Crisis Review 2024 Part 1: 28-22
Crisis Review 2024 Part 2: 21-15
Crisis Review 2024 Part 3: 14-8


7. Global brands seek to minimise damage from local action

American companies are increasingly finding themselves mired in crises sparked by the actions of franchisees and other affiliated entities, creating reputational and financial damage in 2024 and beyond. These crises often stem from actions taken without corporate approval, further fueled by the rapid dissemination of information on social media.

One stark example involved McDonald’s, whose Israeli franchise offered free meals to soldiers during the Gaza War. This led to widespread boycotts from pro-Palestinian advocates and exposed fractures among franchisees in Muslim-majority countries. The situation escalated to the point where McDonald’s corporate in April bought back all 225 Israeli franchises from Alonyal Limited to regain control over messaging and actions taken in its name.

Similarly, Coca-Cola faced backlash after a Bangladeshi franchise released an ad featuring a shopkeeper clarifying that Coke wasn’t an Israeli product and mentioning a factory in Palestine. This inaccurate characterization, highlighting a bottling plant in East Jerusalem (an Israeli settlement considered illegal under international law), provoked criticism and intensified boycotts. While the franchise pulled the ad, Coca-Cola’s corporate silence on the issue invited further scrutiny, with industry observers suggesting the global giant should have handled the crisis more decisively.

Starbucks also became entangled in controversy when its union, Starbucks Workers United, shared pro-Palestinian messages on social media, causing reputational harm. Starbucks, which owns rather than franchises most of its stores, sued the union for trademark infringement, aiming to disassociate the company from the unauthorized statements. However, the damage had already been done, with boycotts in the Middle East significantly affecting regional sales.

These incidents underscore a growing challenge: balancing global corporate control with the realities of local autonomy. A 2024 Ipsos Reputational Council report revealed that striking the right balance between global messaging and local adaptability is a top concern for CCOs. While 85% of CCOs agreed that maintaining a long-term commitment to local markets is crucial, only 34% strongly supported granting local teams high authority over communications.

“Smart companies are doing less top-down singular communication and more bottom-up local listening,” said Chris Deri, Weber Shandwick’s chief corporate affairs officer, who also serves as president of the agency’s C-suite advisory service. “If you’re a global brand and you have a cacophony of messaging, you risk presenting conflicting narratives and undermining your core values.”

To address these challenges, companies are formalizing guidelines to clarify what franchisees and employees can and cannot do under the corporate banner. This includes setting parameters for marketing and community engagement to minimize unauthorized actions that can lead to public backlash. “What companies have discovered in recent years is that there’s a lot of gray space around internal stakeholders’ rights and responsibilities,” Deri said.

The consequences of failing to manage these dynamics effectively are far-reaching. For instance, local competitors have seized opportunities to fill gaps left by struggling multinational brands, threatening their market positions. In the Middle East, Starbucks’ sales plummeted by up to 40% in some areas, leading to job losses for thousands of employees.

“Franchisees are critical to shaping brand and reputation – in one regard they contribute to delivering on the brand experience and in another, they are a key stakeholder that needs to be managed because their actions and prevailing attitudes amplify reputation. When franchisees go rogue, it puts the brand experience and resultant reputation at risk,” said RepTrak global executive VP Stephen Hahn.

While corporate actions can mitigate some risks, external factors such as unrelenting political discord and the influence of social media continue to amplify the impact of these crises. As one corporate leader put it, “If your employee base has issues and concerns, it doesn’t matter what you’re doing—you’re on faulty ground.”

Ultimately, the geopolitical landscape and cultural tensions mean that US companies operating internationally must remain vigilant. Their American origins often make them symbols—or scapegoats—for broader critiques of globalization, adding another layer of complexity to managing crises abroad. As one observer noted, “Global brands have long been targets for expressing aspirations or criticisms about globalization. The shift toward regionalization only intensifies that narrative.”—Diana Marszalek

6. Crowdstrike faces outage outrage

In terms of sheer global impact, there were few crises in 2024 that quite matched the global IT outage on 19th July caused by a single CrowdStrike update. With a near 24% share of the global endpoint protection market, the outage impacted around 8.5 million Windows devices globally, disrupting banks, hospitals, emergency services, railways and airlines.

