Monthly Archives: June 2025

Diddy’s Silence Spoke Volumes: Why Secrets Are Toxic to Crisis Public Relations

Posted on by
Reply

When a brand or a public figure waits too long to tell the truth, they rarely escape the gravitational pull of a crisis unscathed. Whether it’s the ENRON scandal of 2001, Bernie Madoff’s 2009 arrest or the failed 2017 Fyre Festival, one common thread rings true; you can only evade the truth for so long.

Making recent headlines is Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ongoing public downfall. After decades of alleged abuse and misconduct from multiple sources, Combs is facing mounting legal and reputational crises. The musician and producer’s situation is a worst-case scenario from a PR perspective; a stream of headlines that could have been prevented with a wider perspective and proactive approach.

Don’t Let the Crisis Define the Timeline

In May 2024, CNN released a video of Combs from 2016 that showed a violent interaction with his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura after she filed a lawsuit against him in 2023. Allegations quickly began to accumulate, each one painting a more tainted picture than the last. CNN’s video was a turning point for Combs’ case in terms of his reputation and control of the narrative. What could have possibly been one or a few headlines became a viral cultural moment. For months, hundreds of allegations surfaced and by October 2024, an attorney announced he was representing 120 accusers with sexual misconduct allegations against Combs.

For PR to be effective, you cannot allow third parties, in this case the media, to define the narrative. This is paramount. Crisis teams are brought in to either diffuse or help to ensure a factual story, rather than lighting more fires. To do so, public relations professionals need every detail, every time stamp and every skeleton out of the closet from the very start.

Get the All the Facts Out

Secrecy is a dangerous thing in public relations. A slow cadence of new details like in Combs’ situation keeps a story alive and slowly tears down public trust. Letting the PR team know the details, and what might be out there waiting to be found, can give these professionals the tools they need to take a bit of the wind out of the media storm that just won’t seem to quit.

Speaking to your PR team could be viewed similarly to speaking with an attorney insomuch as all the details, warts and all, need to be shared with the PR team, with whom should have a non-disclosure agreement, up front. Being transparent and thorough with the crisis team early on, no matter how difficult, will help businesses avoid a slow leak of damaging stories and details. Sometimes the situation is simply bad, as in the case of Combs. Even in these scenarios, there can be a benefit to taking some measure of responsibility and trying to shape the narrative; not with spin, but with facts and taking a measure or responsibility. While doing so may not mitigate the public’s interest, it can sometimes allow you to get everything out at once which can, in some instances, shorten the lifespan of media coverage and attention. Once a crisis team is equipped with the full scope of a problem, they can work with business leaders to shape a fact-based narrative around it and try to develop a reasonable plan through the situation. Rarely can one avoid or go around a situation like Comb’s without some obvious reputational damage, even under the best of circumstances.

The Value of a Crisis Team That Knows the Right Questions

A good crisis team asks hard questions. They map out worst-case scenarios, poke holes, identify risks and prepare messaging that anticipates the next batch of headlines. They can only do so if they are brought into the room before the cameras start rolling, footage leaks and lawsuits multiply. In Combs’ case, every new, salacious detail draws more coverage and confirms what many had already assumed about the man. That’s the cost of self-preservation. Had his team had the full picture earlier, it may have been less of a sensational story, or at least less frequently publicized, and more focused on accountability.

In Combs’ case, his actions and behaviors have been further reinforced by past tragedies and altercations like his involvement in and reaction to the Heavy D & Puff Daddy Celebrity Charity Basketball Game stampede and the East Coast vs. West Coast hip-hop rivalry that allegedly contributed to the deaths of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. A crisis team will consider how a company’s past mistakes might be uncovered and rehashed in the media as a current crisis unfolds.

Secrets Don’t Age Well

While Combs’ case is particularly extreme for many reasons, any global brand or a public figure could find themselves in a crisis that plays out in the media. And when speaking with a crisis PR team, it is critical to lay all the facts out early. Anything left unsaid can quickly be found by the media, the courts or random sleuths on the internet. Owning the story and being forthcoming with information might not prevent backlash, but it does allow a crisis team the time and details necessary to manage a situation with clarity, compassion and some measure of control to ensure the client’s side of the story is told with care.

