Welcome to Crisis Chronicles: insights on news, current affairs and reputation management.

January 26, 2026
By Brad Chase
One of the most frustrating things in reputation and crisis management is watching a company shoot itself in the foot by dithering and delaying making necessary public statements when it's clearly at fault but runs and hides -- turning a minor issue into a crisis.
SoFi, a $30 billion private financial institution, today sent out an email about a hack of consumer personally identifiable information (PII)...from January 2nd.
Given the constant security breaches we hear about every day, it's not a novel story. And like most breaches, the downside for customers appears to be limited. Just another data breach. Sigh.
But how on Earth do you wait 3+ weeks to share any information with customers? Sure, you need to take some time to get facts straight, work with the authorities, etc. But three 3+ weeks screams incompetence or coverup, plus a heaping side order of disdain.
- Scenario 1: The CEO is too ignorant or stubborn to understand that reputation is the number one driver of a company's value (arrogant CEO)
- Scenario 2: The CEO places no value on accountability and has no regard for customers as an essential part of making profit (uncaring CEO)
- Scenario 3: The CEO relies on marketing and legal to lead reputation management (uninformed C-Suite)
- Scenario 4: A Chief Communications Officer (CCO) or SVP who's unable to fight for what's right (poor hiring by CEO)
It's almost always one of the first three, if not all three.
Even in this crazy ass world that seems to be crumbling by the day, people have an unfailing capacity to forgive. But when you delay or deflect, you cede your chance at forgiveness.Instead of the most basic attempt at transparency, SoFi has turned a commonplace issue into a crisis of trust. If you're a senior executive at a company with a CEO that doesn't have an empowered CCO, you'll find out the consequences soon enough.
Reputation giveth and crisis taketh

April 05, 2024
By Brad Chase
Many people say they’re amazing communicators or claim they’re a “people person.” But professional communications in the real world is a different ballgame than how someone is with friends, in the neighborhood or even sitting around the water cooler.
And if you’ve spent any time in the field, you know that communications strategies are meaningless if they don’t align with and have an impact on organizational strategies. If your communications doesn’t drive bottom line results, no leader will listen to you.
Cold raw data is the currency of choice in every boardroom, but communications is notoriously difficult to quantify. Reputation? Trust? Virtually impossible to measure. There have been many great data-driven innovations in recent years to better track metrics and establish KPIs, but still, there’s always going to be a huge amount of subjectivity.
Nonetheless, there are three stats I like to share that mean something to the smartest leaders I’ve worked with over the years.
Without seeming too glib, this is why there is no shortage of business opportunities in this line of work. If you’re a startup founder, an established business leader or an icon of your industry, there’s no escaping these numbers. So the question is, will your company step up now to put in the investment needed to develop a deliberate and thoughtful crisis plan with actionable playbook? Or wait until after the storm has already hit to pay a premium for lower return? Although the vast majority of crises are manageable without becoming existential threats, there’s little doubt that the long-term damage is exponentially bigger when reputation is defended in the heat of the moment without a proper plan.
To me, looking at it from a business standpoint, both cases will always be there so I take no position. But I’ve worked for some soulless firms, companies and clients and I turn down as much business as I take in. I have no interest in taking every dollar just to feel bad at the end of the day about the work.
To readers questioning the need: the choice is obvious, will you make the right one?

