Nothing quite captures the greatness of sports – sacrifice, ambition, competition, achievement, pain, glory – quite like March Madness. As two sports fans from the Heartland leading a firm with a decidedly Midwestern ethos (work hard, be a good person), we were thrilled to see two Big Ten teams take the men’s and women’s championships this year.

Also, Josh cried on his couch during One Shining Moment. Go Blue.

As interested as we are in the games themselves, we’re storytellers at heart. These tournaments generate such incredible storylines every year, and we thought, what are those stories worth to the brands they represent? What were the moments in the two draws that attracted the most eyeballs and generated the most conversation? How much were those moments worth to the universities involved?

We analyzed this year’s tournament using a single metric: Measured Audience Value (MAV) — the dollar equivalent of every confirmed eyeball that landed on a moment, priced at the tournament’s own advertising rate. Live TV viewers (Nielsen), social video views (YouTube, TikTok, Instagram), and confirmed engagement — all converted at one rate: $50 CPM, the average cost per thousand impressions across men’s and women’s tournament ad inventory this year.

We identified three moments or storylines in the 2026 Men’s and Women’s NCAA Tournaments that generated over $1 million in MAV – creating a direct financial impact on the institutions represented.

1. Mullins from the logo.

UConn 73, Duke 72. Men’s Elite Eight. MAV: ~$1.8 million.

After shooting 0-4 from three, with UConn on the verge of its third Final Four in four years, Braylon Mullins hits a near-buzzer beater three from 35 feet to stun Duke and advance.

The measured audience:

• Live TV: 18.9M peak viewers (Nielsen, via CBS/TNT Sports)

• YouTube: 3.4M+ confirmed views

• TikTok: 865K likes on House of Highlights clip alone (est. ~17M views at 5% engagement rate); Bleacher Report clip: 1.3M confirmed views

• Instagram: 410K likes on CBS Sports post (est. ~8.2M impressions at 5%); 188K likes on Hurley reaction (est. ~3.8M); additional posts totaling ~125K likes

• Google Trends: #1 search in America, ~1M searches

• Total confirmed/estimated audience: ~35–40M unique impressions

• MAV at $50 CPM: ~$1.8M

2. Frese inspires the country.

Maryland falls to UNC. Women’s second round. MAV: ~$1.2 million.

Coach Brenda Frese pulls her star Oluchi Okananwa aside on camera. “I believe in you, but you have to want this moment.” Most notably, the broadcast audience was negligible; the power of this moment translated to massive social and traditional media conversation, rather than relying on the eyeballs of a pre-existing audience.

The measured audience:

• Live TV: Negligible. This was a 2v7 women’s second-round game in a non-primetime ESPN window. No Nielsen breakout was reported for the individual game. Estimated live audience: under 700K.

• Social video: 23 million views across platforms within 48 hours. Confirmed by Frese herself on TMZ Sports: “We didn’t get this many views back then [after the 2006 championship].”

• ESPN TikTok (original clip): 500.4K likes (est. ~10M views). Follow-up Okananwa interview: ~4,800 likes.

• TMZ Sports: Dedicated segment. Frese and Okananwa appeared together to break down the moment. The clip crossed from sports into entertainment media.

• Total confirmed audience: ~24M impressions (predominantly social)

• MAV at $50 CPM: ~$1.2M

3. Auriemma loses himself.

South Carolina 62, UConn 48. Women’s Final Four. MAV: ~$1.5 million (for South Carolina; a reputational cost of similar magnitude for UConn).

South Carolina ends UConn’s 54-game winning streak. UConn head coach Geno Auriemma storms toward South Carolina head coach Dawn Staley, refuses her handshake, and berates her on live television. Geno’s classlessness led to a four-day news cycle that spanned from CBS, Fox News, BET, and the Washington Post. Staley’s response was a masterclass in discipline. “No distractions. I’m concentrating on winning a national championship.”

Anne Marie has long been a Dawn Staley fan (Josh is a total convert after this season.) She’s a great coach, who has done incredible things for the women’s game and her players. And just when I thought I could not love her more, she showed the world that competitiveness and kindness are not mutually exclusive.

The measured audience:

• Live TV (semifinal): 5.4M average viewers, 7.7M peak. The confrontation occurred within the peak window.

• Live TV (championship broadcast, 2 days later): 9.9M average, 10.7M peak — the incident was referenced repeatedly throughout the broadcast. Staley’s hug with UCLA’s Cori Close was explicitly framed as a contrast.

• ESPN TikTok (Staley postgame response): 164.1K likes, 1,440 comments (est. ~3.3M impressions).

• YouTube: ESPN confrontation clip 631K+ views; lip-reading analysis videos 45K+ combined; multiple analysis/reaction videos.

• Google Trends: “Geno Auriemma” was #3 trending US search with 200K+ searches

• Earned media: This was everywhere.

• Total confirmed audience: ~28–32M impressions (TV + social + earned)

• MAV at $50 CPM: ~$1.5M
  

So, what’s the point? This tournament is about so much more than basketball. It’s about leadership, struggle, competition, ambition, heartbreak, and, if you’re lucky, achievement.

When these themes present themselves in such dramatic fashion, they provide the key ingredient to the modern media environment: attention. And that attention – those eyeballs – are valuable to brands. By attacking Dawn Staley, Geno Auriemma didn’t just tarnish his legacy, he destroyed some of the value he’s created for UConn over the years. When Braylen Mullins willed the Huskies to the Final Four, he essentially designed and deployed a pro bono advertisement for his university. And when Brenda Frese showed us what leadership looks like, she didn’t just light up the social sphere, she created a revenue moment out of a broadcast no one was watching.

Universities are brands too, and they’re competing for a lot more than glory on the basketball court. The coaches and players that bring March great are creating boatloads of value for their schools, both tangibly and intangibly.

Share Glass Jaw

The NCAA filed a temporary restraining order against DraftKings for using “March Madness” and “Final Four” in connection with its betting products. The legal argument is straightforward. The strategic argument is more interesting.

DraftKings didn’t stumble into this. They walked in with their eyes open, and a very clear calculation: the commercial upside of being synonymous with college basketball’s biggest month is worth whatever the lawsuit costs. That’s not recklessness, that’s a sound business decision.

And it’s a defensible one and the type of strategic decisions my clients lean on their legal and strategic advisors to help them make every day. Operations must drive communication and reputation (if you haven’t yet, I recommend reading: Your Brand Isn’t a Cultural Vibe. It’s Intellectual Property).

The sports betting industry has poured billions into becoming part of the viewing experience. Every broadcast, every halftime show, every pregame segment is saturated with odds, lines, and prop bets. DraftKings isn’t trying to steal the NCAA’s brand equity. They’re trying to occupy the same cultural real estate, because that’s where the money is. The question isn’t whether they knew the trademarks existed. The question is whether strict enforcement still makes sense when the phrases have become inseparable from the consumer experience these companies are building alongside the NCAA’s own product.

There’s a tension the NCAA doesn’t love talking about. They benefit enormously from the betting ecosystem. Viewership is up. Engagement is up. The bracket pool that used to be an office tradition is now a gateway to real-money platforms. The NCAA didn’t build that pipeline, but they profit from every eyeball it generates. Suing the companies that drive that engagement while simultaneously benefiting from it is a position that gets harder to hold the longer you look at it.

DraftKings also has a genericness argument brewing, whether they make it explicitly or not. “March Madness” has become standard vernacular. People use it to describe everything from retail sales to workplace chaos. The NCAA has fought this erosion for decades and mostly won. But the more the phrase lives outside the NCAA’s control, which sports betting has accelerated dramatically, the harder the enforcement battle gets over time. DraftKings may be testing exactly how far that line has moved.

This is a cost-of-doing business play. A settlement, a licensing deal, a revised set of marketing guidelines. DraftKings adjusts its language by a few degrees and keeps doing exactly what it was doing. The NCAA gets to show it defended its marks. Both sides file the paperwork and move on.

But the bigger picture matters more than the settlement terms. The NCAA is operating in a world where its product and the betting industry are functionally intertwined. Drawing bright legal lines around phrases that consumers already associate with both entities is going to get progressively harder. Not because the law has changed, but because the market has.

DraftKings isn’t the victim here. They knew what they were doing and they can afford the consequences. But framing this purely as corporate arrogance misses the point, the strategy of the game. Sometimes the calculated risk of pushing a boundary is smarter than the safe play of staying inside it. Especially when the boundary itself is shifting.

The NCAA’s enforcement posture protects something real. But DraftKings’ willingness to test it tells you something real too and is lawfare at its finest. It tells you they believe the cultural association is already made, the legal fight is manageable, and the long game favors the company that showed up first and loudest during the tournament that matters most.

Whether that bet pays off in the end depends on how you’re keeping score. For now, DraftKings is leading – they’re using the mark and a federal judge denied the NCAA’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Every March, thousands of marketers commit a completely avoidable legal error. They slap “March Madness” on a promotion, send it out the door, and assume that because the phrase is everywhere, it must be fair game.

It isn’t.

The NCAA filed for a temporary restraining order in federal court to stop DraftKings from associating its sports betting products with protected NCAA marks – including “March Madness” and “Final Four.” DraftKings isn’t some scrappy startup that didn’t know better. They have lawyers. Lots of them. And they still ended up in court.

Which tells you something about how easy it is to get this wrong, or just how much DraftKings doesn’t care and is willing to take the legal hit, as part of the cost of doing business – more on that tomorrow.

The NCAA has been aggressive about its trademarks for years, and that’s the whole point. A trademark you don’t defend, you eventually lose. The NCAA sued a car dealership for running a promotion called “Markdown Madness.” A car dealership. The NCAA wasn’t looking to make an example of a small business. They were protecting a mark worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and they can’t make exceptions for entities they like.

This is all happening while the NCAA brand is uniquely vulnerable and under assault. Look no further than bipartisan legislation currently being debated in Congress that would literally nationalize college sports and drive the value of the NCAA brand to zero.

A reputational aside – operations must drive communication and reputation. From an operational perspective, protecting your intellectual property by going after those that borrowed their language is the right thing to do, hard stop. From a communications and reputational perspective, it’s not as simple. Going after a charming little social media campaign of a small, local business reads much differently than going after a $10 billion betting enterprise.

The line between cultural moments and intellectual property is a lot thinner than most marketing teams realize. Phrases go viral. They enter the lexicon. Competitors borrow them. Eventually someone argues the mark has become generic – and sometimes they win.

The DraftKings situation is a good reminder that brand protection isn’t a legal formality you handle once at launch. It’s active. It’s ongoing. And the moment you assume everyone understands the rules, someone will remind you that they don’t.

Sports betting companies are spending heavily to associate their brands with the biggest moments in sports. The NCAA’s marks are some of the most recognized in American culture. That combination was always going to produce litigation. The only question was when.

The harder question, and the one most organizations avoid asking, is this: When did you last audit what you own and how well are you protecting it? Not just registered marks, but the phrases, slogans, and language that define how your customers recognize you.