Yes, Chef: Revisiting “The Bear” for Communications Dos and Don’ts

Posted on by
Reply

FX’s “The Bear”, an instant hit when it premiered in 2022, is preparing to air season four. Taking place in Chicago, the show follows a restaurant’s kitchen staff as they ping-pong across the scale of functionality. Something is always broken, staff members are constantly fighting and profitability is plummeting. It gave those with previous food experience, like me, severe deja vu, and those who have never worked in a restaurant a gritty look at how chaotic the day-to-day can be.

Two years ago, my colleague Kate Glaviano wrote a piece inspired by the show exploring kitchen skills she learned as a Chicago chef that transitioned well to her work today as a public relations manager for a busy boutique agency. A service industry veteran myself, I’d like to take that article a step further offering a few communications lessons from the highly acclaimed series.

Spoiler alert: in the show’s third season, we see “The Bear,” the upscale restaurant main character Carmy dreamed of opening with his late brother, finally open for business. But after the high of the grand opening in the season two finale, things sour through season three. The menu is changing on a constant basis, and the team feels fractured and out of step with one another, leading to high tensions that prevent the restaurant from reaching its lofty goal of attaining a Michelin star.

The kind of communications chaos seen in the fictional kitchen is bound to produce burnout. It’s not an uncommon story in the business world—a company with a talented team and solid product can’t seem to get out of its own way. This is why business leaders sometimes employ communications professionals for input on their day-to-day internal and external operations, to help set their team up for success.

Lessons from The Bear’s kitchen

As communicators, our team frequently advises clients on both internal and external communication functions. For organization leaders who sometimes do not have communications as a core function, there are lessons to learn from The Bear:

  • Don’t ignore your team: During season three, Chef de Cuisine Sydney is constantly sidelined at the restaurant. She often tries to speak with the head chef and owner, Carmy, with ideas about improving the menu, only to be ignored or to have his ideas prioritized over her own. At the end of the season, she begins to consider leaving the restaurant altogether. Radio silence is never a good sign for team morale. Your high-value team members need to feel like they’re being heard, and a good communicator can help you figure out the best way to ensure employees feel appreciated and keep difficult conversations constructive. Employees also want to be kept in the loop. A good communications team will work with you to build smart, transparent messaging to make sure your team members feel valued and critical to the company’s future.
  • Know your audience: A big point of contention among the kitchen staff in season three was the menu changing daily. While a daily menu change may not be abnormal for a fine-dining institution, most brands need to rely on consistency to build their audience. If your internal team doesn’t understand what your product or service is aimed at, no one will. Shifting priorities can lead to muddled messaging, making audiences unsure if your company is relevant to them. A communications team can serve as a sounding board for new business decisions, ensuring you stay aligned with your target audience and brand consistency.
  • Leadership sets the tone: The leadership displayed by Carmy, while effective at times, often devolves into angry outbursts. He frequently yells at his team, causing increased tension among his staff and making operations difficult. On the other hand, when he takes the time to show his team members respect and provide them with the right tools they need to succeed, the team is all the better for it. Toxic leadership can derail an otherwise talented team, stunting the growth of not only the company but also the employees. Poor communications from leadership can also trigger a crisis situation that could attract negative media attention and cause reputational damage to the brand. Leadership should work closely with a communications team to help them find a tone and personal brand that conveys empathy and transparency as well as a commitment to the company and its employees’ professional growth.

Whether The Bear restaurant can bloom into a functioning restaurant remains a question for its fourth season to address. Regardless, we can take the fictional restaurant and its kitchen chaos as a guide for what not to do with your company’s communications. Remember, just because something is working currently, doesn’t mean it will last. A big-picture communications strategy that is adaptable and responsive to your operational needs—and those can be a bear to build—can help organizations remain consistent while addressing the shifting needs of any business.

