Guilt by Association? Comparing Major CEO Crisis Responses

In the past few months, we have seen not one, but two major media moments involving CEO scandals that have rocked the brands they worked for and made headlines across all major media outlets.

On July 15^th, Astronomer CEO, Andy Byron, was caught on a kiss cam at a Coldplay concert while embracing Kristin Cabot (Chief People Officer / Head of HR) in a very public and viral outing of their infidelity and inappropriate workplace relationship.

Then, on September 1^st, news broke again that Nestle was parting ways with its CEO, Laurent Freixe, after just 1 year at the helm, because of a romantic relationship with an employee for almost the entirety of his tenure.

Most professionals in the industry would probably agree that either of these incidents is every modern-day Chief Communications Officer’s worst nightmare. But it does also bring to mind the age-old phrase of “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” by P.T. Barnum. It begs the question of just how much damage is actually inflicted from executive missteps like these? What actions taken during the crises may have mitigated the fallout or acted as an accelerant for the flames? And how bad was the ultimate impact on future brand reputation?

To find out, we’ll use Infegy Starscape to dive into the media landscape data and also explore the digital footprint of how far this conversation permeated into social media. With that data in hand, we will aim to find out what scars it may or may not have left on the brand.

Astronomer’s CEO Kiss-Cam Scandal

A Relative Timeline of the Astronomer CEO Scandal

Looking at the Astronomer timeline of events, we can clearly see that the crisis was sparked by a viral “kiss-cam” clip on July 16, 2025, which appeared to show CEO Andy Byron embracing the company’s Chief People Officer, Kristin Cabot. Within 48 hours (July 18), the board announced a formal investigation and placed leadership on leave; however, the early narrative had already been shaped by social virality and speculation. 

The company sought to regain control of the media after Byron resigned on July 19 and Cabot followed on July 24, pairing those decisions with statements aimed at correcting misinformation and emphasizing business continuity. 

In short, a spectacle-driven trigger outpaced a delayed official response, and only after the investigation and leadership exits were announced after days of silence (and rumors/misinformation) did Astronomer effectively reframe the story around process, accountability, and stability.

Figure 1: Timeline of Astronomer CEO relationship scandal (July 16, 2025 - August 1, 2025).

Astronomer Media Coverage

The full media arc of the Astronomer CEO crisis started as a spectacle-driven viral moment (a “kiss-cam” clip) that rocketed through social feeds and consumer outlets, setting a gossipy, meme-heavy frame before the company was properly prepared to weigh in and take control of the narrative from a business perspective. 

Within just 24 hours, the mainstream business press grabbed onto the story, and brand's reputation was significantly impacted. It took days for the company to begin pivoting the story from salacious optics to governance and process. 

The resulting impact of this viral moment (void of narrative ownership or pivot by the brand) led to nearly 150 thousand articles being published across the media landscape in just 72 hours post-incident, each reaching an average of about 10 million Unique Monthly Visitors and having a critically concerning level of negative sentiment (36% on average).

Figure 2: Media Articles, Reach, Sentiment, and Timeline of Astronomer CEO Scandal (July 16, 2025 - August 1, 2025)

The media cycle began to wind down as the story lines eventually began to shift coverage topics to less salacious and more operationally focused topics like the board’s investigation, executive leave statuses, and then ultimately leadership exits over the next week. As Astronomer issued clarifications (debunking fake posts and stressing business/operations continuity) and the CEO/CPO resigned, coverage consolidated around a compliance narrative rather than personal drama and scandal. 

However, by looking at the data over time, we can see that the day-one virality dictated tone and scale, but decisive actions plus policy-first messaging eventually re-centered reporting on code-of-conduct, succession, and operational stability.

Astronomer Social Media Response

On social media, the Astronomer saga moved dizzyingly fast (nearly 500K Posts) from rubber-necking to rumor-fuel in the absence of an official company/brand position on the crisis. 

The Coldplay kiss-cam clip sparked a wave of memes and joke posts with average engagement of roughly 1K likes and shares per post. This virality pushed the story well beyond the typical tech and business circles where this type of story most typically sparks and dies out after investor fears are assuaged. What filled the dead air on social media in the absence of an official communications response by Astronomer was false information, fake apologies, and a rumor mill of assumptions and accusations that were somewhat negative (38%). 

Figure 3: Social posts, average engagement, and negative sentiment for Astronomer CEO Scandal (July 16, 2025 - August 1, 2025); Infegy Social Dataset. 

Figure 4: Narratives for Astronomer CEO Scandal (July 16, 2025 - August 1, 2025); Infegy Social Dataset. 

Major threads on Reddit and viral cross-platform posts on X, Instagram, and TikTok amplified the spectacle while others focused on fact-checking and debunking forged statements and clarifying who was (and wasn’t) involved. As Astronomer began correcting misinformation and announcing its investigation and leadership changes, the conversation shifted from mockery to a narrative of corporate conduct and crisis handling, but the meme era set the tone and scale.

Nestlé’s CEO Relationship Scandal

A Relative Timeline of the Nestlé CEO Scandal

Looking at the timeline of events for the dismissal of CEO Laurent Freixe by Nestlé’s Board of Directors, there is an immediate and obvious inflection point for the incident, which broke in the media on September 1, 2025. The company came to its decision because of an undisclosed relationship with a direct report, which was a direct breach of the company’s code of conduct.

Notably, they also simultaneously announced the appointment of Philipp Navratil as their new CEO and framed the action as a clear business decision, which was policy-driven.

Within 24 hours, business wires and investment-focused outlets locked onto the governance angle that the brand spoon-fed to the media, and the stock market’s reaction dominated much of the news cycle, as investors processed the second CEO departure in a year. 

