Case Study Analysis Assignment: PR in Action
Part 1: The Case
Following last summer’s season of Love Island USA, Huda Mustafa left the villa to find millions of followers keeping up with her every move. With her rise to fame, it was no shock that in September 2025, Huda Beauty’s founder Huda Kattan announced that Mustafa would become an ambassador for the brand’s Easy Bake Loose Powder that was now being released as a duo, capitalizing on their same name with the title, “Double the Huda.” The brand’s ‘most requested’ partnership ended less than a month and a half after it began, when, on October 28th, Mustafa and Too Hot To Handle star Louis Russell, were livestreaming online, and an unidentified caller used a racial slur aimed directly at Mustafa’s co-star, Olandria Carthen. This remark became a bigger issue when the couple appeared shocked momentarily but then laughed and hung up. The founder and CEO of Huda Beauty, Huda Kattan, had her reputation put on the line by this, as she has historically positioned herself as outspoken on issues related to human rights and discrimination. Overall, media coverage was largely negative, with many criticizing Mustafa’s reaction as insensitive or dismissive, while some of her fans defended her, arguing that she might not have had time to process what was said and she may have been in a state of shock.
Part 2: PR’s Role
The main issue was that Huda Mustafa had gotten involved in a racial controversy not even two months after launching a highly publicized collaboration with Huda Beauty, immediately linking her personal actions to the brand’s public image. Huda Kattan had “historically been politically outspoken” (Carrara, “Huda Beauty Ends Partnership”), even going as far as to be “willing to risk [her] entire business” (Carrara, “Sephora ‘Reviewing’ Social Media Backlash”), just to remain vocal on a country’s humanitarian crisis. For Mustafa, this situation posed a different but equally serious threat. She was just coming off a successful season in the villa, and her career depended heavily on public perception, brand partnerships, and follower loyalty. There were also multiple stakeholders outside of the organizations within this issue. At the heart of the controversy, Olandria Carthen was publicly targeted by a racial slur during Mustafa and her partner’s livestream. She felt personally attacked and even made her own statement to the public, responding that “words like that carry generations of pain… Defending it, laughing about it, or making excuses is even worse,” and that she would “not let this moment derail [her] purpose of uplifting [her] community” (“Huda Beauty Ends Partnership”). Her statement highlights the ethical and emotional harm involved, extending beyond a single incident to broader issues and ongoing trends of racial discrimination. With her communication after the controversy, Huda Mustafa was hoping to fix her reputation and restore her influence in the media. While Huda Beauty’s termination of the partnership was expected, she didn’t want to lose everything. Additionally, Black consumers were outraged by the brand’s association to the reality star. Kattan had aligned Huda Beauty with inclusivity, and this was a direct betrayal.
Ultimately, Huda Beauty aimed to distance the brand from Mustafa’s actions, contain backlash before it escalated into boycotts, and reinforce consistency with Kattan’s public advocacy history. By emphasizing that the decision was about accountability, rather than cancelling people the brand attempted to balance ethical responsibility with measured professionalism.
Part 3: The Four Models Analysis
Throughout this PR scandal, almost all of the PR models were used by a mix of both organizations involved. The Press Agentry model relies on one-way communication. With this model, organizations use hype, stunts, trends, and manipulation tactics to influence their audiences in their favor. In this case, Huda Beauty did this when she chose to collab with Huda Mustafa, one of the most influential cast members from the most recent season of Love Island USA. Huda Beauty capitalized on the fact that they shared a first name, simply releasing her loose powder “as a duo – “Double the Huda,” (Diop) using nothing more than their names to sell more of a product she already sold prior. This approach was effective because, although it does not reflect fully transparent communication, it operated as a typical celebrity endorsement rather than a manipulative stunt. Using their shared name was a strategic marketing choice, initially doing no damage to public trust.
While Huda Beauty used the Press Agentry model, the organization also used the Public Information model, also a one-way communication model however this showed the direct facts. After witnessing the backlash coming towards Mustafa after her controversial livestream, Huda Beauty wanted to quickly and effectively push out her own response to what had happened. On October 31, 2025, the brand released their own stance on the issue, stating on Instagram that “at Huda Beauty, kindness and humanity are at the heart of everything we do… one of our recent collaborators has displayed behavior that does not align with our values… as a result, we have decided to end our partnership and remove any related content… accountability is incredibly important in moments like this, and we hope that meaningful change can come from it” (“Huda Beauty Ends Partnership”). By releasing a statement, the brand was able to show their values and the action they took directly to the public. By publicly ending their partnership with Mustafa, Huda reinforced the brand’s commitment to inclusivity and accountability, thereby protecting trust and credibility.
