When I first began writing for The Odyssey Online, I learned just how difficult it was to get my published articles in front of people who would read them. I didn’t have much luck at first, but after a few months of near misses, I clicked “publish” on an article that would generate much attention that I thought possible. This free publicity would come from an unexpected source.

The article in question was about ‘safe spaces’ on college campuses and how much good they really do. It was not intended to be for or against them, but rather to serve as an examination of the subject matter and raise awareness of the question of just how healthy they really are for the college students they were created to help. This article was vastly misinterpreted by many students on my campus, specifically, a group who took it upon themselves to write a long and detailed response to it, publish it on the internet, then print it out and post copies all over our campus. Whether or not they accomplished their goal of defending their safe spaces I am still not sure, but they certainly helped my article circulate the internet. Before this, none of my articles had broken 30 views before the two-week mark. When these students published their response, my safe spaces article skyrocket to over 500 views in less than a week. Whether or not they intended to, the people who wanted to silence me and my message helped it reach more readers than I ever thought possible. Despite the hurtful accusations they made against me, I should be thanking them for the publicity they provided for me.

Is there really such a thing as bad publicity? Many people have argued that there is not, and after seeing what the ‘bad publicity’ I received for my article did for it, I am inclined to agree with them. The concept first rose to my attention after the 2014 film Foxcatcher was released. This biopic chronicles the relationship between Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz and shady millionaire John Du Pont. The real Mark Schultz wasn’t pleased with the film, though, when he discovered that critics were interpreting the way he and Du Pont’s relationship was portrayed as having strong homoerotic undertones. He then headed to Twitter, making insulting remarks and threatening to ruin director Bennett Miller. Needless to say, once this Twitter war began, the film’s popularity skyrocketed. Miller’s career was far from ruined and Schultz’s tweets proved to have the opposite effect, as the film did very well at the box office and remains one of the highest regarded films of the year. Miller, as well as everyone else associated with the production of the film, was likely quite happy that Schultz reacted the way that he did, although he later apologized and retracted his critical statements.

Moreover, it would seem that if the success of your product depends on getting it in front of an audience than it would seem that any publicity is good. I'd talk about how Donald Trump used bad publicity to advance himself all the way to the White House but that's another article.