In "The Know": A Student's Guide To Public Relations

Reputation or Responsibility? What Brandy Melville and SeaWorld Reveal About Ethical Brand Management By: Lily Morris

The world of public relations is made up of several moving parts because the field is constantly evolving. Every brand has different goals, values, and target audiences, so as a PR professional, it is your duty to protect and strengthen the brand's reputation while also maintaining a strong, trusting relationship with the brand's audience and stakeholders. Maintaining that transparency and oath to ethical treatment, communication, and responses helps build loyalty and strengthen the brand's relationships while managing public perception and potential crises. According to an article published by Forbes titled “The Critical Role of Reputation Management (Herd, 2023),” protecting a brand's reputation is a PR priority, but maintaining your audience's trust is what makes it happen. The article says that, “A good reputation is synonymous with trust and credibility.” It goes on to say that “A well-managed reputation can foster customer loyalty.” This, in turn, means that a tarnished reputation can result in the loss of customer trust and overall revenue.

Brandy Melville: Reputation Management “One size fits most (VanSlette & Waymer, 2016).” That is the continuous motto of Brandy Melville's branding. They are known for their clothing, which tends to fit those who fit into an XXS-Small and maybe even a medium, if you are lucky, but according to the brand, their clothing is supposed to fit “most” people, which ultimately marginalizes a large group of individuals who wear a medium and above. The brand's reputation is known to not be inclusive and promotes, according to people on social media, an “eating disorder culture.” The European company built its brand around exclusive sizing and a social media-only marketing and promotion strategy. The case study showed the brand's commitment to exclusivity, with a “congratulations” mindset when a young woman fits into their clothes. This further promotes unhealthy body standards to the extreme by primarily hiring employees who match their aesthetic. These young women are white, skinny, and typically have long hair, further promoting the idea of narrow beauty standards. Some have argued that the brand uses this type of marketing as a form of “social gatekeeping,” but in today's society, this “practice” isn't easily accepted. To most of their audience, the brand is “tone deaf” and ultimately unethical in its marketing practices. The case's major themes revolve around intentional exclusivity through limited sizing, social media marketing, criticism of body image and representation, and the company's refusal to clarify its values, address the public's concerns, and weaken trust due to its controversial sizing. The key lesson/insight that highlights the balancing act between brand management and ethical practices is that a brand’s reputation is inseparable from its ethical responsibilities, and Brandy Melville shows that exclusivity is not a long-term, sustainable practice for building brand loyalty, even when a brand remains commercially successful. This all matters today because, in the world of public relations, reputation management is inseparable from ethical conduct, and public trust can only be earned from transparency and accountability, which means that a brand that is built on the idea of “exclusivity” will inevitably face public scrutiny and distrust among the brand's audience. Ultimately, for any brand to succeed, it has to recognize that ethical responsibility is not optional but a prerequisite for a strong, sustainable, and successful reputation. Black Fish and Sea World: Reputation Management Similar to the Brandy Melville case, some brands' reputations are so strong that even when unethical practices arise, they can continue operating and generate revenue. This can be seen through the SeaWorld brand and the impact of the “Blackfish (Duhon et al., 2016)” documentary, which called out the facilities' inhumane captivity and treatment of their Orca Whales while shining light on the death of one of their trainers, Dawn Brancheau. Understandably, the documentary created quite a stir, sparking severe public backlash, prompting protests, leading to declining attendance, though not completely, and several shareholders withdrew from the organization. This case raises questions about the guidelines and the importance of balancing brand protection, ethical practices, and the safety of brands, trainers, animals, and the audience. Sea World's response was anything but apologetic; it was defensive and focused primarily on brand management rather than addressing the audience's concerns. They declined to be interviewed and published a one-page document on their website dedicated to “refuting” the documentary's claims. The case's main takeaway is that a brand's reputation can be tarnished when it prioritizes its image over its audience and stakeholders. A brand needs to identify its values and stay true to them, rather than prioritize unethical practices to save its image. The instant “defensive strategy” reflects this disconnect. These main themes and strategies resulted in financial consequences, loss of partnerships and audience trust, and a decline in attendance. Next, the key lesson/ insight that highlights the balancing issue of brand management and ethical practices is that a brand’s reputation is inseparable from its ethical responsibilities, which means that a brands reputation can only be protected through transparent and meaningful responsibilities, and if the audience believes a practice is unethical, the brand has a responsibility to address the audience and figure out a solution that isnt defensive. This all matters today because public trust is everything when it comes to a brand's reputation, as that is how stakeholders judge a brand. They want to know they can trust them, so perception is everything. Balancing the brand's image and reputation while prioritizing ethical practices is how a brand builds public trust and strong relationships.

What Does This Mean? Overall, whether you are dealing with a clothing brand or a supposed “animal sanctuary,” the brand's PR team has an obligation to protect the brand's image and reputation, but the brand has an obligation to stick to its values and prioritize the well-being of its audience, stakeholders, and employees. When it comes to any crisis, responses should not be defensive but apologetic, and, in today's social climate, the brand should be known as “inclusive” rather than “exclusive.” According to an article published by PRSA called “Brand Reputation and Crisis Management: Practical Tips to Face Unexpected Issues and Crisis (Concina, 2021),” our society is constantly evolving, and attitudes are changing, so a brand's audience behaviors today are different than what they were 10 or 20 years ago, so sticking to your brand's core values and brand management is very important. The article says, “we are living on LIVE social media, so we must consider intercultural frames and scenarios, and evaluate the impact every channel (traditional, digital) could have on the public(s), being flexible to adapt strategies on a daily or hourly basis if needed, to preserve reputation and/or the arising of a new issue.” This means that protecting a brand's reputation is a priority in PR, but maintaining your audience's trust is what makes it happen. Balancing the brand's ethical obligations to its audience is the key to a brand's reputation success.

Sources

Herd, J. (2023, October 9). Council post: The critical role of reputation management. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2023/10/09/the-critical-role-of-reputation-management/  VanSlette, S., & Waymer, D. (2016). Case Studies In Strategic Communication. Exclusive and Aspirational: Teen Retailer Brandy Melville Uses the Country Club Approach to Brand Promotion, Volume 5(ISSN 2167-1974).  Duhon, S., Ellison, K., & Ragas, M. W. (2016). Case Studies In Strategic Communication. A Whale of a Problem: A Strategic Communication Analysis of SeaWorld Entertainment’s Multi-Year Blackfish Crisis, Volume 5(ISSN 2167-1974).  Concina, F. (2021, October 5). Brand reputation and crisis management: Practical tips to face unexpected issues and crisis. PRSA. https://www.prsa.org/event/2099/12/30/default-calendar/brand-reputation-and-crisis-management-practical-tips-to-face-unexpected-issues-and-crisis-odwb2122 

The Importance of Communication In Public Relations, Especially in Crises By: Lily Morris