If the answer is “we’d have to check with legal,” you might want to do that before the next big cultural moment rolls around.

Brand protection may not be glamorous work, but it’s critical and can avoid creating unforced errors. Nobody throws a party for the in-house counsel who sent the cease-and-desist letter. But the companies that treat their marks like property worth defending tend to still own those marks a decade later. The ones that treat them like a cultural byproduct tend to be filing new trademark applications because they let the old marks slip.

While a federal judge denied the NCAA’s push for a temporary restraining order, the case continues for now. I suspect the NCAA and DraftKings will settle. These things usually do. But the lesson isn’t about the outcome of one lawsuit. It’s a reminder never to assume your brand is too big or too obvious to need protection.

Check back tomorrow to see our take from DraftKings side of the bracket.

In today’s Washington, your public reputation isn’t just good business practice; it can become your most effective advocacy tool. The traditional advocacy playbook that does not leverage your public reputation should be avoided. Building relationships with relevant officials and working through back-door channels to get deals done – this may have worked for previous administrations, but this administration moves differently. With the current White House, high-visibility, media-facing engagements often carry just as much weight, if not more, as behind-the-scenes negotiations.

This holds especially true for foreign manufacturers looking to do business in America. The White House made it clear from the start that increasing domestic manufacturing is one of its key priorities. And with trade reforms like tariffs to pursue this agenda, foreign companies are actively seeking ways to reach deals with President Trump to invest in U.S. manufacturing and maintain their presence here.

To do so, you must be able to clearly tell your story of how your business benefits America. Due to this administration’s emphasis on the media and public discourse, companies with strong public narratives have significantly more leverage to navigate this new terrain than those operating solely through back-channels. Therefore, building an effective public affairs strategy is paramount for foreign manufacturers.

The Hyundai Raid: A Crisis and Reputation Management Wake-Up Call

The recent ICE operation at Hyundai’s $7.6 billion battery plant is a good example of what can happen to a foreign manufacturer without a sufficient public affairs strategy to guard its business in this regulatory environment. Over 300 skilled workers from South Korea were deported due to improper visas, causing significant production delays and potentially millions of dollars in monetary loss. Even Hyundai Motor Company CEO José Muñoz learned about the arrests through media reports, revealing a critical disconnect between the business and the administration.

What happened to Hyundai wasn’t just an immigration enforcement action; it was a stark reminder that in today’s Washington, standard operating procedures are changing, and companies must audit their activities for adjustments. And this must include a shift in their advocacy strategy that goes beyond just behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Aside from press releases and a public deal signing event at the White House with President Trump, the South Korean automaker has lacked a sustained public affairs effort that continually appeals to this administration, one that emphasizes its contributions to the American economy. Although the ICE operation at its plant may have been caused by a separate policy priority of immigration enforcement, the company could have insulated itself from this crisis if it built a public reputation that firmly establishes the brand’s image as not just another foreign company with potentially unlawful workers, but a net positive for this administration and the American people. Instead, it left itself vulnerable to law enforcement and regulatory uncertainties that threaten billions in investment.

Minimizing Corporate Risk Means Safeguarding Reputation and Shaping Public Perception

To minimize uncertainty and protect your business plans in the U.S., a long-term public affairs strategy is necessary to communicate effectively to this administration about how you fit into its “America First” vision. Nowadays, when regulators come knocking at the door with an agenda that is hostile to your business, foreign companies with strong public profiles as job makers and community partners are armed with protective political capital that pure lobbying cannot provide. Public perception is a key part of this administration’s decision-making, and successful businesses are the ones that can publicly showcase clear wins for this White House.

Smart foreign manufacturers, especially those with minimal reputation in Washington, should be adapting to this new landscape. The most sophisticated companies are building comprehensive Washington presences that leverage the administration’s media focus. This means narrating your investment’s story of improving the lives of the American people and the economy. This means speaking to this administration on the grounds of culture and emotion, not just policy and reason.

The Trump administration’s regulatory approach rewards companies that demonstrate clear American benefits and tell that story publicly and compellingly. The administration’s media-savvy leadership responds to well-crafted public narratives about American manufacturing resurgence, technological competitiveness, and economic nationalism. This requires close coordination between legal, communications, and government affairs teams that understand both traditional policy processes and current media dynamics.

The Hyundai experience offers a roadmap rather than just a cautionary tale. Foreign companies – whether those with an existing presence in the U.S. market or those looking to enter it – will be better positioned to navigate this new terrain with a two-pronged strategy that mobilizes traditional lobbying and advocacy in parallel with proactive public affairs, crisis communications, and stakeholder engagement.

For foreign manufacturers today, a public affairs strategy is no longer an accessory; it is a core component of risk management and deal execution.

Don’t forget to check out the latest monthly issue of Our Take!

Subscribe now

When a lawyer and a communications professional walk into a bar… Or in this case, a studio – a crisis and reputation management podcast is born.

Stacy Bratcher, Chief Legal Officer and host of the Legal Department podcast, and I have been deep in the trenches together battling existential crises that threatened organizational reputations and legal liabilities. We’ve stayed friends and today, our casual conversations often turn into armchair analyses of the crises and scandals du jour.

You may be thinking… “Another podcast, how is there anything left to talk about?” And I hear you. However, as avid podcast listeners, we couldn’t find anything that marries scandals and crises of the moment with “how-to” advice for surviving these situations.

Enter Reputation Nation

Reputation Nation is a new podcast we’re hosting for leaders who know that crises don’t arrive neatly labeled “legal” or “PR,” but they often impact reputations, operations, employees, investors, and your bottom line simultaneously. Reputation Nation exists to give decision‑makers a clear, disciplined way to think about high‑stakes moments so the right people can make the right moves before the moment makes them.

Why now

Headlines move faster than fact patterns, and cultural headwinds can turn a regulatory inquiry into a brand crisis – or a courtroom win into a narrative loss overnight. Communications, legal, regulatory, and reputation are intrinsically intertwined. When perception leads reality, our alignment across communications, legal, and other key functions is no longer optional; it’s the operating system.

What we’re doing

Each episode of Reputation Nation pulls apart a live or landmark case to show how positioning, legal filings, messaging, cultural, and policy dynamics interact in real time. We translate disorder into decisions: what to say, what to file, who to brief, when to hold and when to move – so leaders leave with a plan, not just an opinion.

What listeners will get

• Expert analysis. Insider readouts on high‑profile, high‑stakes crises – how they start, how they spread and how they’re won.

• Strategic takeaways. Actionable playbooks to safeguard reputation while protecting options in court, with regulators and in the market.

• Legal perspective. How choices in communications affect privilege, discovery, and risk - and how the legal record can anchor the narrative.

• Creative crisis management. Practical ways to preempt, pressure‑test, and protect the enterprise when the facts are fluid.

Who it’s for

• C‑suites and boards are responsible for stability, value, and trust.

• Corporate communications and public affairs leaders who need to move fast and safely.

• Lawyers: litigators, general counsel, and internal risk teams balancing courtroom strategy with the court of opinion.

• Consultants and curious armchair analysts who want a rigorous, contrarian lens on the biggest scandals and business fights.

Why us

Stacy Bratcher brings the in‑house lens, balancing business objectives with legal constraints and risk considerations, and shows how to turn “no” into “yes, and” when time is short. I’m bringing the crisis and reputation discipline, message clarity, stakeholder sequencing, and how to earn the benefit of the doubt when the room is hot. Together, we bridge the gap that too often sinks good strategies, the space between what’s legally sound, politically viable, operationally realistic, and publicly credible.

Our promise

We’ll be clear, practical, and probably contrarian. We’ll show how organizations earn (and burn) reputation in a world where perception is more than nine‑tenths of the law. And we’ll leave every episode with concrete steps leaders can use the moment the headphones come off.

Check out Reputation Nation wherever you listen to podcasts for our first series on 23andMe.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Amazon Music

Watch on YouTube

Not long ago, Warner Bros. was the kind of studio that could make The Dark Knight and The Departed in the same decade without explaining the contrast. These weren’t just profitable films, they also helped shape culture and made audiences feel like the studio stood for something. That kind of trust takes decades to build. It took much less time to lose.

The old Hollywood adage of “one for you, one for them,” i.e., make a few enormous films each year and let the revenue from those projects support the more creatively driven stories, seemed to work well enough. A superhero launch, a familiar sequel, a recognizable brand - the kind of movies once seen as too big to fail. However, that approach isn’t holding up. A project like The Flash, meant as a DC Universe reset, became a $200 million embarrassment. Black Adam flopped despite months of promotion, prompting Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson to cite invented metrics. Joker: Folie à Deux, a sequel to one of the best and most surprising box office hits of the last decade, now feels like a film made more to provoke than to engage.

The environment has changed. Viewers haven’t stopped caring about movies, but they’ve stopped trusting that the biggest ones are being made for the right reasons. And that erosion of trust is mirrored inside the business itself. Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) is now undergoing a corporate split into two companies after racking up billions in financial losses under David Zaslav’s leadership. One could credibly argue they’re in crisis. Projects meant to anchor the studio underperformed or imploded, triggering another restructuring that signals an end of an era. And layered on top of that is a culture of backlash that builds long before release day. Entire online communities have turned industry backlash into a profession, framing major releases as failures in waiting.

While the mediums and platforms for criticism may be new, the notion of detractors rooting for and pushing for institutions to fail is a tale as old as time. In a previous Dez Reads, we published an analysis on the stress surrounding James Gunn’s Superman and how WBD is staking their future on its success. Unfortunately, it has already become one of movie influencers’ favorite targets, not because it will fail, but because it exists. Superman, however, answered its critics this weekend with a commanding box office debut earning $122 million in the U.S. and Canada and $217 million globally.

These creators aren’t just reacting but pushing content tied to the system they’ve built their followings criticizing. Some of the loudest voices fueling this skepticism come from the same circles that demanded the #Snydercut, a movement born from a mix of genuine fans of director Zack Snyder along with online bot warfare. That dynamic hasn’t gone away. If anything, it’s grown louder and more hostile. As Dezenhall has been counseling clients for decades, your crisis is someone else’s meal ticket. In this case, influencers are cashing in.

Meanwhile, the studios haven’t adjusted. They continue to fund enormous films without answering the essential question: who is this movie for? Intellectual property (IP) still gets prioritized, but brand names now feel like a trap rather than a hook. Films that might have once earned the benefit of the doubt now walk into a room full of skeptics, whose minds have been made up before the first trailer was released.

The response to this can’t be more noise. It won’t come from a bigger marketing campaign or a more recognizable cameo. It comes from rethinking the process behind what gets made, not from panic, but from a commitment to craft and creative authorship. Operations must drive communications. Audiences are still ready to show up, just look at Sinners. They just aren’t willing to be fooled.

