CRISIS CASE BOOK

ADPR 5120: Crisis Communication

Macy Ellis

This book contains crisis management evaluations of five different organizational crises
cases. The organizations include Nike, Wayfair, Boeing, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and Aer Lingus.

1
 Table of Contents

Sports: Nike’s Defective Shoe 3-4

Corporate: Wayfair Conspiracy Theory 5-6

Disaster: Boeing Plane Crashes 7-9

Nonprofit: MIT Media Lab Connected to Jeffery Epstein 10-11

Health: Aer Lingus’s Packed Flight 12-13

Appendix A 14-17

Appendix B 18-21

Appendix C 22-24

Appendix D 25-27

Appendix E 28-30

Nike’s Defective Shoe

2
On February 20, 2019, Zion Williamson’s Nike PG2.5 shoe fell apart just 33 seconds into a
Duke basketball game against one of their top rivals, North Carolina, in one of the most
anticipated games of the season. This resulted in an injury for Williamson, who was projected to
be the top NBA draft pick for 2019. The incident got a lot of attention on social media sites like
Twitter, and “Zion” and “Nike” were trending in the hours after the incident. Images and videos
of President Obama’s reaction from the sidelines went viral. By the next day, Nike stock had
dropped by more than one percent and Nike was being heavily criticized by the public.

Operational and/or reputational threats faced by the organization in this case

● Crisis type: Technical-error accident
● Nike was responsible for this case because there was no user error by Williamson
● Nike experienced similar backlash after becoming the official NBA uniform supplier in
2017 (A.1). Multiple basketball stars including LeBron James had their jerseys rip.
● Nike stock dropped by around 1.7 percent the day after the incident, costing Nike
roughly $1.1 billion. However, they erased the majority of their losses by Friday-- just two
days after the crisis. They experienced criticism by sports fans on social media, as some
called for Williamson to switch to Under Armour or Adidas shoes. Terry Rozier of the
Boston Celtics urged Williamson to switch to Puma (A.2).

Primary Publics
● The primary publics involved in this crisis are Nike stakeholders and Nike employees.
The secondary public is Nike customers or potential Nike customers. Another secondary
public is basketball teams that are signed with Nike, Duke and Zion Williamson in
particular.
● Nike is a leader in the athletic apparel industry and was a well trusted and widely used
brand in college and professional sports. Nike was in good standing with its stakeholders
as well as the general public before this crisis. Aside from criticism and a massive
embarrassment for the brand (A.3, A.4), there was no long term damage done. If the
broken shoe caused any potential customers to rethink buying Nike, it didn’t show in
their sales. Neither Duke nor Zion Williamson bashed Nike after the incident and Duke is
still signed with Nike. However, many were worried that the malfunction would cause
Williamson not to sign with Nike when he went pro in the Fall, which would cost Nike a
deal potentially worth millions.

How did news media and social media respond to and/or influence the crisis?
● Social media exploded with posts criticising and making fun of Nike seconds after the
incident aired live on television. Twitter and instagram were flooded with memes about
the shoe (A.5). There were also videos and pictures of people reacting to the accident,
including Barack Obama mouthing “his shoe broke” (A.6).
● This story made headlines and was reported by every major news outlet including CNN,
The New York Times, Forbes, The Washington Post, CBS, and ESPN.
● Several celebrities and athletes commented on the incident on social media, including
LeBron James, who expressed support for Williamson (A.7).

3
Organizational crises responses
● Nike took an accommodative stance regarding the issue, immediately apologizing and
stating their concern for Williamson in a press release.
● They also advocated for their brand, calling the crisis an “isolated incident” and stating
how important quality and performance is to their brand.
● Crisis response strategy: apology

