Emily White 
It’s been a busy few months for crisis communications professionals. From a nationwide food recall to a golf brand partnership gone viral for all the wrong reasons, this summer offered no shortage of real-time case studies in what works – and what doesn’t – when an organization’s reputation is on the line.
Below, we break down three recent crises that played out in the media, and the lessons every organization, regardless of industry, can take away.
1. Going Dark Isn’t a Strategy: Nara Organics’ Instagram Blackout
In June 2026, infant formula brand Nara Organics issued a recall after several infant botulism cases were linked to its product. Early in the crisis, Nara made the decision to disable its Instagram account amid mounting public scrutiny.
While likely intended to limit public discourse and contain brand damage, the move had the opposite effect. By stepping away from the platform, Nara lost the ability to control its own narrative; for example, some worried parents reported first learning about the recall from competing formula brands on social media, rather than from Nara itself.
What we learned:
- Silence during a crisis doesn’t stop the conversation, but it does remove your organization from having a say in the narrative. Going dark cedes your voice to your competitors, the media, and the public.
- The reputational cost of appearing evasive or dishonest can outlast the fallout of the crisis itself.
2. Brand Partnerships Don’t Dilute Accountability: Callaway and Good Good
In August 2026, apparel company Good Good Golf faced significant backlash after a co-branded ad with Callaway, produced to promote a new driver, depicted a man pushing a woman to the ground. The video was quickly pulled, but the damage had already spread from social media into the mainstream conversation.
Callaway’s CEO subsequently issued a statement noting the video was produced by Good Good, but had been approved by Callaway prior to posting, calling that approval a mistake and apologizing. After days of widespread brand fallout, Good Good’s CEO responded with his own post on X, writing: “Interesting that @CallawayGolf asks us to make an ad then approves it then asks us to take the fall then drops us in a coordinated media blitz and covers it up by giving a million dollars away thinking everyone will be ok with it…”
What started as a PR crisis from a single video resulted in Good Good withdrawing as a sponsor of a planned PGA Tour event, the postponing of a planned Golf Channel series, retailers pulling merchandise from shelves, and a leadership shake-up.
What we learned:
- Co-branded content means shared reputational exposure. If your organization approves, funds, or appears alongside content, you own the risk.
- Contrition without accountability reads as self-protection, not sincerity. Both brands’ initial statements attempted to shift blame, which undercut the apologies themselves.
- Public disagreement between partners during an active crisis compounds the damage. A unified, coordinated response is critical, even when partners privately disagree on fault.
3. Authenticity Wins: Taco Bell and the Lettuce Recall
This summer’s multistate Cyclospora outbreak, investigated by the CDC, was ultimately linked to shredded iceberg lettuce served at Taco Bell locations across Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia.
Taco Bell acted quickly, voluntarily removing the potentially affected lettuce from restaurants. The company followed the operational playbook: recall the product, cooperate with public health officials, and communicate honestly and clearly. But the reason the response resonated wasn’t just the speed – it was the tone:
“We want you to hear it from us. We take your health and safety seriously and have removed all affected Taylor Farms lettuce from Taco Bell stores. So go ahead and enjoy your Taco Bell today. You always got us. We always got you. See you in the drive-thru.”
Taco Bell paired clear, factual operational updates with the company’s familiar brand voice, making the statement feel intentional to its dedicated audience, rather than boilerplate corporate language.
What we learned:
- Operational speed builds trust, but tone determines whether that trust sticks. A technically correct statement that reads as generic corporate speak can fall flat.
- Brand voice doesn’t disappear during a crisis. The organizations that maintain their authentic tone (with compassion!), even while delivering serious news, tend to retain more goodwill than those that default to sterile legalese.
Every crisis is unique, but the throughline across all three of these situations is the same: how, when, and what you communicate is critical. Silence, deflection, and generic corporate language can all erode trust faster than the underlying issue itself. Clear, timely, and authentic communication, on the other hand, gives your organization the best chance of coming out on the other side with its reputation intact.
Posted In Crisis Communications, Digital Strategy & Social Media, Media & Culture