In 2025, the public is not just an audience—they are participants, critics, and, increasingly, experts. A misjudged campaign, a tone‑deaf comment, or a delayed response can ignite a wildfire of backlash that spreads faster than any corporate statement can be drafted. Yet, many organizations still falter in crisis PR. In a landscape defined by immediacy, accountability, and polarization, doing PR poorly is no longer just bad—it’s dangerous.
What follows are four emblematic cases from 2025. Each reveals how crisis responses fail when brands neglect authenticity, empathy, or cultural acuity. These examples offer powerful lessons—for every communicator, every CEO, every brand that values reputation over bravado.
1. Tesla’s AI Safety Crisis: Overconfidence Amid Tragedy
In early 2025, a fatal crash involving a Tesla Model X in full self‑driving mode shook consumers and regulators alike. The vehicle failed to recognize a construction zone and veered off theroad, resulting in two deaths. Tesla’s brand heritage of innovation collided violently with thelimits of its technology.
What went wrong:
Tesla’s initial reaction was dismissive. The company labeled the crash “an isolated incident” and leaned on vague assurances that its self‑driving technology was improving. Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s tweets—asserting that Tesla’s safety protocols “far exceed industry standards” and suggesting the media was sensationalizing the event—came off as defensive and evasive O’Dwyer’s.
Why this was disastrous PR:
- Lack of empathy: Families were left without comfort, and public grief was met with technical jargon and catchphrases.
- Deflection, not disclosure: The company reframed the incident as a quirk, rather than confronting deeper concerns about autonomous vehicle safety.
- Cultural disconnect: In an era of grieving and demands for transparency, Tesla’s posture felt cold and authoritative.
Lesson: In tragic circumstances, statements must lead with empathy, full accountability, andconcrete action—not reassurances rooted in brand mythology.
2. American Eagle’s Controversial “Great Jeans” Campaign
In mid‑2025, American Eagle launched an ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney with the line “Genes are passed down… My jeans are blue.” While intended as a playful pun, it quickly spiraled into a cultural flashpoint.
What happened:
The campaign initially garnered positive attention—notably among Gen Z. But critics soon accused it of invoking eugenic undertones, with talk of racial insensitivity and tone‑deaf messaging. Reportedly, those criticisms were amplified by right‑wing media, which turned a niche backlash into a full‑blown controversy WikipediaBusiness Insider.
Response—or lack thereof:
American Eagle offered no apology. Instead, they posted on Instagram that the campaign “is and always was about the jeans”—a non-apology that doubled down rather than diffusing thecontroversy Axios.
Why this backfired:
- Absence of acknowledgement: Ignoring concerns felt dismissive. Even if the backlash began ideologically, perception had shifted—requiring a response.
- No bridge-building empathy: There was no recognition of potential misinterpretation or harm.
- Polarizing posture: The statement positioned the brand in opposition to critics at a moment when flexibility could’ve reduced the fallout.
Lesson: In polarized cultural climates, even unintended offense needs acknowledgment. A quick, sincere, and open tone can deflate controversies before they metastasize.
3. Hollywood’s PR War: Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni
The legal and PR battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni in 2025 is a textbook case of reputational warfare gone sideways.
Backdrop:
Lively accused Baldoni, her co‑star and director on It Ends With Us, of sexual harassment andorchestrating a smear campaign. Baldoni denied the claims, filed defamation suits, and both parties engaged in escalating legal and media attacks. The New York Times detailed allegations of planted stories, manipulated social media, and coordinated media tactics—some orchestrated by crisis PR professionals The Guardian. Meanwhile, Lively was sued for defamation by a crisis firm she accused of weaponizing a “digital army” against her People.comNew York Post.
What went wrong:
- Escalation for spectacle: The PR strategy centered on legal escalation and public posturing, not de-escalation or clarity.
- Media as battlefield: Both camps used leaks, lawsuits, and selective excerpts to shape public perception—fueling media frenzy rather than resolving confusion.
- Erosion of audience trust: In trying to fight reputational fire with litigation, both sides risked alienating the public and deepening skepticism.
Lesson: Crisis PR rooted in retaliation, smear—theatrics, and court filings can pollute public discourse. Human stories demand empathy, not warfare. Without that, everyone loses.
4. Fortnum & Mason’s Paralympic Snub and Hollow Apology
In India, Fortnum & Mason faced backlash after excluding Paralympians from a Republic Day party honoring Olympians—drawn and rightfully criticized by Paralympian Zac Shaw.
The misstep:
After the snafu, the brand offered an apology—but framed it with a claim that a separate Paralympian event had been planned (but undisclosed). That wording felt dismissive, reactive, and fundamentally tone-deaf—conveying condescension more than responsibility PRmoment.com.
Why it failed:
- Insincerity: The apology sounded more like backpedaling than contrition.
- Evasion over clarity: Instead of taking ownership, the brand shifted attention to hypothetical or uncommunicated plans.
- Missed opportunity for reflection: In ignoring the emotional dimension of the error, Fortnum & Mason failed to restore credibility.
Lesson: When offense is perceived, responsibility must outpace explanation. A real apology doesn’t shield with caveats—it takes ownership.
Common Threads in PR Failures
These failures share recurring patterns:
- Defensive language instead of apologetic tone.
- Delayed or shallow responses underperform on empathy.
- Legalism and spin crowd out sincerity, distorting public conversation.
- Context irrelevance—campaigns misaligned with values or cultural climate.
In 2025, audiences judge not just content, but conduct. Crisis PR can’t lead with talking points—it must lead with values.
The High Cost of Poor Crisis PR
Getting PR wrong isn’t symptom—it’s the disease. Poor responses can:
- Wreck brand trust: As seen with Tesla and Fortnum & Mason, trust is fragile and slow to rebuild.
- Fuel cultural firestorms: Controversies like the “great jeans” campaign cascade—especially when mishandled.
- Entrench reputation warfare: The Lively-Baldoni saga shows how legal conflict becomes PR conflict, and vice versa.
- Alienate stakeholders: Employees, customers, and investors all notice when silence or spin prevails.
A Prescriptive Conclusion: Do Better
To navigate crises with grace in 2025—and beyond—brands need unequivocal clarity, empathy, and action:
- Respond fast—but thoughtfully. Apologies and explanations can’t wait.
- Center humanity—not headlines. Statements should begin with real people andemotions.
- Own mistakes, don’t excuse them. Acknowledgment is trust’s first brick.
- Follow with substance. Words ring hollow if not supported by tangible change.
- Stay culturally attuned. Awareness of triggers, symbols, and sentiment isn’t optional.
Crisis PR done poorly isn’t just bad communication—it’s a strategic failure. In a world where audiences are savvy, attentive, and connected, brands must choose humanity over hubris, engagement over erasure. Otherwise, a moment of crisis becomes a turning point away—away from trust, away from credibility, and away from the future.