Evaluation
● There was no strong response from the primary publics (Nike Stakeholders and Nike
Employees) due to the fact that the monetary losses were erased in around 2 days and
there was no significant blow to company profits.
● The massive response from the customers and potential customers on social media did
not last long after the incident and it did not affect buying habits. The criticisms of Nike
seemed to fade away almost completely within a month of the incident.
● There was little impact on Nike besides a large scale embarrassment and some negative
press for the brand. There was also a minor stock value decrease which was quickly
erased.
● The key lessons learned were to be confident in your product before allowing a star like
Williamson to wear them in an important game on live television. Perhaps the shoes
should’ve been checked by someone from Nike before he played. Also, always take
responsibility for your brand’s shortcomings and respond quickly while people are talking
about it.
● Overall, the crisis was handled effectively and ethically. Nike took responsibility and
showed concern for Williamson. They even managed to get Williamson to sign a $75
million deal with their Jordan brand when he went professional.
● One thing that I would have done differently is explain why the shoe ended up breaking
in the game what the company did to fix the issue.

Wayfair Conspiracy Theory

In June and July of 2020, posts alleging that Wayfair was involved in sex trafficing missing
children began to appear on Instagram, Twitter, Youtube and Facebook (B.1, B.2). The first time
this theory appeared online was June 14. The posts claimed that there were unusually high
priced items on Wayfair’s website with names that corresponded to missing children. The theory
exploded around July 10 in the United States, but it also gained traction globally (B.3). The

4
posts were being shared rapidly on social media. The theory is believed to have started on
Reddit (B.4), and it is still widely believed by many that the company is guilty.

Operational and/or reputational threats faced by the organization in this case

● Crisis type: rumors
● The organization was responsible in part by naming the furniture with human names and
not clarifying why the items were priced so high. However, Wayfair had no role in
starting the rumors.
● The organization had never faced a crisis like this before.
● The crisis was severe during July and August and the company faced severe
reputational threats. Some people still believe the allegations. The rumors spread to
many social media users and were reported by major news outlets, although most
reporting on the issue confirmed that the rumors were most likely false (B.5, B.6).

Primary Publics
● The primary public in this crisis is Wayfair management and employees. They were most
at risk of being directly affected by the rumors if the company lost profit. The secondary
publics are potential Wayfair customers and the news media. The scandal could defer
people from shopping at Wayfair. It was also important to Wayfair that the news media
and social media users reported in a way that favored Wayfair.
● There had been no previous crisis causing a strain on the relationship between Wayfair
and its employees or customers.
● Currently, Wayfair is still in bad standing with some social media users who continue to
believe the rumors. However, they did not have a significant loss in profit.

How did news media and social media respond to and/or influence the crisis?

● Social media posts are what started the crisis and what caused it to become so widely
discussed.
● Posts about the scandal were shared hundreds of thousands of times on Twitter,
Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and TikTok. Although the posts were not supported by
evidence, they were believable to the public and created outrage towards Wayfair.
● Wayfair did not speak out on their social media accounts.
● Every major news outlet reported the story, and most news sources reported the rumors
to be false. Many people did their own research about Wayfair after learning about the
conspiracy from the news.

Organizational crises responses

● Wayfair took an advocating stance regarding the issue. They denied all of the claims
about sex trafficking and removed the expensive furniture from their website temporarily.
● Crisis response strategy: scapegoating (they turned the blame to outside parties and
denied all of the accusations)

5
 ● All Wayfair did in response to the rumors was release a short statement denying the
allegations. Otherwise, it seems that they want to separate their brand completely from
the rumors and not draw any more attention to them.

Evaluation
● Wayfair management responded by releasing a statement to several news outlets.
Wayfair’s employees did not seem to be affected by the crisis.
● If the scandal caused Wayfair to lose any customers, it was not evident in their profits or
stocks.
● There are social media users who still believe the sex trafficking rumors, but they are not
common and most likely were not loyal Wayfair customers to begin with.
● The organization did not lose profits. The main impact of the crisis was that Wayfair lost
trust among certain members of the public. Their reputation was put on stake, but the
rumors have mostly cleared up.
● One lesson that companies can learn from this is that they should respond to a crisis
before it blows up to the scale this one did. Wayfair should’ve commented sooner.
People were asking them to respond before they did, which should not have been
necessary and caused Wayfair to look more suspicious.
● Wayfair also should have released a statement to the public rather than only releasing it
to the news media. Perhaps they could’ve communicated through social media. They did
not engage with their customers to offer a genuine response and explanation. Their
statement left many unsatisfied.
● They could have communicated more effectively that these rumors were false, because
their statement lacked proof and was too short. I do think they handled the situation
ethically.

