PR own goals pt. 73: Chris De Burgh jumps two-footed into the murky puddle of publicity

I consider myself a music fan. But I am one who accepts subjectivity into that claim.

The best example of this is that while I hold the heartfelt belief it was a catastrophic alignment of the planets that meant the musical equivalent of the axis of evil - Chris De Burgh, Mick Hucknall and Phil Collins - still managed to enjoy inexplicably successful recording careers, I entirely accept that is because some people enjoy their music. (Of course some people also enjoy befouling one another in niche sex acts or reading The Daily Mail, but I understand it's horses for courses in this life.)

Fortunately for me, Collins, De Burgh and Hucknall have largely faded from public view since their respective heydays, as taste and fashion have moved on.

But this week De Burgh, reminding us we can never fully relax, was back in the news after he publicly hit back at a critic who had dared to do him down.

Writing for the Irish Times, critic Peter Crawley said the very mention of De Burgh’s name "summons a rush of associations, some of which carry a shudder".

Now, if this ever goes to court I’m willing to be a witness in Crawley's defence and confirm the shudder is also followed by a feeling of nausea as I recollect the moment, pictured right, when De Burgh sang a duet with his Stars In Their Eyes 'double'; looking longingly into one another's eyes singing the words "I"ve never seen you looking so lovely as you did tonight..."

However, showing an incredible ignorance of the ‘how could this possibly backfire?’ factor, De Burgh then responded in writing to the Irish Times:

“Your churlish review is an insult to all those who enjoyed their night out... Your pals in the pub must have loved your review, but it seems ...you are universally loathed in the theatre world.”

Way to rise above it Chris.

"It must be so poisonous to have to lurk in the shadows, riffling through the garbage bins of despair and avoiding those who think ...you are an irrelevance, an irritation to be ignored and laughed about...”

...added De Burgh who sounds like somebody who may know a thing or two about avoiding those who regard peopls as "an irrelevance, an irritation to be ignored and laughed about...". Certainly our paths have never crossed.

And if you think that sounds a little childish, in a "takes one to know one" kind of way, the 80s crooner, then added:

"We were wondering by way of explanation... were you much teased by your school chums in the schoolyard and called 'Creepy Crawley'.”

Brilliant.

It's nice to see Chris De Bore is above playground name-calling.

So, what have we learned from all this?

Naturally, the whole thing is backfiring rather spectacularly – meaning the original negative review has gained a whole new audience, now being raised on the notion that De Burgh more resembles "A small man... in suit trousers and a white shirt, giving a little wave, like a businessman happy to have finished a long day of conference calls" than a pop star.

De Burgh may be tempted to cling to the notion that no publicity is bad publicity, but his return to the spotlight sees him cast in a negative light by many.

In the subsequent coverage there is little reference to any achievements, awards or recognition De Burgh may ever have received. Or even any mention of his music - bar some "sees red" type puns on his best-known song title.

The focus is almost entirely on a childish spat he engineered with a lowly and largely unknown journalist.

It is a textbook example of how not to engage with a negative media.

All De Burgh did was fan the flames rather than let his legion of fans extinguish them on his behalf, or maintain a dignified stance while they died out on their own (the flames, that is, not his remaining fans).