BACKLASH (THRS)

A backlash occurs when a person, company or institution faces a strong negative reaction to something it has said or done. Social media can accelerate these reactions, turning a local controversy into an international crisis within hours. Some backlashes expose genuine wrongdoing, while others develop because audiences interpret an action as insensitive, dishonest or out of touch.

In 2017, Pepsi released an advertisement featuring Kendall Jenner joining a protest and apparently resolving tensions by offering a police officer a can of Pepsi. Critics argued that the advertisement trivialised serious social justice protests by presenting a soft drink as a solution to complex political problems. Pepsi withdrew the advertisement and apologised.

In 2018, H&M faced international criticism after advertising a sweatshirt with the words “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” modelled by a Black child. Many people considered the image racially insensitive. The company apologised, removed the image and faced questions about its internal review procedures.

Nike experienced a different kind of backlash in 2018 when it featured American football player Colin Kaepernick in an advertising campaign. Kaepernick had become a controversial figure after kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice and police violence. Some consumers supported Nike, while others called for a boycott. The campaign demonstrated that a backlash can divide audiences rather than simply damage a brand.

In Spain, the controversy involving Luis Rubiales, then president of the Spanish Football Federation, and footballer Jenni Hermoso attracted worldwide attention after Spain won the 2023 Women’s World Cup. Rubiales kissed Hermoso during the celebrations. Hermoso said the kiss was not consensual. Rubiales initially defended his behaviour and refused to resign, prompting widespread criticism and calls for accountability. He later resigned. The controversy raised broader questions about consent, leadership and sexism in sport.

In Catalonia, the 2017 independence referendum generated a major political and international backlash. The referendum had been suspended by Spain’s Constitutional Court, and the Spanish authorities considered it illegal. On voting day, police used force against some voters, and images of the confrontations circulated internationally. The scenes provoked criticism of the police response and intensified tensions between Catalan and Spanish authorities. The episode illustrated how the handling of a political conflict can become as controversial as the conflict itself.

An international example is Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, which emerged in 2015. The company had used software to manipulate emissions tests in certain diesel vehicles, making their pollution levels appear lower under testing conditions. The revelations contradicted Volkswagen’s environmental claims and triggered investigations, legal consequences and serious reputational damage. The scandal demonstrated how the gap between a company’s public image and its actual behaviour can destroy trust.

These cases reveal several common patterns. A crisis may begin with an insensitive message, a disputed action or evidence of misconduct. The reaction often intensifies when people believe an organisation is being hypocritical, dismissive or dishonest. A defensive response can make matters worse, while a sincere apology, transparency and meaningful corrective action may help mitigate the damage.

However, not every backlash has the same cause or level of justification. Organisations must distinguish between legitimate criticism, misinformation and disagreement. The challenge is to respond proportionately, accept responsibility where necessary and rebuild credibility without simply trying to silence critics.

2. VOCABULARY MATCH — PART 1

Match words 1–8 with meanings A–H. Write the correct letter next to each number.

Words	Meanings
1. Backlash	A. The quality of being trusted or believed
2. Credibility	B. To make a situation more serious or intense
3. Trivialise	C. A strong negative reaction from the public
4. Outrage	D. To make a serious issue seem unimportant
5. Escalate	E. Close examination of an action or situation
6. Scrutiny	F. Openness and honesty about decisions
7. Transparency	G. A strong feeling of anger or shock
8. Repercussions	H. The negative consequences of an action

 

 

 

 

3. VOCABULARY MATCH — PART 2

Match words 1–8 with meanings A–H. Write the correct letter next to each number.

Words	Meanings
1. Hypocrisy	A. To reduce the harmful effects of something
2. Accountability	B. False or inaccurate information
3. Insincere	C. Harm to a person’s or organisation’s public image
4. Boycott	D. Appropriate in size or intensity for a situation
5. Mitigate	E. Saying one thing while behaving differently
6. Misinformation	F. Not genuine or not expressing true feelings
7. Reputational damage	G. Responsibility for actions and their consequences
8. Proportionate	H. Refusing to buy, use or support something as a protest

4. SYNONYM MATCH — PART 1

Match words 1–6 with their closest synonyms A–F. Write the correct letter next to each number.