Everyone knows that communication is the foundation of every relationship in our lives, whether with friends, family, partners, or even organizations. Those relationships only thrive when active and transparent communication is exchanged, especially in times of trouble. Obviously, these crises can be categorized by their magnitude, which means the way you handle or rectify the situation differs depending on the situation. For example, a crisis stemming from verbal or physical harm, like the Ye and Adidas collab crisis or the Flint, Michigan water crisis, is different from a financial miscalculation crisis that happened at a school in Colorado, and even from a crisis created by conflicting values between an organization and its audience, like the Susan G. Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood. All of these situations are valid and important, but causing bodily harm to someone requires an entirely different response and involves many moving parts to not only regain the public’s trust but also support the individuals who were personally affected by the incident. These cases are just a few examples of how transparent communication is vital for any brand, especially in a crisis. The Flint, Michigan Water Crisis One of the most notable scandals, crises, and wrongdoings in the world of Public Relations was the water crisis in Flint, Michigan (Nowling & Seeger, 2020), which led to permanent and fatal consequences not only for the community of Flint but also for residents who trusted the town and water company to prioritize their health. This case perfectly shows how poor communication between an organization and its public will lead to a crisis and a potential public health disaster. In this case, the water company focused on cutting costs, which, in turn, led to the crisis in the first place, and they prioritized their reputation over transparent communication with Flint residents during and after the crisis. They ultimately cared more about controlling the narrative than about telling the truth and owning up to their mistakes. An article published by the National Library of Medicine called “Informational Sources, Social Media Use, and Race in Flint, Michigan’s Water Crisis” talks about the long-term health risks and how the lack of communication and urgency around the issue could lead to even more health risks, especially among marginalized and low-income areas. The article says, “Health effects arising from Flint’s water contamination crisis have been significant. Failure to treat the city’s new water supply from the Flint River appropriately may have allowed microbial contamination into the municipal water system (Day et al., 2019).” This reiterates themes of power imbalances, denial, message control, and silencing marginalized communities. The challenges of the case are evident in the failed communication with the public, the lack of transparency and accountability, and the residents' struggles with being silenced, especially low-income families within the community. Strategies in this case included the institution's defensive messaging, which downplayed the risks and lasting impact on public health while withholding vital data. The residents used strategies of activism by mobilizing the power of social media, running health tests on themselves and the water, and highlighting the underlying racism of the entire crisis. This ultimately led to national recognition and support, reforms within the water system in Flint, public health communication, but also led to long-lasting and severe public distrust and criticism. Related Cases That Complete The Communication Puzzle The other crisis cases we discussed this week were about Kanye and Adidas, the Susan G. Koman foundation, and a multimillion dollar error, and the lesson all of these cases teach us is how important, and vital, transparent communication is for a brand to ensure the safety of their audience, maintain brand loyalty, and safe guard their future reputation in a media heavy society. The crisis regarding Kanye and his collab with Adidas (Adidas, 2022) stems from his antisemitic remarks on social media, which led Adidas to end its partnership with him. This occurred because of the conflicting values at hand, but it was interesting that the company even started this collab in the first place because of Kanye's controversial reputation. This left the public and the companies' stakeholders uncertain of the brand's future, due to their lack of communication and awareness during the crisis. Next, the crisis regarding the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (Susan G. Komen, 2020) started because of the organization's abrupt ending of its long-term “partnership” with Planned Parenthood. This decision caused an uproar among the women they are helping and stakeholders because the company claimed to be supporting and prioritizing women's wellness, yet ended a partnership with an organization that also aims to protect women. This decision triggered national backlash, and the organization was slammed with claims of political motives. Ultimately, these women felt betrayed, and many believed the organization violated its oath to advocate for women's health. The foundation handled this with poor communication, a lack of transparency, and a lot of defensive messaging, which led to long-term public distrust. Lastly, the crisis regarding a Colorado school districts mmultimillion dollar budgeting error (Tracy, 2007) connects to all of these cases because it also shows how a lack of transparency and communication can lead to public distrust. This case became a crisis when school officials denied the actual situation and branded it a “technical oversight,” rather than owning up to the mistake, apologizing to the public, and taking accountability for it. Officials used language in their messaging that was defensive, ultimately minimized the situation, and lacked accountability, which showed residents how committed the school was to the public and the value of their trust. This, again, caused a lot of anger and long-term distrust within the community. Ultimately, all of these cases are great examples of how important transparent communication is to a brand's success and the public's well-being. When any organization lacks transparency, it loses control of the narrative, which damages its reputation and erodes public trust. Themes shown include the reflex to control the narrative in a crisis, the conflict between public trust and accountability, protecting your brand's reputation, and the importance of ethical decisions, staying true to your values, and upholding promises. All of these cases faced the same challenge: how to communicate clearly and honestly, even when the truth hurts. To do this, your strategies should not reflect these cases. In any crisis, you should not minimize the situation, as you are ultimately minimizing the public's concerns. Don't use defensive messaging, own up to your mistakes and be transparent immediately, don't wait. These cases didn't follow these strategies, leading to long-term loss of public trust, severe criticism, and a damaged reputation that is hard to recover from.

Overall, Communication is the foundation of any relationship, and this process has to be honest and transparent for it to be successful. An article published by PRSA called “Trust and Transparency in Times of Crisis” talks about how a crisis is inevitable; it will happen to an organization at some point, because we are all human and make mistakes, but being honest and transparent with the public by communicating the issues at hand will help maintain that public trust and protect your brand's reputation. It says, “Providing transparent, timely information helps companies establish trust with interested parties so they can make decisions in their own best interests (Bermudez & Izquierdo, 2020).” The lessons we can take away from all of these cases are that not acknowledging an issue will only cause more harm, defensive messaging will lose public trust, and not being transparent will cause long-term harm to your organization, and potentially your public, which is why communication is vital to the success of a company, the audience, and all stakeholders. Ultimately, all of these cases, the themes, lessons learned, and strategies used and discarded are important to study because they matter in the real world. Transparency and communication aren't an “optional” thing; they are the foundation of any relationship, brand, and organization. Without it, you lose all trust, which, in turn, will lead to more crises and further reputational damage and harm to the public. References Key Words/ Tags: Communication Foundation Transparent Public Trust Accountability Nowling, W. D., & Seeger, M. W. (2020). Sensemaking and crisis revisited: the failure of sensemaking during the Flint water crisis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, VOL. 48(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1734224  Day, A. M., O’Shay-Wallace, S., Seeger, M. W., & McElmurry, S. P. (2019). Informational sources, social media use, and race in the Flint, Michigan, water crisis. Communication Studies, 70(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1567566  Tracy, K. (2007). The discourse of crisis in public meetings: Case study of a school district’s multimillion dollar error. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(4), 418–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701617133  Tsai, Jenny. (2025). Adidas Says Bye: [Class handout]. University of Oklahoma, JMC 4423-001. Tsai, Jenny. (2025). Politics in Pink: Susan G. Komen for the Cure Steps Into Partisan Minefield [Class handout]. University of Oklahoma, JMC 4423-001. Bermudez, H., & Izquierdo, A. (2020a, July). Trust and transparency in times of crisis. PRSA. https://www.prsa.org/article/trust-and-transparency-in-times-of-crisis 

The Importance of Values in PR: The Impact Advocating and Activism Can Have On Our Society, Individuals, and Brands By: Lily Morris

Values are fundamental to each of our lives; they are the beliefs and guiding principles that shape our everyday behaviors, the decisions we make, how we treat others, and how we respond to incidents in our lives and in the world. Ultimately, they are your guiding compass, determining what's right and what's wrong. Values not only apply to individuals but also to businesses and organizations, because without them, a company won't be able to make ethical decisions that affect not only its image but also its audience. According to Ethics Unwrapped, values are “individual beliefs that motivate people to act one way or another. They serve as a guide for human behavior (Values 2022).” Examples of these values that are vital for personal success and business success include courage, compassion, honesty, respect, and integrity. Because this is a vital component to our prosperity, defending your values and staying true to them is the key to success. For major brands, holding morally ethical and “right” values means standing up for others, advocating for those who can’t speak up for themselves, joining important conversations about what's happening in the world, owning up to mistakes, and being an activist during these crazy times. Ultimately, advocating and being an activist help you stay true to your values and show your audience and stakeholders that you care. After analysing several case studies that each discuss these important factors, we gain vital insight into the minds of different brands and see how companies stay true to or stray from their values. ​ ALS Ice Bucket Challenge ​ When I think of the summer of 2014, my mind immediately goes to the iconic ALS Ice Bucket Challenge (Hobbs, 2014)that had everyone going to the store to buy a big bucket and a bag of ice to dump on themselves and then nominate their friends to do the same. I was hooked, and so was the rest of the world. We were all watching and participating alongside celebrities, political leaders, and everyone on social media. That summer I was 10 years old, so I didnt really understand the reason for this challenge, I just thought it was a fun trend, but years later I learned that this “challenge” was more meaningful than I could understand with a mission of educating the public about the severity of ALS, advocate for those who are struggling with the illness, raise awareness and money to fund more research and maybe even one day find a cure, or even just support for all those affected, patients, family members and friends. That summer, we were all a part of a mission to raise awareness for ALS, whether we knew it or not. This case study was so interesting to read because it was an unexpected approach to raise awareness of a disease, and sometimes taking an out-of-the-box approach makes the greatest impact. I mean, when I think of raising awareness for an illness, the last thing that would come to my mind was pouring a giant bucket filled with water and ice on my head, recording it, nominated my friends to do the same, then posting it on social media, but I did it and so did so many other people, so it worked! After analysing the case, we can see many themes, challenges, and unique strategies that lead to successful, impactful outcomes. This Ice Bucket Challenge turned out to be one of the most successful non-profit fundraising campaigns to date.  The challenge generated over $115 million in the first eight weeks that summer and educated millions of people about the challenges that accompany the ALS journey. The case showed how brands can use the power of social media to run a campaign, and sometimes letting the public take over yields better results than what a brand can make for itself. The organization also used this strategy by letting the public share their personal stories and experiences with the disease, releasing press releases, conducting some interviews, and being transparent about where the donations are going and the impact they will have. The ALS website discussed the challenge and its major impact on our society. It said, “In the summer of 2014, three young men living with ALS, Anthony Senerchia, Pete Frates, and Pat Quinn, took the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and launched a global phenomenon that changed the fight against ALS forever (The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge | The ALS Association).” They inspired over 17 million people worldwide to dump ice water on their heads and donate to an ALS organization. The Challenge raised awareness of the disease worldwide and raised $115 million to support our mission, funds that were invested in ALS research and care for people living with the disease. “This led to very positive and impactful outcomes, including a historic fundraising total, more clinical trials, new research opportunities, and a long-term increase in overall awareness. The case highlighted a main theme: how a brand can convert attention into long-term impact, and that social media has more power than a campaign alone. Even with these positives, some challenges arose from this approach. One of them is that it is hard to control a campaign like this when you are relying on the public to carry on the challenge, and directing a large sum of donations is very difficult. Overall, the ALS organization is driven by values of activism, awareness, philanthropy, and a collective and urgent call to action. The mission is to make scientific breakthroughs, identify new treatments, foster community engagement, raise global awareness, build community, and raise money for something bigger. So this case shows that an organization's values should be the driving force for any mission and campaign, and Advocating and Activism can have a major impact on our society and individual lives. This challenge brought lasting change by creating a space for deeper, more meaningful engagement. They were able to turn “attention” into action, which isn't easy, but the organization made it happen. ​ A Corporation's Authentic Values and Their Impact ​ The other cases discussed this week concern Dick's Sporting Goods, Disney, and Ben & Jerry’s. The Dick's Sporting Goods case discussed corporate activism in a polarized environment over gun control. The organization decided to halt all gun sales in 125 stores, which was very controversial since the discussion on gun control is a hot topic. The company has a reputation for selling athletic wear, sports equipment, and vibes surrounding hunting and fishing, so when the CEO released a letter announcing this and calling for further gun law reform after the Parkland School Shooting, the public was split on their responses towards the corporation. The case showed themes of corporate responsibility and political division, as well as stakeholder consideration and moral decision-making versus public demand. Challenges at play included severe public backlash and difficulty balancing the company's values with stakeholders' and the public's needs. The strategies used in the message delivery and letter release are transparency, moral framing, and direct and proactive communication. All of this led to a short-term sales decline but ultimately to a stronger, more positive reputation in the long run, especially among younger audiences. Ultimately, Dicks showed that taking a stand, holding true to company values, making those difficult decisions, and standing up for what's right helps position your brand and redefine your future success. The next case concerns Disney (Djibo & Fisher, 2023) and its stance and reaction to the new Florida House “Don't Say Gay” Bill. When this new bill was announced, public opinion was sharply divided. Because Florida is a Republican-majority state, many politicians, businesses, and the public supported the bill, but others protested it, including Disney. The Walt Disney Company publicly opposed the law, criticising the hatred surrounding it, and accepted the potential backlash and repercussions from politicians, stakeholders, and the public because of their strong desire to stay true to their fundamental values, stand up for what's right, and advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves. They did this knowing it could impact their brand and financial standing. Their stance did cost them because of their severely delayed and indecisive response to the issue. The case highlighted the main themes of political consequences of corporate speech, the importance of advocacy, and the cost of delayed or inconsistent communication. The delayed response led to many challenges, including internal revolt among LGBTQ+ employees, public backlash, and some stakeholder backlash. The strategies used after the response included internal company memos, policy changes, a public apology, and increased LGBTQ+ representation. All of these choices lead to lost employee and public trust, national controversy, and a major leadership turnover. Overall, this case, even with all of the mistakes, showed how staying true to company values during any sort of issue is the only way to maintain public trust, and advocating for human rights is essential when you are a family-based and “inclusive” organization that is supposed to care about others, no matter who they are or how they identify. The last case discussed was about Ben and Jerry’s (Epstein, 2018) and how an ice cream company advocated for climate change. To put it simply, the company launched a campaign called “Save Our Swirled,” created to urge world leaders and consumers to take action on rising global temperatures and acknowledge the major effects they have on our world. The issue that rose was the ice cream companies, like Ben and Jerrys, cause climate issue of their own because of the process to make the ice cream which creates a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, so the public viewed this act as hypocritical, tone deaf, and “unaware” because the company was fighting for climate justice while simultaneously contributing to the problem it was trying to fight. The case highlighted the theme of integrating activism into brand identity and acknowledged that authentic activism requires operational alignment, not just messaging. Challenges centered on maintaining clear, transparent messaging and avoiding hypocrisy in both messaging and the company's actions. The case also used partnership strategies and launched new flavors, which fed into the hypocrisy. All of this led to increased consumer engagement with climate issues and a stronger global brand identity. Overall, despite the criticism and potential mixed messaging, Ben & Jerry's tried to stay true to its values and advocate for a larger cause. They tried to be authentic in their messaging and actions, aligning themselves with a bigger issue that needed more awareness, which is something the company is known for.

