Our team recently supported the Ethereum community’s development, announcement, and promotion of its report, The Bull Case For ETH: Digital Oil, Store of Value, and Global Reserve Asset for the Digital Economy. The report, which examines the likely role and importance of Ethereum’s ETH asset in the future global economy, was spearheaded by Etherealize (Ethereum’s recently formed, institutional-investor-focused marketing and education arm) and promoted by Ethereum’s co-founders Vitalik Buterin and Joe Lubin, the Ethereum Foundation, and Coinbase’s Ethereum Layer-2 network, Base.  The shared effort in developing the report and collective support of these key leaders quietly signaled a notable heel turn for some of Ethereum’s biggest names. For years prior to the report, in-fighting among the Ethereum community was rampant – with community members split on whether the leaders of Ethereum should remain focused on perfecting the technology behind the platform or allocate more of their resources to increasing global institutional and investor interest in Ethereum and its ETH asset. This in-fighting reached a fever pitch over the past year, as ETH’s price growth lagged far behind that of Bitcoin, despite several major technological upgrades and scaling breakthroughs.  Ethereum’s leaders’ support for the “Bull Case for ETH” report was noteworthy because it marked the first time they have joined together to promote ETH’s economic value, indicating that the in-fighting may be coming to an end. The decision to present a unified front and focus on education, coupled with the U.S.’s growing focus on implementing legal frameworks for responsible and sustainable blockchain innovation (as evidenced by the Senate’s passing of the GENIUS act last week), suggests that an Ethereum renaissance may be around the corner – with the potential for the platform to usurp Bitcoin’s and stablecoins’ current stranglehold on the mainstream crypto conversation.   The Ethereum community’s newfound narrative alignment has also coincided with a substantial uptick in Ethereum-based projects looking for support in seeding a broader narrative about the platform’s potential role as a foundational layer of global finance 2.0 and its value to forward-looking financial institutions. We expect this trend to continue in the coming months and believe the projects that can effectively insert themselves into this conversation and demonstrate their role in accelerating the adoption of Ethereum stand to benefit greatly.   We encourage anyone interested in digital assets to keep an eye on this narrative, as we expect it to become a focal point of the global crypto conversation alongside growing chatter around stablecoins. 

On May 12, 2025, President Trump renewed his efforts to lower prescription drug prices for Americans via an Executive Order establishing a “most-favored nation” (MFN) pricing policy, which demands pharmaceutical companies charge the U.S. the same price they charge other developed nations – on average, about three times less. Industry experts have identified significant legal and practical challenges that may render this MFN policy unenforceable, but those issues aside, critical errors were made in communicating the Executive Order that have led to it being far less well-received than it otherwise could have been – particularly given the broad bipartisan support for addressing sky-high drug prices. These missteps offer valuable lessons for communicating announcements that extend beyond politics. Communications Pitfall #1: Setting Unrealistic Expectations On May 6, the President drew headlines by teasing that an announcement “as big as it gets” was forthcoming. Then, in a post on Truth Social on May 11, President Trump announced he would be signing “one of the most consequential Executive Orders in our Country’s history,” promising that “Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices will be REDUCED, almost immediately, by 30% to 80%.” In reality, the impact of the Order remains speculative, with no concrete indication that it will lead to a decrease in pharmaceutical prices. The Administration would have benefitted from messaging that set more realistic and achievable targets for the MFN policy’s implementation so that expectations are already calibrated in the event of its failure, and some credibility could have been maintained. Takeaway: Realistic expectation-setting, transparency, and follow-through are crucial in high stakes announcements. While there’s often value in creating interest and excitement in positive news, positioning lofty goals or expected outcomes as certainties can cause irreparable long-term damage to credibility. This played out in the corporate world with WeWork Founder Adam Neumann, who set forth a grandiose vision for the company that never came to fruition, contributing to a series of events that led to a failed initial public offering and his ousting as CEO.   Communications Pitfall #2: Vague Messaging The Executive Order was rife with vague language, immediately giving rise to confusion and uncertainty among policymakers, industry leaders, and the general public. Analysts and experts questioned how the President would enforce the Order, and commentary about its lack of clarity featured prominently in media coverage. A number of outlets highlighted a note from Raymond James healthcare policy analyst Chris Meekins, who argued the plan offers “words on a page, but not much substantive” and “reminds us of how in President Trump’s first term he was all bark, no bite on drug pricing.” Ameet Sarpatwari of Harvard Medical School told The New York Times that the Order “reads more like an aspirational statement than a serious attempt to initiate a policy change.” And as Matt Herper of STAT News noted, “In rolling out his plan to lower prescription drug prices, President Trump could have walked softly and carried a big stick. As pharmaceutical investors see it, he instead stomped loudly and wielded a wet noodle.” Takeaway: Clear and substantive messaging is fundamental to shaping media narratives and public perception about an announcement. In the corporate context, having the right messaging for a major announcement has a considerable impact on how well it is received, and by extension, how effective it is in pushing the company forward and helping it achieve its goals. One example is Apple’s 2020 decision to replace Intel processors in Mac computers with its own chips. A computer business designing its own processors is widely considered to be very risky, but the news was well received thanks to how Apple communicated it. Apple clearly articulated how it would empower developers to “build apps that run across the entire Apple ecosystem,” while also preempting concerns about potential platform disruption and compatibility by detailing the measures it had in place to mitigate these issues. The positive reaction enabled Apple to see its vision through, with the M1 Chip launching later that year and driving a major resurgence in sales and customer satisfaction for Apple’s Mac business. Communications Pitfall #3: Missed Media Opportunities Lastly, the President missed an opportunity to better control the narrative by leveraging his allies in the