In this episode of Communication Breakdown, Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine three threads that dominated the week: U.S. Olympic athletes speaking on America while competing in Milan, the privacy backlash to Ring’s Super Bowl ad, and the manufactured outrage around Bad Bunny’s halftime performance. The hosts contrast the athletes’ coherent, values-based messaging with corporate leaders who struggle to sound human while protecting institutional risk. They also show how amplification does not always equal consequence, and why companies must measure impact, not noise.

Takeaways

• Athletes combined pride and principled critique, showing how clear personal framing lowers heat and preserves credibility.
• Institutional leaders face different constraints; they must sound human while protecting employees, investors, and regulatory exposure. Message discipline matters more than blunt moralizing.
• Media training and bridging worked: athletes moved narrow policy questions to civic principles, which neutralized accusations of being anti-American.
  
  

Topics Mentioned
Olympic athletes, free speech, patriotism, media training, message discipline, institutional stewardship, employee activism, Salesforce, Palantir, surveillance, Ring, Amazon, Flock Safety, privacy, Nest, Super Bowl advertising, halftime shows, Bad Bunny, counter-programming, Puppy Bowl, amplification versus impact, crisis communications, reputation management

Companies Mentioned
White House, NBC, US Olympic and Paralympic Committee, Salesforce, Wired, Palantir, Ring, Amazon, 404 Media, We Rate Dogs, Flock Safety, ICE, Google Nest, Capgemini, Turning Point USA, Real Americas Voice, FCC, Cracker Barrel, Puppy Bowl, NFL, CBS

Episode Hashtags
#WhiteHouse #NBC #USOlympicCommittee #Salesforce #Wired #Palantir #Ring #Amazon #404Media #WeRateDogs #FlockSafety #ICE #GoogleNest #Capgemini #TurningPointUSA #RealAmericasVoice #FCC #CrackerBarrel #PuppyBowl #NFL #CBS #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine two very different reputation tests playing out on a global stage. First, they unpack why the NFL’s handling of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show insulated advertisers from culture-war fallout, and what that reveals about platform discipline, familiarity, and perceived risk. Then they turn to Europe, where French IT giant Capgemini moved swiftly to divest a U.S. subsidiary tied to ICE work, illustrating how values, governance, and pressure environments differ sharply across borders. The episode offers a clear look at when controversy creates noise versus when it creates obligations, and why speed and decisiveness still matter.

Takeaways

• Reputational risk at the Super Bowl is shaped less by outrage and more by how the NFL frames decisions as settled and non-controversial.
• Advertisers are protected when audiences understand they do not control league or halftime decisions.
• Familiarity gaps often drive backlash more than politics, especially on shared cultural platforms.
  
  

Topics Mentioned
Super Bowl advertising, reputational risk, platform governance, cultural familiarity, advertiser insulation, category signaling, ICE backlash, European corporate governance, subsidiary risk, values versus legality

Companies Mentioned
NFL, Spotify, Capgemini, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Avelo Airlines, Palantir


Episode Hashtags
#NFL #Capgemini #Spotify #AveloAirlines #Palantir #SuperBowl #CorporateReputation #PublicRelations #CrisisManagement #CorporateGovernance #BrandRisk #StrategicCommunications #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll return to the topic of Minnesota to examine how corporate leaders responded after the killing of protester Alex Preti during federal immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities. They unpack the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce’s joint letter signed by 60 CEOs, a statement widely criticized for saying little when clarity and accountability were urgently needed. The conversation contrasts that response with more direct messages from University of Minnesota President Rebecca Cunningham and incoming Target CEO Michael Fidelke, exploring why empathy without action often fails in moments of public fear. The episode offers a sharp look at why strategic ambiguity breaks down in high-stakes crises and what effective leadership communication requires when safety, order, and trust are on the line.

