When the CEO becomes the Crisis Risk: Uber seeks an Ending

Uber’s crisis sage may be nearing an end.  It seems the ending maybe written as a tragedy as the founder who loves his company sacrifices himself by resigning as CEO.  At least that is how the story is appearing in the Uber board would like people to see it with this statement:

“’Travis has always put Uber first. This is a bold decision and a sign of his devotion and love for Uber. By stepping away, he’s taking the time to heal from his personal tragedy while giving the company room to fully embrace this new chapter in Uber’s history. We look forward to continuing to serve with him on the board.’”

Another way to frame the events is that a company cannot hope to fix its culture problems when the person who created and embodies the culture remains as the leader of the organization.  Here is the contrasting view from one news source:

“Mr Kalanick embodied his company’s prevailing attitude: success at all costs. It saw Uber dominate the ride-sharing world, his chutzpah enabling the company to attract investment so effectively that last year Uber alone raised more money than the entire UK start-up scene.”

Investors were the pressure behind his resignation and not just time away.  Investors were weighing the risks.  What is the risk of dumping the CEO legend verses the risk of his continuing to drag down the organization.  This is a great quotation about the existing risks and Uber as a crisis self-generator:

“What started out as a PR inconvenience has left the company without, to name just a few, a chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief technology officer and chief financial officer. Uber is in tatters, engulfed by its own aggression.”

Time is always a critical variable in a crisis.  Crisis time has been standing still for Uber, this may be part of the actions that unfreezes it.  At least for investors, CEO Travis Kalanick was more of a crisis risk than an organizational asset.

Questions to Consider

1.  How might Kalanick’s resignation help the crisis situation?  How might its create a new variant of a crisis?

2.  How can an organization prove to stakeholders that a culture is changing?

3.  What does this case demonstrate about the potential role of board members and investors during an organizational crisis?

4.  What actions could Uber have taken earlier to prevent the crisis/crises from extending over such a long period of time?

Milk with Dignity: Ben & Jerry’s faces a CSR Crisis Risk

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is frequently used as a means of bolstering an organization’s reputation.  Of course failed CSR efforts can come back to harm the organization in a boomerang effect.  Even when CSR is successful, it creates a unique crisis risk.  Once an organization publicly claims to be socially responsible, the organization becomes vulnerable to charges of social irresponsibility.  The Reputation Institute estimates that over 40% of an organization’s reputation is related to social responsibility.  Hence, once managers claim the organization is socially responsible and draw reputational benefits from that claim, the organization is vulnerable to challenges that claim the organization is acting socially irresponsible.  CSR is a form of crisis risk, not just a potential asset before or after a crisis.


Last week, activists and farmer workers marched to the primary Ben & Jerry’s facility in Montpelier, VT.  The action is an ongoing concern over whether or not Ben & Jerry’s is honoring its 2015 commitment to Milk with Dignity.  Here is how the campaign’s web site describes Milk with Dignity”


“The campaign builds a movement of farmworkers and allies to call on major food corporations to take responsibility for farmworker rights abuses in their supply chains. Farmworkers converted worker’s rights and housing violations into solutions in the creation of the Milk with Dignity Code of Conduct—defining the human rights essential to a dignified workplace and fair housing. Our members also noted that some dairy farms already had most of the Code of Conduct’s standards in place, demonstrating that it is both necessary and possible to raise the bar in the industry through this campaign.”



The activists and farmers feel that Ben & Jerry’s is acting irresponsibly by not really trying to honor their pledge in 2015.  Ben & Jerry’s is one of the few corporations built on the concept of CSR, therefore, charges of social irresponsibility can be serious reputational threat.  The magnitude of the reputational threat is dependent on the ability of the challengers to make other stakeholders aware of the concern and to convince other stakeholders Ben & Jerry’s is acting irresponsibly.  The march was just part of an effort designed create awareness of the dispute and to pressure Ben & Jerry’s to take action thereby eliminating the reputational threat.


Here is Ben & Jerry’s original statement on Milk with Dignity


“June 19, 2015

Ben & Jerry’s shares Migrant Justice’s belief that all farm labor must work under fair, just and dignified conditions.  Both parties acknowledge the challenging conditions for farmworkers and family dairy farms in Vermont.  

Ben & Jerry’s and Migrant Justice commit to work together to define and detail the rights and responsibilities of Ben & Jerry’s and Migrant Justice under the Milk with Dignity Program.