media. While he held a press event at the Order’s signing, he did not sit for any on-the-record interviews with prominent print or broadcast outlets. Given his statement that the Order was “one of the most consequential… in our Country’s history,” one would expect the administration to take a more proactive approach to media engagement. Takeaway: Strategically engaging with trusted media before an announcement is key to setting the tone for initial and subsequent coverage. For instance, Endeavor CEO Ari Emanuel and WWE Executive Chairman Vince McMahon pre-recorded an appearance on CNBC discussing the companies’ 2023 merger that aired right after the merger was announced, ensuring the rationale for the business combination was clearly articulated from the start in a manner that built investor enthusiasm for the deal. Pre-arranging interviews to publish shortly after announcement can also help strengthen long-term relationships with reporters and editors, which can be leveraged down the road to maximize the impact of good news. And in the event of any negative developments, reporters will typically be more receptive to the company’s perspective and frame the news with fair consideration for the company’s side of the story. Conclusion Many communications best practices are universal, regardless of whether you’re the CEO of a public company or the President of the United States. In order for announcements to be well received, it is important to set realistic expectations, craft clear and consistent messaging, and take full advantage of strategic media opportunities.

News broke on Tuesday that an E. Coli outbreak linked to McDonald’s’ popular Quarter Pounder hamburger led to the death of one person and sickened at least 48 across ten states, sending the company’s PR machine into overdrive. So far, McDonald’s has handled the situation about as well as any organization in its position could hope to. Given our critique earlier this week of Boar’s Head’s mishandling of its recent listeria outbreak, we wanted to explore why and how McDonald’s has been more successful in mitigating damage to its brand under nearly identical circumstances. Takeaways Choosing the right communications channel Boar’s Head’s initial communications consisted of a highly technical press release and a boiler plate media statement that Boar’s Head was “cooperating fully with government authorities and conducting [its] own investigation into this incident,” neither of which was effective in connecting with stakeholders or putting them at ease. In contrast, McDonald’s disclosed the news by cross-posting a brief but detailed internal employee note to its corporate blog that included a video address from McDonald’s USA President Joe Erlinger. This made for a much more accessible and compelling first communication that focused on conveying the most important details in a digestible, human manner. Where Boars’ Head’s press release felt overwhelming and overly corporate, reading like the disclosures segment of a prescription drug advertisement, McDonald’s communications were sharp, to the point, and used channels and formats that were more familiar and comfortable to their target audience. Anchoring response in corporate values Boar’s Head’s initial press release disclosing the recall was over 1000 words long, and yet none of those 1000 words indicated how the company felt about the recall, or how it fit within the context of the company’s values. Granted, this press release did follow a format required by the USDA, but the company could have supplemented it with additional communications that more clearly articulated their position on the incident. Instead, their data dump release left customers wondering whether the company’s health code violations were just par for the course for an organization that made no mention of prioritizing food safety or the well-being of its customers. McDonald’s, on the other hand, started with their values. The first two lines of their cross-posted internal message read: “Across the McDonald’s System, serving customers safely in every single restaurant, each and every day, is our top priority and something we’ll never compromise on. It is why we are taking swift and decisive action following an E. Coli outbreak in certain states.”  McDonald’s made clear the outbreak was directly at odds with its corporate principles and that its rapid response was driven by a desire to uphold those principles, eliciting comments like the below on Joe Erlinger’s video address: Taking ownership In responding to the listeria outbreak, Boar’s Head has not attributed its statements or communications to a specific spokesperson. Even the customer letter that the company issued a month after the initiation of the recall was signed by the company, rather than the CEO or another corporate leader. McDonald’s attached two credible spokespeople to its crisis. North America Chief Supply Chain Officer Cesar Piña was listed as the author of the internal message, and USA President Joe Erlinger appeared in the video. By positioning two leaders front and center and having them take ownership of the incident, the company’s response came across as much more genuine than Boar’s Head. Humans connect better with one another than they do with brands, so assigning a leader to be the face of a company’s crisis response – someone who does not skirt responsibility or make excuses – can be an effective means of rebuilding credibility with consumers. Communicating empathy This was perhaps the only category in which McDonald’s joined Boar’s Head in falling short. As in Boar’s Head’s case, McDonald’s initial communications failed to express empathy for those who have so far been impacted by the outbreak, including the individual who died after contracting E. coli. As we speculated in our article regarding Boar’s Head, this may stem from concerns that an expression of empathy could be interpreted as an admission of guilt and carry legal liability. However, we believe there are ways to communicate empathetically without admitting fault, and it felt strange for McDonald’s to emphasize its values so aggressively without ever mentioning the impacted individuals. This sentiment was even raised by one commenter on Joe Erlinger’s video: A little can go a long way – even a simple, “We are aware of the reports of individuals falling ill from E. Coli and want to share our heartfelt sympathies to those suffering from this terrible illness” would help offset any perception that McDonald’s response was heartless or lacking in empathy. Communicating empathy At this stage, the score card is clearly in McDonald’s favor, as it bested Boar’s Head in all but one of the above categories. However, it can take months for a crisis of this magnitude to play out, with many more opportunities for missteps. It remains to be seen whether McDonald’s can maintain the largely positive momentum from its initial response, or if the situation will worsen and make long-term reputational harm all but inevitable. To avoid further damage, it is critical that McDonald’s clearly communicates its final findings regarding the source of the outbreak, as well as the steps it is taking to ensure that another, similar outbreak does not occur in the future.