Parametrix data have suggested that Fortune500 companies (Microsoft aside) face loses in the region of $5.4 billion, of which only $550 million – $1.08 billion were likely to be insured. Aggregate financial losses could potentially hit $15 billion, with global insurers set to lose $1.5 – $3 billion.

Looking at the media response, crisis expert Rod Cartwright says: “The outage, its causes and the global impact naturally dominated the media and social media agenda for a number of days. Indeed, analysis by Carma pointed to over 14,517 articles, 12,200 posts on X and 155m overall impressions as of 12 August 2024, with more than 60% of the coverage appearing in the first 48 hours.

“At the time, I suggested that it was too early to draw definitive lessons or to say whether that response would fall into the good, bad or ugly category. Looking in the rearview mirror six months on - and taking into account the current health of CrowdStrike’s business – it feels like that response was pretty well-judged and effective.”

Currently, CrowdStrike’s share price is sitting at $357 a share – just eight percentage points down on the stock’s all-time high the week before the outage and 39 percentage points up on its post-crisis low.

The firm’s stock is also now enjoying 96% buy ratings – notwithstanding an ongoing lawsuit from Delta Airlines. Delta is alleging negligence and seeking damages beyond the typical refund limits stipulated in CrowdStrike's contracts, to help cover the airline’s estimated $500 losses, due to cancelled flights and operational disruptions.

According to media intelligence firm Truescope, reports highlighted Crowdstrike’s integration of AI, as well as being a part of Warburg Pincus.

There were also mentions of Crowdstrike’s stocks and the unveiling of Falcon Complete Next-Gen Managed Detection and Response (MDR) to prevent cyber breaches.Articles covered Crowdstrike’s managed detection response (MDR) in TechnologyPlan for Wilmington School Committee, an effort to increase their focus on cybersecurity.



Negative sentiment focused on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s purchase of stock inCrowdStrike Holdings, perceiving it as potential conflict of interest in her role in the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology and Government Innovation.

So, what made the response so effective in the long-term and is the firm’s relatively rapid business recovery down to effective communication alone?


Cartwright says: “For starters, CrowdStrike’s CEO, George Kurtz, made a pretty full and unreserved personal apology on NBC News’s early morning bulletin around eight hours after the original update, with a formal blog statement shared on X around seven hours later.

“Many criticised CrowdStrike’s initial, technically-led approach to communication, suggested it lacked detail and empathy. However, as a subcontractor to Microsoft – facing a wall of potential contractual and contingent liability across countless legal systems – the lawyers, insurers and investors will have played it off-the-scale safe in the early hours, for right or wrong.”

More importantly, says Cartwright, “As crucial as empathy is, ‘operationalising’ that empathy with concrete action even more crucial. There’s always an unavoidable trade-off between speed of movement in apologising/showing empathy and having enough operational remediation detail to be able to match empathic contrition with demonstrable action. Without that, even the most heartfelt apology can quickly look like warm words and CrowdStrike looks to have found that often-elusive balance.”

Crucially, he says CrowdStrike’s relatively rapid recovery may stem from the fact that this was a ‘capability’-led crisis, as opposed to a ‘character’ scandal.

“In The Reputation Game, David Waller and Rupert Younger distinguish between capability reputation, ‘how well you are perceived to perform a task’ and character reputation, ‘your perceived moral and social qualities’. They argue that ‘capability reputation is hard to damage and easy to repair, whereas character reputation is easy to damage and hard to repair’. This capability focus is arguably a key feature of the CrowdStrike crisis and driver of its ultimate trajectory, with markets sometimes seen to ‘price in’ the inevitability of periodic technology-led events.”

However, he points out that a fundamental facet of the story is that CrowdStrike's standard contract terms significantly limit its liability, with most customers only able recover fees paid to the company, rather than contingent liabilities such as lost revenue or additional damages.

In short, says Cartwright, “CrowdStrike’s initial response, which balanced CEO transparency with a focus on fixing the problem and operationalising empathy – combined with the capability-led nature of the crisis and distinct limitations on the firm’s liabilities – underline the critical importance of aligning effective crisis communication with operational crisis management.” — Maja Pawinska Sims

5. McDonald’s updates the crisis playbook

Last year was a banner year for food recalls. Axios reported that such recalls nearly doubled between 2012 and 2024, according to Food & Drug Administration data, hitting a new peak in the fiscal year that ended in September with products ranging from onions to eggs to ice-cream impacted.