Words	Synonyms
1. Intensify	A. Trustworthiness
2. Outrage	B. Examination
3. Credibility	C. Increase
4. Scrutiny	D. Anger
5. Proportionate	E. Appropriate
6. Escalate	F. Make more severe

5. SYNONYM MATCH — PART 2

Match words 1–6 with their closest synonyms A–F. Write the correct letter next to each number.

Words	Synonyms
1. Mitigate	A. Dishonest
2. Repercussions	B. Openness
3. Insincere	C. Reduce
4. Transparency	D. Consequences
5. Hypocrisy	E. Underestimate the seriousness of something
6. Trivialise	F. Contradiction between beliefs and behaviour

 

6. INVESTIGATE THE BACKLASH

Choose a case. Explain what happened, why people reacted and what the organisation or individual should have done differently.

A. Pepsi’s protest-themed advertisement (2017)

B. H&M’s “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” sweatshirt (2018)

C. Nike and Colin Kaepernick (2018)

D. The Rubiales–Hermoso controversy in Spain (2023)

E. The Catalonia independence referendum and police response (2017)

F. Volkswagen’s emissions scandal (2015)

Discuss:

1.     What triggered the backlash?

2.     Was the criticism justified? Why or why not?

3.     How did the response influence public opinion?

4.     What would have been the best possible solution?

7. FAMOUS BACKLASHES: REAL LIFE CASES

Choose a case, or discuss as many as possible. Explain what you know about it and propose the best possible solution. If you don’t know the case, use the description to analyse the situation.

For each case, discuss:

• What happened? What triggered the backlash?
• Public reaction: Why were people angry, offended or divided?
• Responsibility: Who, if anyone, should be held accountable?
• Best solution: What should the person, company or institution do next?
• Prevention: How could a similar situation be avoided?

1. Balenciaga’s controversial campaign — International, 2022

Balenciaga faced intense criticism over advertising imagery involving children and inappropriate references. The brand apologised and took legal action in connection with the campaign’s production.

Your challenge: Who should be responsible for approving advertising: the creative team, senior management or an independent review group?

2. James Corden and restaurant complaints — United States, 2022

A New York restaurateur publicly accused television host James Corden of behaving badly towards staff. Corden later apologised after the dispute attracted media attention.

Your challenge: How should a public figure respond when accusations about their private behaviour become a reputational crisis?

3. Cristiano Ronaldo and Coca-Cola — International, 2021

At a press conference during Euro 2020, Cristiano Ronaldo moved Coca-Cola bottles aside and encouraged people to drink water. The moment attracted enormous attention and discussion about sponsorship and the company’s share price.

Your challenge: Should athletes be free to criticise sponsors publicly, or should they respect commercial partnerships?

4. Ellen DeGeneres and workplace allegations — United States, 2020

Reports about a toxic workplace culture behind The Ellen DeGeneres Show damaged the programme’s reputation. An internal investigation led to changes, and DeGeneres addressed the allegations publicly.

Your challenge: How should leaders respond when their public image conflicts with employees’ reported experiences?

5. The Oscars and Will Smith — United States, 2022

Will Smith slapped comedian Chris Rock onstage during the Academy Awards after Rock made a joke about Smith’s wife. The incident generated worldwide debate about violence, comedy and professional conduct.

Your challenge: What would be a fair response from the individual, the event organisers and the wider entertainment industry?

6. The Fyre Festival — Bahamas, 2017

The luxury music festival was promoted as an exclusive experience but descended into chaos, with inadequate accommodation, food and event organisation. Attendees shared images exposing the gap between the marketing and reality.