A24 has carved out a loyal audience by doing something deceptively simple: by taking creative risks, prioritizing craft, and trusting that smart, original storytelling will find its people. There’s no reason WBD shouldn’t be doing the exact same thing, on a larger scale, with deeper resources, and a legacy that has already shaped generations of filmgoers. WBD doesn’t need to compete with A24, it has every tool necessary to absorb and expand that audience. The appetite for thoughtful, distinctive films is already there. WBD just needs to start feeding it.

A new roadmap, one that rethinks content from the ground up and pairs creative decisions with a smarter, sharper, and more modern communications strategy, allows not just WBD to reshape their image as a creative titan while finding financial success and delivering shareholder value, but also for the industry itself to (re)evolve into a true expression of art on film.

1. Smaller Budgets, Bigger Swings:

Tighter budgets can and must be used to liberate creativity. Today’s audiences, especially younger viewers, aren’t given the credit they deserve. Raised on a century’s worth of film and television, they have developed a sharp eye for tropes and clichés. They gravitate toward stories that feel new and daring and constantly seek out authenticity.

Take Late Night with the Devil, which was produced for just $2 million, earned a $15 million return and critical acclaim, thanks to a refreshing concept that audiences hadn’t seen before. That’s the formula to emulate: leaner productions that take risks and deliver something fresh.

The box office today is driven by online conversation, but that kind of buzz can’t be manufactured. It has to grow from something real. Greta Gerwig’s Barbie succeeded because WBD embraced the organic Barbenheimer phenomenon and played to a generation hungry for nostalgia. Going forward, that instinct shouldn’t be reactive but rather embedded in the process.

This means backing filmmakers who are naturally fluent in the cultural language of the moment, such as younger storytellers or those closely connected to their world. By empowering these new voices, we can seed stories that resonate deeply and authentically, sparking engagement that lasts beyond a meme cycle, fostering authentic enthusiasm and word-of-mouth support.

Until the recent success of Sinners, a narrative was building about the demise of original movies. The idea that a period piece vampire movie could turn the whole industry around seemed more than improbable. Great films emerge when vision, not formula, guides production. As shown with Tommy Boy, a film can succeed with a simple premise when it’s shaped with vision and care.

2. Owning the Narrative Through Smarter Strategy:

To ensure this creative shift resonates beyond the screen, it needs a communications strategy built for today’s new media environment. WBD has the opportunity to pair bold storytelling with a narrative strategy that is equally intentional and adaptive.

This means positioning WBD as the studio that champions originality, empowers emerging talent, and engages with the influencer class while listening closely to its audience. That message must move as agilely as the content itself.

The result is a closed loop where creative risk is backed by strategic foresight, and each release is part of a unified cultural conversation. When both sides move in sync, relevance isn’t a gamble. It’s built in.

“Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen.” – Regina George

Warner Bros.’ recent history offers a powerful lesson for communicators and industry leaders. In today’s media environment, trust is fragile, and criticism moves fast. Creative and strategic choices have to be grounded in what people actually want to see, not what studios think people want to see. Understand your actual audience, not who you want or perceive them to be.

The entertainment industry can take a page from crisis management; it’s no longer just about damage control after a flop but staying ahead of the conversation. Staying ahead of public sentiment is the new standard. WBD missed those signals and is seeing what can quickly escalate into a full-blown crisis that undermines both financial performance and cultural relevance.

What happens next matters. The studios that endure will be the ones that build crisis thinking into everything they do and will be the ones who treat reputation as part of the creative process, not a reaction to what went wrong.

Don’t forget to check out the latest monthly issue of Our Take!

I’ll be honest – a few months ago, I couldn’t have told you the difference between a Labubu and a Trollz doll. But suddenly, these oddball, mischievous little creatures were everywhere – dangling from handbags of celebrities and popping up on my social feeds.

Turns out, Labubu is the perfect case study in how a hyper-niche microtrend can become a full-blown global phenomenon if the right voices decide to amplify it. And thanks to Meltwater’s deep-dive analysis, we can actually see how this transformation played out in real time.

We’ve seen this before – it’s the same dynamic that helped movements like the #GreenNewDeal and MAHA leap from a little-known policy idea to a major topic of conversation. When passionate communities and influential voices rally behind something, whether it’s a collectible or a cause, even the most niche ideas can go mainstream.

The Anatomy of the Microtrend

Labubu started as a quirky character in a 2015 children’s book by Hong Kong artist Kaising Lung. For years, it was a favorite among designer toy fans – a blip on the pop culture radar. But in 2019, Chinese retailer Pop Mart started producing Labubu as collectible plush dolls, and things began to boil. But the real turning point was in 2023, when Labubu keychains hit the market and tapped into the “bag charm” trend. Suddenly, Labubu wasn’t just for collectors, it was for anyone who wanted to add a little weird-cute energy to their look.

The Macro-Micro Amplification Effect

Here’s where microtrend becomes mainstream: According to Meltwater, the magic moment was in April 2024, when Lisa from Blackpink – and most recently, the hit show The White Lotus – featured Labubu. One celebrity post – and mentions exploded across news and social media. The doll’s fate was sealed as demand surged in North America and Europe. Soon after, more celebrities like Dua Lipa and Rihanna were spotted with Labubu accessories.

But here’s the real engine: macro influencers and celebrities may light the initial spark, but it’s the micro influencers – those with smaller, highly engaged communities – who keep the fire alive and spread it further. Toy collectors, travel vloggers, tattoo artists, and niche lifestyle creators all started sharing their Labubu moments. Each added their own spin, making the trend feel personal and attainable. This is the “relay effect”: macro influencers drive awareness, but micro influencers drive conversion and sustain momentum, turning a viral moment into a movement.

Community: The Secret Ingredient

Labubu’s rise wasn’t just about a few celebrity shoutouts. The real story is about the community that formed around the toy. Collectors, customizers, and fans built a culture, trading rare editions, organizing meetups, and even creating custom Labubu accessories and jewelry. Local businesses in Singapore, for example, offered eyelash extensions and braces for Labubu dolls, while others crafted 24K gold Labubu jewelry. Giant Tampines Hypermarket even featured Labubu as claw machine prizes. This grassroots creativity and enthusiasm kept Labubu in the spotlight long after the initial celebrity buzz faded.

Data Doesn’t Lie

The numbers are wild: Between January and May 2025, Labubu racked up about 876,000 mentions across news, social, and broadcast channels. The biggest spikes always aligned with influencer activity or major product drops. Even as total mentions dipped 11% from last year’s viral peak, reach was up 76% and engagement soared 137% – proof that a microtrend, once ignited, can sustain itself with the right mix of community and FOMO.

Financially, Labubu is a juggernaut. In 2024, Labubu sales hit 3.04 billion yuan (about $420 million USD), accounting for nearly a quarter of Pop Mart’s $1.8 billion in annual revenue. International revenue for Pop Mart soared 375% last year, with Labubu leading the charge. In the UK, demand was so intense that Pop Mart had to temporarily pause in-store sales due to crowd surges and safety concerns.

Lessons for Anyone Trying to Break Out

So, what can brands, creators, or anyone with a niche passion learn from the Labubu phenomenon?

• Microtrends are gold mines if you know how to spot them. The weird, the niche, and the “this will never catch on” ideas are often the ones with the most passionate early fans.

• Amplification is everything. You don’t need a million-dollar ad budget – you need the right person to fall in love with your brand and share it with their audience. Macro influencers create the moment; micro influencers extend its lifespan and drive real conversion.

• Community is your secret weapon. Labubu’s rise wasn’t just about celebrity moments. It was about collectors, customizers, and fans building a culture around the toy and keeping the energy alive.

• Scarcity and surprise work. Blind boxes, limited drops, and the thrill of the hunt turn shopping into a shared event, not just a transaction.

Labubu isn’t just a cute (or ugly-weird-cute, IMO) toy – it’s a blueprint for how microtrends can become the next big thing. When everyone’s fighting for attention, sometimes the best strategy is to start small, build deep, and wait for the right voice to carry your brand’s story to the masses.

This communications trend isn’t just limited to dolls or collectibles. We see the same amplification and relay effect driving issue persuasion, social movements, and even political campaigns – where micro-communities and influencers can transform niche causes into mainstream conversations. The Labubu phenomenon shows that the mechanics of what’s going viral apply far beyond pop culture, shaping how ideas and advocacy spread in the digital realm.

So next time you see something niche bubbling up in your corner of the internet, don’t dismiss it – with the right amplification, it could be tomorrow’s new global obsession.

Don’t forget to check out the latest monthly issue of Our Take!

When Maggie released a Dez Reads on the Normal Gossip podcast, I was thrilled as it has been a guilty pleasure of mine and frequent discussion topic with friends for the past few years. While Maggie is a Normal Gossip disciple, I’m more of a fair-weather fan who tunes in for the best episodes. It’s always fun to connect with people over shared interests and we both resonate deeply with the same absurd, anonymous stories despite having generally different interests.

Normal Gossip’s cross generation appeal got us thinking, why does this podcast feel so universal? It’s because gossip is the great equalizer. What started as watercooler banter about our guilty pleasure pastime overflowed into thinking more seriously about the role gossip plays in business, politics, media, and much more. Gossip is not just entertainment. It is a way people process information, build connections, and shape narratives. Whether intentional or not, gossip influences people. In communications and in crisis management, perception can shape outcomes more than facts can.

Gossip is often dismissed as idle chatter, but that underestimates its influence. It functions as an information network, a way to build trust, and in some cases, a weapon. In our work, gossip can be a strategic tool or a wildfire that needs to be managed.

Gossip as a Strategy

Gossip has always been a fixture in society. You can go back as far as Ancient Greece and see how mythology was shaped by word of mouth and then imagine how some of those stories likely developed into the tales we now share.

Until recently, what we now call gossip was simply how people shared news. Before modern communication tools existed, word of mouth, rumors, and handwritten letters spread most of the information. By World War I, gossip had become more formal through telegrams and intercepted messages. These signals were often incomplete but still carried significant weight. Soldiers used rumors to try to make sense of chaos. Narratives formed quickly from fragments of information.

That pattern still exists. Whether you call it gossip, intel, or inside knowledge, people rely on informal channels to understand what is really happening. In many organizations, those informal conversations carry more influence than the official memos or town halls.

Gossip as a Strength

Whisper networks and casual conversations are not just background noise. They can drive real results. One of the best recent examples was the campaign behind Barbie. Before the film was even released, it had already become a cultural event. That did not happen through trailers and traditional ads alone. It happened through tweets, memes, group chats, fashion blogs, think pieces, and everyday conversations. The campaign worked by embedding the film into culture before anyone could judge it on its own merit.

That is the effect of strong informal messaging. It makes people feel like insiders. It builds momentum.

For many of our clients, who are often under intense public scrutiny, learning to use these informal channels is essential. When paired with formal communications, strategic leaks and behind-the-scenes conversations can help shift the narrative. People are going to talk either way. It is often better to guide that conversation than ignore it.

For example, if a company is facing false allegations, a public denial may not resonate. People are often looking for something that feels more revealing. A leaked internal email, an off-the-record comment, or a quote placed in a niche outlet can often do more to influence perception than a formal statement.