In September, Boar’s Head made headlines after announcing the recall of more than 200,000 pounds of meat after the Maryland Department of Health found that a sample of Boar’s Head liverwurst tested positive for the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria.

The Boar’s Head crisis would undoubtedly have featured prominently on this list if it wasn’t for what happened next. A food safety crisis featuring a high-profile brand like McDonald’s, 104 confirmed cases of Escherichia coli tied to slivered onions on the restaurant company’s Quarter Pounders.

The day the US Centers of Disease Control announced an investigation into the outbreak, the company released a video message featuring president of McDonald’s USA Joe Erlinger, explaining the recall, the company’s cooperation with CDC, and its “commitment to food safety.” The next day, the corporate communications team issued a statement promising a review of food safety protocols.

Internal communications was a priority too, with North America chief supply chain officer Cesar Piña sharing information with employees and reiterating the company’s commitment to customer safety. Piña continued to provide updates—internally and externally—and to post additional videos explaining the situation.

Quarter pounders were back on the McDonald’s menu within a week, but the company continued to communicate, with both Erlinger and Piña appearing on television to talk about the crisis. And of course the company used all of its social media channels to keep stakeholders informed.

According to Truescope, netizens expressed weariness towards McDonald’s, emphasising “questionable ingredients and food handling process” and “downhill quality” of food. Some claimed that they may stop eating at McDonalds, while a few asserted that it was not their preferred fast food.

There were sarcastic remarks that the outbreak was due to President Trump’s visit to one of the outlets, while others claimed that the outbreak was merely propaganda constructed by the Democrats.



Others questioned whyMcDonald’s wasn’t shut down while being investigated.Netizens enquired why only the Quarter Pounders were affected, despite most ofMcDonald's burgers containing onions. They also asked which farms and which states the onions were sourced from.

Caution was raised regarding other fast food chains and the importance of home cooked meals were highlighted, perceiving it to be healthier. Netizens questioned why it was labelled as “McDonald’s E. coli” when the cause of the bacteria was the onions, which came from external suppliers.

Denise Bentele, founder and CEO of Common Ground PR, described the response as “Clear, consistent, and customer-focused” and said it “exemplified crisis best practices,” a view shared by the crisis experts we spoke to. Said Alex Dudley, head of crisis communications at Mike Worldwide: “Sometimes the elephant can dance. An impressive display from a well-organized and highly skilled team that proves crisis preparedness works.”


In her blog post, Bentele said: “McDonald’s leadership has done an excellent job so far… The straightforward information on this webpage is transparent and authentic. It’s everything a crisis communications advisor suggests: keep it simple, honest and clear; update with new information as you have it.”

Erlinger’s videos, meanwhile, “add a valuable human dimension. He offers specifics that answer obvious questions and demonstrate his commitment to the company. No long-winded mission statements or deflecting corporate speak. Just practical, customer and team focused language that reinforces the urgency and concern.”—Paul Holmes

4. Boeing's reputation takes a dive, after another turbulent year

Even for a company seemingly perpetually embroiled in crises, 2024 was an exceptionally turbulent year for Boeing. Still grappling with the fallout from the deadly 737 MAX disasters five years prior—which claimed 346 lives and cast doubt on its ability to meet aviation safety standards—Boeing faced yet another near-catastrophe.

In early January, an Alaska Airlines flight operating a Boeing 737 MAX 9 experienced a door plug blowout mid-air, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage and forcing an emergency landing.

The incident reignited scrutiny over production and design flaws while spotlighting persistent cultural and operational failures within the company. The FAA ordered the grounding of 737 MAX 9 aircraft.

A subsequent investigation found multiple infractions, including inadequate personnel training, noncompliance with quality control requirements, and safety lapses. The agency concluded that Boeing had failed to implement sufficient corrective actions following the 737 MAX tragedies of 2018 and 2019.

Adding to the turmoil, more than 33,000 machinists went on strike in September, rejecting Boeing’s contract proposal and highlighting grievances over job security, benefits, and workplace conditions. The strike lasted seven weeks and caused significant production delays. On Thursday, Boeing reported that the slew of issues cost the company nearly $4 billion in Q4 alone.

