Brand character management in crisis situations
Kill the character or reformat: two working scenarios
Duolingo announced the 'death' of the Duo owl in 2024 year — and it worked for the brand, not against it: within two weeks, there were 169 thousand mentions of the mascot, 580 thousand mentions of the brand, the hashtag #ripduo was used 45 thousand times, and the growth in mentions per day on the announcement day was 25 560%. But this only works when the 'death' of the character is a controlled performance, not a reaction to a real failure. Duo was not connected to the scandal: they killed it for attention, not to distance themselves from a mistake.
Build-A-Bear went a different way. In 2013 year, the company was losing $50 million, and instead of cosmetic rebranding of the mascot, it asked itself a honest question: does it matter that Build-A-Bear even exists. The answer transformed not the character, but its role — from toy seller to emotional ritual guide. Capitalization grew by more than 2000% over ten years, the company went through a pandemic and Brexit without a repeat of identity crisis.
The bottom line is simple: killing a character is worth it when the crisis is a reputational furore and an info-lead is needed to restart attention. Rebranding is needed when the crisis touches the brand's core meaning, and cosmetics won't cure the symptom.
Who survives a crisis better: the packaging, the celebrity, or the digital influencer?
Not all characters are equally vulnerable. The difference lies in how separable the character is from the brand and how much independent 'life' the character has outside of the company's control.
| Character type | Example | Vulnerability in a crisis | Speed of recovery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built into the packaging/product | Milino | Low — the character doesn't give interviews, doesn't commit acts | Fast: it is enough to change the context of brand communication |
| Living celebrity-ambassador | Celebrity faces of campaigns | High — a personal scandal of an ambassador automatically becomes a brand scandal | Slow: requires contract termination and public distancing |
| Digital influencer/mascot | Duo (Duolingo), corporate mascots | Medium — depends only on the brand, but emotionally close to the audience | Fast with the right scenario, but risk becoming a scapegoat |
A character embedded in packaging almost cannot become a source of a crisis — it is static and has no agency. A living celebrity is the riskiest asset: it brings charisma, but also the entire baggage of its own reputation. A digital mascot occupies an intermediate position: it is fully controlled by the brand, but this very control and closeness to the audience make it a convenient target for redirecting anger if something goes wrong.
Why audience anger is directed at a character, not the brand
Here a simple psychological substitution works: the character is the voice of the brand, but not its actions. When a company makes a mistake — delays delivery, deceives about product composition — the audience cannot directly 'punish' the legal entity. But it does have a recognizable, emotionally charged face with which it can interact as with a living interlocutor. Nielsen research shows that recognizable mascots increase trust and loyalty by 46% under normal conditions — but this same closeness in a crisis works in both directions. The character either takes the blow on itself and neutralizes it (as KFS), or becomes a symbol of the problem itself.
The situational communication theory in crisis (SCCT) by Timothy Cumbus explains why the response should differ according to the type of crisis, rather than being universal:
- Crisis of victim (force majeure, accident not due to the company) — sufficient information is required, the character can remain a neutral witness of the situation.
- Random crisis (unintentional mistake) — an explanation is needed, the character can take on the role of an honest narrator without self-degradation.
- Preventable crisis (negligence, deception) — a full apology is required, and here the character, if they remain in the frame, must explicitly acknowledge the brand's guilt, rather than making excuses.
The mistake of most brands is applying the same character tone to all three types of crisis. Irony, appropriate during a force majeure, becomes an offense during accusations of negligence.
What worsens the crisis: silence, irony, mockery
There is a window in which the fate of reputation is decided: the acute phase of a crisis lasts about seven days without new details. The example of Rendez-Vous — 18 474 messages in a week, of which 87% had to do with user comments, not media publications. While the company coordinates a response with lawyers for five to nine days, the audience forms a final opinion without its participation. The sweater 'Courchevel' became a scandal not by itself, but due to the reaction — mockery of criticism instead of acknowledging the problem. This is a classic error of a preventable crisis: irony where an apology is needed.
The opposite example — KFC and the 'FCK' campaign in 2018 year. When chicken ran out in restaurants, the brand placed full-page advertisements in newspapers with the logo letters rearranged. This worked not because it was funny, but because it was honest and appeared in real time, during the active crisis, not after its completion. The difference between mocking critics and self-irony toward oneself is exactly what determines whether the audience will support the joke or perceive it as cynicism.
The Campbell's case shows how much it costs for a company to delay its response in the age of algorithmic distribution: 70% negative sentiment and a loss of $684 million in market capitalization in just one morning — because AI systems and search engines spread the story faster than the company could formulate its position. Silence is not neutral today — it's a vacuum that gets filled by others for you.
How to regain trust: changing identity, visual identity, or just behavior
After a crisis, returning to 'how it was' almost never works — the audience remembers the incident longer than the company would like. There are three levels of recovery, and the choice depends on the depth of the damage:
- Only changing the brand's behavior — the character remains the same, but gets new response scenarios. Suitable if the character was not the source of the scandal, but was merely nearby.
- Changing the visual identity without changing the identity — an image update signals 'we heard you,' but preserves recognizability and the emotional capital accumulated over the years.
- Full rebranding — a new identity, new values, sometimes a new name. An extreme measure, justified only when the character has become synonymous with the brand's failure, not a temporary problem.
Build-A-Bear proved that the most sustainable path is not to repaint the mascot, but to revisit the meaning it carries. The character does not have to change visually if what it symbolizes for the audience is changing. And this is, perhaps, the main difference between character management and brand management during a crisis: the brand is healed with statements, the character is healed with actions that the audience can either forgive or remember forever.