Overall, for major brands, holding morally ethical and “right” values means you stand up for others, advocate for those who can’t speak up for themselves, join in on important dialogues for things happening in the world, own up to mistakes, and be an activist during these crazy times in our world. This is shown through the cases involving Disney, Ben & Jerry's, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, and Dick's Sporting Goods. Ultimately, all of these cases showed that brands are not judged solely by their statements after an incident, but by how true they remain to their values, their transparency, and even their long-term commitment to the public and a larger cause.

References

Key Words/ Tags: Values Prosperity Advocating Activist Guiding Compass Djibo, Estrada, Fisher, Weinstock. Trouble in Paradise: The Walt Disney Company’s Response to Florida HB 1557. 2023, LINK IT (1).pdf. Epstein, Carly, et al. “An Analysis of Ben & Jerry’s Global Climate Activism.” Case Studies in Strategic Communication Journal, vol. 7, 2018. Accessed 13 Feb. 2026. Hobbs, Gabrielle. When Every Drop Counts: ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. 2014, LINK IT Values. Ethics Unwrapped. (2022, November 5). https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/values  The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge | The ALS Association. (n.d.). https://www.als.org/ibc  Gaither, T. K., Austin, L., & Collins, M. (2019). Dick’s Sporting Goods enters the gun debate: Revising the playbook [Case study]. Newsweek.

What  “Responsibilities” do corporations have in 2026, and how does CSR fit into the corporate world? By: Lily Morris

All of us have a role in this world; we all have jobs to do, people to please, and responsibilities to uphold. Whether we are individuals or corporate brands, we all hold responsibilities that are bigger than ourselves; they affect others, and for businesses, your decisions affect the masses. The term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) refers to this sense of responsibility to others, but it goes beyond just companies doing “good.” It is the corporation's understanding and responsibility to prioritize and defend the well-being of its audience and stakeholders. The brand has an obligation to make ethical decisions, communicate honestly and transparently, maintain the public's trust, and use strategies that aren't just for their own gain, but for the greater good. The CSR process comprises four sections to ensure this “greater good.” In this process, companies must ensure they take ethical responsibility and do the right thing, even when no one is watching or it isn't expected. They must assume legal responsibility and comply with all applicable laws and regulations in their company's field. Next, you must take responsibility for the environment and work to reduce emissions and other harmful substances that impact our world. Lastly, you have to take social responsibility and show up for others, support your community, stakeholders, and your audience. An article published by UNESCO titled “Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)” talks about the impact and importance of CSR in PR and at the foundation of every company. The article says, “In practice, CSR initiatives often involve environmental sustainability efforts, ethical labor practices, philanthropy, responsible sourcing, transparency, supply chain sustainability, and workplace diversity (UNESCO).” This confirms that CSR has its own responsibility to make an impact on society and keep companies accountable and aware. Ultimately, CSR is the acknowledgement that companies have obligations that go beyond potential profit; they have responsibilities within human connections and the components of their operations. Every business, no matter how big or small, has a responsibility to different people and communities, so making sure your company's operations, communication, values, and strategies are aligned helps ensure your business understands the “societal expectations” and the social responsibilities at stake. Once you have alignment within your organization, you can carry out your corporate social responsibility. To put it plainly, all corporations should operate with good intentions and fulfill their corporate social responsibilities. With each action the company takes, they need to ask themselves different questions and answer honestly: is it preventing harm, or is it contributing positively to society? ​ CSR Within Patagonia: ​ As we established, fulfilling these corporate social responsibilities is vital to a brand's success and its audience, but it can go too far and become “activism.” In 2014, the brand Patagonia launched a documentary campaign called “DamNation (Moscato, n.d.-b)” at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas. The case study says that the film was positioned as an “odyssey across America that explores the sea change in our national attitude from pride in big dams as engineering wonders to the growing awareness that our own future is bound to the life and health of our rivers.” This process ultimately pushed the CSR into a territory that resembled grassroots environmental advocacy rather than mere responsibility. The case study highlights and illustrates the shift in how companies engage with and respond to social and environmental issues. For Patagonia, they blurred the line between CSR and social activism, a common theme for the brand. Patagonia is known for its commitment to good within every avenue of their corporation, especially today, so they are no longer settling for just doing the right thing or speaking up when needed; they are highlighting how a major corporation can join social movements, integrate activism in their everyday operations, mobilize their publics, and accept potential and inevitable risks. This case shows how corporate responsibility needs to expand and shift in many ways, as Patagonia did, moving its CSR closer to everyday activism. The case also shows themes such as using media as a tool for “mobilization,” using everyday content and film to educate others, and inspiring movement. It also shows how stakeholder alignment is important because the brand's audience values must align with the product they are buying. Patagonia's outdoor enthusiast clients, who prioritize environmental health, want to support a company that values it too. Some challenges in the case study and the documentary discussed center around potential risks of controversy arising from corporate activism, as well as biased messaging and a call to action. Some strategies shown in the case study included leveraging the company's existing credibility as a sustainable company, localizing the issue to make specific communities feel more affected and more inclined to help, and using marketing activism in stores through messages on digital screens and conversations with customers. The case study led to different outcomes: strong support for the “anti-dam” messaging, “Grassroot” activism, and efforts like “Rethink Dams” groups run by students, but overall, limited action. This case study reiterated the importance of CSR but highlighted how activism can be more effective when the company aligns with the cause. Patagonia's documentary and campaign all align with each other's values and intentions, so it isn't a weird pairing; it will create an impact, even if that is just awareness. Ultimately, this case shows that activism is also very important in the CSR process, as a “long game” strategy that can drive immediate action and reinforce your brand's image and positive impact. A study by the National Library of Medicine examines the effects of CSR on customer loyalty and satisfaction, and how social media influences them. The study says, “social media plays a crucial role in engaging customers with a brand, especially from the perspective of CSR (Li et al., 2023).” This talks about how when an audience sees a company advocating for a cause they believe in and implementing actions that align with that cause and their values, they are more likely to also advocate for that cause and to support that brand because of it. Overall, this is relevant because it shows that a corporation blurring the line between CSR and activism doesn't have to be scary; that is what helps create authenticity and an emotional bond between the brand and customer. ​ CSR In Other Corporations: ​ Another case we discussed was CVS's 2014 decision to ban all tobacco products. This decision was somewhat shocking because, at the time, CVS was the first national retail pharmacy chain to stop selling tobacco products in all its stores (Ward et al., 2016). They ultimately did this because selling the product didn't align with the company's values. The CEO, Larry Merlo, talked about how the company was created to help everyday people and their health, and tobacco hurts people. This decision reduced annual revenue by billions of dollars, but it also showed the public that the company is loyal to its mission and to its customers' well-being, which is more beneficial in the long term. The case study highlighted themes of CSR by choosing the “right” thing to do rather than what would just get the most money. It also signaled a new “era” or “norms,” with a wave of encouragement to be tobacco-free and shift to the new brand, “CVS Health.”  This, of course, led to challenges, including a huge financial loss in the billions, competitors like Walgreens still selling tobacco, and poor messaging that could have been stronger. The case used two important strategies: social media content posted on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and a youth anti-smoking campaign, both of which are great long-term investments. All of this led to short-term sales losses and mixed reactions, but to long-term improvement in customer health and the “CVS Health” image. Ultimately, the main lesson I learned from this case is that making decisions based on your company's values is important, but backing them up with clear communication is what makes it succeed. Overall, all of these insights matter because fulfilling and upholding Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is very important in our world today, but making these ethical decisions only works when you communicate honestly and clearly with your public. The next case examines how Capital One embeds its CSR into its everyday company culture, operations, and communication strategies. The case (Making Plastic Green CSR) shows that CSR should not be treated merely as a marketing strategy, but rather as a pillar of the company's reputation. Capital One understands that a lack of CSR weakens public trust, so it extends its CSR into its products and services. Some themes the case talks about include the importance of transparent reporting, because that is what creates credibility. It also talks about using the company's employees to promote the corporation's CSRs in everyday actions and to ensure sustainable, ethical company practices. The challenges that accompany this include costs: it takes a lot of money to be sustainable and properly implement these CSR practices, as well as to maintain that credibility. Capital One almost lost this because it ended its CSR report in 2015.  The case illustrated strategies for implementing sustainability practices in everyday operations and for both external and internal communication. All of this led to reduced waste, long-term cost savings, and greater employee empowerment through these new practices. Ultimately, the main lesson I learned from this is that a brand's CSR only succeeds when everything is aligned, including the company's communication, values, stakeholders, and culture with its long-term goals. This means that a company's CSR is more than just doing the right thing; it's about showing up. In this case study, we saw how implementing sustainability can increase credibility, as the public sees your commitment in real-life action. The last case we discussed was about Nike and the severe backlash and scrutiny it received for its overseas labor practices, which were seen as unethical but ultimately helped the company reshape its values and its understanding of CSR. This case (Nike CSR) shows the direct impact CSR can have on a company and the well-being of all its stakeholders. The abusive working conditions reported at Nike's overseas facilities were unacceptable, and they reiterated the ethical and legal responsibilities companies have, not just optional marketing tools. The truth always finds a way out, and when a company falsely claims to have clean working conditions, the public backlash and fallout will be brutal, especially in today's world, when the internet and social media amplify these claims. Some of the themes shown in this case involve the battle between ethics and profit and the importance of transparency, because hidden problems always find a way to the surface. The challenges of this include potential public distrust and legal risk, especially when dealing with working conditions across the country.  The strategies involved in the case include public messaging and labor reforms, driven by the discovery and ethical decision-making. All of this led to a damaged reputation with Nike becoming linked to sweatshop labor because of the abusive environment, severe public scrutiny, and the media and activist groups. The improvements are shown in Nike's reaction to the backlash and in improved work conditions, and they are ultimately taking accountability for their wrongdoing. The main lesson from this case is that CSR requires consistency and only works when it reflects the company's ethical behavior. Nike faced public scrutiny because they claimed their working conditions were good and ethical, but the truth came out that the conditions were actually abusive and caused many health issues for the workers, so they lied about their CSR and lost credibility as a result. Overall, it is important for a company to be transparent, authentic, and ethical with all of its actions and messaging. Their CSR must be backed by these actions to be authentic and aligned with the company's values, goals, and stakeholders.