Takeaways

• Silence or vague statements after loss of life are read as distance or complicity, not neutrality.
• Strategic ambiguity fails when facts are clear and communities are experiencing fear.
• Leadership statements need at least one concrete, near-term action to move beyond posture.
• Empathy matters, but without operational clarity it does not restore confidence or stability.

Topics Mentioned
Crisis communication, strategic ambiguity, corporate silence, leadership messaging, accountability, empathy versus action, public safety, alignment signaling, corporate reputation

Companies Mentioned
3M, Best Buy, Cargill, General Mills, Target, UnitedHealth Group

Episode Hashtags
#3M #BestBuy #Cargill #GeneralMills #Target #UnitedHealthGroup #CorporateCommunications #PublicRelations #CrisisManagement #Leadership #ReputationManagement #StrategicAmbiguity #CorporateSilence #Trust #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwor

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine two very different European stages where reputation, power, and communication collide. First, they unpack Davos 2026 and what the World Economic Forum now reveals about the shifting burden placed on corporate affairs leaders, less about influence and more about absorbing ambiguity, political risk, and reputational spillover. Then they turn to a transatlantic spat between Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary and Elon Musk, using the clash to explore when public conflict reinforces a brand and when it backfires. Across both cases, the conversation probes a central question for communications leaders, what does visibility actually buy you when legitimacy, trust, and accountability are under strain.

Takeaways

• Davos now functions less as a decision-making forum and more as a sensing mechanism for elite psychology and reputational risk.
• The rising profile of corporate affairs leaders reflects load-bearing responsibility, not a clean transfer of power or influence.
• Off-the-record spaces increasingly serve as containment zones, processing political and reputational risk away from CEOs and boards.

Topics Mentioned
World Economic Forum, Davos, corporate affairs, elite psychology, trust and legitimacy, political risk, off-the-record communications, reputational insulation, social media amplification, CEO behavior, brand alignment, outrage economics

Companies Mentioned
World Economic Forum, Ryanair, SpaceX, Starlink, X, BlackRock

Episode Hashtags
#WorldEconomicForum #Davos #Ryanair #SpaceX #Starlink #X #BlackRock #CorporateCommunications #PublicRelations #ReputationManagement #CrisisComms #Leadership #BrandStrategy #ElitePower #SocialMediaDynamics #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine two very different corporate communication challenges playing out in real time. First, they break down how Target is being pulled into the spotlight as ICE enforcement activity unfolds in and around its Minneapolis-area stores, and why silence has become a reputational liability rather than a shield. Then they turn to ExxonMobil, where CEO Darren Woods calmly contradicted President Trump’s claims about Venezuela, using precision, technical language, and published remarks to control the narrative. Together, the cases illustrate how companies can either lose control of the stage or deliberately script the record.

Takeaways

• Strategic ambiguity works only when paired with clear operational governance and visible standards.
• Companies that articulate how enforcement activity must occur can avoid being cast as either complicit or oppositional.
• Publishing prepared remarks is a powerful way to eliminate spin and control replay in politically charged environments.
  .

Topics Mentioned
ICE enforcement, protest optics, corporate silence, strategic ambiguity, operational governance, employee safety, reputational risk, political pressure, narrative control, executive communication, precision language, public opinion polling

Companies Mentioned
Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Caribou Coffee, ExxonMobil, JP Morgan Chase

Episode Hashtags
#Target #Walmart #HomeDepot #CaribouCoffee #ExxonMobil #JPMorganChase #CorporateCommunications #PublicRelations #ReputationManagement #CrisisComms #PoliticalRisk #StrategicAmbiguity #OperationalGovernance #Leadership #BrandTrust #TrumpAdministration #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine two stories where companies get assigned roles before they choose them. First, they look at U.S. oil companies caught in the wake of the Trump administration’s Venezuela operation, with the White House publicly narrating “ready and willing” corporate intent while executives stay largely non-committal. Then they break down Hilton’s rapid termination of a franchisee after an alleged DHS booking cancellation became a viral storyline, and why one loaded word in Hilton’s response escalated the situation. Across both cases, the core lesson is the same: in high-pressure environments, silence and precision can protect you, but only if you actively manage the boundary between what government says you want and what you have actually committed to.