March 06, 2024
By Brad Chase
No comment. It’s one of the absolute worst possible responses you can give when faced with a question from a reporter. We’ve all seen it on TV when the lawyer walking outside the courtroom says “no comment” on behalf of their client. This amps up the dramatic stakes and tension for the viewer — but it’s never ever ever ever a good thing.
Sure, there are times when a tin foil hat wearer throws out some bizarre conspiracy theory and you’re faced with a question you shouldn’t even dignify. But even then, you say something that demonstrates the lunacy of the question.
If you know you’re “guilty” and don’t have much of a defense, you still say something. Even “we intend to vigorously defend ourselves” — another of the ten worst comments you can give — is better than “no comment.”
There’s always something that can be said, something generic like “we’re horrified by these allegations and have begun a full investigation.” It says very little, but at least it makes you look like you have some shred of humanity.
This is why I always snicker when I see “no comment.” It makes it very clear that the CEO of the company is a useless leader. That may seem harsh. But if you’re the CEO of a company, like Glow Recipe, and you produce makeup for children that is potentially giving them horrible side effects and you completely ignore major news outlets that come calling with legitimate questions — you are out of your depth. Health and safety must always be paramount for your customers and team members. Period.
Maybe the comms team is weak, or the reporter didn’t give enough time. But gone are the days of receiving a media inquiry and having until the end of the day before it goes to print. They run the story and add a quote after it’s gone public. Horrible journalism. This is 2024 for you. And this story about Glow Recipe has gone five days without a comment. It doesn’t matter if it’s malice or malpractice, if you can’t do the bare minimum, your company likely has far bigger problems.
Every time you see it from a company that you know, take a moment to reconsider buying their products, partnering with them, accepting a job, etc. The “no comment” response is a bellwether that shouldn’t be ignored.

February 09, 2024
By Brad Chase
One crisis I’ve been following for weeks surrounds Purina, one of the most well-known brands in the pet world. Allegations have surfaced that their popular Pro Plan dog food has led to the poisoning of several dogs, allegedly resulting in at least 10 deaths. My background in extensive reputation management within this industry, coupled with the recent loss of a beloved cat to poisoning, drew my immediate attention to a report published by NBC News. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/animal-news/purina-says-pet-food-safe-amid-allegations-sick-animals-rcna134275)I was struck by the lack of specifics (death certificates, experts on the record, etc.), Purina’s relative lack of forcefulness in its statement and the curious mention most of the way through a long article about how the people alleging the deaths are linked to selling products for other competing brands. Um, hello?!? A massive conflict of interest is a serious red flag. Sadly, too many companies and individuals will use everything but the kitchen sink in trying to defend against attacks, but the credibility of the driving force behind the story is priority one for any reporter.As weeks have passed, I waited to see if additional reports would come out with more evidence. It hasn’t. The only real update so far is from Snopes, a fairly reliable long-time debunker of hoaxes and conspiracies, which says they’ve asked for necropsies from the individuals making the allegations and haven’t heard back. Something smells fishy and I’m certain it’s not the pricey Purina Pro Plan LiveClear salmon and rice cat food that I buy in bulk.I felt pretty quickly that Purina was likely not liable here and I’m now ready to move on, both as a consumer with a moderate concern and as a crisis management professional with an analyst’s eye. It’s tough amid journalism’s continued decline in personnel, but I have to put blame on the reporter at NBC News — and their editors — for greenlighting a story like this. This has always been an issue, reporters using a lazy excuse that “they’re just reporting and it’s for the public to make the decision.” Most reporters/editors/producers will kill a story, but some are dead set on reporting once their inner sense of righteousness has been breached. There’s no need to attack the so-called victims or whistleblowers, but a much higher standard of care was needed to vet the allegations (no pun intended) in this claim.NBC is an awesome and very reliable legacy news outlet — not as great as it used to be, but still a beacon of truth in this horrible age of misinformation. But this story gets four paws down for sensationalist garbage reporting.

February 07, 2024
By Moa Crucchiola
Levi Strauss & Co.'s partnership with Lalaland.ai in March 2023 to use AI for creating diverse models sparked significant backlash and viral attention, critiquing the move as a step away from genuine diversity and inclusivity. This reaction from the internet and coverage by major news outlets highlighted the communications challenges and potential risks to LS&Co's reputation, sales and investments.
In a world where AI is being integrated into every part of our lives, it is no surprise that LS&Co would want to implement it as a part of its strategy and position themselves at the forefront of technological innovation in the fashion industry. But leveraging AI to create diverse models doesn’t demonstrate the same commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion as the company might have thought. In their subsequent response, Levi’s acknowledged the program's misrepresentation and affirmed their commitment to real models and live photoshoots.
The Levi Strauss & Co. incident underscores for companies and communications professionals the critical balance between embracing innovation and respecting societal values, emphasizing that successful strategies should harmonize technological advancements with a deep commitment to inclusivity and genuine representation. Decision-makers should never stray away from aligning their company’s core values with their actions.