For months, Boar’s Head has been navigating a major product recall and related plant shutdown that have led to a USDA investigation, potential criminal charges, and class action lawsuits. The company’s communications have been lacking at many key inflection points during this tumultuous period, and the company’s leadership and ownership are now under significant scrutiny. Below, we share some key communications learnings from Boar’s Head’s existential crisis. Communicate with empathy… At the outset of the recall, Boar’s Head and USDA issued a technical press release, and the company separately issued a boilerplate media statement saying that it was “cooperating fully with government authorities and conducting [its] own investigation into this incident.” The company’s first social media post regarding the recall was a generic message on its corporate Instagram account, stating, “[a]t Boar’s Head, the health and safety of our customers is our top priority.” It is likely that legal concerns and a lack of conclusive information resulted in the company’s barebones statements in the early days of the recall. Even so, Boar’s Head could have included more empathetic messaging in its statements without jeopardizing its legal strategy – expressing more concern and sympathy for those impacted without assigning blame or taking ownership. The company also could have more effectively demonstrated that it was taking the situation seriously by disseminating its statements more proactively and frequently across social media and other channels. It’s important to leverage all relevant channels to reach your key stakeholders, even if you are still gathering information and planning next steps. …and do so quickly Beyond its minimal press release and anodyne day one media statement, Boar’s Head remained silent for four days after the start of the recall, and in doing so missed a crucial window of opportunity to communicate with key external stakeholders and shape the narrative. It was not until a month after the recall’s initiation that the company released a more substantive communication via a product recall page on its website. While the letter hit many of the right messages – e.g., apologizing effectively for the tragic loss of life and impact to all customers, as well as outlining concrete actions the company is taking to improve food safety – it was too little, too late. Organizations must balance legal and reputational considerations as they develop and execute communications strategies – the best of which enable the timely dissemination of empathetic and informed messaging that does not endanger the legal strategy. Choose your spokesperson wisely… or, at least, have a spokesperson Recent reporting has revealed that two families have been fighting over ownership of Boar’s Head for years and that the company’s leadership is unclear even to some of its C-level executives. Headlines such as “The Secretive Dynasty That Controls the Boar’s Head Brand” (New York Times) and “The Boar’s Head deli company is so secretive that a top executive didn’t know the name of the CEO” (Fortune) have left the public wondering who actually pulls the strings at Boar’s Head. So, when an otherwise well-crafted letter to customers regarding the crisis was signed by the company and not its CEO, it only added fuel to the speculation about the company’s leadership and left the letter feeling more hollow and corporate than sincere and driven by empathy. Humans connect better with one another than they do with brands. Thus, electing a credible spokesperson – typically a CEO or other member of corporate leadership who takes ownership and responsibility – can be an effective mitigating factor against the negative reputational impacts of a crisis. In the absence of such a figure, it can be difficult for a company to earn back public trust. Skeletons in your closet? Find them! Near constant media coverage of Boar’s Head’s recall has put the company under a microscope. Now, its internal strife and lack of clear leadership are being exposed for all to see. When one crisis occurs, others may follow, making a bad situation even worse. Companies experiencing a crisis will almost certainly be scrutinized more closely than before, reinforcing the importance of proactive risk management and crisis preparedness. Where to go from here Boar’s Head has its work cut out if it wants to earn back trust and repair its reputation. Below are a few steps the company could consider taking to help right the ship: These steps alone are unlikely to completely resolve their current reputational challenges – but following up these initial efforts with a programmatic, multi-channel campaign that clearly and compellingly communicates how Boar’s Head has gone above and beyond to rectify the underlying issues that led to the crisis may give the company a fighting chance.