Ben & Jerry’s is proud of its longstanding relationship with the family farms within its Vermont supply chain. The member family farms of the St Albans Cooperative Creamery share the vision and values and work every day to deliver a dignified life for everyone working in the Vermont dairy industry. Our united vision is to ensure that everyone within Ben & Jerry’s Vermont dairy supply chain work under fair, just and dignified conditions.” 

The action is having some effect as Ben & Jerry’s did feel the need to address the situation in May of 2017 with this statement:

“Migrant Justice’s recent release of a timeline documenting past violations of unsafe conditions, wage theft, and inhumane housing for Vermont farmworkers are as shocking today as they were when they were first reported. Even a single incident is serious and unacceptable and must be treated as such. We followed up with various Vermont State officials and the St Albans Cooperative management to understand the context of each allegation and the resolution to each one. We know that at the state level and at the Cooperative we source from, all of the stakeholders are working to achieve safe and dignified conditions for dairy farmworkers. Ben & Jerry’s is deeply committed to the ensuring that all of those who work in our supply chain have safe and dignified working conditions, which is why, in 2015, we committed to implement the Milk with Dignity program on dairy farms that supply our company.

While Ben & Jerry’s has been working to building strong labor standards with our St. Albans Cooperative dairy supply chain for many years, our labor standards within our Caring Dairy program are not worker-driven social responsibility. We appreciate that Migrant Justice has brought forward the importance of a worker-driven program to protect farmworkers’ rights and working conditions. We understand the distinction that the labor standards within our corporate-led program, while robust and creating positive results, are not worker-driven. That’s why we’ve been at the table with Migrant Justice for the past two years working on the details of how to operationalize the Milk with Dignity program across our dairy supply chain. Our intention is that The Milk with Dignity program would replace the labor standards that were embedded in the Caring Dairy program.

We are as disappointed as Migrant Justice with the amount of time this process has taken. We’ve invested much staff time, energy, and effort, all in good faith, to reach an agreement with Migrant Justice. Contrary to the current public narrative, we never left the table in our discussions with Migrant Justice to resolve the Buyer’s Agreement. We remain at the table ready to find a constructive path to a successful conclusion. We are committed to becoming the first dairy company in the country to implement the Milk with Dignity program and remain dedicated to the pledge we made two years ago.

Make no mistake, we’re proud of the work we’ve done over the years in our dairy supply chain and we invite you to learn more about that work here.  But we also understand that there is still much work to be done. We hope that soon we can move from discussing to implementing the Milk with Dignity program across our dairy supply chain.”

Ben & Jerry’s do recognize that the activists have a valid point but disagree on the reasons for the lack of progress.  The challenge is not over and we can expect both sides to continue creating messages around the issue meaning this CSR reputation threat will continue for Ben & Jerry’s.

Questions to Consider

1.  Would other stakeholder view the activists’ concerns over milk legitimate?  Why or why not?

2.  How effective would you say the response by Ben Jerry’s is for protecting its reputation?  What led you to that evaluation?

3.  Why might managers forget to include CSR is their assessments of crisis risks?


Useful Reference:

Coombs, T., & Holladay, S. (2015). CSR as crisis risk: expanding how we conceptualize the relationship. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 144-162.

At Least a Double Crisis: Uber the Crisis Self-Generator

A board member is at a high-level meeting about the changes an organization needs to make because of problems with harassment and discrimination.  Of course that is the time to make a sexist comment.  Welcome to the self-generating crisis that is Uber.  David Bonderman, now a former member of the board was part of the following exchange:


“There’s a lot of data that shows when there’s one woman on the board, it’s much more likely that there will be a second woman on the board,” Huffington said.

In response, Bonderman said: “Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking.”

The statements were verified and made public by unhappy Uber employees who also reported the events to human resources.  It seems Uber desperately wants to make itself part of the crisis communication curriculum as an example of what not to do.  This is a great example of a double crisis, a situation where the crisis response makes the situation worse by creating another crisis.  For a thorough explanation of double crisis see Frandsen and Johansen’s 2017 book, Organizational Crisis Communication. (It is a very good book to read and to reference).


