"I think you could do a pretty good case study on how not to do security crisis PR" Agree but wonder why companies don't have the crash cart ready and always s

"I think you could do a pretty good case study on how not to do security crisis PR" Agree but wonder why companies don't have the crash cart ready and always seem to mess this one up. "harmed by bad crisis PR are LinkedIn investors" My feeling is different. If people are talking about your company (and plenty has been said about this) and it's something that they've heard before many times I think the publicity is not bad and if anything could get some retail investors interested. Linkedin is not a food product and, in general, I don't think people think of linkedin like they think if they find out a product contains pink slime. It's like WD-40. You spray it on and the carrier evaporates leaving the stuff that does the work. So the memory of linkedin remains and the knowledge of the problem is lost. People have short memories. The brand will have a publicity gain and the negative will be forgotten. This happens with celebrities who do bad things. They just become more famous and valuable (in that case even if people remember the bad like with Sheen). (With the exception of, say, OJ Simpson and maybe a few others such as Tiger Woods because of his squeaky clean image.)