Mission statements:
The Institute for Public Relations (IPR) is dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations.™ We create, curate, and promote research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use.
The Page mission is to strengthen the impact of chief communication officers and their teams and to lead the profession into the future.
About the competition:
To advance the missions of IPR and Page, this annual competition invites students enrolled in business, communication, or public relations programs to write original case studies.
The objectives of this competition are to:
- Promote Objective, Fact-Based Analysis: Encourage students to conduct thorough, unbiased case studies by separating facts from assumptions, using credible sources, and avoiding unsupported conclusions. This emphasizes the importance of evidence-based analysis in communication and business decision-making.
- Develop Strategic Communication and Business Insight: Foster a deep understanding of how communication impacts business strategy by having students analyze cases from multiple stakeholder perspectives, evaluate business repercussions, and create effective communication strategies that align with real-world organizational challenges.
- Enhance Critical Thinking and Research Skills: Encourage the application of critical thinking to complex situations, aligning case analyses with IPR and Page Principles. Students are expected to demonstrate rigorous research skills, proper citation practices, and clear, well-organized presentations that engage both academic and professional audiences.
Student authors of winning entries and their faculty advisors will be awarded cash prizes. In addition to a cash prize, the First Place winner will receive the Jack Koten Page Principles Case Study Award and have the opportunity to present their case to an industry audience.
Case Study Competition Submission Deadline: Friday, January 31, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. ET.
Submission link to post in November 2024
Awards Notification: April 5, 2025.
In 2024, IPR and Page worked with judges and faculty advisers to improve the case study competition. Please note there are some modifications to the submissions and judging criteria.
For questions, please email info@instituteforpr.org with “IPR+Page Case Study Competition” in the subject line.
2024
2024 Grand Prize Winner: Were Mattel’s Efforts Kenough?
Rebecca Wolff, Mariela Dothe-Marcial, Chloe Oakes, and Katrina White
University of Florida
Faculty Advisor: Pat Ford
Case Study
Slide Deck
2024 Case Study Competition First Place Winner: Cracking Open A Case
Lexi Esterle
Ball State University
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Elina Erzikova
Case Study
Slide Deck
2024 Student Case Study Competition Second Place Winner: Adidas Says BYE
Valeria Ruiz, Marina Rutter, and Jarriae Anderson
DePaul University
Faculty Advisor: Matt Ragas
Case Study
Slide Deck
🥇 2023 First Place Winner: Trouble in Paradise: The Walt Disney Company
Ayesha Djibo, Mya Estrada, Breahn Fisher, and Kelly Weinstock
Texas Christian University
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Liang Ma
Case Study
Slide Deck
🥈 2023 Second Place Winner: The Starbucks Union Boom: Pro-Worker Employer to Union Target
Yasmeen Jabara, Nicolas Blanco Ballesteros, Meagan Keefe, and Gabriela Perez
American University
Faculty Advisor: Pallavi Kumar
Case Study
Slide Deck
🥉 2023 Third Place Winner: The US Army Recruiting Crisis: Cause and Potential Solutions
University of Florida
Faculty Advisor: Patrick Ford
Slide Deck
🏆 2021 Grand Prize Winner: Masks are the New Boarding Pass: Delta Air Lines Implements Strict Mask Mandate
Carrie Wanous, Karina Peterson and Maddie Tew
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communications
Faculty Advisor: Donna Z. Davis
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2020 Grand Prize Winner: Dick’s Sporting Goods Enters the Gun Debate: Revising the Playbook
Alyson Morris, Hanna Neuschwander & Rui Zhao
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communications
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Donna Z. Davis
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2019 Grand Prize Winner: DOVE: A PURPOSE-DRIVEN BRAND IN A CRISIS OF SINCERITY – The Struggle to Navigate Rising Expectations of Corporate Responsibility
Olivia Zed, Sarah Dasher
Boston University
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Don K. Wright
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2018 Grand Prize Winner: Responding While the Record Button Is Always On: Flying High and Low with United Airlines Corporate Culture and Stakeholder Empowerment
Brooke Smith, Steven Pelham
Brigham Young University
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Christopher Wilson
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2017 Grand Prize Winner: Walking the “Encryption Tightrope”: Getting to the Core of Apple’s Privacy and Security Battle with the FBI
Brooke Lichtman, Jaymie Polet, Bria Smith, Rubai Soni
DePaul University
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Matt Ragas
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2016 Grand Prize Winner: Starbucks; The Third Place on a Third Rail Issue: An Analysis of Starbucks’ Race Together Initiative
Megan Cauley, Chelsea Michael, Lizmarie Orengo
DePaul University College of Communication
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Matt Ragas
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2015 Grand Prize Winner: Cigarettes Out. Health In. An Analysis of the Rebrand of CVS Health
Maggie Christ, Renata Sandor and Andrew Tonne
Faculty Advisor: Matt Ragas
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2014 Grand Prize Winner: Are All Calories Created Equal? An Analysis of the Coca-Cola Company’s Communication in the Fight Against Obesity
Heather Harder
Faculty Advisor: Lucinda Austin
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2013 Grand Prize Winner: A CRISIS OUT OF THIN AIR: An Analysis of JetBlue’s Response to a Pilot’s Mid-Flight Breakdown
Stephen Zelezny
Faculty Advisor: Jennifer Floto
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2012 Grand Prize Winner: Water on Fire: An Analysis of ExxonMobil’s Communicative Defense of Hydraulic Fracturing
Jessica Carlton
Faculty Advisor: Bruce Berger
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2011 Grand Prize Winner: “Just a Ding? The NFL Responds to Research on Football-Related Concussion”
