Elizabeth Holmes Documentary Is a Masterclass in PR Failure

A single word — "can" — sparked an extended debate in the new Elizabeth Holmes documentary, and crisis communicators say that exchange alone justifies study. Nick DeSarno and Sandeep Kumar, who provide crisis and reputation management counsel to Fortune 500 companies, trade associations and nonprofits at Narrative Strategies, argue the film doubles as a case study in reputational risk.

"You Can See Everything," co-directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, is ostensibly about Holmes. For communications professionals, the advisers write in PR News, every word and intervention carries potential consequence: minor communication choices produce outsized fallout, and attempts to clarify past statements raise new questions.

What are the five lessons?

Pressure-test every word. In one scene, Holmes addresses her past claims that a Theranos device "can" run tests. She said "can" described what the technology might eventually do, not what it could do at the time. Media preparation should test every statement for accuracy, message alignment and how a reasonable audience might read it — especially when a quotation circulates without context.

Prepare every potential spokesperson. The film makes clear who is prepared and who is not. Unprepared interactions create uncertainty and undermine the principal's message. Not everyone needs full media training, but anyone who may speak should know the ground rules, the relevant facts and when to defer rather than speculate.

Document conversations when permitted. At one point Holmes objects to how a New York Times article quoted her. The scenario is familiar: a client disputes a characterization, but the team lacks a reliable record of what was said. Where legally permissible, ethically appropriate and agreed in advance, a recording or contemporaneous record can resolve disputes and help both reporter and client verify the conversation.

Confront the underlying problem. The instinct to overexplain is natural under scrutiny. Good counsel asks whether an interview creates more opportunity than risk, and whether the client's account can withstand scrutiny. For Holmes, the question was not whether a docu-reality format or podcasts offered more control — it was whether any medium could overcome the credibility problem. No format substitutes for truth.

Recognize the limits of control. Holmes attempts to challenge critics' understanding of her, but Fielder and Oppenheim decide what audiences see. Her partner, Billy Evans, tries to control questions and intervenes midway through conversations. Reactive management cannot replace preparation.

Why does this matter for marketers?

"PR professionals prepare clients for what to say, how to say it and which questions may come," DeSarno and Kumar write. "We cannot control the final story, but we can improve the precision, preparation and judgment a client brings."

The boundary is the lesson. Good counsel improves precision, preparation and judgment; it cannot promise control, and it cannot solve an underlying credibility problem. An adviser's value often lies in pushing back when the client should not make the argument at all.