At least Bonderman and Uber saw the problem and he resigned with the following statement:


“Today at Uber’s all-hands meeting, I directed a comment to my colleague and friend Arianna Huffington that was careless, inappropriate, and inexcusable. The comment came across in a way that was the opposite of what I intended, but I understand the destructive effect it had, and I take full responsibility for that. Having worked with the company for the last few months on the Holder report, I recognize the importance of implementing the requirements of the report. Uber is examining the issues with its culture, and making significant changes and working to right what has been done wrong, which is extremely important for the future of the company. I do not want my comments to create distraction as Uber works to build a culture of which we can be proud. I need to hold myself to the same standards that we’re asking Uber to adopt. Therefore, I have decided to resign from Uber’s board of directors, effective tomorrow morning. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve on Uber’s board, and I look forward to seeing the company’s progress and future success.”


Bonderman gives an appropriate response because he takes responsibility for his actions, he recognizes why the statement was a problem and its negative effects, and resigns (corrective action).  But the damage was already done.  As Uber is announcing how it wants to change a problematic culture, the traditional and social media are reporting about the effects of a problematic culture—the comment and resignation.


I like to say that crisis communication should follow the principle of “do no harm.”  A double crisis is a sure sign you violated that principle.  Silence is a sub-optimal response but can be a better alternative than some choices.  During a crisis an organization is under increased scrutiny.  That demands managers be careful about what they say or do.  How can Uber be taken serious about a culture change when the problems with that culture keep re-emerging.  Media are already speculating on whether or not Uber can change its culture and beginning to document the negative effects of this current cluster of crises on hiring and customers.


Questions to Consider


  1. How can Uber management address the concerns about the ability to change the company’s culture—what is next for their reputation repair?
  2. Why would this comment become such a concern on social media?
  3. Why might Uber’s actions finally be affecting customers?  Think about how it can relate to outrage.
  4. Why are double crises so problematic?

The UPS Response is a Warm Light during a Dark Time

Unfortunately, workplace violence continues to be a crisis type for organizations.  The UPS shooting in San Francisco comes on the heels of a workplace shooting in Florida.  Current or former or former employees harming or killing current employees is a tragedy managers may have to face.  If you want to find an example of a proper (and effective) crisis response for a workplace violence crisis see the UPS response below:


US 06/14/17

Atlanta, GA

UPS Statement

UPS confirms there was a shooting incident involving six employees within the company’s facility in San Francisco earlier this morning.  Local law enforcement is conducting an investigation.  We cannot provide information as to the identity of persons involved at this time, pending the police investigation.  We understand that there are four deaths, although some individuals were transported to the hospital and we are unsure of their status at this time.

The company is saddened and deeply concerned about affected employees, family members and the community we share.   Our thoughts and prayers are with all those touched by this incident.  To assist our employees during this time, UPS has made professional counseling available.

The facility is an area package sorting hub and package delivery center.
UPS employs 350 at the facility.
The location is:
2222 17TH STREET
Cross street is San Bruno
Neighborhood is Potrero Hill


UPS used Twitter to help notify people and to send them to this message.  UPS provide a summary of the relevant details while respecting privacy.  The focus is on the victims including other employees and family members.  UPS is providing counseling for the employees along with an expression of sympathy (all part of adjusting information).  The message is simple (no confusing jargon) and to the point.  In a time of trouble, UPS management provided a helpful crisis response.

No Questions to Consider, just appreciate the good work that was done in a terrible situation.

The Often Long Road for Corrective Action

On Feb. 19, 2017, Susan Fowler, a former Uber employee, posted a blog about her experiences with harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at Uber.  Her post highlighted a rather deaf human resource department and a disinterested management team.  Here is a part of her post:

“Uber was a pretty good-sized company at that time, and I had pretty standard expectations of how they would handle situations like this. I expected that I would report him to HR, they would handle the situation appropriately, and then life would go on – unfortunately, things played out quite a bit differently. When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man’s first offense, and that they wouldn’t feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to. Upper management told me that he “was a high performer” (i.e. had stellar performance reviews from his superiors) and they wouldn’t feel comfortable punishing him for what was probably just an innocent mistake on his part.”