According to Truescope, netizens focused on the stagnation of the workers’ wages and compared it to the pay raise that the CEO received before. It was reported that workers aimed for better job security, more time off, and higher wages to make up for years of inflation.

Encouragements were offered to the workers while some asserted that Boeing should provide a better offer to them. A few sarcastically remarked that the strike would not affect the company since safety and production were not their main priority.

Netizens hoped that the situation would get settled quickly so that both the company and their workers would not be affected severely. Others observed that the strike could affect suppliers, airlines, and passengers.



Some stated that workers should be paid according to the quality of products they produced. There were claims that Boeing offered the workers proper compensation, despite problems with quality of products being made. Others questioned why they were demanding for more compensation, perceiving their craftsmanship to be poor.

“Boeing is the poster child for a horrible litany of issues and crises mixed up in one,” said SenateSHJ partner Craig Badings. “If ever genuine cultural and procedural reforms are needed to restore public trust, Boeing is it.”


Carreen Winters, MikeWorldWide president of reputation management, said that from a communications perspective, Boeing’s handling of the crisis has run the gamut. She praised the company for responding to safety concerns with “a heavy dose of accountability,” but noted Boeing lost its edge in salvaging its reputation during the workers' strike when it used language that “was perceived as both tone deaf and threatening by workers and quickly escalated a situation.”

“It would be hard to imagine that anything could be more damaging to a company like Boeing than a widespread safety concern. And ultimately, communications will not be able to ‘fix’ or even necessarily mitigate the damage done by such a significant string of operational and business failures. The road back to trustworthiness will be a long one, and effective communications will only be one piece of the puzzle,” Winters said.

Boeing is continuing its effort to restore its reputation and regain its stature as a premiere aerospace company.

In October, two months after taking over as CEO, Kelly Ortberg told investment analysts that Boeing has lost its iconic status and needed a "fundamental culture change."

Since then, he has made a number of senior management changes including naming Ann Schmidt, who has been with the company since 2005, as senior VP of communications, the eighth person in the past eight years to lead the company’s brand and communications function.

“I hope Boeing has also learned that in times like this it will also need to deliver transparent communication not only on the road to reputation recovery but also about any setbacks it may have,” said Badings. “Only that will help rebuild trust because accountability at times like this is the path to resolution and reform.”—Diana Marszalek

3. Ticketmaster takes centre stage, again…

After appearing in 2022's crisis review thanks to its disastrous roll-out of tickets for Taylor Swift’s historic Eras Tour, Ticketmaster’s operational and reputational troubles continued throughout 2024.

In May the ticket site suffered a significant data breach, when an unauthorized party accessed a cloud database hosted by a third-party data services provider, compromising personal information, including payment card details, of millions of customers. The hacking group ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the breach, alleging they had stolen data from over 500 million individuals.

Ticketmaster promptly initiated an investigation and assured users that their Ticketmaster accounts remained secure. The company emphasized its commitment to data protection and transparency, providing updates through official channels.

Days later, the firm was in trouble again, finding itself centre stage in a legal drama that could rival any rock opera. The US Department of Justice (DOJ), backed by a coalition of 29 states, hit Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster, with a blockbuster antitrust lawsuit. The accusation? Using their dominant position to stifle competition in the live concert industry, leaving fans, artists, and venues singing the blues over high prices and limited choices.

But this wasn't just a solo act by the DOJ. Fans of megastars like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé also took legal action, accusing Ticketmaster of orchestrating a symphony of price gouging. They claimed the company conspired with others to inflate ticket prices, turning the dream of seeing their idols into a costly nightmare.

Ticketmaster's response? A classic defense riff. They argued that the DOJ's lawsuit was off-key, suggesting it wouldn't lead to lower ticket prices or service fees. They emphasized the crescendo of competition in the live events market, noting that their market share had actually decreased since 2010.

Despite their efforts to strike a harmonious chord, the public and media response was anything but a standing ovation, as the lawsuits amplified existing concerns about Ticketmaster's market dominance and business practices.