While both of Huda Beauty’s chosen models were successful, Huda Mustafa was not. Mustafa’s response reflects the Two-Way Asymmetric model because her communication with the public was adjusted based on reaction to primarily serve her own interests. At first, she gave an almost annoyed statement, posting to her Instagram story, “y’all first of all clickbait using a sensitive topic is actually insane… once again we did not hear [the caller] very well considering it sounded like a child… I just wanted to address this before it blows out of proportion” (Holaday). This informal tone and defensive framing undermined the credibility of her apology. Mustafa posted this to a story as a text blurb, over an image of her pouting and rolling her eyes, essentially showing she wasn’t genuine with what she was saying. And by saying she wanted to address it “before it blows out of proportion” she showed that she cares more about how it affects her reputation than how she impacted her co-star and the black community.
After this first one was widely criticized by the public, she released a second apology with a completely different approach. She also posted this one to her Instagram story, this time choosing a blank background and stating “last night, I quickly posted a statement acknowledging my reaction to the racial slur…[and that] my reaction in that moment came from being caught off guard, not from finding the word or situation funny…I do not condone or tolerate anyone who uses such language” (Holaday), and she finished off her statement with a donation to the NAACP, a civil rights organization. She adjusted her tone in response to public backlash. While her tone was more calculated and included a financial contribution to the NAACP, her response still functioned primarily as a repair for her reputation than her relations. This approach was not as successful because it left many untrusting Huda, leaving them thinking she cares more about her image than being genuine and supporting the black community.
The only model not present in this situation was the Two-Way Symmetric model, characterized by two-way communication with real dialogue and mutual understanding. Huda Beauty did not use this model as they simply issued statements and announced collaborations, they did not demonstrate any sustained two-way communication with their audience. However, this is definitely the model that Mustafa should have used. Her second apology highlighted how she listened to public backlash and just adjusted her messaging in another statement to better her own image. It appeared strategic rather than genuine and change driven. She took accountability and donated, but there was no evidence of any sustained dialogue with the affected community or any meaningful change beyond repairing her reputation. If she were to have taken the Two-Way Symmetric approach instead, she could have demonstrated a willingness to learn, evolve, and rebuild trust. This would have required more than a revised apology, but it also would have positioned herself as someone genuinely committed to growth. Instead of genuine engagement, Mustafa appeared insincere and not fully committed to deeper accountability.
Part 4: My Evaluation
After reviewing this case, I thought Huda Beauty’s PR response was effective, while Huda Mustafa’s was far less successful. Huda Beauty acted quickly and took clear action by ending the partnership and removing related content. That decision reinforced the company’s long-standing emphasis on inclusivity and accountability. Because Huda Kattan has publicly aligned herself with anti-discrimination advocacy in the past, failing to respond would have severely damaged the brand’s credibility. By matching its response to its previously stated values, the company protected trust with customers, retail partners like Sephora, and the broader public. However, the brand could have gone further. While the public statement was direct, it remained one-way communication. Opening dialogue with affected communities or outlining longer-term diversity commitments would have demonstrated deeper engagement rather than immediate damage control. In contrast, Mustafa’s PR approach lacked consistency. Her initial response appeared defensive, and although her second apology was more thoughtful and included a donation, it felt reactive. As her PR advisor, I would have recommended a direct video apology, clear acknowledgment of harm, and visible long-term actions such as education or advocacy partnerships. Rebuilding trust requires more than revising tone. It requires sustained effort. This case shows that effective crisis communication is not just about speed. It is about alignment between values, messaging, and action. Organizations that respond with consistency and accountability are far more likely to maintain credibility when controversy arises.
Works Cited
Carrara, Alessandro. “Huda Beauty Ends Partnership with Huda Mustafa.” Cosmetics Business, 3 Nov. 2025, cosmeticsbusiness.com/huda-beauty-ends-partnership-with-huda-mustafa.
Carrara, Alessandro. “Sephora ‘reviewing’ Social Media Backlash against Huda Beauty.” Cosmetics Business, 12 Aug. 2025, cosmeticsbusiness.com/sephora-reviewing-social-media-backlash-against-huda-beauty.
Diop, Arimeta. “Love Island USA’s Olandria Carthen and Huda Mustafa Livestream Scandal and Its Fallout, Explained.” Teen Vogue, Teen Vogue, 2 Nov. 2025, www.teenvogue.com/story/love-island-usas-olandria-carthen-and-huda-mustafa-livestream-scandal-and-its-fallout-explained.
Holaday, Carsen. “Huda Beauty Drops Love Island Star Over Reaction to Racial Slur on Livestream.” The Independent, The Independent, 4 Nov. 2025, www.the-independent.com/life-style/huda-beauty-love-island-usa-huda-mustafa-racial-slur-b2857990.html.
“Huda Beauty Ends Partnership with ‘Love Island USA’ Star Huda Mustafa after Racism Controversy.” The Express Tribune, The Express Tribune, 1 Nov. 2025, tribune.com.pk/story/2575293/huda-beauty-ends-partnership-with-love-island-usa-star-huda-mustafa-after-racism-controversy.