Guess Who’s Back (Again): PR Lessons From HBO Max’s Return

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no shame in a branding misstep, especially when leadership knows how to recover from it. 

Last month, Warner Bros. Discovery announced the return of “HBO Max,” reversing course from the streaming platform’s 2023 rebrand to simply “Max.” What transpired in the two years since the rebrand offers a valuable lesson in brand strategy: listen to your audience and don’t be afraid to course-correct with a little humility. 

 Where Everybody Knows Your Name 

HBO is a household name, having been around since 1972 and responsible for creating publicly iconic television shows like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones and True Detective. The intention behind the rebrand of HBO Max was to convey the expansive programming that became available when HBO Max and Discovery+ merged. While logically it made sense, decisionmakers at Warner Bros. Discovery underestimated the power of the HBO name.  

HBO has a legacy. Over decades, it has gained worldwide acclaim for releasing shows with unrivaled storytelling and gripping visuals that quickly became cultural phenomenon. Removing the three recognizable and trusted letters confused the public and brand recognition took a hit. At the same time, many viewers and others could not let go of the name by force of habit. 

Recovery Mode  

When Warner Bros. Discovery announced the return of HBO Max, they could have chosen to do the about-face quietly. Afterall, many people never let the original name go. Instead, they embraced their branding 360 with humor and transparency by posting a series of promotional videos that poked fun at the name-change induced chaos. In one video, actors in HBO Max shows and movies joked about the switch, leaning into the very reaction audiences had. This is where Warner Bros. Discovery got it right. 

 Rather than doubling down or defending decisions that led to the failed rebrand, they chose to align with the audience’s perspective. They acknowledged what viewers had already decided, HBO is the brand they trust. The pivot demonstrated to viewers that their voices were not only heard, but worth listening to. 

 Three Takeaways for Brands 

For communications professionals, the HBO Max name change(s) is a masterclass in how to rebound from a branding fail with grace. Consider the following:  

  • If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it: HBO’s switch to Max removed the part of the name that had built the brand’s credibility over decades. HBO took a gamble with brand recognition and while risks can sometimes yield positive returns, this case proved that a strong brand identity is hard to come by. When considering big risk, brands should ensure they are considering their core values, what makes them recognizable and how the proposed change could be perceived by the public.  
  • Listening is part of strategy: Brand decisions may be made in boardrooms, but brand perceptions are crafted by the people. Effective public relations means staying in tune with what audiences want, how they are reacting and how to continue to engage them. In HBO’s case, many continued to refer to the brand’s streaming platform by its original name, rather than accepting the name change. If the public is not willing to jump on board, it might be time to listen, rethink and pivot. 
  • Tone matters. By responding with humor and humility, the platform made the change seem more like a silly stunt gone comically wrong rather than a corporate correction. The audience wasn’t talked down to, they were invited in. In one of the videos, Olivia Cooke, a cast member of House of Dragon, even says “why would you remove the biggest part of the branding?” HBO’s humor around the issue demonstrated transparency, proving to audiences their value while poking a little fun at the corporate blunder.  

Today’s audiences are brand-savvy, and they are not afraid to be critical. They notice when companies fumble and when they truly connect with a brand, they engage. HBO Max’s return is more than a case of a company admitting it was wrong, it serves as a reminder that sometimes the most strategic thing a brand can do is lean into a mistake with transparency, respect for audience feedback and maybe even a touch of humor. 

 HBO Max’s content hasn’t changed, the rebrand just adds clarity. The lesson? Great brands don’t just tell audiences who they are, they listen and meet their audiences where they want to be met. 

When Leadership Talks AI Without Comms, Everyone Loses

Posted on by
Reply

In late April, Duolingo made headlines – not for its quirky language lessons, but for the language used by CEO Luis von Ahn. He announced an “AI-first” shift, positioning it as the nucleus of Duolingo’s business strategy. The intention was clear: innovate, lead the conversation and redefine education technology.

What followed was far from the reception von Ahn hoped to receive.