January 19, 2024
by Brad Chase
Allegations of bribery. A $200 million fine from the the U.S. government. Criminal investigation across four continents. This SAP scandal has all sorts of juicy content. As the issue is nearing its end, are there any crisis management lessons to be learned? It’s almost always impossible to see what happens behind the scenes — which comms leader team is acting professionally and honorably, which CEO is engaged and responsive, which companies are throwing massive heaps of dirt. This is always an exercise in armchair assessment.
But like all things in the business world, you’re measured on your results. And the end of the story came with an Associated Press story that wrote up the settlement as a simple matter-of-fact, even noting the statement from U.S. DOJ commending SAP for its cooperation. $200 million is a pittance for a company like SAP and the C-Suite and Board are likely elated to have this thing over and done. It will continue to appear in financial quarterly and year-end reports for the year, and the next time SAP is caught up in allegations, this issue will arise. Yet, kudos to the company for making it through with relatively minimal damage to its reputation.
The moral of the story: cooperation and transparency aren’t just keywords. When organizations truly and authentically cooperate, the key audiences (the feds in this case) will work with you instead of trying to bury you. And even the media will give you a small break. Every executive has a preferred news outlet that they would love to be featured in — and never reported about for bad things like international bribery schemes — but AP is the tops for a comms pro. This is the story that will go further and widest, and will last the longest. So again, kudos to the SAP comms team and/or the executives who led this response.

January 25, 2024
by Brad Chase
Amid the last week’s dizzying news of troubles at long-running, beloved legacy media outlets like Sports Illustrated, Pitchfork and Los Angeles [Times], Bloomberg released an interesting report about a new role in newsrooms. Reporter Simone Foxman is taking up a new beat: “exploring how Wall Street and the business world are dealing with social and cultural issues.”
It wasn’t long ago that I had to fight CEOs to open their mouth to talk about anything outside of OPEX, ARPU, profit margins, and M&A. Each new business meeting had everyone on the team talking about the need for thought leadership, but when push came to shove, the CEOs refused to say anything on the safest of topics. Like little lemurs, my clients would peek their heads out and hide. The counsel was never to take on the hot-button social issues like abortion, but just on obvious social problems like bad behavior.
Most were eventually coaxed out and found that they loved the positive attention they received by contributing to discussions on topics of broad public agreement, even if there was no consensus on the solutions. I’d like to think those CEOs have become better prepared for the post-COVID/post-January 6th business world, where silence is simply no longer an option for companies.
The advice will always to be to exercise maximum caution and only speak when knowledgable on a subject, but the volume of issues that require a position are increasing at an exponential rate. The Israel-Hamas war continues to polarize and while there may not be any one “best” solution, the Harvard/Penn disaster in Congress showed that there is definitely a “wrong” solution. In this election year, CEOs and companies will need to talk more openly about their positions.
This is a trend I anticipated following the 2016 election and the consulting business I co-founded descended into playground bullying of corporate America. At Chase Global, it’s all about looking forward and embracing these issues as an opportunity to show a leader’s approach and thought process. It is a delicate balancing act of saying enough to demonstrate awareness and compassion without saying too much that can be parsed and torn apart. It’s with a sense of pride that we see Bloomberg dedicating a position to watching this beat. The age of Chief Trust Officers in the C-Suite has begun in earnest.

CRISIS CHRONICLES

Welcome to Crisis Chronicles: insights on news, current affairs and reputation management.