Gossip as a Weakness

The downside is that once a rumor spreads, it becomes hard to contain. For example, NVIDIA experienced this recently when speculation about DeepSeek’s technology caused significant stock volatility. The rumors spread faster than the facts could catch up. That type of event shows how quickly misinformation can escalate, especially when the false version of a story is more compelling than the truth.

Managing gossip is not just about getting the correct information out. It requires understanding how narratives evolve and how to redirect them. That means identifying who is amplifying the story, tracking what versions of it are gaining traction, and deciding when and how to respond. Sometimes that involves introducing a different story that gains attention for the right reasons.

This does not only apply externally. Inside an organization, employees also talk. When there is internal unrest, such as a major policy change, speculation fills the gap left by slow communication. If leadership does not respond quickly and clearly, employees may feel ignored. Frustrations that could have been addressed internally often spill into the public and escalate. Leadership needs to communicate early, directly, and honestly so that people feel informed and heard before they draw their own conclusions.

Gossip as the Reality

Gossip is not just a distraction or a vice. It is a way people make sense of the world around them. As Kelsey McKinney writes in You Didn’t Hear This From Me, gossip helps people connect, assess their place in a group, and shape their understanding of events.

For people in communications, and especially in crisis work, that reality cannot be ignored. Gossip will always exist. The goal is not to eliminate it but to understand how it works and use it carefully.

Influence often comes down to controlling the story. In our world, the real advantage lies not just in knowing what people are saying -- but in helping shape what they say next.

Product recalls are among the most common crises faced by consumer products companies. Despite their frequency, many organizations remain unprepared when faced with such challenges, often making rushed, knee-jerk decisions that exacerbate the problem.

Product recalls are par for the course. That’s why there are clear regulatory, operational, and consumer notification processes to address recalls of all shapes and sizes. Making the damage and disruption from a product recall as minimal as possible can be accomplished.

The Boar’s Head listeria outbreak serves as a prime example of how poor handling can amplify the reputational damage. Mishandled recalls jeopardize consumer safety, erode trust, damage reputations, and invite costly operational, legal, and regulatory consequences.

This checklist is designed to provide a clear guide for navigating a recall effectively. By following these actions, companies can respond decisively and implement meaningful changes to minimize the long-term reputational impact of the crisis and prevent future occurrences.

Acknowledge and Assess the Situation.

• Operations must drive communications. When facing an operational problem, you need an operational solution commensurate with the reality you are facing. While it’s not always necessary to communicate or publicly address the full scope of the problem – due to trade secrets, time, regulatory requirements, etc. – organizations must fully acknowledge their challenge and work to find short- and long-term solutions as quickly as possible. 

• Confirm and document the full scope of the problem, including affected products and potential risks.

• Notify all relevant internal teams and have clear roles and responsibilities for all involved in managing the recall – from frontline call center staff to legal teams and executives, everyone should know their role.

• Draft an initial external communication plan to address customers and stakeholders (if applicable).

• Communicate openly about the issue, avoiding downplaying or withholding key details if they are confirmed. Minimizing the issue only delays necessary actions and typically worsens public perception and other adverse outcomes like lawsuits.  

Take Immediate and Decisive Action While Communicating Progress

• Form a crisis management team to oversee and coordinate all recall activities to avoid delays and develop final decision makers. This includes operations teams working hand-in-glove with the communications team.

• Locate and isolate all affected products within your facilities and supply chain.

• Notify the appropriate regulatory bodies (e.g., FDA, USDA) to ensure compliance.

• Evaluate the need for a broader recall and expand efforts as necessary.

• Retest facilities and products to confirm that the contamination or issue has been fully resolved.

• This step may have to be repeated multiple times depending on the extent of the recall.

Make Lasting Operational Changes

• Do a thorough review to fully understand everything that needs to be fixed and fix it – some changes might come right away, some over time, but all are essential to prevent history repeating itself and to ensure long-term safety and sustainability for the organization.  

• Develop and execute a schedule for regular inspections and maintenance to prevent future issues.

• Clearly communicate the changes to all staff, stakeholders, and consumers. If a company doesn’t implement real change, consumers are smart and can tell when they’re being served platitudes instead of actual change. 

• Establish a timeline for periodic reviews and follow-up checks to ensure sustained improvements.

Plan for Long-Term Recovery and Compliance

• Consult with legal and PR teams to address potential lawsuits and regulatory actions following the issue.

• Monitor customer feedback and public sentiment regularly to refine your messaging.

• Implement an ongoing compliance monitoring system to prevent future crises.

A product recall is never pleasant, but it doesn’t have to be a disaster. With a clear plan and decisive action, companies can handle recalls in a way that minimizes reputational damage and gets them back to business.

Don’t forget to check out the latest monthly issue of Our Take!

One of the things that makes March Madness so fun is its unpredictability. You never know which team will pull off an upset or make an early exit. While this is a sports fan’s dream, it’s a social media manager’s nightmare—sort of. Some of the best viral moments come out of March Madness, but they’re also inherently difficult to plan for. You never know who’s going to take over the airwaves or dominate the meme cycle.

A few years ago, it was Doug Edert leading the St. Peter’s Peacocks on a Cinderella run to the Elite Eight. This year, it wasn’t a player, but McNeese’s boom box-toting manager Amir Khan who stole the spotlight in the first round after their surprise win over Clemson. But his time in the sun was over as quickly as it came with their disappointing second-round loss to Purdue.

For now, social media focus seems to have shifted to ten-seed Arkansas following their upset of two-seed St. Johns. Once again, though, it wasn’t the players generating the social media attention but rather the “Battle of the Coaches” as John Calipari and Rick Pitino went head-to-head 40 years after their first meeting.

However, the problem with any underdog storyline is that success is often fleeting. Calipari’s Razorbacks have a date with the Texas Tech Red Raiders on Thursday that could bring an abrupt end to his social media stardom. Or, in true March Madness fashion, something even more unpredictable and entertaining could happen before that. It’s called madness for a reason.

All of this creates a goldmine for university and brand social media managers, but one that has to move fast—much faster than approval processes often allow for.

Speed Is Everything.

In social media, timing isn’t just important; it’s everything. If your brand is slow to react to a viral moment, you might as well not react at all. This is even more true in the context of fast-moving events like March Madness. Brands like Buffalo Wild Wings and Insomnia Cookies, who already signed historic deals with Amir Khan, were in an especially good position to capitalize on their shocking win. But between their big win over Clemson and loss to Purdue, Buffalo Wild Wings only posted once on X, and Insomnia Cookies failed to post at all. The moment has now passed.

Unlike traditional marketing materials, social content has a short shelf life. A rigid, bureaucratic approval process that treats a TikTok or X post like a full-scale ad campaign will only slow brands down. A tiered approval system—where low-risk posts can be published with limited oversight while high-risk ones go through deeper legal review—can be a game changer.

Many brands acknowledge the need for a streamlined approval process but fail to build one that actually works in practice. The key isn’t just saying, "We need faster approvals." It’s about ensuring social teams and legal teams work together proactively. Legal should provide guidance, explain rejections, and—rather than defaulting to “no”—work to find ways to say yes.

Building a Smarter Social-Legal Process.

An effective social media strategy bridges the gap between creativity and compliance. The best way to do that is by establishing clear, practical guidelines for what will and won’t get approved.

Legal and communications teams should create dynamic protocols outlining these rules—not just a static “do not post” list, but an evolving guide tailored to key events like March Madness. Social teams need to know in advance that they can’t use NCAA trademarks or official game footage. But they can highlight players, teams, and viral moments in creative ways that stay within legal boundaries. Having structured guidance allows social teams to move quickly without constantly running into roadblocks. It also saves legal from rejecting the same request ten different times.

Legal should also stay up to date on evolving regulations, especially as they pertain to major cultural events. For example, NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) rules are constantly changing and can impact how brands use a player’s name or likeness in social media campaigns. Legal teams need to ensure social teams are aware of any changes, whether big or small, to avoid delays and keep everything compliant.

The Importance of Trust and Timing.

Trust, as cliché as it is, is critical. When the social team understands legal’s guardrails, they can flag potential issues early instead of wasting time creating content that will never get approved. If legal understands and trusts the social team’s strategy and their willingness to sound the alarm when a post may push the boundaries, legal will feel more comfortable expediting other posts. This, in turn, allows legal to focus on true edge cases while not creating bottlenecks on everything else.

While we’re talking proactive measures here and not crisis response, some of the same rules apply – especially when it comes to timing and protocols. During content-rich events like March Madness, social teams will have folks working in shifts around the clock. Legal should do the same. This includes who is responsible for what, when, so each function knows who their go-to counterpart is.

Collectively, the result is a smoother, more efficient process where creativity isn’t constantly stifled by legal red tape, and legal isn’t blindsided by rogue social posts.

The Bottom Line.

Investing in a strong relationship with legal and structuring your social team for speed is the key to capitalizing on fast-moving trends. Fostering trust, collaboration, and a shared commitment to making things work is the only way to keep up.

Because, in social media, if you’re late to the conversation, you’re not part of it at all.

Overtime.

Some March Madness content worth a look:

🏀 Charles Barkley forgot to watch the game he’s supposed to be covering.

🏀 The crowd loved 5’8 Duke walk-on Spencer Hubbard.

🏀 Jimmy Fallon wrote a hilarious St. John’s Storm Sea Shanty.

🏀 Arkansas’ women’s team made a crazy buzzer beater (to lose 34-103).

🏀 Social media went viral with the “sad tiger” meme after Clemson’s loss.

🏀 Maryland finally got a buzzer beater of their own.

🏀 Columbia’s women’s team brought out some hysterical play-calling signs.

🏀 CBS’s scoreboard bug caused social media chaos.

🏀 Kevin Harlan (the broadcaster) narrated his own ball deflection.

🏀 Alabama State made a crazy play to make the March Madness bracket.

🏀 SNL made the most of March Madness with a series of skits.

Every presidential transition brings a new agenda and new priorities that can be challenging for any industry. The changes brought about by the new Trump administration have come faster than most, which has left many companies scrambling for strategic shifts and responses that will set them on the right path in both the short and long terms. While policy changes pertaining to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) continue to grab the most headlines, there is another policy area that is a bit more nuanced: energy.

The U.S. has always had a complicated relationship with the energy sector. U.S. energy consumption was higher than U.S. energy production every year from 1958–2018, forcing us to fill that gap with imports of crude oil and petroleum. However, the natural gas boom that began in the mid-2000s reversed this trend, culminating in the U.S. becoming a net total energy exporter since 2019. Becoming energy independent was a bipartisan priority that was pushed by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Political pressure, economic priorities, and climate change realities quickly created a divergence, one that we have seen play out during this transition.

