Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
High-profile brand crises rarely have one cause: a campaign can misread a social issue, an operational failure can become a reputational crisis, and a product-safety problem can demand more than a polished post. Pepsi’s 2017 ad and United Airlines’ response to a passenger-removal incident show why acknowledgment and speed matter; later cases involving workplace allegations, advertising controls, business conduct, and product safety show why words must be matched by operational follow-through.
What makes a social media fail—and what does not?
A “social media fail” is often shorthand for a public-facing brand mistake that spreads on social platforms. The trigger may be a post or campaign, but it may also be an incident outside social media that people discuss there. Treating every case as a bad tweet obscures the actual problem and the response it requires.
For a useful comparison, ask what triggered the backlash, who was affected, whether the organization acknowledged that impact, how clearly and promptly it responded, what changed, and whether it identified a concrete next step. The cases below differ in cause and evidence; none proves a response formula that will work in every crisis.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsPepsi: an ad criticized for trivializing protest
Pepsi’s 2017 campaign featuring Kendall Jenner drew criticism for appearing to use protest imagery to sell a soft drink. On April 5, Pepsi said its intended message was “a global message of unity, peace and understanding,” then acknowledged that it had failed to convey that intent. The company said it would remove the content and halt further rollout, and apologized to Jenner. Read Pepsi’s April 5, 2017 statement.
#1 Best Overall
That statement documented a prompt, concrete response to the campaign itself: withdrawal rather than a defense of the creative. It does not establish that every audience accepted the apology or that the reputational harm was fully repaired. In a 2017 Bentley University interview, marketing professor Henri Weijo described Pepsi as pulling the ad and apologizing quickly, in contrast with United’s initial response. That is his assessment at the time, not a prediction of either company’s long-term outcomes. Read Weijo’s Bentley University interview.
The scale of online discussion is also a reminder that removal does not make a controversy disappear immediately. Marketing Week reported that Brandwatch monitoring recorded a 21,675% day-over-day increase in Pepsi mentions between April 3 and April 5, 2017. Those are historical monitoring figures reported by a trade publication, not current platform-wide statistics or an independently audited measure presented here. See Marketing Week’s 2017 report.
United Airlines: an operational incident compounded by its response
United’s 2017 Flight 3411 crisis began with a passenger being removed from a flight, not with a social post. Images and discussion spread online, turning an operational incident into a public test of how the airline treated an affected passenger and how it would respond. In the Bentley interview, Weijo characterized United as slow to apologize and described its initial “We’re looking into the matter” response as a non-apology. That description is Weijo’s judgment; it is not a direct quotation from United.
Marketing Week reported Brandwatch figures showing United mentions rose 9,968% in the first 24 hours and exceeded 2.5 million across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram from April 9 to April 11, 2017. These dated figures illustrate the scale of online attention in that episode; they do not establish the incident’s long-term financial effect or a general relationship between mentions and business harm. Read the report and its attribution.
The contrast with Pepsi is not simply that one company apologized and the other did not. The underlying events were different: Pepsi could withdraw a campaign, while United faced an operational incident involving a person. A response to the latter needed to address the person affected and the substance of what happened, alongside any public statement. A holding line that says only that an organization is investigating can sound inadequate when it leaves those questions unanswered.
Other crises show why the trigger matters
Marketing Week’s roundup also discussed crises that cannot be reduced to social-post mistakes. Google faced advertiser concerns about ads appearing beside extremist content, raising questions about placement controls. BrewDog drew criticism in a dispute with an independent pub, centering business conduct. Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 safety failures required a response to a product problem. Marketing Week covered these examples.
These cases widen the lesson: the right corrective action depends on the source of the failure. A campaign may need to be withdrawn; an ad-placement problem calls for examining controls; a dispute about conduct requires addressing that conduct; and a safety crisis demands attention to the product and the people who may be at risk. Public communication is one part of the response, not a substitute for fixing the underlying issue.
McDonald’s UK: announced steps after workplace allegations
In July 2023, McDonald’s UK and Ireland CEO Alistair Macrow responded to workplace allegations by describing plans for an investigation handling unit, an independent assessment of escalation protocols, and actions intended to strengthen confidence in speaking up. Macrow wrote: “It is not enough to have safeguarding processes – they must operate consistently to the highest levels.” Read Macrow’s July 21, 2023 statement.
Best Value
This is an organizational accountability example, not a failure that originated in a social post. The statement shows that the response addressed processes and escalation as well as public communication. It records announced plans, but does not by itself establish that every action was completed or effective.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How brand teams can apply the lessons
Use a review that connects the public message to the real-world problem. It should help a team identify the affected people, establish what is known, choose an appropriate immediate action, and make later accountability visible without claiming results that have not been verified.
- Identify the trigger. Determine whether the issue is a campaign, an operational incident, a control failure, workplace conduct, or a product-safety problem. Do not frame a problem as a communications issue alone when its cause is elsewhere.
- Name the affected people and the impact. Check whether the response addresses those directly affected, rather than focusing only on the brand’s intent or reputation.
- Establish the facts before asserting conclusions. Say what is known, what is being checked, who is responsible for checking it, and when the organization will provide an update. Avoid presenting an investigation as a resolution.
- Match words with an immediate action. Depending on the trigger, that could mean removing a campaign, reviewing a process, correcting a control failure, or responding to a safety issue. State what has actually happened, not merely what is under consideration.
- Give a specific follow-up. Identify the next review or escalation step and how the organization will communicate its outcome. Do not imply that a promised action is complete until there is evidence it has been carried out.
- Review the system that allowed the issue. Ask whether approval, escalation, safety, or speaking-up processes worked consistently, and assign responsibility for addressing any gap.
Pepsi’s withdrawal shows a direct response to a campaign problem; the United coverage underscores how a response can be judged inadequate when it does not sufficiently acknowledge an incident and those affected. The Google, BrewDog, Samsung, and McDonald’s examples point to different underlying problems and therefore different forms of follow-through. The comparison is useful precisely because it does not treat one apology or one communications tactic as a universal fix.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