Kill the character or reformat: two working scenarios
Duolingo announced the 'death' of the Duo owl in 2024 year — and it worked for the brand, not against it: within two weeks, there were 169 thousand mentions of the mascot, 580 thousand mentions of the brand, the hashtag #ripduo was used 45 thousand times, and the growth in mentions per day on the announcement day was 25 560%. But this only works when the 'death' of the character is a controlled performance, not a reaction to a real failure. Duo was not connected to the scandal: they killed it for attention, not to distance themselves from a mistake.
Build-A-Bear went a different way. In 2013 year, the company was losing $50 million, and instead of cosmetic rebranding of the mascot, it asked itself a honest question: does it matter that Build-A-Bear even exists. The answer transformed not the character, but its role — from toy seller to emotional ritual guide. Capitalization grew by more than 2000% over ten years, the company went through a pandemic and Brexit without a repeat of identity crisis.
The bottom line is simple: killing a character is worth it when the crisis is a reputational furore and an info-lead is needed to restart attention. Rebranding is needed when the crisis touches the brand's core meaning, and cosmetics won't cure the symptom.
Who survives a crisis better: the packaging, the celebrity, or the digital influencer?
Not all characters are equally vulnerable. The difference lies in how separable the character is from the brand and how much independent 'life' the character has outside of the company's control.
| Character type | Example | Vulnerability in a crisis | Speed of recovery |
|---|---|---|---|
| Built into the packaging/product | Milino | Low — the character doesn't give interviews, doesn't commit acts | Fast: it is enough to change the context of brand communication |
| Living celebrity-ambassador | Celebrity faces of campaigns | High — a personal scandal of an ambassador automatically becomes a brand scandal | Slow: requires contract termination and public distancing |
| Digital influencer/mascot | Duo (Duolingo), corporate mascots | Medium — depends only on the brand, but emotionally close to the audience | Fast with the right scenario, but risk becoming a scapegoat |
A character embedded in packaging almost cannot become a source of a crisis — it is static and has no agency. A living celebrity is the riskiest asset: it brings charisma, but also the entire baggage of its own reputation. A digital mascot occupies an intermediate position: it is fully controlled by the brand, but this very control and closeness to the audience make it a convenient target for redirecting anger if something goes wrong.
Why audience anger is directed at a character, not the brand
Here a simple psychological substitution works: the character is the voice of the brand, but not its actions. When a company makes a mistake — delays delivery, deceives about product composition — the audience cannot directly 'punish' the legal entity. But it does have a recognizable, emotionally charged face with which it can interact as with a living interlocutor. Nielsen research shows that recognizable mascots increase trust and loyalty by 46% under normal conditions — but this same closeness in a crisis works in both directions. The character either takes the blow on itself and neutralizes it (as KFS), or becomes a symbol of the problem itself.
The situational communication theory in crisis (SCCT) by Timothy Cumbus explains why the response should differ according to the type of crisis, rather than being universal:
- Crisis of victim (force majeure, accident not due to the company) — sufficient information is required, the character can remain a neutral witness of the situation.
- Random crisis (unintentional mistake) — an explanation is needed, the character can take on the role of an honest narrator without self-degradation.
- Preventable crisis (negligence, deception) — a full apology is required, and here the character, if they remain in the frame, must explicitly acknowledge the brand's guilt, rather than making excuses.
The mistake of most brands is applying the same character tone to all three types of crisis. Irony, appropriate during a force majeure, becomes an offense during accusations of negligence.
What worsens the crisis: silence, irony, mockery
There is a window in which the fate of reputation is decided: the acute phase of a crisis lasts about seven days without new details. The example of Rendez-Vous — 18 474 messages in a week, of which 87% had to do with user comments, not media publications. While the company coordinates a response with lawyers for five to nine days, the audience forms a final opinion without its participation. The sweater 'Courchevel' became a scandal not by itself, but due to the reaction — mockery of criticism instead of acknowledging the problem. This is a classic error of a preventable crisis: irony where an apology is needed.
The opposite example — KFC and the 'FCK' campaign in 2018 year. When chicken ran out in restaurants, the brand placed full-page advertisements in newspapers with the logo letters rearranged. This worked not because it was funny, but because it was honest and appeared in real time, during the active crisis, not after its completion. The difference between mocking critics and self-irony toward oneself is exactly what determines whether the audience will support the joke or perceive it as cynicism.
The Campbell's case shows how much it costs for a company to delay its response in the age of algorithmic distribution: 70% negative sentiment and a loss of $684 million in market capitalization in just one morning — because AI systems and search engines spread the story faster than the company could formulate its position. Silence is not neutral today — it's a vacuum that gets filled by others for you.
How to regain trust: changing identity, visual identity, or just behavior
After a crisis, returning to 'how it was' almost never works — the audience remembers the incident longer than the company would like. There are three levels of recovery, and the choice depends on the depth of the damage:
- Only changing the brand's behavior — the character remains the same, but gets new response scenarios. Suitable if the character was not the source of the scandal, but was merely nearby.
- Changing the visual identity without changing the identity — an image update signals 'we heard you,' but preserves recognizability and the emotional capital accumulated over the years.
- Full rebranding — a new identity, new values, sometimes a new name. An extreme measure, justified only when the character has become synonymous with the brand's failure, not a temporary problem.
Build-A-Bear proved that the most sustainable path is not to repaint the mascot, but to revisit the meaning it carries. The character does not have to change visually if what it symbolizes for the audience is changing. And this is, perhaps, the main difference between character management and brand management during a crisis: the brand is healed with statements, the character is healed with actions that the audience can either forgive or remember forever.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