Boeing Plane Crashes

On March 10, 2019, a Boeing 737 Max jetliner crashed in Ethiopia, killing all 157 people on
board (C.1). The crash happened around 5 months after a different Boeing 737 Max jetliner
crashed soon after takeoff from Indonesia, killing 189 people. The March crash followed other
incidents of technical difficulties on Boeing flights in the months leading up to the crash. On
March 12, Boeing promised to update their flight control systems, and the next day the United
States grounded all Boeing 737 Max jets. Orders worth billions of dollars for the aircrafts were
cancelled, but Boeing denied that something was inherently wrong with the planes. They also
denied further review from the FFA. They faced lawsuits from investors on April 10 because
they were accused of hiding information to keep their stocks high. By April 15, American Airlines

6
and Southwest cancelled all Boeing 737 Max flights. On April 29, Boeing’s CEO defended the
plane’s safety to angry shareholders. On May 22, United Airlines cancelled all Boeing 737 Max
jet flights. Information came out that Boeing tried to cut corners to get their planes back into
commission again as the investigation of the crisis continued. CEO Dennis Muilenburg was fired
in December of 2019 after being criticized for not accepting blame and not doing enough to
ensure the safety of the aircraft. Currently, all Boeing 737 Max jetliners are still grounded.

Operational and/or reputational threats faced by the organization in this case

● Crisis type: operational disruptions from disasters, technical error accidents, unexpected
loss of key leadership
● Boeing was directly responsible for this crisis.
● Boeing experienced a fatal plane crash 5 months before the March 2019 plane crash.
● The crisis was severely damaging to the organization and its publics. They have not
recovered from the crisis and it is not certain that Boeing 737 Max jetliners will ever fly
again. There is little trust in the company from the public.
● Boeing said that the total amount they will lose from grounding the 373 Max jetliners is
around $18 billion (C.2).

Primary Publics
● The primary publics in this crisis are Boeing employees, families affected by the plane
crashes, Boeing investors, and airlines that were forced to ground the planes. The
secondary public is potential flyers.
● Boeing has dealt with safety issues starting before the two crashes, but they had good
employee relations and good relations with their stockholders before the crashes. They
are now in bad standing with their employees as they have had to fire thousands of
employees since the crisis, as they have also lost profits due to coronavirus. They plan
to layoff thousands more employees in the coming months, limiting Boeing’s job security
for employees.
● Boeing shares dropped from $400 to as low as $95 following the second crash, so
stockholders are not happy with the company. It was also suggested that Boeing
withheld information about the crashes from stockholders to discourage them from
selling their shares in the company.
● Airlines such as Southwest, American Airlines, and United Airlines are losing millions of
dollars because they have had to cancel Boeing flights. Therefore, Boeing is not in good
standing with many airlines who buy their aircrafts.
● The families of the victims of the crashes were sickened by the fact that Boeing’s ex-
CEO received at least $62 million from the company when he departed. He advocated
for the faulty planes to stay in the air. Muilenburg’s compensation package is nearly as
large as what the company offered the families of the victims.
● Boeing has also lost credibility with some potential flyers. In December of 2019, only
around a quarter of respondents to a poll said that they would feel safe on a Boeing 737
Max jetliner flight.

How did the news media and/or social media respond to or influence the crisis?

7
 ● The social media response to the crashes was one of outrage. Twitter users criticized
the company's bad response to the tragedy, criticizing the lack of empathy in their
response (C.3, C.4). Boeing was trending after both crashes (C.5).
● The crashes were covered by every major news outlet. Anyone who watches the news
or uses social media likely heard about the crashes within hours.
● News media also reported on Boeing’s loss of profit, the firing of their CEO, and
speculation as to whether or not the planes were ready to fly. They also reported on the
lawsuits against Boeing as well as tributes to the families of those who lost their lives.

