How a famous face responds to a scandal on social media can make or break their reputation, according to new research examining the crisis communication strategies used by celebrities on Instagram. The study, published in the journal Social Semiotics, analysed 15 public statements from A- and B-list celebrities posted between 2020 and 2023, alongside 450 audience comments, to determine which approaches resonated most with the public.
Researchers from Corvinus University of Budapest applied Benoit’s Image Repair Theory, a well-established framework in crisis communication, to categorise the strategies celebrities used. The five strategies examined were denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification, which involves expressing genuine remorse and seeking forgiveness.
Mortification was by far the most common strategy, used in seven out of fifteen cases. It also attracted the most positive audience responses, averaging around 20 supportive comments per post. Celebrities who admitted wrongdoing and apologised sincerely tended to earn goodwill from their followers, reinforcing wider research on the role of perceived sincerity in public apologies.
Denial, by contrast, generated the most negative reactions, averaging 15 critical comments per post. Celebrities who rejected allegations or shifted blame faced significant backlash, with audiences more likely to attack them personally rather than engage constructively with the situation. This pattern held even when the crisis involved serious accusations, with denial appearing as the preferred strategy in the most severe cases.
The timing and transparency of an apology also proved crucial. One actress who waited ten days before posting an apology during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic received predominantly negative comments, with audiences questioning the sincerity of the statement. The research suggests that delayed responses in a crisis, particularly on a platform as fast-moving as Instagram, can undermine credibility and fuel further criticism.
Pre-existing reputation played a significant role in shaping how audiences interpreted celebrity statements. Celebrities with strong public images and close parasocial bonds with their followers were more likely to receive forgiveness, even when the nature of their crisis was comparable to others who faced harsher reactions. This aligns with broader research on how audience loyalty can buffer the impact of a public relations crisis.
Interestingly, none of the celebrities in the sample used corrective action as their primary strategy, despite research in corporate crisis communication identifying it as highly effective. The authors suggest this may reflect the personal nature of celebrity scandals, which tend to centre on individual behaviour rather than organisational failures requiring concrete remedies.
The study also noted that some celebrities blended strategies. Adele, for instance, combined mortification with corrective action when addressing the cancellation of her Las Vegas residency, acknowledging her own distress while promising to reschedule dates. This flexibility, the researchers argue, may reflect how celebrities and their PR teams adapt to the specific context of each crisis.
The findings carry practical implications for anyone managing reputation on social media, from public figures navigating cancel culture to brands responding to online controversy. Sincerity, speed, and accountability consistently outperformed deflection and denial in winning back public trust.