Your challenge: How should businesses compensate customers when they fail to deliver what they promised?

7. Bud Light and the Dylan Mulvaney partnership — United States, 2023

Bud Light’s partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney prompted a political and cultural backlash. Some customers called for a boycott, while others criticised the reaction to the campaign.

Your challenge: How should a company respond when a marketing campaign becomes part of a wider cultural conflict?

8. CRISIS ROLE-PLAY

Choose one situation. Assign roles A–F and agree on a response.

Situation 1: The controversial advertisement

A company has released an advertisement that many people consider offensive. The hashtag calling for a boycott is trending.

• A — CEO: Protect the company's reputation and explain the decision.
• B — Marketing Director: Explain the creative idea and defend the campaign.
• C — Communications Manager: Recommend the public response.
• D — Employee Representative: Explain how staff feel about the controversy.
• E — Customer: Explain why consumers are angry and what they expect.
• F — Independent Adviser: Challenge the team's assumptions and recommend action.

Situation 2: The failed apology

A company has apologised for a serious mistake, but the public believes its statement avoids responsibility. Criticism is increasing.

• A — CEO: Decide whether to issue a second apology.
• B — Legal Adviser: Explain the risks of admitting fault.
• C — Communications Manager: Rewrite the response.
• D — Affected Customer: Explain what a meaningful apology would require.
• E — Employee: Describe the impact on staff morale.
• F — Journalist: Ask difficult questions about accountability.

Final task: Agree on three immediate actions and deliver a 45-second public statement.

9. APOLOGY WORKSHOP

Evaluate each apology. Is it sincere, defensive, incomplete or effective? Rewrite two of them.

1.     “We are sorry if anyone was offended by our decision.”

2.     “Mistakes were made, and we will review our procedures.”

3.     “We understand the criticism. We made the wrong decision, and we accept responsibility.”

4.     “Our comments have been taken out of context, but we regret the reaction.”

5.     “We apologise to those affected. We have removed the material and introduced a new review process.”

Discuss:

• Which statement accepts responsibility most clearly?
• Which one shifts the blame onto the audience?
• What evidence would show that the apology was genuine?
• Can an apology make a situation worse? How?

10. COMPLETE THE SENTENCES

Complete each sentence with a word from the box. Use each word once. The words are not in answer order.

scrutiny · mitigate · hypocrisy · transparency · credibility · trivialise · repercussions · misinformation · proportionate · backlash

1.     The company faced a public __________ after its advertisement was criticised.

2.     The investigation placed the organisation under intense __________.

3.     A sincere apology may help __________ the damage.

4.     Leaders lose __________ when their statements contradict their actions.

5.     The company introduced greater __________ to explain how decisions were made.

6.     Spreading __________ online can make a controversy more difficult to resolve.

7.     The public accused the organisation of __________ because it promoted values it did not follow.

8.     The manager's joke appeared to __________ a serious social issue.

9.     Every major decision can have unexpected __________.

10. The response should be __________ to the seriousness of the mistake.

11. FINAL DEBATE — TAKE A SIDE: PRO OR ANTI

Choose a side, defend your position and respond to opposing arguments.

1.     PRO: Companies should immediately withdraw any advertisement that causes widespread offence.
ANTI: Companies should not withdraw campaigns simply because they attract criticism.

2.     PRO: A public apology is essential after a major mistake.
ANTI: Actions matter more than public apologies.

3.     PRO: Social media gives ordinary people too much power to damage reputations.
ANTI: Social media is essential for holding powerful people accountable.

4.     PRO: Leaders should resign after serious public controversies.
ANTI: Resignation is not always the best solution.

5.     PRO: Boycotts are an effective way to force companies to change.
ANTI: Boycotts often oversimplify complex issues.

6.     PRO: Organisations should prioritise public trust over protecting their image.
ANTI: Protecting an organisation's reputation is necessary to protect its employees and future.

Final question: What is the most effective way to rebuild public trust after a major backlash?