In the midst of this legal crescendo, Ticketmaster hit another sour note with fans in the UK during the much-anticipated Oasis reunion tour. Tickets, initially priced at £148.50, soared to £355.20 due to dynamic pricing, sparking outrage among fans who felt exploited by the surge. The backlash was swift, with hundreds lodging complaints over the unexpected price hikes. The controversy escalated to the point where British regulators launched an investigation into Ticketmaster's practices, scrutinizing the use of dynamic pricing and its impact on consumers.

In response to the uproar, Ticketmaster clarified that pricing policies, including the use of dynamic pricing, are determined by artists and promoters, not the company itself, and is designed to adjust ticket costs based on demand, aiming to deter scalpers and ensure that more revenue goes directly to the artists. However, this explanation did little to quell the backlash.

According to Truescope, there were reports about the potential antitrust lawsuit to be filed against the companies. Articles about the alleged targeted business practices of Live Nation and Ticketmaster such as venue exclusivity contracts, contractual restraints that limit or block the resale of tickets, and overpricing of tickets were published.

Moreover, media also covered the “Taylor Swift bill” signed in Minnesota which
protect online ticket buyers from hidden fees and dodgy resellers.



Media largely covered the DOJ’s ongoing investigation with Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster. Additionally, there were posts about upcoming live events and concerts.

Netizens opined that the lawsuit filing was "better late than never" and voiced their hope for other monopolistic corporations to be investigated, and such predatory practices be clamped down due to to perceived exploitation of consumers.



Others questioned why Ticketmaster was allowed to control all aspect of an event, including parking. They claimed that the company severely increased the prices of the different products and services and even added a service fee on them.

Netizens also called for venues and artists to sell tickets directly, stating that they rather pay them directly than have a middleman or a third party.

At Weber Shandwick, Rod Clayton, head of risk and advisory for EMEA, says that while it is easy to criticise the communications around Ticketmaster’s multiple challenges, is it fair to do so?


“The serious data breach that the company suffered in May was compounded by the hackers actively publicising their claim of responsibility. Media were particularly critical of the time it took the company to acknowledge the attack and the perceived delay in alerting customers to possible risks. Of course, they were particularly irked by receiving no response to their enquiries.

“The reality, however, is that these situations are immensely complex and it is very hard to know exactly what – if anything – has happened. What hackers say they have done may or may not be true; the information they offer for sale may or may not be genuine. Even with robust internal systems, risks can arise through partners or service providers, as appears to have happened here. There are regulatory obligations and legal risks to consider. Best practice communications need to be balanced and blended with optimal legal approaches.”

On the lawsuits, however, Clayton is less forgiving: “Delays in responding to the media about these claims, and about a class action in Canada, seem much less understandable, since they are about broad issues on which the company could fairly be expected to have formed a clear position.”

At a hearing in the US case this week, counsel for LiveNation reportedly argued that more competition would actually be bad for consumers as it would force prices up. “That could present an interesting communications challenge outside the courtroom,” says Clayton.

And he has further thoughts on the balancing act between comms and legal counsel in Ticketmaster’s case: “Communicators like to remind lawyers that there is no point in winning in court if you haven’t got a business left, but lawyers can reasonably counter that lawsuits and regulatory penalties can come at a high cost. In these Ticketmaster cases, it feels like legal advice triumphed over communications counsel. Only time will tell whether that was the right call.”

At MHP Group, Hannah Walsh, senior director, crisis and risk, says the multiple incidents were another serious blow to Ticketmaster’s reputation. “For a brand like Ticketmaster, trust is crucial. They handle people’s money, data and dreams, and partner with beloved artists and brands. Trust in business hinges on competence (whether you’re good at your job), untegrity (whether your values align with your audience), and benevolence (whether you use your power for good). These incidents threatened all three.”

Expanding on these elements, Walsh says: “Managing data is key for a ticket platform, so a breach tests competency. How a brand responds tests its integrity. Ticketmaster’s delayed response, via parent Live Nation, lacked empathy, opting for legal jargon instead of showing concern for those impacted. While breaches are more common and evoke less shock now, Ticketmaster’s detached reaction recalled their tone when Taylor Swift’s Eras tour sale experienced problems, further cementing the impression of an empathy bypass.”