Overall, the term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) refers to this sense of responsibility to others, but it goes beyond just companies doing “good.” The CSR must align with your audience and organization, must be verifiable, authentic, and consistent, not just empty promises. CSR means a company has a responsibility to prioritize and stand up for its audience's well-being, make authentic and ethical decisions, communicate transparently, and prioritize the greater good. All of this is how you maintain the public's trust and successfully carry out your Corporate Social Responsibility. Overall, CSR matters more today than ever before because every audience wants transparency from companies, customers want to see corporations making ethical decisions, and employees want to work for a company that prioritizes their well-being and aligns with their values. Ultimately, CSR is more than just a marketing tool for your public image; it is about making ethical decisions for the greater good of your community, employees, and all customers, no matter who they are. Sources Key Words/ Tags:

• Corporate
• Greater good
• Responsibility
• Ethical
• Decisions

Li, Z., Sial, M. S., Wu, H., Căpușneanu, S., & Barbu, C.-M. (2023, February 2). The role of CSR information on social media to promote the communicative behavior of customers: An emotional framework enriching behavioral sciences literature. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9952597/  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). UNESCO.org. (n.d.). https://www.unesco.org/en/dtc-finance-toolkit-factsheets/corporate-social-responsibility-csr  Moscato, D. (n.d.-b). The Brand Behind the Activism: Patagonia’s DamNation Campaign and the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/v5art6.pdf Ward, C., Roy, D., & Edmondson, D. (2016). Is CVS Just “Blowing Smoke?”: Evaluating the CVS Decision to Ban Tobacco Products. Case Studies in Strategic Communication. https://cssc.uscannenberg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/v5art14.pdf CSR, Nike. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics: Nike’s Labor Practices under Scrutiny. file:///Users/norbneville/Downloads/Nike_CSR.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026. Moscato, Derek. The Brand behind the Activism: Patagonia’s DamNation Campaign and the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility.NW, 1615 L. St, et al. “The Future of Corporate Responsibility.” Making Plastic Green: Capital One’s Commitment to Sustainability. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829199?module_item_id=8378882 CSR, Nike. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics: Nike’s Labor Practices under Scrutiny. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829204?module_item_id=8378883  

The Importance of Making Ethical Decisions for the Protection of Your Brand, Audience, and Stakeholders. By: Lily Morris

Every day, we make decisions about what to do, where to go, how to act, and how to treat others. We are constantly faced with moral and ethical decisions, especially when dealing with others. For brands and corporations, you are responsible for yourself, your stakeholders, and your audience, so making decisions shouldn't be taken lightly since it isn't just about you anymore. The first step to making these decisions successfully is understanding that, as a brand and corporation, you have an ethical responsibility to prioritize the well-being of others. Since we're all human, we make mistakes and sometimes can’t see the full picture before it’s too late. As a CEO, your first instinct is to protect your own and your brand's reputation, which is important, but you will ultimately cause more harm if you aren't thinking about what the morally correct and ethical decision would be in that crisis or situation. As we know, making that ethical decision is crucial for building public trust, maintaining brand loyalty, avoiding potential reputational damage, and fostering authentic, transparent communication. All of this ensures the well-being of the brand, stakeholders, and the audience. According to an article in ScienceDirect titled “The effect of corporate ethical responsibility on social and environmental performance: An empirical study,” ethics is more than just doing the right thing; it's about upholding authentic, transparent communication with all those involved in the corporation. It says, “Business organizations function under social norms, and to establish an ethical identity, they must show corporate ethical responsibility, embrace ethical standards, and maintain open communication with suppliers (Bag et al., 2024).” When talking about an organization's “ethical identity,” ethical standards, and ethical responsibility, we are referring to the humanization of an organization's actions and impact. All of us automatically, and instinctively, integrate our own values and moral principles/ compass into all of our relationships and responsibilities, because we are humans, and that's just in our nature, so when running a corporation, we tend to make decisions that prioritize and protect ourselves before thinking of the bigger picture. Ultimately, this is a dilemma of institutional self‑protection over ethical responsibility, because institutional power, when unchecked, can create environments where harm is minimized, the truth is delayed, and accountability emerges only through external pressure, making ethical decisions critical for a brand's long-term survival. The 9/11 Memorial ​ The first case we discussed this week is about the September 11th memorial, and how making ethical decisions doesn't have to be about doing the right or wrong thing, but, instead, about making a decision with conflicting opinions in mind (Karolak & Mancino, 2021). This 9/11 case talks about the conflict that surrounded the rebuilding of “Ground Zero” after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. This case isn't about a failure that occurred; it is about the clash of values, jurisdictions, authority, and opinions, which can lead to ethical tensions and disputes. This case shows how your job, as a PR professional, in a situation like this means having to navigate around ethics to decide what is best for not only the people working on this structure, but also all of the people affected by the events on 9/11 and all of the citizens of New York City as well. The main themes it discussed were the role of PR as ethical mediation and competing ethical commitments. In this situation, the PR professional is supposed to help navigate all the options, and in this case, you have to navigate the ethical options as well, understanding that there are many different “competing” stakeholders with different opinions on what should matter in this rebuild. Some challenges shown included intense emotion and trauma, as well as the pressure that came with the job. The events of 9/11 were, and still are, horrific for everyone involved and who were alive to see it, so when trying to complete this rebuild, it was very emotional, and there was a lot of pressure for it to be perfect. Some strategies that have been used and could be used to succeed are consistent transparency in messaging across various reports, engaging stakeholders, and being clear about authority in a project of this size. The outcomes of a case like this are inevitable; there will be some sort of conflict in the process, but it all led to the completion of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum and the Freedom Tower in NYC. When reflecting on the key lessons and insights gained from analysing this particular case, it is clear that we learn how conflicting ethical perspectives and values can create a conflict that may be as detrimental as a “traditional” crisis within a brand, and that's when the PR professional is supposed to act as a mediator and not just an “informant.”

