Why does negative press work in driving attention and interest?

Anger, as you've said in books, is an emotion stronger suited for garnering comments and sharing….but other than media amplification, how can negative press drive online behavior of the same type? (The Donald Trump-like influencers and BuzzFeed/Gawker news outlets come to mind)

Negative press works in driving attention and interest because it cuts through the noise. Almost everyone else is trying to get along, to blend in, to find common ground. If you’re looking simply to acquire attention or take yourself from obscurity to notoriety, negativity is one way to do it.

I asked Mike Cernovich, the political agitator and online personality, a version of your question recently. His answer is worth looking at:

Allow Dana White to explain: “If you take four street corners, and on one they are playing baseball, on another they are playing basketball and on the other, street hockey. On the fourth corner, a fight breaks out. Where does the crowd go? They all go to the fight.”

We all love drama. It’s human nature. Sport, politics, reality TV. Those all meet the same human need. You helped write a book with laws about dramas and spectacles.

I create compelling spectacles using conflict.

We live in an attention economy. That means that attention is one of the most precious resources there is—we have more money, more resources, more technology than ever before, but we have the same amount of limited time. There are more people competing for that time than ever before as well.

So when someone decided to buck the norm and risk backlash or when someone does something crazy or strange, it cuts through. I’ve said before that brands/businesses that are boring have to pay a premium. They have to spend more to reach the same amount of people that an exciting or interesting or fearless brand/business might be able to reach for less (or for free). The reason most avoid this strategy is that they are not fearless. They have a lot to lose. They’d rather pay the premium then run an ad that gets them in trouble (with the media, with their boss, with their fancy friends).

When I was running ads for American Apparel, we didn’t care whether the fashion press liked our ads, we cared whether they were talking about them. Because talking meant free impressions and free attention. With my first book, I didn’t care about critics or whether the attention I was getting was positive or negative because my only priority was breaking out of obscurity and getting my work in front of people.

Now that I have built an audience and a brand (and have something to lose), I have the luxury and the obligation of thinking about things a little differently. Someone like Mike, at this point in his career, has little to lose and a lot to gain by courting negative press. If he were suddenly given a show on Fox News, that would quickly change.

There is a similar study on this about book reviews in the New York Times. For a first time author, both negative and positive reviews had a positive impact on sales. For established authors, a negative review had a negative impact on sales. It’s the same equation. For a first time author, the review is building their profile. For the established author, it’s diminishing it.

Jonah Berger has found that negativity and anger are the most viral and provocative emotions. That’s at the root of why the strategy works. Whether it’s effective or cost-efficient for the practitioner depends on who they are and what they are trying to accomplish.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-negat...n-and-interest