She continued: “Dynamic pricing raises integrity questions: Who does Ticketmaster serve, and what’s fair? Fans felt surge pricing was unfair and blamed Ticketmaster, prompting politicians to promise action. This hurt their reputation with fans, though they’re not the ones awarding ticketing contracts. For venue owners and artists, dynamic pricing helps combat revenue loss to resellers, and they’re fine with Ticketmaster taking the heat.

“Ticket platforms often act as the “bad guy” to protect their partners, but Ticketmaster seemed unprepared for the scale of fan backlash. More education of stakeholders and commentators ahead of time might have stopped the uproar from snowballing.”

After a year when Ticketmaster's legal and operational battles took center stage, the final encore is yet to be played.—Maja Pawinska Sims

2. TikTok: Influencers enter the political arena

TikTok’s strategy for fighting the nationwide ban imposed by Congress and the Biden administration—largely bipartisan in its support at the time—became apparent in late 2023, when the social media platform mobilized the influencers who use the platform to visit Capitol Hill and lobby in support of the platform.

The crisis had its origins in 2019, when The Washington Post reported that images of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong—and the ensuing police crackdown—were proliferating on social media platforms like Twitter but largely absent from TikTok. “Researchers have grown worried that the app could also prove to be one of China’s most effective weapons in the global information war, bringing Chinese-style censorship to mainstream US audiences and shaping how they understand real-world events,” the report said.

Other concerns emerged, specifically that Bytedance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, could be forced by Chinese security laws to hand over user data from American citizens to the Chinese government.

Bytedance said that its US content moderation is led by a team based in the US, and has repeatedly emphasized that the platform is focused on entertainment rather than politics. It has also pledged to ensure that any data on American users will be stored in Texas, not China.

In its public pronouncements—usually terse—on the ban and legal remedies it has emphasized free speech and commercial impact: “The TikTok ban results in a massive and unprecedented censorship of over 170 million Americans…. Estimates show that small businesses on TikTok would lose more than $1 billion in revenue and creators would suffer almost $300 million in lost earnings in just one month unless the ban is halted."

According to Truescope, TikTok’s defenders lauded the platform as a vital space for sharing knowledge, especially during pivotal world events. Beyond its informational role, TikTok was seen as a springboard for creativity and entrepreneurship, opening doors for creators and businesses to thrive in ways that traditional media could never replicate. Meanwhile, concerns were raised about the implications of the ban, expressing worry about potential censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression.

There were questions on the prioritisation of the possible TikTok ban and opined that firearms should be banned instead. Some compared the ban to China’s prohibition of Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter among others. Others claimed that they never used TikTok while some questioned the hype and support behind the app.



There were also remarks that they looked forward to the possible removal of TikTok since it meant less distraction. In the end, the debate wasn’t just about an app. It was nested within the broader societal norms of freedom, safety and opportunity that is widely celebrated within the social system.

It's difficult to know whether the company’s grassroots and other lobbying paid off, or whether the chaotic state of American politics would have led to the same outcome, but by the end of the year whatever bipartisan support there was for the ban had vanished. The recently-elected president Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the ban; thee Supreme Court upheld it anyway; the company said it would shut down in the US; still-president Biden derided the shutdown as “a publicity stunt”v and said it was unnecessary.


Says corporate affairs and crisis consultant Rich Torrenzano, CEO of The Torrenzano Group, “he proposed TikTok ban is a perfect example of how technology and geopolitics are performing a messy Kabuki dance. Governments, citing national security, are swiping left on TikTok faster than a bad blind date, but in doing so, they might be courting digital protectionism instead. After all, alienating millions of loyal users isn’t exactly a great move for any government’s popularity ratings.”

Still, the challenge for technology companies is real: “For TikTok, this isn’t just a PR problem—it’s a full-blown identity crisis. The app now has to prove that it can keep your dance routines safe from prying eyes and foreign government data grabbing. Transparency and quick action are the name of the game if TikTok wants to survive this geopolitical dance-off.”

But the implications here go beyond just one app, he says: “This is about who calls the shots in the digital age—nations or tech giants. Either way, one thing’s clear: the future of the internet just got a whole lot more complicated.”—Paul Holmes

1. Emotions run high after United Healthcare CEO shooting

The shocking murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson served as a harsh reckoning for Corporate America, while also igniting a crisis of conscience for a nation grappling with deep-seated anger over insurance companies’ control of healthcare.