Spending on clean energy in the United States topped $280 billion in 2023, up from about $200 billion in 2020, according to the International Energy Agency. Many of these investments were encouraged by President Biden’s signature bill in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was the largest investment in clean power in American history. With a mix of tax incentives, federal subsidies and policy tweaks, the IRA spurred hundreds of billions of dollars into new investments in clean energy – largely coming from private investments.

Despite these massive planned investments and initial steps toward energy diversification, the delay in deploying the allocated funding and the slow pace of development, these policy changes did not deliver politically, which led to a large pendulum swing in the other direction.

“We’re going to drill, baby, drill and do all of the things that we wanted to,” was one of the more notable lines from President Trump, just hours after being sworn in for his second term.

On Inauguration Day, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, making it the only nation to walk away.

The Trump administration has frozen funds appropriated by Congress for clean energy projects, taking particular aim at energy produced by wind turbines, the country’s largest source of renewable power. At the same time, President Trump has declared an energy emergency, giving himself the authority to fast-track the construction of oil and gas projects as he works to stoke supply as well as demand for fossil fuels.

This massive swing has created a lot of challenges for those that made massive financial investments just 3 years ago, requiring a swift course correction. Despite the current political and economic challenges for clean energy producers, there are a few areas in which there is an opportunity to get strategically aggressive:

The AI revolution will need to be powered by an all-the-above approach.

The US technology sector is currently focused on largely one thing – artificial intelligence (AI). The AI race has led to a massive boom in spending by some of the largest companies in the world, all trying to crack the AI code to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment.

While the technological advancements have been fascinating to watch, I would like to focus on just one aspect of the AI revolution – compute power. In the next three years alone, data centers are expected to as much as triple their energy use, according to a report published in December of 2024 by the Biden U.S. Department of Energy. Under that forecast, data centers could account for as much as 12 percent of the nation’s electricity consumption by 2028. McKinsey & Company expects global demand for data centers to grow at roughly 20 percent a year through the end of the decade.

With this massive expansion in data centers comes the need to power them all. This is why we are seeing big players like Meta, Amazon, and Google all making moves toward alternative energy production – mostly nuclear. One headline making the biggest waves is Constellation Energy’s plan to restart Unit 1 at its infamous Three Mile Island nuclear facility by 2028 in order to provide 24/7 carbon-free energy to fuel Microsoft’s growing data center fleet across the Mid-Atlantic. But it is not just nuclear that is getting all the attention: Google recently announced a $20 billion investment in an effort that will use an equal amount of wind, solar, and battery storage projects.

Aside from the massive amount of resources these companies have, they currently have a bully pulpit in Washington DC (as evident by the number of tech CEOs on the dais at President Trump’s inauguration) and in the media that can be leveraged to drive clean power initiatives and stave off the reversal of the last administration’s priorities.

Drafting off the big oil players.

Some great reporting from the Wall Street Journal prior to the election highlighted an interesting trend: Oil companies lobbied then-candidate Trump to spare the IRA, especially the provisions that earmark billions of dollars for low-carbon energy projects on which the big players had already placed large bets. Exxon and Chevron both made plans to pump more than $30 billion combined into carbon capture, hydrogen, biofuels, and other low-carbon technologies, driven by tax credits in the IRA. Their most impactful pitch is the boon for US jobs and manufacturing that clean energy can deliver.

Similarly, there is an opportunity to highlight Community Benefit Agreements (CBA), which compensate citizens for the disruption caused by the construction of renewable projects in their communities. Offshore wind developers are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Long Island communities to be allowed to do construction in their community and allow for power to be distributed all around NYC (and on Long Island itself).

This pairs well with the marketing and advocacy campaigns focused on an “all-the-above” approach leading us into the future and marketing materials that provide updates on energy diversification efforts.

This messaging from the big oil players has created an opportunity for clean energy companies to leverage similar messaging in their own campaigns as an endorsement for continued investment in new technologies. Using these campaigns to create a feeling of a consensus among a diverse and often-competing stakeholder mix can help stave off some cuts to shared priorities.

Young audiences are eager to support and engage with clean energy content. So feed them some.

It is no surprise that younger generations are very engaged on the issue of climate change. As a millennial myself, I have my own concerns about the impact climate change will have on my daughter as she grows up. Climate was a big issue for younger voters in the 2024 election. While youth voter turnout was down from 2020, that does not necessarily indicate that this audience has completely tuned out on climate content.

One climate coalition delivered a $55 million ad campaign during the 2024 election – all deployed on YouTube in battleground states focused on reducing energy costs and creating good-paying American jobs in clean energy manufacturing. While this ultimately didn’t have the desired impact, it shows that climate groups are meeting their audience where they are.

There is still plenty of room for improvement on that front. A 2023 survey conducted by Oxford University asked respondents how they accessed news and information about climate change over the course of a specific week. Even though about half of Americans surveyed encountered climate-change news that week, only 18 percent of them came across such news on social media platforms.

The best avenue to deliver this type of content continues to be via influential voices that can create compelling content in partnership with clean power organizations. Younger audiences don’t care as much about a post being sponsored if the content is compelling and focused on a topic they are interested in.

What’s next?

Industries must make strategic adjustments that fit the shifting winds of political power; this is not a new phenomenon.

Environmental sustainability is simply less important to the Trump administration than global competitiveness. But this administration loves the ability to broker deals. There is a good case to make that diversity in our domestic energy mix makes great business sense for the United States. While such an approach may be novel and outside the sector’s comfort zone, it is probably good for the renewable industry to meet the President where he is, just as it should meet consumers and voters where they are.

The speed at which these policy preference shifts have come continues to accelerate. Taking a targeted, aggressive approach is the best way to either advance your goals or fight for parity until the next shift in power becomes more favorable. Either way, failing to seize the opportunities presented to you in challenging times can lead to paralysis that will dig an even deeper hole for companies to climb out of.

Everyone seems to be picking a side in the whole Poppi versus Olipop controversy. But as young women who fall right into these brands’ target audience and as crisis management consultants specializing in digital, we’re not here to argue over which probiotic soda is superior. Instead, we’re breaking down where Poppi might’ve gone wrong – or did they?

Let's back it up. The drama kicked off Super Bowl weekend when Poppi decided to go big with a flashy influencer campaign. They sent 32 influencers their own Poppi vending machines for their game-day parties. The move was intended to position Poppi as the must-have drink for the Super Bowl, and on paper, it made sense. But instead of winning over the internet like they planned, Poppi found itself at the center of significant backlash for being out of touch with their consumers.

When Poppi’s biggest direct competitor, Olipop, jumped into the fray, it only got worse. Their social media team commented on videos regarding Poppi’s vending machine stunt, including one comment that claimed, “For the record, those machines cost $25K each lol” – only adding fuel to the fire.

Now, the Internet PR/marketing experts have all told you that this could have been avoided if Poppi just would've known their audience better and sent these vending machines to teachers lounges, fire departments, or colleges – places where everyday people could’ve engaged with the brand. But let’s step into Poppi’s marketing team's shoes for a second. They have a LONG history of influencer marketing and boast celebrity investors like Post Malone, Kyle Jenner, and Hailey Bieber. Have we forgotten Poppi’s Coachella campaign and the massive house the brand got for influencer Alix Earle and her friends to stay at during the festival so they could market the launch of their new lemon-lime flavor? Now THAT was peak extravagance shoved into the face of the consumer, and there wasn’t really pushback from Poppi’s consumers. With a history like that, how could Poppi have known that it would be vending machines for influencer Super Bowl parties that would blow up in their face? 

They couldn’t have. The thing about a crisis, especially in today's age of instant scandal, is that you truly cannot see around every corner and anticipate the way that people will react to everything. When you're dealing with something like this, you have to remember that people are people. They're irrational – especially on the internet. They'll say one thing, really mean it, and then do the exact opposite. 

The vending machines were the inciting incident, as they say in the TV and film world. Let's take a look at the fallout. 

People immediately took to social media to voice their frustrations. For Poppi, the main criticisms centered around the perception that they were prioritizing influencers over their actual customers. Many felt that Poppi’s marketing was tone-deaf, with some calling it out as a desperate attempt to go viral rather than a genuine engagement with their audience. Others highlighted the significant contrast between Poppi’s flashy influencer campaigns and Olipop’s more grassroots, community-driven approach. So really by default, Olipop was praised for appearing more authentic and accessible, especially after they took the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and comment on Poppi’s vending machine stunt.

This is where the backlash really started to snowball. While influencers and everyday consumers continued to weigh in on the debate, Olipop decided to escalate things with what we call "competitive offense" here at Dezenhall. Commenting under a now-viral video, the Olipop TikTok account claimed that each vending machine cost $25,000, further fueling the outrage that boiled down to: Poppi doesn’t care about their customers – just making more money. Props to Olipop (one of Poppi’s motivated adversaries) for seizing the opportunity to extend the lifecycle of their competitor’s crisis.

This is where it seemed to take a hard left for Poppi when it likely could have blown over in a couple of days. Poppi’s CEO, Allison Ellsworth, took to TikTok fully in defense mode, saying that they didn’t spend nearly that on the vending machines and ultimately attempting to set the record straight. But in crisis management, we often say that crisis is containment – the opposite of a PR campaign. Instead of playing marketplace defense, which is a strategic operational and communications approach that allows an organization to protect its market share by preempting and rebutting third-party attacks that threaten its reputation, Poppi’s response felt more like damage control, only pushing more customers toward Olipop.

What could've been a contained incident blew up into probably one of the biggest reputational crises of 2025, second only, so far, to the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni legal drama. 

Now for some action items. When your organization or brand comes under attack (because yes, this is a when, not an if situation for every company), remember that marketplace defense is your best offense. And if you decide to go on a PR campaign to clear your name and fix your reputation, we're looking at you, Karla Sofía Gascón, you WILL step in it, and you WILL make it worse. And there could potentially be long-term effects to your reputation and bottom line. 

If we were working with Poppi when this occurred, here are a few things we would've advised them to do:

1. Immediate Containment – Acknowledge concerns without over-explaining or fueling the discourse. Over-explaining further fuels the news cycle and leads to more mistakes.

2. Redirect the Narrative – Instead of playing defense against Olipop’s comments, which in turn validated the premise of their competitor’s claims, shift the focus to how Poppi engages with all customers, not just influencers.

3. Lean Into Real Fans – Spotlight everyday consumers who genuinely love the product, creating organic advocacy rather than relying solely on influencers.

For a lot of consumer brands, a crisis striking is inevitable. While our best piece of advice is to fully vet and think through any marketing or other brand activations before you do them, it is important to understand it is your response strategy that will determine how much market share you lose. 

The American stock market has long been viewed as an impartial metric of financial success. In reality, it is also driven by perception, hype, and fear. Nowhere is this more evident than in the AI sector, where even the slightest rumor or narrative shift can send valuations soaring or crashing. The recent turmoil surrounding NVIDIA’s stock and the sudden rise of DeepSeek highlight how belief—whether inherent or carefully engineered—dictates market performance.

