PR Roundup covers what the NHL’s short-lived “Hot for Hockey” campaign reveals about the difference between spotting a cultural trend and earning a place in it, why Starbucks’ “Sugar-Free” protein drinks are now the subject of a class-action lawsuit and why AI has topped the Reputation Risk Index and prompted an unprecedented formal warning for business leaders.
The NHL’s “Hot for Hockey” Campaign Was Over Almost Before It Started
What happened: The NHL launched “Hot for Hockey” last week—a series of 30-to-90 second audio shorts on Spotify inspired by hockey romance novels, featuring evocative language and dramatic production elements around real players including Connor McDavid, Trevor Zegras and Mika Zibanejad. By Monday, it was gone. The league pulled all seven episodes a few days after launch and confirmed no new installments will be produced.
The NHL’s official explanation: it was always intended as a one-week campaign tied to opening games. However, Sports Business Journal wrote about the launch and the league’s plan to roll out stories “throughout the season”—a discrepancy the NHL declined to address.
Critics accused the league of mocking the very fans it tries to court—women and 2SLGBTQ+ audiences drawn to hockey through romance properties like “Heated Rivalry”—rather than genuinely engaging with that subculture. Hockey romance author Emily Rath said she refused to participate, citing “open mocking” and AI-generated covers.
Communication takeaways: The situation is a reminder that understanding a subculture and successfully communicating within it are two different things. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman noted that the data on new fans acquired through hockey romance is “overwhelming"—proving that the instinct was sound. But the campaign felt designed by people who had studied the phenomenon rather than people who understood it.
Jackie O’Keefe, President and Founder at Possible PR, says the NHL had the right instincts to recognize a cultural moment breeding a potential audience opportunity, but that it misread how to connect.
“Just because people love something adjacent to your brand doesn’t mean they want that same experience from you,” O’Keefe says.
She notes that consumers are incredibly savvy, and if a brand tries too hard to connect without authenticity, that disconnect becomes very obvious.
“It can ultimately have the opposite effect of what was intended, turning off the very audience you're trying to attract,” she says. “Just because your product connects to something culturally relevant doesn’t necessarily mean you have a credible role to play in it.”
And as for the NHL? When the exit strategy contradicts the launch messaging, the communications damage outlasts the content.
A New Lawsuit Says Starbucks’ “Sugar-Free” Drinks Are Anything But
What happened: A proposed class-action lawsuit filed Oct. 2 in Seattle federal court alleges that eight Starbucks protein beverages marketed as “Sugar-Free” contain between 13 and 21 grams of sugar per venti serving—well above the 0.5 grams federal regulations allow for a product to carry the “sugar-free” label. The affected drinks include hot and iced versions of the Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Latte, Sugar-Free Vanilla Protein Matcha and Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha. Starbucks claims the sugar comes from lactose, the naturally occurring sugar in milk.
The comparison in the filing is hard to ignore. The suit claims that the 21 grams of sugar in a venti Sugar-Free Caramel Protein Matcha is “roughly equal to five teaspoons of sugar—almost as much total sugar as is contained in a standard KitKat bar.” The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and asks the court to bar Starbucks from using the “sugar-free” label on beverages containing sugar. Starbucks called the claims “without merit” and said it intends to vigorously defend itself.
The legal distinction at the center of the case—total sugar versus added sugar—is the kind of nuance that tends to get lost in product naming. Starbucks discloses nutritional information on its app, website and menus, but the lawsuit argues that “Sugar-Free” in the product name itself is deceptive, regardless of the fine print.
Communication takeaways: The case is a useful example for how product claims translate from marketing and communications intent to consumer perception. If the product name makes a specific claim that the nutrition facts contradict, the gap between what a brand says and what consumers hear becomes a liability—and in this case, a lawsuit.
Monica Smith, Principal at Integer, says companies facing lawsuits need a coordinated approach across departments, including legal, communications and operations.
“Each team brings a different perspective, but they need a shared understanding of the facts and how to explain them,” Smith says. “Together, they can develop clear, consistent messaging that protects the company’s legal position while preserving customer trust.”
Smith also notes that prepared messaging gives employees, such as baristas, clear answers to the questions they may face.
“Even with experienced legal and communications teams, a company can deliver a response that addresses the lawsuit but leaves the customer’s underlying concern unanswered,” she says. “The test is whether the response protects the legal position while giving people a clear, credible answer to the question they’re actually asking.”
Preparation before such a crisis is key. Establish strong working relationships between legal and communications before a lawsuit or public scrutiny puts them to the test.
“A regular cadence of communication and clear protocols for sharing information, making decisions and approving messaging give those teams a foundation for responding quickly and consistently when legal and reputational risks intersect,” Smith says.
Corporate America Has an AI Reputation Problem. A New Warning Says It’s Time to Act.
What happened: For the fourth time in less than two years, artificial intelligence has ranked as the most serious reputational threat to corporations in the Global Situation Room’s Reputation Risk Index—and this quarter, the Index’s Global Risk Advisory Council is doing something it has never done before: issuing a formal “Reputation Warning.” The warning calls on business leaders to take immediate and decisive action to mitigate potential long-term brand damage.
The Index first flagged the AI threat at the start of 2025. Early concerns centered on accelerated AI adoption driving consumers into artificial relationships with brands—creating new vulnerabilities around privacy, safety and worker displacement. Those concerns have only deepened since.
Communication takeaways: The formal warning is notable precisely because of how rare it is. The Index has tracked AI as a top risk repeatedly, but escalating to an advisory signals the council believes the window for proactive action is narrowing.
“As AI is rapidly deployed for productivity gains, we have also seen diminishing public trust in the technology, elevating the need for businesses to take measures to protect their brands,” says Isabel Guzman, Chair of the Council. “In this environment, AI use or overuse can quickly damage a company’s standing with customers, investors or other key stakeholders, making it essential for companies to deploy preventive tactics now.”
The group provides a list of recommended steps—all fundamentally communications disciplines—which shows how important it is for communicators to lead in these efforts.
The steps include:
- Avoid and remove artificially created content from public-facing platforms
- Publicly make a commitment to human-generated content
- Find ways to bring humans back into automated customer service processes where frustration is highest
- Create infrastructure around verifying content that claims to come from the corporation or its executives.
Nicole Schuman is Managing Editor at PRNEWS.