While the brazen murder had all the makings of a tragedy (Thompson was a low-profile husband and father), public sentiment quickly turned on him; consumers harbored such alarming levels of hostility that they were rooting for the shooter during the ensuing manhunt.

UnitedHealthcare saw a spike on 5 Dec 2024 with 259 mentions, the day after CEO Brian Thompson was shot in New York, according to Truescope. 



There were talks about implications of insurance changes, while others mentioned UnitedHealthcare as one of the top contributors to Oracle Corporation. UnitedHealthcare was also mentioned to have a termination notice with the Regional Medical Center of Central Alabama (RMCCA). Positive sentiments were mentions of UnitedHealthcare integrating AI into their workspace.

Grievances were expressed over the alleged denied medical insurance claims from UnitedHealthcare, with emphasis on the high denial rate of the company. Sarcastic remarks stated that their empathy for the CEO was “out of network and denied” and was instead with the “victims” of UnitedHealthcare, said Truescope.

Criticisms about the perceived high news coverage of the CEO’s death was conveyed, asserting that attention should be given to people with denied coverage instead. Others praised the shooter, perceiving him as a folk hero. Some stated that while they don’t condone violence, they understood the message behind the shooting.

There was significant focus on the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation against UnitedHealth Group, which included CEO Brian Thompson. Others speculated about the shooter’s identity and motives, theorising that he was a UnitedHealthcare customer whose claims were denied. Netizens also remarked that they would not be surprised if other cases similar to this arises in the future.Others were disturbed by the celebration over the CEO’s death, and offered condolences to his family and friends.

The reaction was troubling. Not only was there widespread support for a killer, but even those who unequivocally condemned the murder understood where it was coming from.

At the same time, insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, did little to allay the display of pent-up rage over their “delay and deny” tactics, staying notably quiet throughout the early days of the crisis and, soon after, defending their practices.

“UHG is a poster child in US healthcare: it is considered a bully by providers and among its direct competitors, but a Wall Street darling by institutional investors who have benefited from its growth,” said Paul Keckley, principal at The Keckley Group, a healthcare research and advisory firm.

“The loss of trust in healthcare is, in part, due to the corporatization of key sectors including health insurance and acute hospitals. This is justified by ‘economic realities’ but internally rationalized by challenging shareholder expectations that appear stronger than patient/enrollee clinical outcomes, timely access, affordability, and transparency,” he said.

With legions of battle-worn patients, insurance companies—particularly UnitedHealthcare—have long struggled with reputational issues, and the shooting and its aftermath suggest a systemic issue for the insurance world, with UnitedHealthcare as the lightning rod. Additionally, UHC is known among providers for its high rate of care denials, impacting millions of policyholders. High-profile lawsuits against UHC have fueled public frustration, including cases where the company allegedly denied care based on flawed AI systems rather than medical judgment.

“Even before Thompson’s murder, UnitedHealthcare’s reputation was volatile,” said RepTrak executive VP Stephen Hahn. “Now, it’s at a heightened level of risk.”

Nine days after Thompson’s murder, UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty published a guest essay in The New York Times under the headline, “The Healthcare System Is Flawed. Let’s Fix It.”

“We know the health system does not work as well as it should, and we understand people’s frustrations with it. No one would design a system like the one we have. And no one did. It’s a patchwork built over decades. Our mission is to help make it work better. We are willing to partner with anyone, as we always have—health care providers, employers, patients, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and others—to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs,” he wrote. On Thursday, UHG announced Thompson’s successor.

But, as we all know, words like that only go so far.

“Crisis situations are the crucible in which corporate reputations are forged or fractured. For UnitedHealthcare and Boeing, the current challenges are not merely about managing events through tactics—a compelling op-ed or management change—they are about regaining trust, securing credible voice, and sustaining relationships in an environment where full control is elusive,” said Gil Bashe, managing partner and global health and purpose chair at Finn Partners.

“Leaders in these moments must embrace a fundamental truth: crises rarely offer the opportunity for resolution on their terms. Instead, when the dust settles, crises become HBR case studies summarizing how they and their organization are perceived by key audiences—customers, regulators, business partners, and employees—for generations,” he said.—Diana Marszalek