According to an APA PsycNet article titled “Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation (Plowman, 2007),” mediation is a two-way communication process, with an “advisor” serving as the mediator. In the PR realm, it's all about finding common ground, compromising, and prioritizing the overall well-being of the brand and all stakeholders. All of this matters because, in the real world, when dealing with an intense situation, like building the 9/11 memorial, as the PR person, you have to be able to consider the ethical obligations, ballance all opinions and views, prioritze the well beilg of all stakeholders, and understand that Trust is built through clarity, transparency, and accountability, and that transparent communication is essential to any brands long term success and reputation. ​ Other Three Cases (Catholic Crises, Penn State & Concussions) The three other cases we analyzed this week involved Trouble in the Pews: Ethics, Penn State Fumbles Ethics, and Concussions Ethics. When it comes to the history of ongoing crises in the Catholic church, the case discusses how the church confronted the discovery of decades' worth of sexual abuse by priests, which was exposed through investigative journalism (Fearn-Banks, 2017). The overall takeaway of the case was that a crisis rooted in unethical behaviors and moral harm cannot be managed with traditional PR tactics, no matter the brand. The main themes of the case concern the dilemma and battle between institutional protection and public accountability, as well as the effort to combat a historical reputation for moral wrongdoing revealed by investigative journalism. The key challenges were internal conflicts between perpetrators and victims, loss of trust, and moral outrage. The strategies best used in this situation are transparency, authentic messaging, and direct communication. As a result, outcomes include a shift in public expectations and long-term reputational damage. The key insights from the case are that institutions, especially historic ones, must prioritize victims in this type of situation over their reputations. Lastly, this matters because this is a real-life event, and this sadly happens, so we have to know how to and how not to handle it. This means that, in the real world, understanding organizational ethics is vital. The next case is about a child sexual abuse scandal involving a former Penn State assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, and how the university responded to it (Day, 2019). The case highlights moral and ethical dilemmas in the severe incidents and histories of severe victimization. It also shows failures in leadership, systemic failures, the importance of transparency, the need to believe victims, and that you can't just “sweep” things under the rug. The university's response shows ethical failures and severe oversights. The main themes of the case are leadership failure, institutional reform, and, again, the importance of trust and transparency. Some key challenges included unclear reporting of certain protocols, inconsistent communication, and fear of reputational harm. Some strategies for this case are to demonstrate clear leadership and take action. All of this results in significant reputational and legal consequences, as well as the creation of new institutional safeguards. This also means that, even though one person created this harm, ethical failures are never caused solely by one person; it takes a village. All of this matters in the real world because leadership accountability, transparent communication, strong messaging, and maintaining trust are how you protect individuals and maintain public trust. The last case we discussed was about concussion ethics in the NFL (Day, 2019). The case discussed how a major corporation, like the NFL, can lose sight of moral grounds and respond to new scientific research about the long-term implications of concussions on the human body, and the NFL's response wasn't quite up to par. The case shows the implications of corporate denial of major health issues and how pressure from the media can lead to forced transparency and change, which plagues the battle of institutional self‑protection vs. human well‑being (Day, 2019). The main themes are institutional denial, selective science, and conflicts of interest. The challenges include legal issues, long-term player injuries, and the lack of standardized concussion protocols. Strategies involve delayed and denial messaging and reputation management in major crises. The outcomes of this include scientific and health consequences, policy reforms, and more research, all of which help ensure that denial of health concerns is impossible. Ultimately, all of this matters in the real world because of the significance of these particular health issues, the importance of ethics in corporations, crisis communication, and maintaining public trust.

Overall, we are always making decisions, and making ethical ones is crucial for building public trust, maintaining brand loyalty, avoiding potential reputational damage, and fostering authentic, transparent communication. All of this ensures the well-being of the brand, its reputation, all stakeholders, and the well-being of the audience, and as the PR person, you have to be able to consider the ethical obligations, ballance all opinions and views, prioritze the well beilg of all stakeholders, and understand that Trust is built through clarity, transparency, and accountability, and that transparent communication is essential to any brands long term success and reputation. Ultimately, making ethical decisions is vital for protecting your brand, audience, and stakeholders. 

Sources

Key Words/ Tags:

• Decisions
• Reputation
• Ethical Identity
• Ethical Responsibility
• External Pressure

Day, L. A. (2019). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (8th ed.). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829096?module_item_id=8378885 Day, L. A. (2019). Concussions: A yellow flag on the NFL. In Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (8th ed., pp. 382–401). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829185?module_item_id=8378886 Fearn-Banks, K. (2017). Trouble in the pews: The Catholic Church and child molestation. In Crisis communications: A casebook approach (5th ed., pp. 294–300). Routledge. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829174?module_item_id=8378887 Karolak, H., & Mancino, S. (2021). The September 11 memorial. In K. A. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), Public relations functions: Conflict and crisis management (pp. 35–41). Oxford University Press. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829188?module_item_id=8378888 Plowman, K. D. (2007). Public relations, conflict resolution, and mediation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 67–102). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11874-005 Bag, S., Srivastava, G., Gupta, S., Sivarajah, U., & Wilmot, N. V. (2024). The effect of corporate ethical responsibility on social and environmental performance: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing Management, 117(2), 356–370. ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.016

The Dangers of Unalignment: How having conflicting actions and words can cause major unrest and backlash for a company and their reputation.

By: Lily Morris

We have all heard the saying, “actions speak louder than words.” It is one of the first things we are taught in school because how you present yourself and treat others can make a greater impact than a simple greeting, but that doesn't mean it’s more important. Both of these elements, your actions and words, matter and make an impact, but when they don't align with intent, that's when people get hurt. This can also be said of organizations and companies that go through a crisis or circumstance in which their actions and words aren't aligned, causing more harm than good. Being out of “alignment” with your own actions or your audience means you are essentially breaking your public's trust, losing credibility, and aren't being authentic or effective with your actions. An article by Madison Taylor Marketing, “The Importance of Brand Allignment,” discusses the role of brand alignment and how it holds your company accountable. It says, “Brand alignment is the degree to which a company maintains consistency in its actions, decisions, and values based on its brand promise. This ongoing process ensures that a company’s identity stays distinct and recognizable for every stakeholder across all platforms ​(Taylor, 2023).” When analysing this weeks cases, we see this common theme of “unalignment” between a companies words and actions and their audiences expectations and needs, so understanding the disconnect and figuring out how to realign is how we keep that mutual trust and build that long term brand loyalty. Dove Explained The first case we analysed was regarding the well-known brand “Dove (Dove: A Purpose‑Driven Brand in a Crisis of Sincerity, 2018), and for most people, especially young women, we know that Dove is a household brand that has been passed down for generations. They are known for their authentic brand representation, messaging, and alignment, which is one of the reasons they are loved and used. However, the case concerns the severe misalignment that occurred through a Facebook ad the company posted in 2017. The ad was very racist, showing a black woman on the screen removing her shirt, which turned her into a white woman. This ad nearly replicated a series of racist soap ads that were popular during the 19th century. These companies' ads depicted their soap products as a magical “cure” to clean yourself into “whiteness (nyupressblog, “Dove, How Do You Get so Clean and White? A Racist Trope Reemerges - NYU Press”)."

Obviously, the company didnt intend for this ad to be perceived this way, but honestly, with one glance from any untrained eye thats exactly what the ad seems like, so there really isnt a great excuse, in my opinion, for a company to say that they didnt realize it came off like that to their public, especially for a company like Dove that has been around for many years and is known to be authentic, inclusive, empowering, and socially and culturally aware of what different images or visuals can look like to different people. The brand's values and messaging didn't align with its actions in the advertisement, leading to a major crisis. The company immediately pulled the ad within 24 hours of receiving this severe backlash, then made a short Twitter post that basically said they were sorry if you were offended, which is very inconsiderate.

Two days later, they released a longer apology on Facebook, admitting what they did was wrong and shouldn't have been posted, acknowledging that it didn't reflect the company's values, apologizing for their actions, and committing to internal change and reflection to do better. The case shows a battle theme of authenticity versus performance, and how the”real beauty” message clashes with the brand's internal processes. The case's challenges include cultural blind spots stemming from the lack of diverse review teams within the organization and the brand's high expectations, which amplified backlash. The strategies to combat these would be a good crisis response that includes a full apology to begin with, not a partial apology.