Takeaways

• When political leaders publicly “assign” corporate intent, the company’s main job becomes boundary-setting, not brand-building.
• Neutral holding statements buy time, but extended silence can still harden attribution, especially when anonymous background quotes drift more critical than on-record language.
• Industry voice matters, either via a credible operator like Chevron or a trade body like the American Petroleum Institute, to correct errors and reduce narrative hijack risk without picking a fight.

Topics Mentioned
Corporate intent attribution, narrative capture, boundary management, regime-change optics, stakeholder trust, holding statements, trade associations, operational control in franchise models, platform-driven escalation, asymmetrical information warfare, crisis word choice, civil-rights framing, internal escalation protocols

Companies Mentioned
Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Conoco, Saudi Aramco, American Petroleum Institute, Hilton, EverSpeak Hospitality, Hampton Inn, Fortune

Episode Hashtags
#Chevron #ConocoPhillips #Conoco #SaudiAramco #AmericanPetroleumInstitute #Hilton #EverSpeakHospitality #HamptonInn #Fortune #CrisisCommunications #CorporateReputation #PublicRelations #CorporateAffairs #NarrativeControl #StakeholderTrust #Geopolitics #BoundaryManagement #FranchiseRisk #IssuesManagement #StrategicCommunications #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork


Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll unpack how companies navigated a volatile year under Trump’s return to power — chasing access, dodging landmines, and managing the optics. From tech’s full-throated alignment to Coke’s non-denial denial, to Harvard’s quiet defiance, it’s a masterclass in when to perform, when to retreat, and when to just shut up. The big theme? Holding ground without lighting fires. This is your postgame on narrative control in a year where even silence spoke volumes.

Takeaways

• Alignment without hedging creates exposure, not just opportunity.
• Proximity to power can produce policy wins but risks reputational erosion if not translated across stakeholders.
• Performative signaling amplifies reputational risk — especially when it grants authorship to a polarizing figure.

Topics Mentioned
alignment signaling, narrative control, stakeholder management, reputational exposure, crisis containment, performative support, political proximity, institutional resilience, communications strategy, narrative authorship, role clarity, reputation vs. access, strategic restraint, media framing

Companies Mentioned
Trump Administration, New York Times, Coca-Cola, Harvard University, Costco, NFL

Episode Hashtags
#TrumpAdministration #CocaCola #Harvard #Costco #NFL #CorporateCommunications #ReputationManagement #CrisisPR #NarrativeControl #StakeholderTrust #PoliticalComms #BrandRisk #StrategicSilence #LeadershipMessaging #StudiouslyBland #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine the fallout from a rare, high-access Vanity Fair profile of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. What looked like unprecedented transparency quickly turned into a reputational stress test, raising questions about intent, narrative control, and internal alignment. Steve and Craig move past the headline-grabbing quotes to analyze what they call “wedge warfare,” how third-party storytelling can disrupt relationships even without factual errors. The conversation offers practical lessons for communications leaders operating in high-salience, high-risk environments where perception often matters more than explanation.

Takeaways

• High-access profiles create cumulative risk, every quote, image, and anecdote compounds meaning.
• Defending intent or tone can worsen a wedge by reinforcing doubt rather than stabilizing trust.
• Images function as narrative events and must be managed with the same rigor as interviews.
  
