Response to Britney: Charlie Sheen

From a marketing perspective, despite Charlie Sheen's popularity, I still feel as though I wouldn't want this person to represent my product, or television station.  I just can't help but wonder if negative marketing is just as good as positive marketing.  Based on Sheen's success in marketing himself, I absolutely agree with him, he is winning; but are consumers?  Is it a good thing that consumers are paying attention to what Sheen is doing and enjoying it?  Could it be possible that negative marketing is actually effective marketing?


I would also not want Charlie Sheen being the “face” of a show on my network. this popularity that Sheen has been able to create will not last and he seems to be on a self-destructive past. One has to look at Charlie Sheen’s past to understand the type of person we are talking about. He has been in Hollywood for many years and I think the fame and fortune just built up and he eventually snapped like many stars before him.

I think sheen should take care of himself during this period. But I also agree that he should also take advantage of this marketing opportunity. He should seek to make as much money from this ordeal because he will unlikely have a career once he fizzles out and he will be in court for the foreseeable future, for which this money will be handy.

It is good for Sheen to be doing what he thinks is the right thing in his life. Sheen is not the only one benefiting from his recent outbursts. The internet is alive with t-shirts, posters, and other profitable goods that everyday people are earning money from. Only time will tell how “poisonous” or “nurturing” this new fame will be for Charlie Sheen.