Retail investors, in particular, are a force to be reckoned with. Data shows they purchased a record $562.2 million worth of NVIDIA shares on January 27, 2025, after the stock plummeted. This aggressive buy-in suggests that many saw the dip as an opportunity rather than a warning sign. Understanding these investor behaviors is crucial for companies looking to maintain stability in volatile markets. A well-planned PR strategy can mitigate unnecessary disruptions and shape perception before panic sets in.

DeepSeek’s Disruptive PR Cycle.

The Chinese AI research lab DeepSeek recently made waves with its R1 model, an AI system that purportedly rivals OpenAI and Anthropic at a fraction of the cost. The rollout was accompanied by a well-coordinated public relations campaign saturating tech media and financial news with the idea that DeepSeek could disrupt the AI arms race.

The impact was immediate.

On January 27, 2025, NVIDIA's stock price fell by $24.20, closing at $118.42—a 17% decline that erased nearly $600 billion in market value, the largest single-day decline in dollar value in U.S. history. This market reaction wasn’t based on verified evidence of DeepSeek’s technological superiority but on the narrative that it could fundamentally alter AI economics. There is no widespread validation of DeepSeek’s claims, and concerns persist about whether their models rely on stolen technology. Yet the damage to NVIDIA was done, and confidence in its future has been shaken. For only $5 million, DeepSeek was able to singlehandedly disrupt the entire U.S. market for a week.

NVIDIA’s Future Opportunity.

From the public’s perspective, NVIDIA seemed to be taken by surprise. This begs the question: was this part of a broader strategy for NVIDIA, or were they as caught off guard as it seems? Assuming it’s the latter, there are some strategic shifts NVIDIA may want to make to ensure they are better prepared for competitive disruption – including better monitoring of the online conversations through tools like SIREN, proper scenario planning, and employing robust marketplace defense and competitive offensive strategies.

The warning signs were there: whispers about DeepSeek had been circulating, and industry veterans understood that any major AI breakthrough—especially from China—would carry geopolitical, security, and economic implications. NVIDIA could have developed a more cohesive response for when this news broke. Instead, when the market reacted to DeepSeek, there was no immediate and concise effort to stabilize investor confidence, counter DeepSeek’s narrative, or reaffirm why NVIDIA’s chips remain the backbone of AI computing. Success isn’t just about making great products, it’s about shaping the perception of their indispensability. Better anticipating and preparing for challenges like this could have allowed them to build out a clear messaging strategy ahead of time.

The Stock Market Runs on Confidence.

DeepSeek’s meteoric rise and NVIDIA’s sudden stumble underscore a fundamental truth: success in the American stock market isn’t just about financials—it’s about belief. Confidence is currency, and in today’s market, perception often outruns reality.

Right now, AI is the market’s obsession, and anything associated with it commands an outsized share of attention—sometimes without much scrutiny. Shiny objects attract investors, and soft metrics, like app store downloads or a few million dollars in seed funding, can drive valuations in ways that defy logic. Meanwhile, real financial powerhouses can see billions shaved off their market caps in an instant, as we saw with NVIDIA.

For crisis managers and PR professionals, this environment isn’t just noise—it’s a reminder that managing perception is as critical as innovation itself. Mergers, acquisitions, and proxy fights aren’t just financial maneuvers; they’re narrative battles. The companies that align their financial and communications strategies don’t just survive these shifts—they profit from them.

Stabilizing and Reassuring Investors.

NVIDIA’s long-term prospects remain strong—DeepSeek’s claims are unverified, and NVIDIA’s dominance in AI hardware won’t disappear overnight. However, if investors sense uncertainty from leadership, panic could cause further instability.

NVIDIA needs to reassure stakeholders that its roadmap remains intact, emphasizing its technological edge and continued importance within the ever-growing AI infrastructure. Strategic communication, direct engagement with investors, and an assertive counter-narrative to DeepSeek’s claims should be top priorities. This isn’t just about protecting stock price; it’s about reaffirming NVIDIA’s position in the AI hierarchy.

It’s also to NVIDIA’s advantage that the U.S. government remains deeply distrustful of China. The government has already shown its willingness to prevent Chinese companies from operating in this country, making it very difficult for companies like DeepSeek to gain a foothold. It is in NVIDIA’s best interest to keep it that way, and they would be wise to put substantial effort into encouraging continued regulation against its Chinese rivals.

Perception Shapes Markets.

DeepSeek’s PR success and NVIDIA’s stumble reinforce a crucial reality: financial markets are shaped as much by perception as by true economics. It’s not enough for companies to make great products; they must also control the story being told about them and be on alert for growing narratives that threaten their perception. In a world where stock prices swing on speculation, narrative management is a vital business strategy. Those who understand this dynamic thrive. Those who ignore it fail.

One Final Note.

As much as companies must recognize how perception impacts stocks, investors should too. I’m not a financial expert and won’t tell anyone what to do with their investments, but one cautionary note: as someone who spends their days with clients in varying stages of panic, fear-based reactions rarely lead to the best strategic decisions.

Every couple of years, a blockbuster celebrity lawsuit makes headlines and sparks widespread discussion about the intersection of the legal system and communications strategy. Three years ago, it was the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard defamation case. Now, the focus has shifted to Blake Lively’s and Justin Baldoni’s competing lawsuits. These high-profile cases have thrust litigation communications, what we call high stakes lawfare, into the spotlight, making it a topic of mainstream media conversation. However, in our world, the use of lawsuits as both a legal and a communication tool has long been a common, albeit often overlooked, tactic.

Beyond celebrity scandals, litigation such as class actions, intellectual property and competitor disputes, defamation, and other forms of legal action are frequently used by companies and individuals to manage reputational challenges or disputes. These cases often fly under the radar for the general public but serve the same purpose—to control narratives, influence public perception, compel responses from opponents, and create conditions for favorable outcomes. What makes cases like Lively v. Baldoni stand out is how they pull this typically business-focused strategy into the popular cultural discourse.

⚖️The Importance of Litigation Launch. Legal filings are a critical tool in the high stakes lawfare and crisis management toolkit because they are vehicles to introduce information into the court and public discourse that otherwise wouldn’t be in the public domain. Further, filing something with the court signals seriousness and inherently carries a level of institutional gravitas that can bolster the credibility of the claims made while also signaling to interested media that it is worth reporting on. This makes a coordinated approach between legal and communication teams essential to success.

Unfortunately, a common mistake in litigation communications is failing to align these efforts on the front end. Creating a comprehensive litigation launch strategy is the best way to introduce an issue and manage the court of public opinion. For our clients, that requires:

• A legal filing with sound legal arguments and the inclusion of key narratives and communications assets.

• A full suite of communications materials to ensure message discipline.

• Media-trained counsel and/or spokespersons at the ready for media engagement.

• Reporter and stakeholder backgrounding.

• Activation of sympathetic surrogates and influencers.

This coordinated approach almost always ensures media coverage if it’s an interesting and timely case. Conversely, when a client comes to us three weeks after they’ve initially filed or responded to a lawsuit and realizes that they won’t see any action in the courtroom for months, it’s incredibly challenging to reintroduce in the court of opinion successfully and with vigor.

⏰Avoid Being Late to the Game. If I had a dollar for every time a prospective client’s general counsel said, “We’re in a lawsuit and need to PR this,” on the backend of a filing or action, I’d be retired. The tone of early coverage often sets the stage for how the lawsuit will be perceived, and that’s why it’s critical to have an aligned communications and legal strategy at the jump. Positive initial coverage can add credibility to the claims, while skeptical or critical coverage can create significant reputational challenges.

📣Lively v. Baldoni. The ongoing legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni provides a textbook example of the stakes involved in litigation communications—and the potential pitfalls of an uncoordinated approach. Here is a brief overview of the situation:

• Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni co-starred in the movie adaptation of It Ends with Us, a story centered on domestic violence. The film was released in August 2024, with Lively facing significant online backlash for what many deemed tone-deaf marketing.

• In December 2024, Lively filed a sexual harassment claim against Baldoni in California and a separate retaliation lawsuit in New York. This was accompanied by a New York Times exposé alleging that Baldoni orchestrated a smear campaign against her to tarnish her reputation.

• Baldoni responded by filing a libel lawsuit against the New York Times on December 31, followed by another lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and other defendants, accusing them of extortion, defamation, and other claims.

Initially, Blake Lively clearly had the upper hand due to her disciplined and strategic approach. Before filing her lawsuits, her team likely worked closely with the New York Times to craft a detailed narrative for public consumption based on the allegations in her lawsuit, highlighting:

1. Baldoni allegedly engaged in sexual harassment during the film’s production.

2. Baldoni preemptively hired a crisis management team to tarnish Lively’s reputation, fearing she would go public with her claims.

3. This team orchestrated a social media campaign to shift public perception against Lively.

4. Lively’s lawsuits aim to prevent other women from facing similar retaliation.

Regardless of whether you believe her allegations, Lively’s messaging was cohesive and controlled. She maintained a low profile during the months of public criticism, waiting until her lawsuits were filed to make her case and letting them do the talking for her. As a result, media coverage of her claims followed a consistent narrative, bolstering her credibility.

🥊Punch, 🥊Counterpunch. However, the pendulum has started to swing back in Baldoni’s favor based on one simple fact. In lawsuits, you cannot lie or exaggerate because the truth will eventually come out. Lively cited a specific slow dance scene as an example of Baldoni’s inappropriate behavior. Smartly, in response, Baldoni and his team released the raw, unedited footage of that scene, which seems to contradict Lively’s account. Unfortunately for Lively, this made her allegations appear disingenuous, calling all her claims into question. While she had done everything right up to that point and her messaging remained consistent, this revelation significantly damaged the credibility she had worked so hard to establish.

The Lively-Baldoni lawsuits highlight the importance of integrating legal and communications strategies in high-profile disputes. Litigation communications is not just about filing lawsuits. It is about shaping the narrative and controlling the message from the outset. When done well, it can bolster credibility and create the environment for a favorable outcome. However, when inconsistencies emerge, as in Lively’s case, it can erode trust and amplify reputational damage.

As salacious, high-profile cases like this one continue to bring litigation communications into mainstream culture, they serve as a reminder of its growing role in shaping public perception. For individuals and organizations alike, the key takeaway is clear: success in litigation communications requires a comprehensive strategy, meticulous planning, alignment between legal and PR teams, continual management, and a commitment to consistency and clarity at every step along the way.

Reputation is a fickle beast. A good reputation – with its glimmering images of trustworthiness, values, reliability, authenticity, and integrity – is like a fortress on a hill, visible for all to see, inspiring respect and admiration. Conversely, a bad reputation is like an unrelenting rain cloud, constantly threatening darkness, creating shadows that reel of dishonesty, unreliability, and worse.  

While many struggle to define reputation, there is a prevailing feeling that we know a good reputation or bad reputation when we see it, and in today’s brand-driven, judge-a-book-by-its-cover culture, we have developed an obsession with reputation. Gone are the days of Joan Jett’s “I don’t give a damn ‘bout my reputation.”  

