PR Lessons From The Biggest Failures of 2023

As always, this year brought some truly spectacular “PR failures” by high-profile organizations and brands. Yet, nothing happens in a vacuum. Most of the so-called PR disasters that unfolded in 2023 went well beyond public relations strategy or execution. Some were management failures, while others were about corporate values or behavior. Still, there’s something to be learned from each one.

Consider your stakeholders: OpenAI

Arguably the greatest PR fiasco of the year was the public ouster – and swift reinstatement – of Open AI CEO Sam Altman. The failure here was really one of governance, of course. It was caused in part by OpenAI’s unusual hybrid Board structure, which seeks to blend a nonprofit and a for-profit organization to balance commercial goals with adherence to its social mission.

But the nonprofit Board did a terrible job of explaining its hasty decision to remove Altman. It issued a cryptic statement alluding to his failure to be “consistently candid” in communications, followed by silence, which gave rise to all kinds of nasty rumors. OpenAI president Greg Brockman resigned in protest, and two days later, both had accepted jobs with key investor Microsoft. By Monday, most of OpenAI’s rank-and-file employees were threatening to follow them. After the outcry from the company’s most important stakeholders — both investors and its workforce — the Board members were replaced and Altman’s position restored. It was a comedy of poor communication on top of a structure that no longer worked for a company with its growth goals.

Don’t be wishy-washy: Bud Light and Target

Like many brand-watchers, I thought the backlash against Bud Light over its partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney would fade away. After all, product boycotts rarely succeed, for fascinating reasons.  Yet, the Bud Light protests did hurt sales, and the Anheuser Busch stock price lost some froth, too. A seemingly minor marketing promotion precipitated the boycott, but AB’s response to the situation didn’t help. Nearly two full weeks after protests by right-of-center celebrities and activists raged on social media, it finally issued a tepid response that said…well, not much. The statement didn’t exactly apologize for its inclusive position, but the tone was appeasing, and the brand did nothing to defend the partnership with Mulvaney. The weak message infuriated LGBTQ allies and only encouraged the boycotters, who seemed to smell blood. It was a lose-lose.

Target found itself in a somewhat similar situation when anti-LGBTQ customers criticized its Pride Month displays, in some cases trashing store merchandise and harassing employees. The retailer responded by pulling much of its LGBTQ merchandise, claiming it only wanted to protect its staff. But the reaction in the gay and trans community was swift and angry, and sales suffered.

Even the smartest PR won’t prevent a backlash or a boycott. But a flip-flop on a socially sensitive or contentious issue is nearly always destined to fail. It’s important to know and understand the audiences with whom you want to engage. If there’s nothing to apologize for, don’t apologize, and don’t issue mealy-mouthed statements. The smart play is to stand by a principled  position with grace and weather the PR storm.

Walk the walk before you talk: International Women’s Day

It was more an embarrassment than a crisis, but in March of 2022, hundreds of companies marked International Women’s Day with promotions or social posts of support. That was great – until it wasn’t. Enter @PayGap, an ingenious Twitter bot that automatically calculated and responded with that particular company’s media gender pay gap. Oops.

In 2023, there were many businesses and educational organizations that seemed not to have learned from the year prior. But as always, how a company responded to the criticism was what separated the PR-savvy from those who fell short. According to @paygapbot app co-creator Francesca Lawson, one of the best responses was from a London college that tweeted, “Thanks Gender Pay Gap Bot, you’re right and we agree this isn’t good enough. We’re working to address this and to eliminate our ethnicity pay gap too. There’s more information about our work here: ow.ly/5Yxc50IcS7C We’ve still got a lot of work to do.”

Sometimes handling blowback is just that simple.

Tap professional PR expertise: Silicon Valley Bank

Unlike the Open AI fiasco, the trigger for Silicon Valley Bank’s well-documented collapse was actually a pure PR mistake, and a huge one at that. SVB put out a fatally flawed press release that was meant to strengthen its financial position but had the opposite effect. The bank announced a proposed stock offering to raise cash, but its customers, already spooked by the liquidation of Silvergate Bank a few days prior, rushed to pull out their money. When its CEO urged customers not to panic on a call, things deteriorated further.

The key mistakes here were of timing and language. No one in charge of SVB’s comms seemed to realize that the Silvergate situation called for extra caution. Even more surprising, the jargon-stuffed press release was nearly incomprehensible, and a key sentence that presumably could have reassured investors, “Additionally, earlier today, SVB completed the sale of substantially of its available for sale securities portfolio,“ somehow didn’t make it through the grammar screen. Ugh.

In a class by itself; Elon Musk and Twitter

I don’t know how to analyze Elon Musk’s many PR and communications mistakes over the course of the year. To be fair, maybe they aren’t mistakes at all, because Musk’s goals for his $44 billion investment are unclear, to say the least. If he’s trying to build a conventional, ad-supported social network, then telling major advertisers to “f-ck off ” and criticizing them individually is obviously a bad strategy. The same goes for posting antisemitic content and trafficking in sinister conspiracy theories. To fulfill at least one of his stated objectives, which is to make Twitter the “everything app”, Musk will need to build user confidence in new products, and his personal fan base doesn’t seem large enough to support that type of business.

