Blake Lively Lawsuit Highlights Distinction Between Crisis Communications and Traditional PR

By Bruce Hennes, Hennes Communications

This article highlights the critical distinction between true crisis communications and the practice of traditional public relations, especially in light of recent allegations of unethical tactics in the Blake Lively lawsuit. Crisis communications is portrayed as a principled discipline rooted in truth-telling, accountability and proactive problem-solving, unlike traditional PR, which often focuses on brand promotion and persuasion. The article critiques the trend of PR people claiming expertise in crisis management, warning that such practices undermine the profession’s credibility. Hennes emphasizes the importance of ethical standards and rigorous vetting in crisis communications, offering actionable advice for organizations to ensure they partner with experienced professionals committed to navigating crises with integrity and transparency.
——————————————————————————–

The recent allegations of a “smear campaign” orchestrated against actress Blake Lively have cast a harsh spotlight on the public relations industry. As reports proliferate about unethical tactics allegedly employed by “crisis management professionals,” it is crucial to differentiate between true crisis communications specialists and the broader practices of traditional PR firms. While the term “crisis PR” is frequently used interchangeably with “reputation management,” these are distinct disciplines. The conflation of the two has the potential to tarnish an entire profession, particularly those who uphold the highest ethical standards.

Crisis Communications vs. Traditional PR: Key Differences

Crisis communications is not simply an extension of public relations. It is a specialized discipline focused on guiding organizations through reputational threats that can often determine their very survival. Traditional PR, by contrast, centers on promoting brands, launching products, and managing long-term public perception. Both fields involve communication strategies, but their objectives and methods differ significantly.

At its core, crisis communications is about truth-telling. True practitioners of this field are committed to advising clients to acknowledge mistakes, take accountability and implement corrective actions. The approach is proactive and principled: it seeks not to “spin” bad behavior but to help clients act ethically and transparently in the face of scrutiny. As I often tell clients, you can’t talk your way out of a crisis. Crisis communications must be supported by substantive actions that address the root cause of the issue.

Traditional PR, on the other hand, often emphasizes persuasion. The goal is to craft compelling narratives that enhance a client’s image and promote their agenda. While most PR professionals operate ethically, there are clearly those in the profession willing to engage in questionable tactics to serve their clients.

The Crisis PR Pretenders

The articles and blog entries surrounding the Blake Lively lawsuit against Justin Baldoni brings to light a troubling trend: traditional PR firms claiming to offer crisis communications services without the necessary expertise. This has been exacerbated by the fact that there are no licensing requirements or professional barriers to practicing in the field. Any firm can claim to be a “crisis expert,” even if its experience is limited to minor reputational hiccups or the occasional bad press.

Unlike the seasoned specialists who dedicate their careers to managing crises, many PR firms approach crisis work as an add-on service. Real crisis communications work is not a part-time endeavor. It requires years of immersion in high-pressure situations, a deep understanding of media dynamics, and the ability to speak truth to power—even when it means challenging CEOs, boards of directors, or attorneys focused on winning their case in court.

Ethical Standards in Crisis Communications

Ethical behavior is not just an aspiration for crisis communications professionals; it is a necessity. True practitioners adhere to principles that prioritize transparency, accountability and the public good. These standards include:

• Truth-Telling: Advising clients to acknowledge their mistakes rather than cover them up.
• Proactive Problem-Solving: Helping clients address the root causes of crises, not just their symptoms.
• Action-Oriented Strategies: Ensuring that communications are backed by genuine corrective measures.
• Client Advocacy with Integrity: Defending clients without resorting to deception or harm.

Contrast this with the tactics described in the Blake Lively case: fabricated narratives, digital manipulation and covert attacks. Such actions violate the very essence of ethical communications and harm not only those targeted but also the credibility of the profession as a whole.

Raising the Bar for Crisis Communications

For organizations facing a crisis, the stakes are too high to entrust their reputation to unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners. Selecting a crisis communications firm should involve rigorous vetting. Here are seven critical questions to ask before hiring a firm:

1. Can the firm provide case studies detailing its experience with similar situations?
2. Does the firm have a dedicated crisis communications team with proven expertise?
3. How does the firm handle crises that originate on social media?
4. Who will be working on the matter, and what are their credentials?
5. Does the firm create comprehensive crisis communication plans?
6. What kind of training does the firm offer to prepare clients for crisis situations?
7. What percentage of the firm’s work is dedicated to crisis communications?

Answering these questions will help ensure that the firm has the experience, integrity and focus required to navigate the complexities of the situation at hand.

Final Thoughts

Crisis communications is not about smear campaigns or spin. It is about helping organizations navigate their darkest hours with honesty, accountability and a commitment to doing what is right.

As crisis communications professionals, we must continue to uphold the highest ethical standards and distinguish ourselves from those who seek to profit from dishonesty. The stakes—for our clients, our profession, and the public trust—are simply too high to do otherwise.

Bruce Hennes is CEO of Hennes Communications. The firm has been recognized by Chambers and Partners, a premier global legal research firm, as one of the top crisis PR firms in the United States. This distinction places Hennes Communications among an exclusive group of only 18 U.S. communications consulting firms featured in the Chambers’ 2024 Crisis & Risk Management category. Mr. Hennes also serves on the board of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association and he is an associate professor at the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University. Hennes is also on the 2024 Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Legal Strategy & Consulting and a member of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame. For more information: www.crisiscommunications.com