Whether you're Tylenol (1982) recalling capsules perfectly or Boeing (2019) denying MCAS software flaws, the public uses a simple moral test: Are you choosing safety over money? People over process?
Before analyzing a crisis, one must understand the lenses through which crises are viewed. Academic literature typically focuses on three primary theoretical frameworks:
Stakeholder theory says: Employees first, but truth always. Never write an internal memo you wouldn’t want on CNN. And never use euphemisms ("re-accommodate") for violence. In the digital age, a crisis is not
In the digital age, a crisis is not a matter of "if," but "when." For students, PR professionals, and business leaders accessing resources like Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory to Real Cases , the value lies not just in memorizing definitions, but in understanding how academic frameworks survive the chaos of the real world.
The theory applied (horrifically wrong): United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, sent an email first—which leaked immediately. He called Dr. Dao "disruptive and belligerent." That was victim-blaming (a violation of SCCT's victim cluster). Then his public statement "re-accommodated" the passenger. you have five options: Denial
Developed by W. Timothy Coombs, SCCT is the gold standard for crisis response. It posits that the type of crisis determines the reputational threat, which in turn dictates the appropriate response strategy.
Mortification doesn’t have to be solemn tears. It has to be sincere . By using their own branding to say "FCK," KFC showed self-awareness and humility, turning a PR disaster into an award-winning campaign. or Mortification (full apology).
Pick a brand crisis from this week’s news. Ask:
Post your case study in the comments below.
When your reputation is damaged, you have five options: Denial, Evading Responsibility, Reducing Offensiveness, Corrective Action, or Mortification (full apology).