Among most, brands like Apple and Patagonia enjoy a good reputation, while others like Shein and Wells Fargo fall on the other side of the reputational spectrum. Then there are brands like Volkswagen and Abercrombie & Fitch Co., which fall somewhere in the middle – consumers generally like them, but both carry challenging legacies they must address. 

Over the last decade, American clothing brand Abercrombie & Fitch reemerged from the ashes of bankruptcy back into the hearts, minds, and closets of consumers. Last year, Abercrombie’s stock increased by 285%, outpacing the growth of AI powerhouse Nvidia. By shifting their focus from scant sizes for teenagers to size-inclusive, fashion-forward classics for elder millennials, Abercrombie’s brand reputation is back and better than ever.    

Last week, the company’s former CEO Mike Jefferies and others were arrested on federal sex trafficking charges that prosecutors allege happened during his tenure at the brand from 1992 to 2014. While this isn't the scandal of the Abercrombie & Fitch of today, with every report of Jefferies’ arrest including the label "former Abercrombie CEO," it’s an unfortunate and ongoing situation the brand can’t avoid. A quick Google search brings up the Jefferies matter right below the brand’s shopping carousel.  

Smartly, Abercrombie is doing all it can to distance itself from the past as they are: 

✅ “Fully cooperating with law enforcement as the legal process continues.”  
✅ “Appalled and disgusted by the alleged behavior of Mr. Jeffries, whose employment with Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ended nearly ten years ago.”  

And reminding customers and investors alike that they have:  

✅ “Successfully transformed our brands and culture into the values-driven organization we are today.”   
✅ “Zero tolerance for abuse, harassment, or discrimination of any kind.”  

This case may not be Abercrombie’s battle, but they cannot hide from the reality of the brand’s legacy, and they're not trying to. Abercrombie & Fitch has and will have to continue to face the uncomfortable truths of their corporate history head-on – they're not only talking the talk, but they’re walking the walk.  

Abercrombie has worked hard to transform itself into the respected and profitable enterprise it is today. If they can continue to focus on their customers, create quality products, and move forward, I’m confident the brand’s reputation renaissance will endure despite the Jefferies scandal. However, managing their reputation will take constant vigilance, as this case is bound to be fought in both the court of public opinion and the courtroom for years to come.  

People are increasingly getting their news and information from online sources like TikTok and Twitter instead of traditional news sources. Given that these platforms are engineered to quickly grab users’ attention through punchy statements and quick soundbites, they are at the center of the rise in misinformation and disinformation.  

Whether coordinated attack campaigns or the result of clickbait headlines, the way in which this type of false information gains traction online is largely driven by automated bot accounts. These programmed accounts, which can convincingly mimic human behavior, are created to amplify lies and to artificially produce the sensation that a piece of information is gaining widespread traction.  

Misinformation—defined as false information shared without malicious intent—can be damaging on its own. However, when it morphs into disinformation—deliberately misleading content designed to deceive—it starts a chain reaction that is almost impossible to stop. While misinformation can often be effectively combatted through media literacy campaigns and content moderation, disinformation is specifically constructed to bypass these checks and balances. This is especially true as AI technology improves, making it easier and cheaper for people interested in spreading lies to generate convincing narratives and harder for the average user to identify them.  

Misinformation and Disinformation by the Numbers 

• According to the Oxford Internet Institute, 70% of users are concerned about disinformation. 

• Since ChatGPT became publicly available, the number of websites hosting AI-generated false content has increased by over 1000%. 

• 64% of Americans believe that fake news stories created confusion in the 2016 election. 

• There continues to be tens of thousands of bot-generated Twitter posts surrounding the presidential election. 

• A study by the MIT Media Lab found that false news spreads 70% faster than true stories. 

• A Pew Research Center survey finds that about three-quarters of U.S. adults (73%) say they have seen inaccurate news coverage about the 2024 presidential election.   

Why Does This Matter? 

Fake news evokes strong emotional responses, such as shock and disgust, leading users to retweet or share misleading content without a simple fact-check. Social media algorithms prioritize engaging content over accuracy, allowing bot activity to inflate the visibility of misleading posts. 

While misinformation is often associated with politics, its impact extends significantly to businesses as well. A single viral post—true or false—can drastically influence a company's stock price. Research indicates that tweets containing negative information about publicly traded companies can lead to declines in stock value that last for days. This can create a feedback loop, or vortex, where fear and uncertainty drive further selling, exacerbating stock price declines. A J.P. Morgan report found that 30% of investors make decisions based on social media sentiment, emphasizing how misinformation can disrupt markets and affect a company’s bottom line. 

The Global Disinformation Index estimates that disinformation campaigns could cost the global economy up to $78 billion annually, considering lost productivity and impacts on consumer trust. One primary driver of this lost productivity is companies’ difficulties in quickly identifying negative posts and determining whether negative campaigns are solely bot-driven or are reaching investors and consumers.  

Engineering an Early Warning System  

With many of our clients looking for an early warning system to address these challenges, Dezenhall developed SIREN, a platform built to identify and combat misinformation and bot activity. SIREN provides a clear snapshot of online conversations about a brand, highlighting both positive and negative sentiment while tracking (and toggling on and off) inauthentic bot accounts that could distort these metrics. This tool is actively helping our clients determine whether online chatter and targeted bot attacks are reaching investors and customers, or if it’s just noise. 

The platform features customizable charts to track share price against conversation volume, insights into trending topics, and competitive analysis to gauge your position against rivals. By filtering out bot-generated noise, SIREN enables users to engage effectively with genuine conversations, produce relevant content, and counter negative narratives proactively. 

We try to make our Substack writings as interesting and unsalesy (a technical term) as possible, and we know this is a little salesy, but the outcomes SIREN is delivering in the fight against misinformation and proactive reputation management are material and worth sharing. Knowledge and actionable insights are invaluable in these types of fights. If you want to learn more about SIREN, check out: SIREN by Dezenhall.

Rule number one of fight food club is don’t poison your customers. Run a clean operation, address safety challenges quickly, do your own testing regularly, and continually work to improve your processes and facilities to ensure you don’t endanger your employees or your customers. 

However, product recalls happen. That’s why there are clear regulatory, operational, and consumer notification processes to address recalls of all shapes and sizes. Making the damage and disruption from a product recall as minimal as possible can be accomplished – unfortunately, that is not Boar’s Head’s story.  

The Boar's Head listeria outbreak led to nine deaths and numerous hospitalizations and underscores the importance of effective recall management and communication. What started as a potentially manageable issue quickly escalated into a major crisis with the most dire of consequences for customers and long-term operational, reputation and legal challenges for the company.  

There is no PR-ing your way out of a food recall. “Operations must drive communications” is something you hear from me often. It’s not some trite trope, and nowhere is it truer than in a food recall. You cannot put lipstick on Listeria.   

While I have no inside knowledge of what happened at Boar’s Head, I suspect in an effort to avoid massive operational disruption and loss of revenue they limited the initial scope of their recall. Rather than shut down the facilities likely responsible for the contaminates to fully clean, test, fully clean again, test again, etc. until achieving a clean bill of health, they likely spot cleaned instead to get things back up and running quickly.  

Whatever steps they took, there were major missteps, and it's too late for Boar’s Head to hit rewind now. For others who want to learn from their mistakes, here are some practical tips to successfully navigate a product recall.  

1. Acknowledge the Reality. Boar's Head initially tried to downplay the outbreak, which only made the crisis worse. When facing an operational problem, you need an operational solution commensurate with the reality you are facing. While it’s not always necessary to communicate or publicly address the full scope of the problem – due to trade secrets, time, regulatory requirements, etc. – organizations must fully acknowledge their challenge and work to find short- and long-term solutions as quickly as possible. Minimizing the issue only delays necessary actions, and typically worsens public perception and other adverse outcomes like lawsuits.  

2. Take Decisive Action, Quickly. Boar’s Head faced backlash for its slow response. When it comes to food recalls, faster is always better. While it’s easy to sit on the sidelines and say a company is moving too slow, in this case it’s hard to refute the evidence.  

The last food recall I worked on, when the client called us at hour four of an indication of a contaminant, the client’s internal supply chain team was already in the field, testing and tracking, ready to report out next steps at hour six. Did they have all of the answers yet? Absolutely not. Were they moving as quickly and decisively as possible to get them and determine the next steps? Yes.  

Immediate action is always preferable, though it’s not always possible. So, decisive action is the name of the game, when critical and credible problems arise. Delays in initiating a recall can lead to severe health impacts, damage to your brand’s reputation, and often cost more in the long run. I am not saying just do something for the sake of doing something but during a crisis there is no time for the operational team to get caught up in bureaucratic and approval by committee processes.  

3. Be Proactive, Implement Real Change. Most companies in the commercial consumables industry are continually working to improve health and safety standards and protocols. Boar’s Head doesn't seem to be most companies in this case.  

Inspectors noted recurring issues at Boar’s Head’s Virginia plant well ahead of the outbreak. While it may be tempting to ignore these issues based on cost or fear of bad publicity, ignoring the problems ends up being more expensive in the long run. Proactive maintenance and oversight help avoid crises before they occur.  

Boar’s Head did not address persistent issues like mold and pests that were found in their processing plant. That being the case, there is no other solution than to literally fix what’s broken, do a thorough review to fully understand everything that needs to be fixed and fix it – some changes might come right away, some over time, but all are essential to prevent history repeating itself and to ensure long-term safety and sustainability for the organization.  

If a company doesn’t implement real change, consumers are smart and can tell when they’re being served platitudes instead of actual change. See aforementioned “there is no PR-ing your way out of a food recall.”  

It should go without saying, but I’ll say it just in case – don’t lie in a recall (or really any crisis), especially to reporters. Of course, there are things you can’t say, that’s the thing – just don’t say them. If an organization or executive speculates, guesses or outright pedals falsehoods, it will come out and it will likely be worse than taking it on the chin in the moment.  

While product recalls happen, what happened at Boar’s Head is horribly sad and was avoidable.  Will Boar’s Head survive? Probably, but the challenges for the organization are significant, costly, and will take a long time to fully manage.   

The Summer Olympics were a welcome break from the 24/7, usually bad, news cycle. I already miss the athletes’ inspiring stories, watching them achieve incredible physical feats, learning more about sports I previously knew little about, and the beautiful scenery of Paris. And with the last event concluding yesterday, the thing I’ll miss the most is America’s hype humans – Snoop Dog and Flavor Flav – the cheerleaders and unifiers we didn’t know we needed but now can’t imagine going on without.   

On the other hand, I won’t miss watching commercials and sponsored excursions. In the on-demand, streaming world we live in, this is the first time in a long time that I’ve watched significant, non-skippable advertising. Over the past few weeks, I’ve had time to reflect on the messages some of the world’s biggest brands injected into the Olympics. Three specifically – Salesforce, Delta, and Eli Lilly – all caught my attention for very different reasons.   

