You’ve probably heard the phrase “all PR is good PR”. But does this saying actually equate to a smart communications strategy? If you’ve accepted this adage at face value, it’s worth looking at what bad publicity does to brands in the long term.

Originally, the phrase was first thought to be said by P.T. Barnum but a version of this saying was actually printed in The Atlanta Constitution, January, 1915.

Now, more than a century later, the idea still circulates. But is it actually true? Well, the short answer is: no, not all PR is good PR and believing otherwise can lead to a challenging road ahead for your brand. Below, we’ll expand on the flawed logic behind this phrase and a few of the consequences of negative PR.

When It Worked

While not true, the logic behind the phrase comes from an assumption that bad publicity will lead to name recognition. This theory assumes audiences have short memories, forgetting the negative coverage while holding onto the brand name itself.

This phrase may have made more sense in 1915 when articles ran once. But in practice today, this definitely doesn’t ring true. Negative news coverage and backlash is archived indefinitely and easily searchable for potential consumers to encounter.

Risk of Reignition

Another consequence of bad PR past the initial event is the risk of reignition. Documentaries, investigative pieces, or retrospective articles can bring past missteps back into public conversation.

That’s why a strong crisis communications playbook matters. When issues resurface, prepared brands are able to respond quickly, provide context, and demonstrate how they’ve evolved.

A prolonged period of negative coverage can also signal that a brand’s goodwill reserve has been depleted. There are plenty of ways to rebuild trust authentically through meaningful community engagement or charitable initiatives.

So Can a Brand Turn It Around?

With negative news stories being preserved on the internet and the 24/7 media environment spreading missteps fast, it’s easy to assume that erosion of trust spells the end for brands. After all, consumers care about trust and a brand’s actions. According to a study by Muck Rack, “a majority of consumers admit they’ve changed their opinion of a brand because of how they handled a crisis.”

But negative coverage doesn’t automatically equate to irreversible damage.

What often determines the outcome is how a brand responds. Organizations with experienced communications teams and a thoughtful crisis strategy are far more likely to stabilize trust and regain credibility over time. Some brands may never fully escape a damaging narrative, but smart brands can course-correct, reshape perception, and move forward.

Journalists May Ask Tough Questions

Negative coverage can leak into future media interactions even after the negative story is far behind. When journalists research your organization, past controversies or critical coverage are often part of that background and may be referenced again.

This means in any future press interaction, it’s important to be prepared to answer any tough questions. Spokespeople should be equipped to acknowledge past issues but be prepared to explain what has changed and how the organization has grown since.

Bad PR Is Not the End

Ultimately, what’s important to remember is negative PR can trigger backlash and erode trust, but it doesn’t have to define an entire brand’s future. With the right public relations team in place, organizations can respond strategically and protect credibility when it matters most.

Even better, strong PR isn’t just reactive. The most effective teams help brands build trust before a crisis ever occurs by shaping thoughtful narratives, earning credible news coverage, and creating campaigns that garner attention from the right audiences. That foundation is what allows brands to weather challenges and emerge stronger over time.

If your brand is wondering how to get started, we can help. Contact us today: info@msrcommunications.com