Another would be purpose-driven branding after the fact, meaning Dove needs to come out with an improved ad that shows they learned from their mistakes. This incident led to a mixed reputation, a tainted image, and public distrust and unrest, but overall, Dove is still known for its claimed core values of diversity, inclusivity, and body confidence for all. The key lesson here is that a company's values can’t just be for show; they have to be lived out and reflected in all messaging and advertising, or they become a liability and a crisis waiting to happen. This case, and the lessons learned from it, are relevant because they happen every day. We see companies claiming to stand for certain values and beliefs, but their advertisements don’t always reflect those values, so their words and actions aren't aligned.

The company isn't being authentic, and in this day and age, authenticity is what sells. People can smell fake, so not being genuine costs you money, time, audience loyalty, trust, and your reputation. Overall, the advertisement didn't display values; the company's ad showed a disconnect between its actions and words, and it learned it must align its actions and words within the company to regain the trust it lost and continue spreading its message of inclusivity in the future. Hurricane Katrina, Starbucks & Finding Authentic Moments Explained Another case we analysed this week was about Hurricane Katrina (Case 9‑1: Hurricane Katrina), and the catastrophic damage that occurred because of the lack of coordination and communication before and during the major storm from officials, which led to a man-made disaster that took many lives and left millions of dollars in damage. Confusion over authority, delayed response, and the collapse of communication channels left thousands without aid and exposed deep institutional dysfunction. This case also highlighted the importance of alignment and the fatal consequences that can result when words and actions aren't aligned. In our society, first responders and every form of governing body have a duty to protect their communities.

“Protect and serve” is the motto they live by, so when their mission and message of protection and authority don't align with their actions, when they don't act effectively and quickly, that's when a potential threat turns into a crisis, and then into a fatal, catastrophic event. In this case, the themes shown are the lack of preparedness during a crisis, the breakdown of a governing body, and how this breakdown can worsen the crisis's impact on the community. The challenges were the lack of a clear chain of command and limited strategies; it's hard to pinpoint which one was actually used, so the one that should have been used was to enforce a unified, clear voice to inform the public. All of this led to political fallouts, a lack of public trust, human suffering and death, and a major PR failure.

The key lesson is that a crisis plan needs to be in place before a crisis hits, because transparency and preparedness are the keys to effectively responding to and managing one. Lastly, this matters because a natural disaster like this could happen again, so we must learn from these mistakes and be ready next time. The next case was about an altercation that happened at a Starbucks in Philadelphia (Starbucks: Two Men Arrested for Doing… Not Much, Year). Two black men were arrested in the store while they were waiting for a business meeting. This exposed the store to be racially biased, and it displayed the lack of alignment since Starbucks claims to be inclusive and empowering, but got two innocent men arrested because of racial bias. The Starbucks case demonstrates that a brand’s credibility depends on aligning its stated values with consistent, culturally aware practices. Starbucks responded by publicly apologizing, taking executive accountability, implementing a nationwide racial‑bias training, revising store policies to allow non‑purchasing guests, and engaging civil‑rights leaders to guide long‑term reforms. The main takeaway is that social media accelerates accountability. A video of the encounter was posted online, and within a few hours, the nation was in an uproar, with everyone taking sides, protests and backlash online and in stores, and a lot of reflection. The main theme was the importance of leadership accountability, with CEO Kevin Johnson stating he is accountable for the situation.

It is good that someone took accountability, but the Starbucks workers in the store should also have been held accountable and even reprimanded. The challenges presented were inconsistent store policies, and the strategies were a quick apology, immediate responsibility, and a transparent message to the public. This led to the need for reputational repair to rebuild and stabilize public trust. The key lesson is that a value-driven brand must be consistent in its messaging and policies; your actions and words must align. This case matters because it happens all the time, so taking accountability and treating everyone equally is essential for us to thrive in our society. The last case study we went over was about finding authentic moments (Finding Authentic Moments), which discussed several examples of when brands tried to send a specific message, but it got lost in translation or didn't come across to the public the way they hoped. To put it plainly, it talked about messaging epic fails through traditional media channels. These crises occur when brands rush to engage with social media trends without understanding cultural context, brand history, or audience sensitivities, leading to tone‑deaf campaigns. A great example of this is one of Pepsi’s past campaigns with Kendall Jenner, in which she went to a protest, handed a policeman a can of Pepsi, and, all of a sudden, everything was resolved. This came across as very tone-deaf, inauthentic, and disrespectful to the public, especially given the social climate at the time. The public also didn't like how they had a rich white woman at the forefront of it because she was not in the demographic whatsoever of someone who experiences these acts of injustice by the police. It also talked about examples from Wells Fargo and Dove's racially insensitive imagery. The response involved removing the problematic content, issuing public apologies, reevaluating internal processes, implementing necessary changes within the company, and communicating them to the public through future advertisements. The takeaways from this case highlight the importance of representation, acknowledgment, and support for justice for those who have experienced injustice, as well as cultural context in messaging. The main themes centered around social awareness, authentic and respectful storytelling, and diverse communication. The challenges included acting too quickly when producing content, failing to anticipate all possible backlash, failing to understand the social and political climate, and a lack of diversity/ historical awareness. The strategies that needed to be implemented include aligning brand values with their actions and training internal teams to vet creative ideas with multiple team members before posting. The outcomes lead to major public backlash and boycotts, as well as to internal change and improvements. The key lessons we can learn from this case are that misalignment between intention and impact can easily occur, so it's essential to see and understand the whole picture before producing content, especially for major brands like these, to maintain public trust and the brand's identity. Lastly, this case matters because it happens all the time. A lot of brands are tone-deaf to the world around them because it doesn't affect them. Implementing diverse teams from within and delivering authentic messaging are how we combat these crises. Ultimately, this matters because it has happened before and will likely happen again, so being prepared for it is essential to success.

Overall, actions speak louder than words, so when organizations and companies go through a crisis or circumstance in which their actions and words aren't aligned, it causes more harm than good. In all four of these cases, we can see that being out of “alignment” with your own actions or your audiences means you are essentially breaking your public's trust, losing credibility, and aren't being authentic or effective with your actions, and, in some cases, leading to fatal outcomes for individuals and communities. So understanding the disconnect and figuring out how to realign is how we keep that mutual trust and build that long-term brand loyalty. Sources Key Words/ Tags:

• “Actions speak louder than words.”
• Impact
• Alignment
• Unalignment
• Brand loyalty 

nyupressblog. “Dove, How Do You Get so Clean and White? A Racist Trope Reemerges - NYU Press.” NYU Press, 11 Oct. 2017, nyupress.org/blog/2017/10/11/dove-ad/. Taylor, Madison. “The Importance of Brand Alignment.” Madison Taylor Marketing, 21 Feb. 2023, madisontaylormarketing.com/library/the-importance-of-brand-alignment/. Accessed 30 Mar. 2026. Dove: A purpose‑driven brand in a crisis of sincerity. (2018). In [Canvas] (pp. 1–24).  https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829159?module_item_id=8378904 Case 9‑1: Hurricane Katrina: A disaster from beginning to end. (Canvas). In [Crisis Management] (pp. 271–278). https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829131?module_item_id=8378905 Starbucks: Two men arrested for doing… not much. (Canvas). In [Consumer Relations] (pp. 333–352). https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829193?module_item_id=8378906 Finding Authentic Moments: How to avoid messaging fails. (Canvas). In [Cultural and Other Considerations] (pp. 492). https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829294?module_item_id=8378907

How Brands Navigate Social Issues While Staying Authentic:  Can Companies Take a Stand on Social Justice and Still Protect Their Reputation By: Lily Morris