Delta Airlines Does Damage Control. With the tagline “Champion Every Journey,” Delta Airlines was prominently featured in every major competition and primetime broadcast. After all, Delta is “the official airline of Team USA on the road to the Olympic and Paralympic Games Paris 2024, the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026, and the Olympic and Paralympic Games Los Angeles 2028.” Say that ten times fast.  

A multi-year, multi-million-dollar partnership like this doesn’t materialize overnight. However, the timing couldn’t be better for Delta, who, just weeks before, experienced a catastrophic system meltdown grounding and delaying flights globally for days in the aftermath of the CrowdStrike screw up.    

It’s quite a contrast to go from weeks of stranded passengers venting on social media, burnt-out employees who took the brunt of customer frustration, and countless negative headlines, to upbeat, inspirational, and heart-felt stories of Delta’s 15 athlete ambassadors and those they’ve helped make it to the Olympics in Paris.    

While there is no such thing as a goodwill bank for companies in crisis, I can’t help but feel a positive association with the brand after watching the Olympics for the last two weeks – and I’m an American Airlines loyalist. There’s no way Delta’s team could have planned for this one-two punch – it’s better to be lucky than good.   

Salesforce’s AI Reputation Wrangle. Hitting on the topic and fear du jour of AI, the software company’s ad “The Great Data Heist” featuring Matthew McConaughey was front and center during Olympic programming. Since the ad’s original launch in May, conversation around AI has only grown, with calls for consumer and intellectual property protections, concerns around misinformation – particularly with political advertising – and lawmakers looking for ways to regulate all the above and then some.   

None of those important but boring details found their way into the ad. Rather, in an old western style set up and in his signature Texas twang, McConaughey says, “Don’t get robbed by bad guy AI. Salesforce never steals or shares your customer data,” as he’s kicking consumer data robbers off his train. The visuals are clear – AI is the Wild West. The message is simple – Salesforce is not the problem, it’s a trusted solution.   

While data privacy is a gargantuanly complicated subject matter that most people have little understanding of, brands are wise to the fact that people want to feel like the technology apps, products, and software they use are doing something related to privacy, even if they don’t really know what that means. Also worth noting, Apple’s Safari aired “A Browser That’s Actually Private,” during the Olympic games.    

Eli Lilly’s Marketplace Defense (and Offense). The nearly 150-year-old pharmaceutical manufacturer is going for the gold in its attempt to shed the big bad pharma moniker with its Olympic sponsorship. A headline sponsor, Lilly branded itself as “A Medicine Company,” with taglines like, “When medicine gets better, all of us can get better,” narratives from the likes of Simone Biles fighting like hell for healthy bodies and minds, and images of humans of all ages, sizes, and backgrounds. Lilly is positioning itself as a company that cares about and is invested in American health.   

As a crisis management and public affairs practitioner, I’m hard wired to roll my eyes at brand and corporate awareness advertising like this. Its utility in high-stakes situations is generally minimal. However, Lilly is on to something here and is playing the game of politics without politicking.   

In a contentious election year up and down the ballot, politicians have been focused on kitchen-table issues, like drug prices, and Lilly has some potentially game-changing and costly drugs it wants to see in the medicine cabinets of as many Americans as possible. Lilly’s Alzheimer’s drug, Kisunla, was just approved by the FDA after slowing cognitive and functional decline in clinical trials. Its Tirzepatide formulas – Munjaro labeled for Type 2 Diabetes and Zepbound labeled for obesity – showed better results than their Danish counterparts in a head-to-head comparison published by the Journal of American Medicine.   

Soon to be on the agenda of lawmakers is expanded coverage for these medicines that consumers desperately want access to – both through commercial insurers and Medicare.  More than 70 million adults in the United States are obese, and approximately seven million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s impacts. The daily average Olympic broadcast viewership is 34 million. By Lilly’s calculus, there’s bound to be some overlap, and who better to advocate to lawmakers that these medicines are important than their constituents?    

To put it simply, the subtext for lawmakers, regulators, and consumers of Lilly’s support for Team USA is, “We’re the good guys, doing good things.” Will sponsoring the Olympics move the needle? By itself, no. But it’s my sneaking suspicion that this is just one part of a coordinated, multifaceted communications, marketing, public affairs, marketplace defense, legal, and government relations effort. And if that’s the case, it very well may have an impact, making Eli Lilly the GOAT of corporate affairs.   

From damage control to reputational offense to marketplace defense, the companies sponsoring or advertising during the Olympics did so with a clear goal in mind. They tapped into the pride that many Americans feel toward their country and centered their brands as champions themselves. While I won’t miss watching non-skip ads, I am a bit sad to see the more positive news cycle go. Huge congratulations to all the athletes who competed this year, and an extra shout out to the United States Olympians who brought home 126 medals, 35 more than any other country.  

This week we welcome four new Dezzies to further build out our team to meet the moment. Impactful client work is objective 1, 2 and 3 for Team Dez but when we need to add staff, it's an all hands-on deck affair.  

Our culture is special, our approach to our work is unique and what we’re looking for in potential colleagues is equal parts intellect, curiosity and grit.  

On day one of a new client engagement, we will never be smarter than our client regarding the intricacies of their business and the challenges they face in the marketplace. Clients generally come to us for help in addressing a problem they can't solve on their own. They look to us to: 

📌 Learn quickly. What is your widget? How do you build your widget? Who loves your widget? Who hates it? Who is making a better widget? To be an efficient and effective consultant, we need to learn comprehensively and ask the right questions.  

📌 Think logically. High stakes corporate strategy and marketplace defense is never linear. Every variable changes the decision-making calculus. Anticipation and effective scenario planning are not skills that are taught in a classroom, they are intrinsic skills honed by experience.  

📌Compete to win. A 50 percent increase in social media engagement is useless if the government puts you out of business a week later. We are laser-focused on impacting the ultimate outcome. There are no champagne toasts when we complete a successful deliverable for a client; we're immediately on to the next thing.  

Intellect, curiosity and grit not only speak to our recruitment strategy, but to our culture. When clients or partners work with our team, they'll see very different educational, geographic, and work experience. The common thread is continually curious, dogged strategists, who are determined to win.  

If we could do so without betraying client confidences, we would love to live stream one of our internal brainstorming sessions. A room buzzing with big ideas, and a unique competitive spirit – we’re not competing with each other, but rather on behalf of our clients to solve their complex problems in the marketplace. It's invigorating. 

This isn't to say that we don't value specific skillsets. Maggie Johnston brings a bevy of experience helping large corporations scale, restructure, or become more efficient. David Manitsky studied film at USC and creates killer content for fun. Nathaniel Beach put in thousands of hours and miles on his car electing political candidates and serving constituents. Helen Taylor has creative and digital media chops and knack for fostering meaningful relationships with online influencers.  

These skills will benefit the work we do for our clients on day one (today!), but they're not why we brought them aboard. They're here because they want to learn, they want to work, and they want to win.

Welcome to our ever-curious crew! 

The thing I remember most about the aftermath of John Lennon’s 1980 murder was Paul McCartney’s reaction and the public reaction to his reaction. McCartney was ambushed by the media on his way out of a recording studio. He appeared pale and surprised. He said a few robotic words about how he found out about the murder and signed off with, “It’s a drag, isn’t it?”

I remember the reaction when I watched the impromptu interview in a student center at Dartmouth. Pundits and students alike were appalled by McCartney’s words. A drag? This is what this alleged genius said about his legendary partner? I was young, so my inclination was to go along with the crowd. McCartney was one cold fish, therefore Lennon had been the true genius and McCartney had betrayed himself to be just the cheerful, shallow “cute one.”

I’ve thought a lot about this episode during the past four and a half decades, most of which were spent in the damage control business. It had an impact on how I was to advise clients in crisis. I’d tell them two things in the early stages of controversy. One, don’t think right away about the truth; think about what is better than the truth because that will be the story — the story that human beings, in their rage, will need to believe. Second, the only thing people will care about is blame. Not on the truth. Not fixing the problem. Blame.

For the most part, we humans can’t help ourselves. Our brains are hardwired to sense villainous narratives for our own safety. Not data, not probability. We are, after all, still primates foraging for sustenance against hostile elements.

What has made human nature worse than it was in 1980 are the technologies that have turned any political or cultural event into the equivalent of Newton’s cradle, that desktop toy with the five metallic spheres hanging from strings. When you let go of the one on the left, it hits the one next to it, which remains mostly still (along with the two beside it in the middle). Only the one to the far right flies out after the energy transfers through the other orbs. Then the process begins again, giving us the water torture of that pock pock pock sound. The extreme left and the extreme right fly out for a while, and the orbs in the middle keep getting smashed until they eventually die down, and somebody ignites the phenomenon again.

The internet has made this syndrome especially violent because all we see are the balls on either side because only the extremes make noise. Witness the discussions after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The shooter must have been Antifa. Biden riled him up. Trump ignited this climate. It’s not that such speculation is completely absurd, it’s that we gain nothing by circulating only the most extreme possibilities. Sometimes, losers are just being losers.

During the Trump years, whenever something bad happened, the internet would be ablaze with remarks such as “Ugh. Trump’s America.” You can rest assured that any violent incidents that have taken place since 2021 will be followed by the harrumph, “Biden’s America.” The legacy and digital media zero in on the most incendiary morsel and broadcast only that because the algorithm knows what we’ll respond to. Most of us know that broad trends don’t turn on a dime because of who was just elected president and we have the free will to say “Hold on a minute.”

One of the hardest things that I have had to learn is not to debate people who come at me with absurd premises. If somebody told me that I had a purple cow coming out of my nose, of what utility is it to debate such a person? Yet it is the type of thing I probably would have done until rather recently because of my vanity and a childish need to demonstrate that I was right. Perhaps my synapses were telling me that only the Alpha gets the food. Nevertheless, as Steve Buscemi's character said in Boardwalk Empire upon a ridiculous provocation, "Not everything requires a response."

Is there anything that can be done? Yes — perhaps something similar to the effort afoot to throw a flag onto the social media field. Parents and schools are starting to pay attention to the damage done to kids. Overseas, the European Union is examining ways to educate students about the destructive power of comparing one’s own life to the purportedly perfect lives of those they see mocking them on TikTok. After the attempt to assassinate Trump, I opted out of dialogues, online and in person, that blamed the most extreme elements of the political horseshoe for the tragedy and urged others to do the same. I engaged the phenomenon by withdrawing from it.

In the decades since McCartney’s 1980 streetside interview after his partner’s murder, I have read a lot about Lennon and McCartney’s relationship, including countless interviews with Paul. He is thoughtful, soulful and it is clear that he loved Lennon deeply, despite personal tensions about which he is candid. There was no even divide in the partnership between who was the “deep” one and who wrote the ditties. When Lennon died, Let It Be was the song most played on the radio until a Beatle-ologist pointed out that McCartney wrote it. I’m glad I took the time to investigate because 44 years ago, I had gotten the story wrong.