The criticism was not only focused on the use of AI, but its tone, timing and framing of the news. In particular, von Ahn’s publicly available companywide memo stating the company would “gradually stop using contractors to do work AI can handle” was seen as dismissive of the human cost of that transformation.

In the weeks that followed, Duolingo faced reputational challenges that are increasingly common when major business decisions are made without thorough evaluation of communications strategy. It’s become a timely case study evaluating how even well-intentioned innovations can falter when communications are not treated as a strategic business function.

The gap between strategy and messaging

At its core, Duolingo’s shift to AI reflects an undeniable and broad business trend. Organizations are rapidly adopting generative AI and automation to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve scalability. While these moves are almost always declared necessary to remain competitive by leadership, they are not neutral.

When business transformation impacts people—particularly the very ones who build it— how leadership communicates matters as much as what is being communicated. In Duolingo’s case, comments from von Ahn emphasizing experimentation and efficiency, combined with previous AI-induced job reductions, raised concerns about whether the company fully considered the human element of its AI strategy.

Those concerns were further compounded by von Ahn’s comments not less than two weeks later, in which he said AI might be better suited than human teachers for educating children. An assertion that not-so-subtly suggests he envisions AI as a replacement for flesh and blood educators. While childcare services and specialized learning environments might still need human educators under such a vision, von Ahn’s remarks demonstrate a disregard for the complexities and nuances required to become a qualified teacher of future doctors, lawyers and engineers.

The absence of a clear, empathetic narrative invited public skepticism. It also created room for assumptions, misinterpretations and reputational risk. All of which undoubtedly will fall on von Ahn’s communications and risk teams to clean up. And despite the fact von Ahn recently tried to clarify his blunder by stating he “does not see AI as replacing what our employees do,” the damage has been done.

What Went Wrong: A Communications Perspective

Beyond the substance of the announcement, the problem lies in the breakdown between leadership and communications teams. When executives bypass or reduce the impact of communications teams in framing sensitive and complex topics like AI adoption or workforce changes, they not only jeopardize public perception but also expose the organization to avoidable reputational and operational risks.

This begs a significant question: How involved should communications teams be on these issues? Here’s what could happen if communications teams’ counsel is seriously considered or implemented:

  • Message discipline is strengthened across leadership: Major strategy pivots, especially those involving significantly disruptive transformations, demand carefully coordinated messaging at every level. When communications teams help shape the narrative early, they can coach executives on tone, timing and terminology, even what to avoid saying to ensure the company speaks with a unified voice.
  • Brand voice stays intact: A well-crafted message reflects the company’s values, not just a single executive’s view. Communications teams help leaders articulate bold visions without losing sight of empathy, humanity or business culture nuances.
  • The “why” remains visible: Change, good change, is easier to understand when stakeholders know the true intentions behind it. Strategic communication ensures bold moves are framed in the right context—how it will benefit users, support employees and position the company for long-term growth.

In Duolingo’s case, this proactive approach might have framed the shift to AI as a long-term value add while investing in talent and partnerships with educators. Rather, it was communicated as a pure efficiency gain and a need to be first to the detriment of human workers.

Lessons for every business leader

The Duolingo episode offers several takeaways for executives considering similar transformations:

  • Innovation is not a substitute for communication: Regardless of how forward-thinking the strategy is, it must be explained in a way that reflects empathy, clarity and foresight.
  • AI announcements require specialized messaging strategies: These are not routine product updates. Anything related to AI adoption must be treated with the same rigor and care as earnings reports, regulatory disclosures or acquisitions.
  • Internal stakeholders are your first audience: If employees feel blindsided, undervalued or expendable, the external message will most certainly fall flat.
  • Reputation is cumulative: Every comment from a CEO builds—or erodes—brand credibility. Once trust is lost, it’s difficult to get it back.

AI is here to stay, and it’s changing the way we operate. But it should also change the way we communicate. The pace of innovation must be matched by the discipline of communications strategy. Otherwise, companies not only risk internal friction and external scrutiny, but also long-term damage to their most valuable asset: trust.