of most), then not all publicity can be good. If you’re good at taking those negatives and turning them into a positive, however, it can work in your favor. People are enjoying Cruz right now because he was so ludicrous, but I suspect that this will be his legacy and that in future years he will still be known as the guy who went crazy during his filibuster.

    Reply
  43. Zoe Hoffmann

    Senator Cruz’s 21 filibuster is proof that not all publicity is good publicity. Even though his approval rating might have increased, politics is absolutely the wrong field to risk bad publicity. Losing the respect of other republicans, especially someone as recognizable as Senator McCain, is more memorable than a 21 hour long rant about Obamacare. Instead of recalling any of Senator Cruz’s points during his speech, news outlets and media have been consistently picking up on the negative backlash he keeps receiving. Surprisingly, in the entertainment world, I think that even bad publicity can be positive, in some cases. Miley Cyrus’ atrocious MTV performance shot her new single to the #1 spot on ALL music websites in terms of purchase. Her single she released after that, Wrecking Ball, also shot up to the top of the charts even as that video became viral for it’s absolute weirdness. Cyrus’ has recently been commenting on the negative attention and very coyly referred to the fact that while there are bad reviews, she is the one still topping the charts. Publicity is a tricky game based on the industry, the global state, the person, the situation, etc. For some people, there really is not such thing as bad publicity because as long as people are talking bad, they are still talking about you. This is certainly true for entertainers and absolutely not true for politicians and global leaders.

    Reply
  44. VanessaV

    I agree with some of my classmates when I say that one should never put publicity before policy. In this case I did not know who Ted Cruz was before this occurred. Now that I do, I will never take anything that he does or says seriously. He could tell me that the sky is blue and I would not believe him; because he has damaged his credibility when he chose to get up there and read Dr. Seuss. He is worse than Miley Cyrus because she’s an entertainer. He’s a politician, a senator whose job was to represent the people of Texas in Washington and he couldn’t even do that. I don’t think that all publicity is good publicity, because now in his case people will be waiting for him to act foolish. If he does not do that anymore people won’t pay him attention.

    Reply
  45. Kelly Cormier

    I do not believe that “all publicity is good publicity”. While polls responding to Senator Cruz’s filibuster favor this idea, his publicity stunt will only hurt his political career in the long run. Getting people talking and bringing attention to the issue was certainly Cruz’s goal and in that way he has succeeded. However, the American people have never seemed to favor extremists and this filibuster gives the senator a not only extremist image, but an idiotic one, as well. If voters do not take a politician seriously then their career can’t really go anywhere but downhill.

    Reply
  46. Richard Rocha

    Part of me would like to say it is not true that “all publicity is good publicity”, but in light of Cruz’s results it is hard to argue. Even Miley’s antics have made her a focus of the media. Still, Cruz may lose something in return for this gain of publicity: intelligent followers. Just because seemingly more people seem to have a positive opinion of him, this may only be people who even care enough to humor his filibuster.

    Reply
  47. Dilpreet Kainth

    Ted Cruz’s approach may not be the best approach. I personally believe a person should be conscious of their publicity. However, not just any publicity! It should be good publicity. In terms of this, not all publicity is good publicity. This should exclude celebrities, models, actresses etc. The publicity they arouse is not necessarily good and sometimes it rarely is. Many public figures also do not regard the importance of the public’s image of them. It is taken for granted because that person wants to be in the spotlight, rather than enforcing a strong good-natured image of themselves. Now although in Ted Cruz’s situation, the polls seem to have had a positive effect, it is not necessarily how it should be. Because ultimately, Cruz did sacrifice higher responsibility for the “fame”. He wanted to be in the spotlight it seems like….rather than him actually concentrating on what should have been focused on. So it is true……he is like Miley Cyrus in which both don’t have a strong outlook on a positive image.

    Reply
  48. Kim Gray

    I am still a firm believer of “all publicity is good publicity” because stunts like this will have everyone talking. Senator Cruz knew exactly what he was doing and his filibuster last week was definitely a publicity stunt. He used children’s books as a form of relation and entertainment because everyone is familiar with these children’s books to draw attention to prevent the extension of Obamacare. His stunt was just only another great moment in American idiocy.

    Reply
  49. Nathalie Salazar

    I believe Ted Cruz’s choice to filibuster was a way to get attention towards him and his party however, I don’t believe that it was the right way to do it. He ended up making himself and his party look silly rather than serious about their political beliefs. By filibustering, Cruz got the publicity he needed to make himself known as well as the attention towards the topic of his lengthy speech. If he wouldn’t have filibustered the way that he did, then this wouldn’t be a topic of conversation right now. Although I don’t think it was the right attention to attract, publicity is publicity.