The blog posted kicked off yet another crisis Uber to go along with other, publicly documented accounts of bad behavior by leadership.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder was appointed to investigate and to report back to Uber’s board.  One June 5, 2017 the recommendations of the report were made public after the board has unanimously accepted all the recommendations.  Many of the changes were practice common in many organizations related to human resource practices and management accountability.  A central theme was a problem with Uber’s “hard charging” culture that seemed to be personified by its CEO Travis Kalanick.  It was announced he would be on indefinite leave following the report.  Uber had already fired/had many in leadership leave the organization as part of the need to change.  Now Uber has a blueprint for additional change.  Stakeholder interest (including traditional and social media) will continue to wane as Uber starts to implement the change but eventually there will be some check on these changes to see if the practices and culture are changing.  Stakeholder should and often do question an organization’s commitment to addressing the problems that created the crisis.

The case illustrates that corrective action can be a slow road.  Corrective action includes an organization explaining what it is doing to prevent a repeat of the crisis.  This prevention is part of adjusting information because it is a critical element of helping people cope psychologically with a crisis. We can call this corrective action prevention.  Do you want to re-purchase a food item that made you sick or work for a company that has had such a high-profile harassment case?  The answer is “no” unless you believe the company has changed its ways and working to prevent a repeat of the crisis.  Organizations often begin corrective action prevention with a promise.  But how good is that promise?  Did the organization conduct a thorough investigation?  Was the investigation independent or internal?  Did the organization take tangible action of the report recommendations?  The corrective action prevention can be a long-term process that serves to extend the crisis though often at a low level of interest.  However, the bigger the crisis, the greater the interest when the report is made.  BP followed a similar pattern in response to the Texas City tragedy.  The news media were very skeptical of BP’s initial identification of the problem.  What followed was an external investigation and report by James Baker.  Many stakeholders (including traditional media) will question an organization’s crisis response until the corrective action prevention is implemented, usually those closest to the crisis including victims.  There are times when an effective crisis response takes time because an organization must seek to understand what and who are responsible for the crisis and then take actions designed to reduce the likelihood of the crisis repeating (prevention /mitigation). 


Questions to Consider

1.  Why would Uber be so reluctant to have its CEO step away before the report?  How is this complicated by Kalanick having controlling interest in Uber?

2.  Why might the earlier removal of personnel been considered just a sign of good faith and not a complete corrective action prevention?

3.  At this point, who do you think is still interested in the crisis?

4.  How does the case indicate an organization cannot always gloss over concerns about responsibility for a crisis?

What does a Competitor’s Crisis mean for You?

The image above is from mediafirst, a firm that offers media training including a specialty in crisis communication.  I am not endorsing any products but they do make some interesting blog posts about crisis communication.  Is a competitor’s crisis an opportunity, and warning, or both?  The advice being offered is not to exploit a competitor’s crisis (opportunity) but to use it as a crisis preparation opportunity.  The competitor’s crisis is a warning that this can happen to you.  to handle that crisis.  That is very sound advice.  Organizations should regularly review their crisis preparation.  A competitor’s crisis is a good hook to review preparation and to even do some training related to that crisis.  The crisis could easily be converted into a tabletop exercise for the crisis team. Sometimes a threat is an opportunity.


We also should consider the larger implications of the crisis.  As the blog post notes, a crisis can cause an entire industry to come under scrutiny.  Crises can trigger government regulation and spillover to others in the industry.  A poorly handled crisis indicates a risk the government may need to manage through regulation.  Some of the early food regulation in the U.S. was a result of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.  My earlier posts about the cantaloupe crisis is an example of spillover.  People were afraid of cantaloupe and did not limit the fear just to the small percentage of the product coming from the affected farm.  We see similar effects for a variety of food crises including apples (Alar) and spinach.  These food items are what is known as undifferentiated products.  The products are seen as very similar and consumers will easily substitute one for another.  This is very different from differentiated product that stand out from one another often featuring strong brands.  People did not worry about buying any car during the Toyota break crisis, just certain Toyotas.  A spillover is much more likely when a product is undifferentiated.  That means if you are in an industry where your products are undifferentiated, be prepared that a competitor’s crisis could become your crisis.  You will need to monitor the situation very carefully for spillover.  At the first signs of spillover, you will need to deploy your counter measures to prevent spillover damage to your organization.  Preventing spillover is challenging because of the nature of undifferentiated products but crisis communication should seek to contain and limit the damage a crisis creates for the organization and its stakeholders.


Question to Consider


  1. What are the risks of trying to use a competitor’s crisis to create a competitive advantage? The possible benefits?
  2. How would you know if crisis spillover is occurring? What would some of the warning signs be?
  3. How can social media be used to monitor and to respond to spillover?