Organizational crisis responses

● Boeing’s response was a mix of advocating and accommodative. They did not fully
accept the blame, but they did acknowledge that the Max 737 jet had defects. However,
they did claim that the planes were safe to fly before they actually were, and they said it
was a user error at one point.
● Crisis response strategy: excusing, apology, compensation
● Boeing offered monetary compensation to the victims' families.
● They promised to update their flight control systems.
● They fired their CEO after the crashes.

Evaluation

● Many people on social media were not happy with Boeing’s response, saying that it
lacked empathy and deflecting instead of accepting the blame.
● The crisis continues to impact the organization, as there is still a lack of trust for
consumers. However, in August 2020, Boeing received the first orders for Max 737 jets
since last November (C.6).
● Currently, Boeing Max 737 jets are still on the ground as a result of the crisis, and
Boeing has lost billions of dollars in profit as a result.
● Key lessons learned: show empathy in your crisis response, accept blame, be
transparent with all information regarding the crisis, do not bend the truth to try to keep
investors, be available to answer questions honestly.
● This crisis was not managed effectively. It resulted in loss of key leadership due to a lack
of transparency. Boeing should have accepted blame and been more open to the public
about what happened.
● To be more ethical, Boeing should have shown more empathy in their response. Over
100 people died, so they should have done more to remember them and support their
families. Their immediate response was to deflect blame, which showed that they cared
more about their own image than the lives lost.

8
 MIT Media Lab Connected to Jeffery Epstien

In August 2019, it was revealed that the MIT Media Lab, an interdisciplinary research laboratory
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had accepted multiple donations from sex
offender Jeffery Epstien in recent years (D.1). The Media Lab director as well as the president
of MIT apologized for the university’s relationship with Epstien (D.2). However, in September
2019, an article was published in “The New Yorker” exposing MIT’s relationship with Epstien
(D.3). The article revealed that Epstien provided much more funding to the Media Lab than was
originally reported in August, even though he was disqualified from donating to MIT. Reportedly,
Jeffery Epstien donated around $1.7 million to the lab over the course of the past decade (D.4).
Several researchers left the Media Lab as a result of its connection to Epstien, and Joi Ito,
director of the Media Lab, resigned after the article in “The New Yorker” was published (D.5).

Organizational and/or reputational threats faced by the organization in this case

● Crisis type: organizational misdeeds, unexpected loss of key leadership
● The organization was responsible for the crisis.
● MIT had not experienced a crisis of this nature before.
● MIT suffered reputational damage as a result of this. There was a loss of trust for the
MIT Media Lab.

Primary publics

9
 ● The primary publics are MIT Media Lab employees, other donors to MIT, and MIT staff
and students.
● The secondary publics are those considering attending MIT, those who may utilize
research done at MIT, and those who may donate to MIT.
● All publics were in good standing with the institution prior to the crisis. MIT is viewed as a
prestigious and trusted institution by the general public and by it’s students and
investors. Their research is generally trusted.
● The MIT staff that were aware of the donations from Epstein and worked to cover it up
are at fault for the crisis.
● The Media Lab has continued on with its normal operations, but several of its staff left
after the information regarding the crisis was revealed. Others spoke out about the
unhealthy work environment in the media lab, causing further criticism on social media.
Many MIT students spoke out about their disappointment in their university.
● Media Lab director Joi Ito received heavy criticism for taking the money. However, many
students and organizations came to his defense, saying that they would do the same
thing if they were in his position. Over 200 students and donors signed a petition urging
him not to resign from his position.

How did the news media and social media respond to and/or influence the crisis?
● Twitter users criticized MIT after the “The New Yorker” article went public. Many called
for Ito to step down, while others defended him. Some people who had worked in the
Media Lab in the past shared their experience. However, discussion about the crisis did
not last long after the article was released. I did not find much current discussion about it
on social media.
● “The New Yorker” broke the story that caused MIT to come under fire, and other news
media followed suit, doing deep dives into MIT’s relationship with Epstein and
interviewing current and past employees who were willing to talk. However, some media
outlets did cover the other side of the story. I saw some articles defending Ito and
quoting people who advised him to take the money from Epstien.