    Reply
  50. Sarah ElSayed

    I don’t necessarily believe that “all publicity is good publicity”, but I do believe that it can help you break out of the cage. The Kardashian family for example, gained most of their publicity after the release of Kim Kardashian’s sex tape. Despite her father’s infamous OJ Simpson case, which was also not really good publicity, the Kardashian family is sitting very pretty financially. In the case of Senator Ted Cruz, this quote also stays true. I believe these cases are more about strategic publicity rather than “any” publicity. Although their image was torn down temporarily, it caused a good end result.

    Reply
  51. Isabela Jacobsen

    I’ll admit that I didn’t even know who Ted Cruz was before everyone started talking about him. Just because now I know who he is, doesn’t mean I see him in a positive way. It’s similar to what was discussed in class, in the long run he could be negatively impacted. I think Miley and Ted Cruz are very different, because Ted is someone who has a bigger responsibility than Miley. The fact that he acts “silly” can make it seem like he is not serious about his job and I can see why people are so outraged. However, the polls did show that this could’ve helped him. I think this whole all publicity is good publicity is wrong, but I think this depends on the goal of the PR person and his/her client. If Ted Cruz wants to be seen as so controversial, risking being an internet joke, then maybe he has succeeded after all.

    Reply
  52. Julia Ryan

    I think the belief that “all publicity is good publicity” is one of the biggest misconceptions in the field of public relations. This statement is completely untrue, and I think Ted Cruz’s 21 hour long speech is a perfect example of it. Doing an outrageous public act does work to achieve a huge stream of press, but in doing so the focus is taken off the message you are trying to get across and creates a forum for mass amounts of public criticism. Take senator Cruz for example, in my personal opinion his speech only worked to damage his credibility as a politician (check out his dramatic reading of ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ for an example of this). I did not focus on his message about ObamaCare, instead I was too busy wondering how a man could speak for so long. We see this false notion of ‘any press is good press’ being practiced all the time, especially in the world of entertainment (i.e. Miley, Kanye West, etc), I just think it is a petty way of getting people’s attention.

    Reply
  53. Lyndi Catania

    I wouldn’t say that “all publicity is good publicity”, but I wouldn’t say that it is a bad strategy either. Although Ted Cruz’s rates did rise, it is not necessarily flattering to be compared to Miley Cyrus’ situation. Sorry to mention Miley Cyrus again but even this article proves that her actions are still being talked about. Now she is even being used to make comparisons to a politician. There are certain situations where policy should definitely come before publicity. Even if the publicity works out in their favor, it may only be short term. It’s a risky decision and works better for some people than others.

    Reply
  54. cmadsenpr

    I’m not very knowledgable about the political world, but I can comment on all publicity is good publicity. I think this scenario with Cruz proved that to a certain extent, all publicity IS good publicity. Cruz’s ratings amongst Republicans rose more than it dropped with any other poll that was taken. Obviously it’s not ideal to have a name, company or product in the media with a negative connotation, but regardless of what the media is saying, putting the product in people’s faces will spark some interest. Even if the media is saying something negative, there are still many people that haven’t heard about the product that will do more research and look into what they are saying.

    Reply
  55. croyal13

    In many cases, any type of publicity is good publicity; it get an individual or group noticed by society. There are many people who keep up with the most recent news and events in the media that will form their own opinions. However, there are also many people who do not stay updated with the news. They do not know what exactly happened, but they do know who it involved. In this case, people will not know what Ted Cruz said or how he said it, but they will know that Ted Cruz is in the spot light. I believe that the situation and the person making public statements influences if the publicity had a negative or a positive effect. For example, in the political world, I do not think this is the case. If a rep makes a fool of themselves, it will usually have a negative consequence. However, if a celebrity puts on a risky or edgy show, it will most often keep them in the spot light and enhance their performing career.

    Reply
  56. Yeliz A

    I personally do not believe that “all publicity is good publicity.” These days, people become well-known and are widely spoken about for the wrong reasons. That does not just include celebrities, actors and musicians, but politicians and key policy makers as well. I remember learning in middle school after watching the film “Chicago” that being infamous should not be something public figures should thrive for. It does nothing but create a bad image and put you under the spotlight for a good 10 minutes before people are moving on to the next juicy story. Everyone nowadays ends up finding out something about a public figure because it involves them doing or saying something controversial; this is always the first thing that’ll be trending or spoken about, it’s a sad realization but it’s what people these days gravitate towards.

    Reply
  57. madalyntundis

    I think “all publicity is good publicity” couldn’t be further from the truth. I understand where it comes from, and where people in the public eye tend to believe this because they want the media to be talking about them, whether it’s good or bad. I think they use this as an excuse and justification for bad behavior. There are plenty of ways to (and plenty of public figures that do) go about getting publicity in a positive way.