Abercrombie and Fitch, Why no Apology for the Faux Pas?

June is Pride Month and seeks to honor the fight for LGBTQ rights and to celebrate the gay community.  LGBTQ rights represent an important social issue globally.  According to Cone Communication research, 78% of U.S. respondents want corporations to speak up on social justice issues.  This past week Abercrombie and Fitch post the following Tweet the firm believed was supportive of Pride Month:

“The Pride community is everybody, not just LGBTQ people. – Kayla, merchandiser.”

Thousands of people on social media, including some important activists, did not think the message was supportive.  Just the opposite, there was backlash because the message was perceived to indicate Gay Pride is not just for gay people.  Here is the rationale for the backlash as found in a Tweet by activist Danielle Muscato:

“Pride is about being proud of being LGBTQ. That’s why it’s called #Pride. If you respect us, don’t co-opt that – especially for profit!”

Abercrombie and Fitch has a paracrisis on its hand.  The social media mistake has done some reputational damage but the threat can be managed and need not become an actual reputational crisis.  After all, stakeholders like it when firms talk about social justice issues.  However, socialsprout found 71% of people in their U.S. sample do not like it when corporations use social media to talk about political issues. Is this case where the social justice issue was also viewed as political?  That is an open question but we do a paracrisis has emerged from a social media message most stakeholders deem inappropriate.

Abercrombie and Fitch has posted two addition Tweets to clarify its position:

“Pride is an important time for the LGBTQ+ community.​ At A&F we work to ensure that everyone feels included, respected and empowered. #pride.”

“We are proud to show commitment to the LGBTQ+ community and to bring awareness to the import work the @TrevorProject does. #ANFxTrevor.”

Project Trevor is a suicide prevention hotline for LGBTQ youths and Abercrombie and Fitch are one of its supporters.  Critics were left wondering where was the apology for the faux pas?  This is a case of the expectation value of apology.  An apology will not necessarily make the situation better but its absence makes it was.  There is an expectation of an apology that has been violated.  Overall, Abercrombie and Fitch has given an ineffective response thus far.  It might be enough to prevent the situation from becoming a reputational crisis but did not serve to completely end the paracrisis.  Instead the response has maintained interest in the faux pas. 



Questions to Consider

1.  Is this a case where the comments on the social justice issue are viewed as political or just a faux pas by the firm?

2.  What does Abercrombie and Fitch have to gain or lose by not offering an apology?

3.  Why might people see the bolstering response (supporting Project Trevor) as a nice but unacceptable or irrelevant response?

This is the Message We Have been Looking for

Yes the title is a Star Wars reference.  Qatar Airways has given a statement and shared it via social media.  The Tweet can be found below.  The message arrives along with the flight disruption.  It is a simple statement and what we would call a holding statement.  It provides instructing information for is customers—what they should do physically during the crisis (flights are a physical activity).  Holding statements are very basic and should be pre-drafted before a crisis so that they can be distributed quickly.  The focus is on the operational disruption and how it affects stakeholders, not the reputation.  However, how an organization handles instructing (and adjusting) information does affect it reputation—how it is perceived by stakeholders.  Virtually any communication can have reputational effects.  Instructing and adjusting information privilege the stakeholder/victims are essential elements of the response.  Without instructing and adjusting information, reputation management messages have little chance of having a meaningful impact because their lack signals a either a lack of concern for stakeholders or a lack of “control” in the crisis situation.  Neither are good looks for an organization in crisis.  Managers cannot always respond quickly in a crisis because they need to collect and to analyze information.  But, holding statements should be provided quickly if the managers have planned ahead. 



The diplomatic move was not unexpected and is a crisis situation that should have had a holding statement in advance.  Here is a description from the BBC:

“Disruption to airspace in the Gulf began on Tuesday morning local time. Doha, Qatar’s capital, is a major hub for international flight connections.

Airlines affected by the airspace restrictions include Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates.

When avoiding Saudi Arabia, their massive – and only – neighbour, Qatar’s planes are having to take more indirect routes, leading to longer flight times.”

A map of the route changes is provided below.



Essentially this type of holding statement can be used with any type of flight disruption with minor modifications for the reason behind the disruption.  All airlines should have holding statements ready for flight disruptions, a common crisis in the industry.  Qatar Airways looks “slow” in the response because Etihad Airways responded first.  Given Qatar Airways had more at stake, you would have expected a response from it first.  The response appears slow because it was not around the time of the announcement of the crisis.  It is a little unfair, but timing is important in a digital world.