Organizational crisis responses

● MIT took an accommodative stance. They apologized rather than defending their
actions.
● Crisis response strategy:
● MIT president L. Rafael Reif and Media Lab director Joi Ito both issued separate
apologies.
● MIT announced an independent investigation of the donations and Epstien’s involvement
with the institution. They released a 61 page report following the investigation.
● The Media Lab came under new leadership following the crisis.

Evaluation
● The organization’s primary publics responded mostly with disappointment in the
university. Two Media Lab researchers stepped down, as well as the director. Many

10
 students publicly expressed disappointment as well. However, some students, faculty,
and donors came to the defense of Joi Ito.
● The crisis impacted the organization by decreasing trust in MIT as a university and the
MIT Media Lab’s research. Some people still have a negative view of MIT as a result of
this crisis.
● A key lesson learned is do not take money from controversial figures. If your
organization has to keep a donor a secret, it’s probably not a good idea to associate with
them.
● Some saw MIT’s apology as inauthentic since MIT was knowingly engaging in unethical
activity. However, I think that the response was ethical since they did investigate and
release a report on what they found. However, the investigation report wasn’t as
effective as it could have been because MIT had already caused many people not to
trust them.
● I think that this crisis was handled well. The one thing that I would have done differently
is give more detail on what good things the donations were used for.

Aer Lingus’s Packed Flight

A passenger on an Aer Lingus flight on May 4, 2020 posted a picture of the almost full airplane
cabin (E.1). He said that almost every seat on the plane was taken with no social distancing or
hand sanitizer. Aer Lingus had promised passengers that they would be following social
distancing guidelines, but those guidelines clearly were not being followed on the flight. The
airline released a statement following the accusation saying that they would review their
procedures in the future (E.2). However, Loganair’s chief executive, Jonathan Hinkles, said that
social distancing inside planes was impossible due to the economic cost and air filtration
system. Aer Lingus came out with new covid-19 safety precautions after the photo was posted
on social media and the company received a lot of online backlash from social media users
(E.3).

Organizational and/or reputational threats faced by the organization in this case

● Crisis type: organizational misdeeds
● Aer Lingus was responsible for this crisis.
● The company had never experienced a crisis of this nature before, especially since this
crisis was a result of covid-19.
● The crisis caused some reputational damage to the airline, but overall this was not a
severe crisis as it did not receive much news coverage.

Primary Publics
● The primary publics are Aer Lingus employees and Aer Lingus passengers that were put
at a higher risk of contracting covid-19 due to the airline’s failure to follow social
distancing and sanitation guidelines.
● The secondary public would be potential Aer Lingus passengers.

11
 ● Some Aer Lingus passengers were obviously upset and felt unsafe in their Aer Lingus
flight, which is what led them to post the photos.
● Aer Lingus did not suffer financially as a result of this crisis, so their employees were not
affected.
● The photos could have compelled some flyers to choose a different airline if they have to
fly during the pandemic, but most likely will not affect their decision once the pandemic is
over. If it did cause some people to choose a different airline, it was not reflected in Aer
Lingus’s profits following the crisis.

How did the news media and social media respond to and/or influence the crisis?
● Some news outlets like BBC and Reuters reported on the crisis, but it was not heavily
covered by the news media. Most people who knew about the crisis found out because
of social media.
● Aer Lingus was criticized on social media platforms like Twitter (E.4, E.5), but the crisis
did not trend worldwide. This is partly because the news was saturated with bigger
stories about the coronavirus at the time.