If, on the other hand, his goal is to rid the world of “the woke mind virus” by alienating traditional journalists, fact-based users, and normal advertisers and cede the platform to the conspiracy-minded “anti-woke” hordes, then 2023 hasn’t been a complete failure. I’m not sure how the debt is serviced in this scenario, however.

But maybe Musk’s Twitter is the closest thing to “any PR is good PR,” at least in his eyes. It seems that people who seemingly have everything crave more of the scarcest and most fickle commodity there is — attention. By that metric, Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has been a success. There’s no doubt that 2024 will bring even more drama, so the eyes of the world will probably stay focused in his direction whether we like it or not.

Why Product Boycotts Work (Or Not)

As anyone in PR knows, we’re living in a boycott culture. Over Easter weekend Texas congressman Dan Crenshaw (no relation) hopped on the boycott du jour with a video pledging to “throw out every single Bud Light we’ve got.” The punch line comes when Rep. Crenshaw angrily opens his fridge to reveal — no Bud Light at all. “That was easy,” he quips, as he shuts the fridge door.

But the joke might be on Crenshaw. The fridge contains several cans of Karbach, a Houston-based craft brewer that has since 2016 been owned by — you guessed it — Anheuser Busch, Bud Light’s parent company. It’s a pretty common challenge of product boycotts and says something about how useful they are, or aren’t.

Another day, another boycott

For those wondering what the brew-haha is about, conservatives have taken aim at Bud Light (in some cases, literally) for its promotion featuring trans activist and actor Dylan Mulvaney. Twitter is overflowing with posts of angry boycotters pouring out, running over, and even shooting up Bud Light cans in protest. The latest stunt involving a steamroller running over what must be thousands of dollars’ worth of beer, is impressive (though possibly faked). But is the boycott affecting sales? Do product boycotts ever work, or are they performative?

Gauging a boycott’s success depends on its goals, naturally. In this case, anger seems channeled into hurting Bud Light sales and/or forcing it to end the Mulvaney partnership. So far, there’s some evidence that sales might have been affected. According to Beer Business Daily, “it appears likely Bud Light took a volume hit in some markets over the holiday weekend.” Yet BBD notes it has limited data from mostly rural Midwestern and Southern distributors. After days of silence, Bud Light released a statement defending the Mulvaney promotion, but it has been relatively quiet throughout the storm.

When product boycotts trigger “buycotts”

Product boycotts are usually more complicated than they seem. A case in point — Kellogg business school professor Anna Tuchman analyzed the outcome of the 2020 boycott of Goya Foods by Hispanic leaders. It all started when Goya’s CEO praised then-President Trump’s immigration policy. Yet calls for a boycott of Goya products quickly drew a backlash among Trump supporters. Tuchman studied supermarket data and found that the backlash actually raised sales, albeit temporarily. She theorized that, unlike the seven percent of U.S. households that were already regular Goya customers and could potentially boycott the brand, nearly anyone could decide to buy it in solidarity. Many did.

Goya’s more narrow customer base makes it different from a mainstream brand like Bud Light. But the same principle could well apply here. Even if the boycott keeps conservatives from buying it, the PR and social media coverage could invite a “buycott” of Bud Light from others, just as it did for Goya. Then there’s the problem Rep. Crenshaw ran into; Bud’s parent company Anheuser Busch owns more than 500 beer brands, including many that are popular in the U.S., from Stella Artois and Michelob to Corona and Blue Point. So, avoiding all A-B brands might take some homework by the boycotters.

Brand social status is a key factor

Another factor that affects a boycott’s power is a brand’s strength as a cultural signifier. This should be obvious, but it’s often overlooked. Someone’s choice of black beans isn’t a status symbol. It’s not something they brag about or see as part of their social identity. Yet lifestyle brands do act as badges of identity, so they’re more vulnerable to protests. A 2019 boycott of Equinox and sister brand Soul Cycle (over billionaire owner Stephen Ross’s Trump fundraiser) hurt class enrollment rather decisively for both brands. The reason? Both enjoy a carefully cultivated image of social responsibility and inclusion. They’re a signal of status for members, so during a celebrity-led boycott, no one wanted to rave about their Equinox Cardio Sculpt instructor on Instagram or post about the latest Soul Cycle swag. Lots skipped their workouts altogether.

I’m not sure where beer fits on the social status scale, but I’d say it’s a stronger signifier than beans, if maybe lower than luxury fitness. Perhaps more importantly for a 30-year-old product like Bud Light, it needs to expand its appeal to add new drinkers, like younger people and women. Its Director of Marketing, Alissa Heinerschied, put it bluntly in a March interview. “I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light…this brand is in decline. It has been in decline for a very long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light,” she said.

Finally, the LBGTQ market is a huge and spendy one. Beer brands have shown their support in the form of splashy Pride sponsorships, targeted advertising, and influencer campaigns for years. Those steamrolling the brand will have a hard time choosing another beer that hasn’t supported the gay and trans communities.

If the Bud Light boycotters’ aim is to grow awareness of their position and build community among like-minded people, they have succeeded. The brand is being trashed in every corner of the web, and that’s not helpful to its marketing team. But if the goal is to put the brand out of business, or push it and other beer makers to pull LBGTQ support and sponsorships, it will most likely fall flat.