Figure 5: Nestle CEO relationship scandal timeline, (September 1, 2025 - September 15, 2025).

In the days that followed, business and mainstream media dug deeper by detailing the investigation process, timeline and more facts about what led to the ousting. The process and steps that Nestle revealed to the media help bolster confidence in the company’s leadership and ability to weather the crisis, which helped to cement the narrative that the brand wanted to push rather than letting the media or audiences come to their own conclusions and spread misinformation or over-dramatize the issue through the lens of a personal scandal. 

Within ten days, coverage shifted to focus on the credibility of the new CEO, his plans for moving the company forward, and the track record he offered from his previous roles. This clarity of brand messaging, ownership of the crisis, definitive action, and the go-forward plan helped to mitigate damage to brand reputation, reduce the number of articles written, and contain the crisis before it spread too virally.

Nestle Media Coverage

Figure 6: Media Articles, Reach, Sentiment and Timeline of Nestle CEO Scandal (September 1, 2025 - September 15, 2025)

Business coverage of Nestle’s CEO crisis coalesced quickly around a governance-and-compliance framing that was in line with what the brand had pushed out messaging wise. Reporting led with the board’s immediate dismissal of Laurent Freixe for an undisclosed relationship with a subordinate, emphasized that the decision followed an internal probe via the “Speak Up” channel (and a second review), noted there would be no severance, and highlighted the same-day succession move installing insider Philipp Navratil. 

Further coverage positioned the episode as a matter of policy enforcement rather than a personal scandal.  Follow-on pieces tracked modest stock price impact, scrutinized oversight by the chair, and shifted quickly to forward-looking profiles of Navratil and operational priorities. This kept the narrative largely institutional and investor-oriented and limited coverage to just 84 thousand articles in total with an average reach of just 6 million Unique Monthly Visitors, though sentiment was critically negative (39% on average).

Looking at the data over time, we can see that the company’s communications approach clearly kept a lid on the crisis (with a -90% drop off in coverage after just 48 hours of initial announcement), helped to quell investor worries and paved a clear path forward for the brand to carry on normal operations, perhaps with even greater reputational trust in governance, operations and policies.

Nestle Social Conversations

On social media, the Nestlé dismissal of CEO, Laurent Freixe, was split into two distinct conversations: Business and Consumer albeit muted on both fronts with just 21 thousand total posts and average engagement of just 150 likes and shares per post (though notably concerning negative sentiment of 45% on average).

Business-focused narratives focused on active investor reply threads/forums and treated the incident as a stock market event with sub-topics centered on governance, tracking the stock price impact, debating the “no severance/instant succession” decision, and framing the crisis as a code-of-conduct enforcement rather than a juicy tabloid event.

Consumer or general population oriented conversations were cynical, humor-focused with memes, and speculative about the relationship details and corporate culture that may have allowed it for so long before being announced publicly. On Reddit, top threads like r/stocks summarized the dismissal incident, discussed the whistleblower (“Speak Up”) angle, and pontificated on stock implications, with a mostly analytical tone. 

In r/antiwork and anti-brand communities, the conversation leaned more snarky and distrustful, with jokes, conjecture about cover-ups, and calls to view the firing as a means to protect shareholders rather than uphold values. Pervasively across platforms and conversations, a recurring notation was that the case began with an internal hotline tip, which shaped takes around compliance and power dynamics rather than celebrity-style scandal.

Figure 7: Social posts, average engagement, and negative sentiment for Nestle CEO Scandal (September 1, 2025 - September 15, 2025); Infegy Social Dataset. 

Figure 8: Narratives for Nestle CEO Scandal (September 1, 2025 - September 15, 2025); Infegy Social Dataset. 

Because Nestle’s story broke as a straightforward governance/compliance action and there was an immediate firing, no severance given, and a named successor, the narrative stayed contained and focused on just the day-to-day business impact and was not discussed by the general public to nearly the same degree as it could have been with a less prepared strategic communications plan.

Conclusions

So what have we learned from all of the data analyzed across both the traditional and social media landscape? Are brands found to be guilty by mere association to executive transgressions, or is there an opportunity for communications leaders and executives to rewrite the script and save the brand’s reputation in the wake of a crisis?

Well, when executive misconduct surfaces, brands inherit the spotlight and are given a brief opportunity to control the narrative and how the crisis is framed by the media and, to some extent, also the general public. How bad the brand reputation impact ultimately is depends on the severity of the incident, the speed/clarity of the brand’s first moves, and to what extent leadership continuity is effectively preserved (i.e., who is now in charge and what is going to be done to prevent this from happening again). 

Key Takeaways

• Own Day-0: Move quickly. Provide facts. Demonstrate action. Set expectations.
• Calm the Media Storm: Be accountable. Affirm continuity. Show the path forward.
• Be Prepared for Anything: Draft pre-approved messaging or at least strategic plans of action while establishing widely known and adopted media relations procedures for future brand crises.

Astronomer’s meme-fueled origin story allowed social media to craft the narrative before the company, and the media fallout was exponentially more damaging in comparison. While Nestle’s policy-first dismissal and instant succession kept the coverage and conversations on message and more or less contained. 

The data suggests comms leaders can shrink “damage by association” by making the brand’s values and process louder than the personalities involved, and that this communications strategy needs to be immediate, consisten,t and with a clearly communicated path forward.

As Coldplay lyricized, “Nobody said it was easy”, but perhaps it doesn’t have to be so hard. 

This insight is provided by Neil Stout of Incite Reporting.

Please check them out.

If you are interested in sharing your insights, contact our marketing team.