Keith M. Hearit Crisis Communication Management: Applying Theory To Real Cases !!top!! (2026)

The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson prioritized profits over safety.

Tylenol regained 95% of its market share within a year. The case became Hearit’s gold standard for how mortification + corrective action can transform a potential fatal crisis into a reputational asset. Case Study 2: Exxon Valdez (1989) – The Failure of Defeasibility The Crisis: The Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The environmental damage was catastrophic. Exxon’s initial response was slow, defensive, and legally calculated. The implied accusation was that Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson, led by CEO James Burke, enacted a strategy Hearit would categorize as mortification combined with corrective action . They immediately recalled 31 million bottles ($100 million cost), halted advertising, introduced tamper-resistant packaging, and communicated transparently through the media. Case Study 2: Exxon Valdez (1989) – The

This article explores Hearit’s foundational theories—specifically the "rhetorical stance" of apologia, the typology of crisis responses, and the concept of "corporate apologies"—and applies them to real-world cases, from the infamous to the instructional. The Rhetoric of Apologia Before Hearit, crisis communication was often dominated by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), which focused on attributions of responsibility. Hearit shifted the lens toward rhetorical theory . He posits that a crisis is fundamentally a genre of rhetorical discourse. When an organization faces an accusation, it enters a public argument where the stakes are legitimacy and survival. Johnson & Johnson, led by CEO James Burke,

Hearit praises this case not just for the action but for the rhetorical framing . Burke did not engage in defeasibility (“We couldn’t have known”). Instead, he invoked the company’s credo—a values-based document—to frame the recall as a moral obligation, not a business calculation. The apology was implicit in the action: “We failed to protect you, and we will fix the system.”

Hearit argues that Exxon misdiagnosed the genre of accusation. The public was not asking whether Hazelwood was drunk; they were asking whether Exxon’s safety culture was toxic. By focusing on legal defeasibility (lack of control over a rogue captain), Exxon appeared arrogant and indifferent. The absence of a timely, heartfelt apology was read as an admission of deeper guilt.