Organizational crisis responses

● The airline took an accommodative stance on the issue, changing their guidelines to
become more favorable to the public.
● Aer Lingus said in a statement following the photos that their top priority is the safety of
their flyers. They promised to review their covid-19 safety procedures.
● Loganair’s chief executive took a defensive response, saying that social distancing on
flights was impossible due to the high economic cost and air filtration system.
● Aer Lingus released new safety procedures on their website on May 29, 2020.
● Crisis response strategies: excusing and apology

Evaluation
● Aer Lingus’s new procedures did not get much news coverage, and the issue seemed to
disappear on social media within a few days.
● The crisis caused minor reputational damage to the airline and caused some of their
passengers to have bad experiences.
● Loganair’s chief executive received criticism for his non-accommodative response. His
response did not show the flexibility required for PR during a pandemic.
● Some key lessons learned are to accept the blame for your organization’s misdeeds and
be flexible and accommodative with your response to criticism. Make changes and learn
from your mistakes.
● I think the crisis was managed effectively and ethically since Aer Lingus addressed and
fixed the problem. I think this shows that they were being truthful when they said that
safety was their number one priority.
● One thing that I would have done differently is advised the Loganair chief executive on
how to respond to the crisis. His words made him seem like he doesn't care about safety
and isn't willing to make changes.

12
Appendix A

1.

2.

13
3.

4.

5.

14
6.

7.

Other sources used:

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/2/20/18234186/zion-williamson-knee-injury-reactions-
duke

15
https://www.oregonlive.com/collegebasketball/2019/02/nike-hammered-on-social-
media-after-dukes-zion-williamson-suffers-knee-injury-following-shoe-blowout.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/lebron-james-jersey-ripped-half-nike-problem-solve-
144518237.html?guccounter=1
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-zion-williamson-nike-shoes-twitter-
20190221-story.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/nike-promises-investigate-duke-star-zion-williamsons-
shoe/story?id=61205633
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffarnold/2019/02/21/nike-cast-into-spotlight-after-duke-
freshman-williamson-blows-out-shoe-sustains-injury/#11c989583d79

16
Appendix B

1.

2.

17
3.

4.

18
5.

6.

Other sources
used:

19
https://www.fox6now.com/news/wayfair-denies-reddit-human-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-
theory
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/baseless-wayfair-child-trafficking-
theory-spreads-online/2020/07/16/f5206c10-c7aa-11ea-a825-8722004e4150_story.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53416247
https://www.businessinsider.com/wayfair-denies-sex-trafficking-claims-involving-
expensive-cabinets-2020-7

Appendix C

1.

20
 2.

3.

4.

21
5.

6.

22
Other sources used:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-timeline-history-full-details-2019-
9#also-in-january-internal-boeing-emails-and-messages-surfaced-in-which-employees-
mocked-the-faa-airline-customers-and-discussed-safety-concerns-related-to-the-737-
max-70
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-viz-boeing-737-max-crash-timeline-
04022019-story.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/10/ex-boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-will-not-get-
severance-payment-in-departure.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/27/boeing-to-begin-laying-off-thousands-of-employees-
this-week.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/05/27/boeing-resumes-737-max-
production-after-announcing-over-12000-job-cuts/#75e7825a5fcf

Appendix D

1.

23
 2.

3.

24
4.

5.

25
Other sources used:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/business/media/mit-media-lab-jeffrey-epstein-
joichi-ito.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-an-elite-university-research-center-
concealed-its-relationship-with-jeffrey-epstein
https://www.furiarubel.com/what-were-up-to/nonprofit-crisis-case-studies-tips-for-crisis-
planning-from-mit-media-lab-and-wounded-warrior-project/
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/10/21060506/jeffrey-epstein-mit-report-donation-
scandal-rafael-reif-investigation

Appendix E

1.

26
2.

3.

27
4.

5.

28
Other sources used:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52539141
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-aer-lingus/aer-lingus-says-
reviewing-social-distancing-procedures-after-packed-flight-idUSKBN22H0QS
https://blog.aerlingus.com/new-measures-for-your-wellbeing-and-safety/
https://prohibitionpr.co.uk/public-relations/crisis-management/top-11-pr-crises-in-2020-
so-far/

29