Have you ever felt frustration at persistent social justice issues that seem acknowledged but unresolved? I have. As a woman, I see them daily, and you likely do too, especially if you aren't a straight white male. Maybe you've experienced an injustice, know someone who has, or seen them online. These issues, like police or ICE brutality, gun violence, offhand sexist jokes, or covert racial comments, are so familiar that they've become the norm, rarely prioritized to a point where change is made. It's exhausting, and real change seems impossible for individuals alone. That's why, in my view, it's so important for major corporations, movie franchises, and communities to ignite change on a larger scale. I know this is controversial in Public Relations, but the power major brands hold is unmatched. They must navigate how to engage with social issues while staying authentic to their brand identity and audience. ​ What Does This Mean? ​ An article written by Randi Kronthal-Sacco and Tensie Whelan at the Harvard Business Review titled “What Consumers Really Want Brands to Do About Social Issues” explores this divide, noting that some companies are unsure about how to address social issues, even though many consumers want the brands they support to reciprocate that support. The article notes, “Brands must better understand the social issues that resonate across consumer cohorts and speak to their audiences authentically (Kronthal-Sacco and Whelan).” Essentially, if brands remain authentic and true to themselves while prioritizing their customers' concerns in addressing societal issues, they are more likely to maintain their audience's loyalty. This underscores the principle of “social responsibility,” acting ethically and positively contributing to society rather than solely seeking profit. An Investopedia article titled “Why Is Social Responsibility Important in Marketing?” discusses the importance of social responsibility not just for the everyday person but also for businesses, and the responsibility they bear to protect their audience from harm. The article says, “Many companies have adopted socially responsible elements in their marketing strategies to help a community via beneficial services and products (Investopedia).” Ultimately, addressing these various social issues is a form of social responsibility, and, in my opinion, this is what will, in turn, bring in more profit, even if it isn't the intent, because you are staying loyal and supporting those who stayed loyal to you. ​ Barbie: Gender Roles & Norms ​ The first case study examines the Barbie movies and how they aimed to challenge gender roles and norms. The movie itself didn't cause a crisis; rather, it combated Barbie's reputation, which reflected outdated beliefs about how women should look. The movie made it very clear that Barbie is no longer that. It is now about empowering young women, telling them that they can be whoever they want to be, and that, despite societal “norms” and traditional gender roles and reputations, a woman is not for one purpose. A woman doesn't belong in the kitchen; she belongs in the world, making an impact, empowering others, and igniting change. For years, people criticized Barbie, so this case study shows how the Barbie movies' marketing addressed long-standing issues about gender roles and norms. Barbie's reputation had reflected outdated expectations for women, which many criticized for promoting unrealistic beauty and traditional gender roles. As society moved towards inclusion and feminism, these views made Barbie seem irrelevant to younger generations.   To address this, the Barbie movie made it clear that Barbie is now about empowering young women, showing they can define their own roles despite societal expectations. The brand faced the challenge of shifting its image from old-fashioned stereotypes to one that inspires women to take action and build confidence. The underlying crisis was about cultural relevance and reputation, confirming that Barbie needed to evolve to stay meaningful. The movie's marketing acknowledged injustices, shifting cultural conversations around heavy topics such as cultural norms and traditional gender roles. They supported and empowered their audience through authentic, meaningful messaging while also generating significant profits and making a huge impact on our society. As I mentioned, the main themes included feminism, the importance of empowerment and the promotion of confidence in young women, and the power and influence the media has on the public. Challenges included discrediting the past reputation of Barbie and carefully promoting feminism in a society that tends to interpret the word with hate instead of empowerment. The strategies included reframing Barbie through authentic messaging, a massive, hands-on campaign, and diverse casting and storytelling from different points of view. This led to record-breaking box-office numbers and a new image and understanding of feminism. The key lessons and takeaways from this case were empowerment, confidence in young women, and how the media shapes perceptions. Mattel faced the challenge of overcoming negative perceptions about Barbie's past and promoting feminism in an environment where the term can be misunderstood. Their strategy involved reframing Barbie with authentic messaging, broad campaigns, and diverse representation. The results included stronger box-office performance and a renewed brand image. The key takeaway is that brands must evolve with their audience and embrace inclusivity to remain relevant and build loyalty. The Barbie case is significant because a single movie, released in 2023, helped challenge century-old gender stereotypes and reshape the conversation around feminism.  Bud Light, American Airlines & Love is Love Weddings The other case studies were about brands like Bud Light and American Airlines, as well as a community in Fort Lauderdale that promotes love for all. The Bud Light campaign is a notable one that we have discussed many times through the years. It is the brand's campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the beer. The crisis stemmed from the fact that the brand's influence and its audience did not align. Regardless of the campaign, every PR professional knows it will fail when the influencer doesn't align with the target audience.

Bud Light's target audience is typically your average straight white man, typically of conservative values, so having a transgender influencer didn't go over well with them. The brand faced severe backlash, a major sales drop, layoffs, long-term brand damage, and a loss of public trust and support. The company responded to the backlash with a neutral tone, being cautious of everyone's feelings, and issued very vague statements and patriotic ads that totally dismissed Dylan's feelings. Ultimately, sales never recovered from this failed campaign. The major takeaway is that taking a silent stand on social issues may not go over well when your audience doesn't align with the message, and that mixed messaging and silence during backlash can make both sides lose trust. The themes of the case include gender identity rather than beer, and mixed, unclear values. The challenges were severe backlash and anger from customers, media fire, and a lack of support for internal teams, including Dylan. The strategies used to combat the crisis included producing more ads to counter the original messaging, which led to even higher marketing costs and even vaguer messaging.

All of this, again, led to a significant loss in sales and long-term reputation damage. The key lesson is that if a brand decides to take a stance on issues or ideas that can't be addressed with a neutral statement, you have to follow through on your values, or else you will lose the public's trust. All of this matters because we see this all the time, and we know authenticity is so important in messaging and marketing, so acting with intent and confidence will lead to success.  The next case is about American Airlines, and the crisis in the 90s surrounding many employees discriminating against LGBTQ+ passengers from a harmful internal culture, and policies that allowed discrimination. This led to media fire and a major organizational crisis. In response, the airline apologized and then investigated the issues to make changes from within. The key lesson and takeaway from this is that marginalized groups hold the power to keep organizations accountable for their actions and ultimately make a difference and bring about change for the greater good. The themes included how activism can uncover deeper issues and create change, as well as promoting the idea that inclusivity does matter.

The challenge was that conservative groups fought the change. The strategies used were issuing an immediate apology and conducting an investigation. The outcome was that the crisis strengthened the brand's inclusivity and helped build a relationship with its LGBTQ+ audience. The key lesson and takeaway was that a brand needs to be inclusive, protect marginalized audiences, and treat everyone with respect. Overall, this matters because it shows that activism can create real change and that authenticity builds strong relationships with the public. The last case study is about the Fort Lauderdale community and its reputation for inclusivity, but how it didn't respond quickly enough when same-sex marriage was legalized. This wasn't a “traditional” crisis, more of a scandal, which made the community and city look “fake” with their beliefs based on their lack of action and urgency. In response, the city hosted a big, inclusive celebration for this monumental ruling. The celebration conducted 100 beach weddings, helping marry so many couples and supporting equality. The takeaway is that the city, by hosting the festival, showed the public where its values lie, and it also led to a profitable event. The themes of the case study included community partnerships and the change that can come from visibility. 

The challenges were the limited time to plan the event and the pressure from national media to respond quickly. Strategies used included the large symbolic wedding ceremonies and collaborating with local LGBTQ+ groups. This led to positive media coverage and public trust within the LGBTQ+ community. The key lesson and takeaway from this is that following and staying true to your values creates long-term loyalty and trust, and that when your actions align with your values, you build credibility. Overall, this matters because we see it all the time. We know that aligning not only your messaging with your audience, but also your values and beliefs, creates success.

Overall, it is so vital for major corporations like Bud Light or American Airlines, movie franchises like the Barbie campaign, and even communities like the one in Fort Lauderdale to make that “fuss” and ignite change that we can't do alone. When corporations speak up, people listen, and we could use some of that right now. This means these brands have to learn to navigate the challenge of balancing social issues while staying true to their brand identity and delivering authentic messaging to their audiences. 

Sources

Key Words/ Tags:

• Social Justice
• Ignite Change
• Authentic
• Address Social Issues
• Prioritizing

Kronthal-Sacco, Randi, and Tensie Whelan. “What Consumers Really Want Brands to Do about Social Issues.” Harvard Business Review, 24 Oct. 2025, hbr.org/2025/10/what-consumers-really-want-brands-to-do-about-social-issues?ab=HP-hero-latest-1. Investopedia. “Why Socially Responsible Marketing Matters.” Investopedia, 14 Oct. 2024, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/why-social-responsibility-important-marketing.asp. Accessed 6 Apr. 2026. Chavda, Janakee. “Americans’ Trust in One Another.” Pew Research Center, 8 May 2025, www.pewresearch.org/2025/05/08/americans-trust-in-one-another/. Sheridan, Virginia. " Love It Love" Wedding in Fort Lauderdale. canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829291?module_item_id=8378911. Accessed 4 Apr. 2026. Cracking Open a Case the Anheuser-Busch Response to Bud Light Boycott. canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829177?module_item_id=8378910. Accessed 4 Apr. 2026. Luttrell, Ph.D., Regina, and Carrie Welch. Everything Barbie All at Once: “a Marketing Campaign for the Ages.” 2023, canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829148? module_item_id=8378912. Accessed 4 Apr. 2026. Ciszek, Erica. A Corporate Coming Out: Crisis Communication and Engagement with LGBT Publics. 2016.