Questions to Consider

  1. Why might Qatar Airways have been so slow in posting the response?  Defend the action.
  2. Why should Qatar Airways have anticipated a need for such a holding statement?
  3. Why can holding statements be so important to stakeholders?


Political and Organizational Crises: Qatar Airways in the Middle

It was announced today that six Arab countries were cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar:  Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, and Yemen.  The primary reason given publicly is that Qatar is not doing enough to fight terrorism and is even supporting terrorist activities.  Here is a short version from a BBC news story:


“They say Qatar backs militant groups including so-called Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda, which Qatar denies.

The Saudi state news agency SPA said Riyadh had closed its borders, severing land, sea and air contact with the tiny peninsula of oil-rich Qatar.

Qatar called the decision “unjustified” and with ‘no basis in fact’.”


Airlines in the region will feel the effect of the political decision.  For instance, Etihad announced it would end flights to Doha (the capital of Qatar) on June 6th.  Moreover, the six countries are closing their air space to Qatar Airways.  The airline will lose routes and seeing increased operating costs and disruption as it finds ways to reroute many of its existing routes.  The closed air space creates problems for Qatar promoting itself as the connection between Europe and Asia.  The opening image shows a statement by Etihad but Qatar Airways had yet to make public statements the morning of June5th. 


The diplomatic pressure is designed to create policy changes in Qatar.  Time will tell whether or not that will be effective.  However, airlines flying to Doha must cope with the immediate operational crises this political action will create. 


Questions to Consider:

1.  What communicative actions will Qatar Airways need to take as it addresses this crisis?

2.  There were some warning signs but how can organizations prepare for crises caused by political disputes between countries?

3.  How might other affected airlines respond to the crisis?

The Further Effects of the Crisis for Kathy Griffin

Crises are not always need and easy to resolve because the negative effects can continue over time.  This seems especially true for reputational crises, just ask Sea World about Blackfish.  Since the initial post about the crisis, Griffin has lost here New Year’s Eve co-host spot with CNN and tour dates have been cancelled.  Here is part of a story about the tour:

“Griffin’s Celebrity Run-In Tour gig at St. George Theatre in Staten Island on November 2 has been axed … and the State Theatre in New Brunswick, NJ pulled the plug on her November 3 show.

Both venues posted their decisions to cancel online and will be issuing full refunds to ticket buyers. St. George Theatre says … “Ms. Griffin’s recent actions have severely inhibited our ability to fulfill our mission as a non-profit theatre serving the Staten Island community.” Jersey’s State Theatre also cited safety concerns.

This makes 5 shows officially canceled on Kathy’s tour … Route 66 Casino in Albuquerque nixed her show Wednesday and 2 California venues followed.

Bergen PAC in NJ — the venue for her November 4 show — tells TMZ it’s been flooded by negative calls … but has not made a final decision yet on whether her show will go on.”

Think of the tour cancellations as spillover, the crisis affects other actors associated with the initial crisis.  The venues are receiving complaints and have concerns about security—her crisis risks becoming their crisis.  This is possibly an overreaction but part of crisis management is risk mitigation.  Cancelling a show in this case does reduce risk.  There will be unhappy fans over the cancellations but that is not a security concern and represents the lower risk in this situation.  This is where the modern interpretation of discretion being the better part of valor can be applied.  The weight of public reaction has been to condemn the photos regardless of political affiliation.  Of course this is a matter of interpretation because fans will view it as pandering to a few negative voices.  Managers often have to make decisions that will not appeal to all stakeholders. 

Next up is a press conference, with her lawyer, where Griffin will address bullying by the Trump family.  This seems like a bad idea from a crisis communication perspective.  The chances of making herself into the victim in this situation are slim.  Perhaps there is some longer-term reputation management effort that will be launched from the press conference. It could be designed to prevent future show cancellation by changing the way people view those cancellations.  Or it might be a means of milking the current media coverage. We will have to see what is said and how people react. (I would like to add I have watched her shows and do think she is usually very funny.  The post is about crisis communication, not about her personally).

Questions to Consider

1.  The apology has been presented, what value might there be for crisis communication in the follow-up press conference?

2.  Some researchers have argued that distraction can be a strategy.  What value might distraction have in a celebrity-related crisis such as this one?