What’s the Positive Value of a Negative Reputation?

A civil lawsuit accusing an entertainer with a negative reputation of financially benefiting by promoting his bad boy reputation on the Web was the crux of an interesting trial I was asked to testify at. It was a real Web 2.0 case with viral marketing labeled as the “smoking gun.”

The plaintiffs are four young adults who allege they suffered injuries and emotional distress during a brawl that erupted in the audience at a 2004 concert in Springfield, MA., where the non-jury trial recently took place in District Court. The defendant is well known rapper Curtis Jackson, a.k.a 50 Cent, who leaped into the audience along with his entourage of band mates after being doused with a bottle of water by someone in the audience. The ensuing brawl was ugly and disturbing.

Arguing the famous rapper has a long history of similar bad behavior, the plaintiffs claim Jackson is reaping economic rewards as a brand and a business thanks in part to a professionally produced YouTube video of the brawl that has been viewed by nearly 200,000 people over the past year. The video also has been linked to by dozens of other popular gangster rap music sites, which further promote his bad boy selling image. The defense, of course, strongly disagreed.

The intersection of that argument is why I was asked to testify as a paid “subject expert” about online reputation management and quantifying the value of viral video marketing, namely the five-minute YouTube video.

I think there is little doubt in the world of marketing that people can make as much money from being a bad character just as much as Miley Cyrus does from her wholesome image. The main issue came down to whether or not Jackson’s complacency in allowing the video to remain online is contributing to sales of his music and merchandise. It was a hot topic that resulted in me being under oath a surprisingly long two hours. Even the judge got into the act, asking poignant questions about digital marketing and the comparative value of paid advertising on television vs. a free on-demand video on the Web.

It was difficult for the defense team to justify why Jackson’s camp didn’t have the video removed from the site if he really thought it was having a negative impact on his image. I’ve worked on campaigns with celebrities before and none of them were ever unaware of what was in the public domain and whether or not it should be stopped or enhanced. Jackson’s attorney was also surprised when I pointed out that in addition to the dozens of free 50 Cent videos on YouTube, his client also has his own paid branded community channel on the very same site.

At the moment the case rests in the hands of the judge so I’ll be sure to update on here the verdict when he rules sometime in the future. On a personal level, it was the first time I had ever had to testify in court and you quickly learn on a witness stand that your opinion means very little if it isn’t based on fact and first-hand personal experience. I hope I don’t have to “face the music” again anytime soon.

Mike Spataro