How Effective Communication Determines Public Trust and Transparency By: Lily Morris

When you hear the saying, “you only live once,” what do you think of? You are probably thinking that you should live it to the “fullest” and go do a bunch of dangerous and adventurous stuff that will ignite a feeling of dopamine and adrenaline in your life, or just live with no regrets. Those are great things to think about, and that’s exactly how I thought of the saying before I entered my 20s. Now, when I think about the saying “you only live once,” I think about all the potential threats in my life and the health risks that come with the common elements and scenarios in college and in your early 20s, like drinking, smoking, vaping, getting my lip filler, using tanning beds, or lying in the sun. Now, for me, it is no longer about seeking out danger to FEEL alive, it's about preventing it in order to STAY alive. These are things we all have to consider at some point in our lives, and for companies that “specialize” in public health, this has to be at the forefront of your marketing and the first thing on your mind when dealing with the public. Ethically, the public and their “well-being” are what's important, so being transparent in your communication and staying loyal to your audience are the keys to maintaining their trust. All the cases we analyzed this week emphasize the importance of communication when dealing with any component related to public health and well-being, and we saw that a company's message alone is never enough. The connection and relationship between the company and audience matters more than just words, so delivering a clear and meaningful message that shows authenticity, empathy, credibility, and understanding while balancing the facts in any sort of crisis situation is how you are able to maintain that relationship with the public and protect their health and well-being. ​ Clarifying the Argument: What’s the Main Point? ​ All of this can be applied for companies, health officials, health organizations, or PR heads for campaigns because communicating effectively, and efficiently, is so important when dealing with the publics health, so all of us can take a page out of this book and apply these communication strategies to our daily lives and company marketing techniques because we all need to be prioritizing the public. An article published by the National Library of Medicine, “Communicating Recommendations in Public Health Emergencies: The Role of Public Health Authorities,” discusses how people follow advice from health officials they trust. It says, “Effective, accessible, and appropriate communication plays an important role in whether populations trust government entities, including public health authorities, and the extent to which people follow their recommendations (Holroyd et al.).” This shows that transparent, clear communication within the public health field is not only important but also imperative for every health official to demonstrate this level of concern for the public, despite their personal interests. Another article published by PRSA, titled “Trust Is Paramount to Public Relations,” discusses how important it is for companies, organizations, or figures to maintain the public's trust through authentic, transparent communication. It says, “When individuals feel valued, supported, and connected to the mission, they are more willing to contribute and stay actively engaged (Vela-Williamson, M.A., APR, Fellow PRSA).” This shows that the public wants to feel prioritized; they want to see companies prioritize their well-being not only through their communication but also through their actions and storytelling in campaigns. ​ The case studies address different health communication issues: Fact not Fiction Health Awareness, “What I did Instead" Health Hashtag, Zombie Apocalypse Awareness, and Dow Corning and Breast Implants Health. ​ The first case study we analyzed was called “Social Media to Enhance.Sexual Health Education for Youth: FactNotFiction’s (Re)Design and Launch (Social Media to Enhance Sexual Health Education for Youth),” and this talked about the teens in Mississippi that had very limited access to comprehensive, medically accurate sex education because of many restrictive state laws set in place that created this gap in sex education and caused many issues for young men and women. A website called “FactNotFiction” was launched to fill this gap, but it ultimately failed due to a lack of youth engagement. The website was hard to use; based on statistics, it wasn't interactive and didn't engage the average youth. The team ended up redesigning the platform to make it more mobile-friendly, with lots of visuals, and integrated other social sites to engage further with this demographic. The big takeaway from this case is that public health communication only works when it aligns with how youth actually use technology; they won't engage with things that are hard to use, not mobile-friendly, or that don't easily grab their attention and hold it.  The main theme was the importance of understanding your target audience's preferences, as the case illustrated the audience's misunderstanding of the technology teens were using. The challenge was that the site wasn't “youth-friendly” because it didn't meet their needs or hold their attention. Strategies used included syncing the site with relevant platforms at the time, such as Facebook, to keep it relevant when they redid the site, and promoting it as a more visual, content-heavy site for youth, which led to higher engagement. The key insight of the case is that a site's design and content should align to facilitate ease of use and support continued use by the target audience. Lastly, this matters because this “audience,” our country's youth, is always a target, so for whatever message you are trying to get across, or campaign you are trying to launch, you have to make sure everything aligns with that target audience. The next case is medicare beneficiaries who were unaware and confused about the Open Enrollment (OE) period and the need to review or update their health and drug plans, and to go along with this, CMS didnt know what communication channels were influencing this demographics decisions, so they needed to make sure their messaging was effective and, “broke through the clutter and impacted consumer behavior (#Whatididinstead a Social Media rather than Social Normans Approach to Curb Teen Drinking).” CMS responded by partnering with PRIME Research to create a research-driven communication strategy that combined earned and paid ads and media to track their impact on the target audience and the decisions they made. To do this, they conducted surveys, analyzed media exposure, and coordinated messaging across teams, which led to increased awareness, exposure, and action among people to change their Medicare plans. The main takeaway from this case is that research-driven communication is effective and can benefit your target audience.  The main themes shown were the power of earned media, the importance of collaboration, and the role research plays in shaping a message and communication strategy. The challenges were the initial confusion, and the strategies used to resolve it were conducting research-driven studies before and after the campaign to achieve precise, impactful results. This led to an overall improvement in the company's communication effectiveness, increasing impressions, engagement, and awareness of “Open Enrollment.” The key lesson learned is that investing in creating effective communication is worth it and helpful when trying to change behaviors or guide research. Overall, this matters because research and communication within health organizations must be a priority, as they can directly impact a person's life. Having transparent, effective messaging and communication eliminates opportunities for confusion. Another case we talked about was called “Zombies Gone Viral: How a Fictional Zombie Invasion Helped CDC Promote Emergency Preparedness (Zombies Gone Viral),” and this study talked about how the CDC realized that its yearly “emergency‑preparedness” messages were being ignored and overlooked by the public, so they tried a bold new approach by framing preparedness tips as advice for surviving a zombie apocalypse. The humorous theme exploded online, turning a once‑overlooked campaign into a viral phenomenon with millions of views and massive public engagement. The main takeaway from this case is that there isn't just one way to deliver a message, because many people pay attention when information is presented in a fun, unexpected way. The CDC showed that scary “what-ifs” and emergency preparedness statistics don't have to be boring. The main themes include using humor to discuss serious topics when appropriate and treating social media as a high-power, low-cost tool for effective communication.  The challenge was that no one was paying attention to the CDC's preparedness messages, so they had to get creative on a limited budget. The strategies used zombies as a humorous “hook” to grab the audience's attention while keeping everything digital, so there were few costs. This led to increased engagement across all platforms, and it went viral. Overall, the key lesson learned is that sometimes traditional communication tactics don’t work, and you may need to revert to good old-fashioned humor, but only when appropriate. Overall, this matters because we want people to engage with our messaging. If people aren’t engaging with your message, change the way you deliver it, but continue to prioritize transparency in whatever form you choose. The last case study we analyzed was about a major corporation, Dow Corning, which became the target of a widespread lawsuit in the 1980s and 90s (Dow Corning and Breast Implants: Dealing with Perception of Deception.). This massive lawsuit involved a woman who claimed that her silicone breast implants caused an autoimmune problem and frequent ruptures. The company specialized in silicone technology, so the women made these claims  of major health problems because of their product. The company responded by denying the cause and defending its product and company. Because of this, they faced backlash but ultimately owned up to it and corrected their actions by making internal leadership changes, being transparent in their messaging, and funding new safety research, which helped the company rebuild its reputation. A major takeaway from the case is that ethical communication matters as much as scientific evidence, so even when companies believe or claim the product is safe, they shouldn't ignore damaging customer claims; instead, they should produce defensive messages. Transparent, authentic, professional, and respectful communication is the only effective route.  The main themes are the importance of effective communication, crisis communication, and taking responsibility in a crisis, especially when protecting and prioritizing the public's well-being. Some challenges include the many lawsuits stemming from this crisis and the poor initial communication. Some strategies involved funding safety research, creating educational programs, and replacing leadership. This led to slow improvement in their reputation and to new scientific research. A key lesson is that taking responsibility, communicating effectively and transparently in a crisis, acting ethically, and prioritizing the public's well-being are crucial. Overall, this matters because it happens all the time. So many companies, especially private health companies, prioritize profit and their reputations over the well-being or concerns of their publics.

Ultimately, the public and their “well-being” are what's important, so being transparent in your communication and staying loyal to your audience are the keys to maintaining their trust. All the cases we analyzed this week emphasize the importance of communication when dealing with any component related to public health and well-being, and we saw that a company's message alone is never enough. Overall, the connection and relationship between the company and audience matters more than just words, so delivering a clear and meaningful message that shows authenticity, empathy, credibility, and understanding while balancing the facts in any sort of crisis situation is how you are able to maintain that relationship with the public and protect their health and well-being. Sources Key Words:

• FEEL alive
• STAY alive
• Ethically
• Public
• Well being

Holroyd, Taylor A., et al. “Communicating Recommendations in Public Health Emergencies: The Role of Public Health Authorities.” Health Security, vol. 18, no. 1, 2020, pp. 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2019.0073. Vela-Williamson, M.A., APR, Fellow PRSA, Melissa. “Trust Is Paramount to Public Relations.” Https://Www.prsa.org/Article/Building-Trust-Public-Relations-SEPT25, Sept. 2025, www.prsa.org/article/building-trust-public-relations-SEPT25. Accessed 13 Apr. 2026. Case 10-4 Dow Corning and Breast Implants: Dealing with Perception of Deception. canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829186?module_item_id=8378919. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026. Field- Springer, Kimberly. A Strategic View #Whatididinstead a Social Media rather than Social Normans Approach to Curb Teen Drinking. canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829303?module_item_id=8378917. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026. Kruvand, Marjorie. Zombies Gone Viral: How a Fictional Zombie Invasion Helped CDC Promote Emergency Preparedness. canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829292?module_item_id=8378918. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026. Ragsdale, K, et al. Social Media to Enhance Sexual Health Education for Youth: FactNotFiction’s (Re)Design and Launch. Case Studies in Strategic Social Media to Enhance Sexual Health Education for Youth: FactNotFiction’s (Re)Design and Launch. Vol. 4, 2015, p. 2015. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026. https://canvas.ou.edu/courses/471447/files/128829302?module_item_id=8378916