Negative comments on ads are good.

‍

Not to be seen as a sign of a stance or ad that needs to be rethought.

‍

In fact, I believe they’re a necessary component of advertising campaigns that deliver actual value to a company’s bottom line.

‍

Here’s why.

‍

—

‍

You launch an ad. Or make a company post on LinkedIn.

‍

Impressions start trickling in.

‍

Slowly at first. Then faster.

‍

Suddenly that thing is earning far more impressions and engagement numbers than others in your ad manager account. Great, right?

‍

But then you notice that much of that engagement is comments. The most common reaction is the angry face emoji.

‍

Shit. Must’ve taken the wrong stand?

‍

The comments are fierce.

‍

“Word salad.”

‍

“Typical leftist woke shit.”

‍

“You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

‍

And my personal favorite: “you hack, get off of my feed.”

‍

It’s very natural to see these and feel a pang of regret. I mean, the job of running an ad to potential customers or making a post to peers is to encourage POSITIVE reactions, right?

‍

No.

‍

It’s meant to provoke a reaction, period. 

‍

See, taking a stance on a topic in such a way to get people in your target demographic to take a few moments to comment is engagement done right. You delivered a relevant point effectively enough to establish credibility, especially since you clearly wrote well enough to not be considered a troll.

‍

These reactions are your sign that this is an emotionally charged space that actually matters. When I publish content, I’ll take ten spicy replies to no replies at all. Ten times out of ten.

‍

—-

‍

So how do you turn negativity into an engagement machine that enhances your credibility?

‍

First - the easy and less effective one - is to simply reply in a thoughtful manner. Thank them for their point of view and that you respectfully disagree. Leave it at that.

‍

Or the way with the most upside, when done tactfully: push back on their assumptions.

‍

Take this example. I recently launched a set of ads for a client that shared learnings from a recent energy firm branding project. Our stance was that energy companies need to future-proof their brands by inserting themselves into the seismic shift towards clean energy without hiding their past.

‍

Moving away from the past completely suggests having something to hide. Suddenly the spotlight turns to the company’s past, instead of its new, contemporary and forward-looking brand image.

‍

The comments came quickly.

‍

“So you’re condoning the destruction of our planet?”

‍

“Energy evolution is what? Taking away more, taxing more?”

‍

“We burn less, because we are almost out of stuff to burn. Branding 101”

‍

Thin-skinned marketing teams would pull the ad and change tactics. Us? We smiled, kept the ad running and put more budget to it. After replying to several of the comments, the thread grew longer and our reach skyrocketed.

‍

THIS ad is earning its click costs, getting shared and earning web traffic that matters. Remember, most social platform algorithms reward controversial content and posts.

And you know what? That ad generated a big lead on its second day running. Funny that. 

‍

Those negative comments showed us the topics, blog ideas and copy that truly made a mark on somebody.

‍

—--

‍

Obviously I’m not suggesting that ads or posts about smacking orphans or praising fascists is good form.

‍

But always remember that while the content of a strong ad or article should be about the reader and their pain points, it’s still YOUR piece of content. The people who will never buy will leave angry comments, but the people that want to work with an agency with a backbone will see that and quietly fill out your lead form.

‍

Positive comments are nice for the ego.

‍

Negative comments drive engagement and show you the topics that touch on the true pain points of your target audience.

‍

Apathy wastes budgets.

‍

Friction gets people to take notice.

‍

The next time you're writing a post or an ad, think like sandpaper