Matthew Singh - 08/27/2026
As we reflect on the public critique of Neutrogena's recent response to Hayden Panettiere's shared experiences as one of their former brand ambassadors, we'd like to take a moment to examine the public perceptions, accountability and proper PR responses that come along with crisis communications.
In crisis communications, sometimes the smallest words carry the biggest reputational consequences.
Neutrogena’s recent response to renewed criticism surrounding its former brand ambassador Hayden Panettiere offers a particularly interesting case study. Following Panettiere’s death, comments she made earlier this year about her relationship with the skincare brand resurfaced, reigniting scrutiny over how the partnership ended after she publicly discussed her experience with postpartum depression.
Panettiere said Neutrogena attempted to end their decade-long relationship under a morals clause after she spoke publicly about her postpartum depression. She recalled being particularly hurt that, after so many years with the brand, she felt there was little communication or acknowledgment when the relationship ended.
Neutrogena responded by saying it was “deeply saddened” by Panettiere’s passing and that she had been a valued member of the Neutrogena community. The brand acknowledged that it “made her feel unsupported during a very difficult time” and announced a significant investment in a community health partner to help more women access support, including care for postpartum depression.
On the surface, the statement checks several crisis communications boxes: empathy, acknowledgment, and a commitment to action.
But there is one phrase that deserves a closer look: “We made her feel unsupported.” That is not the same as saying: “We failed to support her.” And in crisis communications, that distinction matters.
Feelings vs. Accountability
“We made her feel unsupported” places the emphasis on Panettiere’s experience. It describes the outcome of the situation as something she felt. “We failed to support her,” on the other hand, puts the emphasis on the organization and its actions.
One acknowledges a perception. The other accepts responsibility.
That difference may seem subtle, but audiences are increasingly sophisticated when it comes to corporate apologies. They can recognize when a brand is carefully choosing language that acknowledges criticism without explicitly accepting fault.
In a crisis, overly cautious language can sometimes create a bigger problem: It makes an organization appear more concerned with protecting itself than addressing the issue.
That is particularly important when the issue involves something as sensitive as mental health and postpartum depression.
Panettiere was publicly discussing a deeply personal experience at a time when conversations around postpartum depression were still surrounded by significant stigma. According to reporting on her comments, she said she never expected being honest about her experience to result in professional consequences.
Whether or not every detail of the original contractual decision can be independently established today, the reputational issue is clear: Panettiere felt abandoned by a brand with which she had a decade-long relationship.
That is the perception Neutrogena needed to address.
Timing Is Part of the Message
The second issue is timing. Neutrogena explained that it waited to comment out of respect for Panettiere’s family and loved ones. That is understandable, particularly given the circumstances.
But from a crisis communications perspective, timing still shapes how a response is received.
By the time Neutrogena addressed the controversy, the conversation had already spread across social media and into national media coverage. The statement therefore felt less like a proactive effort to address a longstanding concern and more like a response to mounting public pressure.
This is one of the reasons crisis preparations matters so much.
As we’ve discussed previously at 3E, having a crisis communications plan in place allows brands to identify potential vulnerabilities, establish decision-making protocols and determine who needs to be involved before a crisis unfolds.
Of course, no communications plan can predict every situation. But preparation gives organizations something incredibly valuable during a crisis: time to think before they speak.
An Investment Is Only Meaningful If It Is Followed by Action
One of the strongest elements of Neutrogena’s response was its commitment to investing in women’s health and postpartum depression support. The brand said it would provide more details once its plans were in place.
That creates an opportunity to move the conversation beyond an apology. But the next step is critical. A financial commitment cannot simply become a line in a statement. It needs to become something tangible, measurable and transparent. What organization will receive the investment? How much is being invested? What programs will it support? How will the brand measure its impact?
And perhaps most importantly: What has Neutrogena changed internally as a result of this experience? The most effective crisis responses don’t simply say, “We are doing better.” They demonstrate how the organization is doing better. That is where an apology becomes meaningful.
The Social Media Factor
There is another important lesson here: crises don’t unfold in a vacuum. Panettiere’s earlier comments resurfaced through social media, where audiences were able to revisit and amplify a story from years earlier almost instantly. The resulting conversation then moved from social platforms into mainstream media.
That cycle is increasingly common.
Our Guide to Social Media Crisis Communications explores how quickly a crisis can move through social media and why organizations need a strategy for monitoring, responding and communicating in real time.
A brand’s history is no longer necessarily history. Old interviews, campaigns, executive comments and corporate decisions can all resurface when cultural conversations change. What may have seemed like a closed chapter years ago can become tomorrow’s reputational crisis.
The Bigger Lesson for Brands
The lesson from the Neutrogena controversy isn’t simply that brands need to write better apologies. It’s that brands need to understand what an apology is supposed to accomplish. An effective crisis response should answer three fundamental questions:
- What happened?
- What responsibility does the organization have?
- What is the organization going to do differently moving forward?
The safest possible language isn’t always the strongest language. In fact, overly cautious language can sometimes make a response feel less authentic.
As we noted in our previous PR Perspective: Astronomer & Gwyneth Paltrow discussion, moments of public scrutiny can reveal whether a brand’s communications strategy is actually aligned with its values. That alignment is ultimately what audiences are looking for.
Neutrogena has an opportunity to turn a difficult moment into meaningful action. Its investment in postpartum mental health support is a step in that direction. But the long-term reputation impact will depend less on the wording of one statement and more on what the brand does next.
Because PR isn’t about finding the safest words. It’s about finding the most accountable ones.
If you’d like to talk crisis communications with us, please contact us here.