    Reply
  58. Alexandra Cohen

    I don’t agree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity”. The statement may be true, but it depends on the situation. I also don’t agree with the statement “putting publicity before policy”. People should do things for the right reasons, not just for getting the attention. I don’t know much about Senator Ted Cruz, but it sounds like he has a chance for either a bright future or a dim future depending on his words and actions.

    Reply
  59. akrame27

    Is all publicity good publicity? I think that this is a statement that PR professionals are constantly dealing with, do we want our clients to be in the lime light even if it means a potential bad public image for that client? Like some of the other comments, I do think it depends on the situation. While I do not particularly agree with the fact that “all publicity is good publicity”, this case seemed to have a semi-good effect on Senator Cruz due to the results.

    Reply
  60. Ariana Goldklang

    I disagree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity,” in this case, Senator Cruz was looking more for attention and to catch the publics eye. He seems to be leaning more towards getting any attention, then getting the right attention. Being a politician is completely different than being a celebrity.

    Reply
  61. kerry stewart

    I don’t think that Senator Cruz is one of those candidates you want running around your country inflicting policies that will affect your lives. I do believe that this point has an extremely valid point and that Bill Maher was completely on the right track when he related his filibuster to that of the actions of Miley Cyrus. It’s unfortunate to see in the world of politics being that the actions of politicians are so detrimental to our survival as a country and nation, but there is not a single doubt in anyones mind that they are out for all the attention they can get. As long as people know their names, they will know their policies and most of them do not pay attention to the negative connotation around themselves. It’s also unfortunate to see so many of them have this outlook and be so public about it, and overall, not all publicity is good publicity.

    Reply
  62. Chelsey Fuller

    I disagree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity.” Cruz wasted the time of Congress with his absurd filibuster. People look up to politicians who talk about their beliefs for the country and why they matter so much to them. All Cruz did was seek attention from the public, like a celebrity. It just shocked me how his favorable numbers rose because he basically spoke non-sense and the public likes him for that? That is just speaking poorly for the American people. Maybe politicians are becoming more of celebrities, like Miley Cyrus, and just going out for media attention. To me, Cruz made a bad name for himself doing this filibuster.

    Reply
  63. Rachel Tyler

    I do not believe in the statement “all publicity is good publicity.” A politician wants publicity to get their ideas out there but bad publicity often does go public and the politicians reputation is damaged.

    Reply
  64. Max Eisenberg

    I disagree with “all publicity is good publicity” and looking at the statistics it looks like Cruz was out for attention more than responsibility. In the case of celebrities, it’s acceptable if they are getting publicity for any action, good or bad, if they are just trying to get media attention. However, with politicians it’s a bit different, as negative publicity will hurt their reputation in the long run and they may lose respect within their party.

    Reply
  65. Leia Schultz

    It’s absurd to me that the filibuster exists in the way that it does, allowing people – like Senator Cruz – to waste the time of the Senate and the American people. I heard excerpts from Senator Cruz’s 21-hour marathon of nonsense, and I am more than a little embarrassed that he is an elected representative in this nation. I can’t speak to others’ opinions on Cruz after his filibuster, but I know that I can’t take him seriously in whatever he endeavors to do in the future. He has lost all credibility in my eyes.

    Reply
  66. Whitney Shepherd

    I do not necessarily agree with the statement “all publicity is good publicity”. However, I do understand Senator Ted Cruz’s reasoning. Wether or not his filibuster if effective in getting Republicans to defund Obamacare Ted Cruz is being talked about and his ratings has gone up. I believe the filibuster was more about getting his name out there and being talked about. I do however think that all the criticism the Senator is getting is not all that necessary. The Senator pulled a political stunt and the more people that talk about it and the more people that criticize the Senator are only giving him what he wants. I personally do not think Senator Cruz sacrificed his responsibility in politics, he just had a different approach then what he party would have liked.

    Reply
  67. Joe Flanagan

    I believe that Ted Cruz did give up his responsibility as a policy maker. The Affordable Care Act was passed over four years ago failing to be overturned over forty times. This is where the Republicans, like Ted Cruz, have to give up and move on. The filibuster would be acceptable for something that was not passed through congress, but reading Green Eggs and Ham to try and repeal a bill passed over four years ago is a waist.
    When addressing the issue of publicity, I do not think all publicity is good publicity. Miley Cyrus is very popular, but everyone thinks she’s crazy for the things she does. Ted Cruz is also popular right now not because people admire what he did, but because people think he performed this filibuster as a precursor to a 2016 Presidential run.

    Reply
  68. Lauren Platt

    I happen to believe that the statement “all publicity is good publicity” is not true at all. I think that it can be in some cases and it just depends on the situation. Although I did not hear any or see any of Senator Cruz’s filibuster last week, from what I read it does sound like he put his visibility before his responsibility. In his case, however, his favorable numbers rose higher which means he had to have done something right.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.