  

Topics Mentioned
White House communications, corporate reputation, wedge warfare, narrative control, media access, high-risk interviews, photojournalism, alignment signaling, claims-perceptions-reality framework, crisis communications, leadership visibility

Companies Mentioned
Vanity Fair, CNN, The Atlantic, New York Post, Axios


Episode Hashtags
#VanityFair #CNN #TheAtlantic #NewYorkPost #Axios #WhiteHouse #CorporateReputation #StrategicCommunications #PublicRelations #MediaStrategy #NarrativeControl #CrisisCommunications #LeadershipMessaging #StakeholderTrust #ReputationRisk #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, hosts Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine Elon Musk’s return to the podcast circuit amid reports of a possible SpaceX IPO. They question whether Musk’s more restrained media appearance signals a real reputational reset or simply another tactical pause without governance discipline. The conversation then turns to McDonald’s AI-generated holiday ad backlash in the Netherlands, using it as a case study in creative judgment, brand standards, and accountability when AI enters the production pipeline. The episode closes with insights from Craig’s 10th annual Senior Corporate Affairs Summit, where executives focused on AI as real headcount, narrative drift as enterprise risk, and the fragmentation of influence beyond traditional media.

Takeaways

• Media moderation without behavioral change does not equal a reputation reset.
• Pre-IPO signaling requires cadence, discipline, and visible.
• AI failures in advertising are often judgment failures, not technology failures..
• Narrative drift is an early warning signal of enterprise risk, not a messaging problem..

Topics Mentioned
Elon Musk, reputation management, IPO signaling, CEO behavior, governance discipline, AI advertising, brand judgment, holiday advertising standards, narrative drift, enterprise risk, AI agents, communications workflows, influence fragmentation, Substack, corporate affairs leadership

Companies Mentioned
Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, Reuters, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Disney


Episode Hashtags
#ElonMusk #Tesla #SpaceX #Twitter #McDonalds #CocaCola #Disney #CorporateReputation #PublicRelations #CrisisCommunications #AIinMarketing #BrandGovernance #NarrativeRisk #Leadership #StrategicCommunications #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork

Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]

In this episode of Communication Breakdown, Steve Dowling and Craig Carroll examine two distinct communication strategies playing out in the same political environment. First, they look at Costco’s decision to sue the Trump administration to recover tariff payments, a move that positions the retailer as a disciplined, process-driven actor defending its business model and its promise of predictable low prices. Then they break down the tech-sector backlash to a New York Times profile of David Sacks, highlighting how Silicon Valley elites turned a contained story into a governance and credibility problem through overreaction. For PR and corporate affairs professionals, the contrast delivers a clear lesson in how organizations either reinforce or erode trust depending on their posture toward scrutiny, institutions, and accountability.

Takeaways

• Costco’s lawsuit is a model of restraint, clarity, and institutional trust, aligning with its reputation for predictability and customer value.
• High-trust brands gain influence when they work within established processes and let filings speak for themselves.
• The Sacks backlash shows how tech elites can escalate a story by treating scrutiny as a personal attack rather than a governance issue.

Topics Mentioned
tariffs, emergency powers, corporate reputation, institutional trust, narrative defense, political risk, media strategy, backlash dynamics, governance, conflicts of interest, influencer amplification, tech industry communications, legal timing, crisis response, stakeholder expectations

Companies Mentioned
CableSoup, Airbus, Amazon, Target, Southwest Airlines, Costco, Trump Organization, Nvidia, New York Times, SpaceX, Salesforce, Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI, Coinbase


Episode Hashtags
#CableSoup #Airbus #Amazon #Target #SouthwestAirlines #Costco #TrumpOrganization #Nvidia #NewYorkTimes #SpaceX #Salesforce #AndreessenHorowitz #OpenAI #Coinbase #CorporateCommunications #PublicRelations #CrisisManagement #ReputationManagement #MediaStrategy #TariffPolicy #TechIndustry #Governance #ShawnPNeal #AdvoCast #OCRNetwork





Communication Breakdown is a production of the Observatory on Corporate Reputation.
Hosted by Craig Carroll and Steve Dowling.
Produced by Shawn P Neal and the team at AdvoCast.

For questions, feedback, or episode suggestions, reach out at [email protected]