Andrea Goetschius
Faculty Advisor: Dean Dulcie Straughan
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2010 Grand Prize Winner: Domino’s “Special Delivery” Going Viral Through Social Media
Adam Peeples and Christiana Vaughn
Faculty Advisor: Professor James O’Rourke
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2009 Grand Prize Winner: Eastern Health: A case study on the need for public trust in health care communications
Heather Pullen
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Terence Flynn, APR
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2008 Grand Prize Winner: “Mattel Recalls 2007- Communication Implications for Quality Control, Outsourcing and Consumer Relations”
Courtney Woo
Faculty Advisor: Elizabeth Dougall
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2007 Grand Prize Winner: “Google: Entrance into the Chinese Market and Government Censorship”
Brynn Harris and Allison Ogilvy
Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Scofield O’Rourke, IV, Ph.D
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2006 Grand Prize Winner: “The Barbie Case”
Liesbeth De Smedt
Faculty Advisor: Craig Carroll
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2005 Grand Prize Winner: “Coca-Cola India”
Jennifer Kaye
Faculty Advisor: Paul A. Argent
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2004 Grand Prize Winner: “Why Was the Snow Polluted? – A Blind Spot for the Japanese Top Milk Company, Snow Brand”
Shizuko Ota and Aki Kikuchi
Faculty Advisor: Brenda J. Wrigley
Case Study
Slide Deck
🏆 2003 Grand Prize Winner: “Wyeth Pharmaceuticals: Premarin, Prempro and Hormone Replacement Therapy.”
Kathryn I.C. Huang and Megan E. VanAelstyn
Faculty Advisor: James S. O’Rourke
Case Study A
Case Study B
Slide Deck
🏆 2002 Grand Prize Winner: “Optix Corporation”
Katherine Thomas Seward
Faculty Advisor: Elizabeth Powell
Case Study
🥈2002 Second Place Winner: “Emulex, Inc.: A Crash Course in Crisis Management”
Joshua Berlo and Joseph Worrell
Faculty Advisor: James S. O’Rourke
Case Study
CASE SELECTION GUIDELINES
A case study is a post-hoc examination or summary from multiple perspectives of a real-world issue, situation, scenario, program, dilemma, practice, or problem that an organization faces. A case study may focus on a variety of situations, both internal and external, that may impact the business.
Cases may be based on issues and experiences from companies, non-profit organizations, government entities, etc. The topic addressed must be significant, rather than an isolated incident. It is a relevant and current topic that occurred within three years of the entry submission date. The case must be analyzed through the lens of the IPR mission and their research-focused work and thought leadership as well as the Page Principles in addition to the Page Model or the Beyond Communication Report.
Cases should clearly describe an organizational issue or initiative, rather than propose solutions.
Entrants are welcome to consult past winning cases, but are encouraged to choose cases that were not already covered in the finalist entries of the 2024 Case Study Competition.
AWARDS
Student | Faculty Advisor
- First Place – Jack Koten Case Study Winner: $5,000 | $750
- All applicants from all schools will be under consideration for this award.
- Second Place: $3,000 | $500
- All applicants from all schools will be under consideration for this award.
- Third Place: $2,000 | $250
- All applicants from all schools will be under consideration for this award.
COMPETITION DISCLAIMER
Case studies are intended for informational purposes only. The advice, opinions, statements, materials and other information expressed and contained in submitted case studies are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or opinions of Page or IPR, its members, or affiliates. Page and IPR are not responsible for the accuracy, currency, completeness, reliability or usefulness of any advice, opinions, statements or content contained in submitted case studies and makes no warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. Case studies are intended to be used as teaching tools and should not be cited as primary sources.
ELIGIBILITY
Any currently enrolled student, graduate or undergraduate, in a school of business, communications or journalism who is pursuing a degree (full-time or part-time) is eligible to participate. Each individual student’s projected graduation date cannot predate May 2024. Students may participate as sole authors or as members of a case study team (not to exceed four people). In order to participate, each student author or case study team must have a faculty advisor who is expected to advise and guide the case’s development.
ROLE OF THE FACULTY ADVISOR
Faculty sponsors may be full-time or part-time, regular or adjunct, tenured or non-tenured.
Faculty advisors should provide guidance, encouragement and direction to students as they select topics on which to write, and as they organize and develop the evidence that goes into their case studies. Faculty may also direct students to new evidence they may wish to consider. They should caution students against including undocumented evidence or forms of expression they consider unwise. They may not, however, write or significantly edit portions of the case, PowerPoint file, or teaching note. They may not conduct interviews or engage in research on their own in support of the writing project.
Questions regarding the limits of faculty involvement or teaching note requests may be directed to IPR at info@instituteforpr.org .
SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Case studies should not exceed 7,500 words in length not including cover page, table of contents, appendices, and assessment (max of 750 words). Attachments and appendices are welcome but should not dominate the content of the case entry. Remember to remove any identifying marks or insignia that would allow someone to identify a student, faculty member or academic institution. Submissions failing to meet the guidelines or those containing identifying marks will be subject to disqualification.
The topic addressed must be significant, rather than an isolated incident. Also, this should be a relevant and current topic that occurred within three years of the entry submission date. Proper citations of reliable, credible sources should be included.
Rubric
Click here to see the full rubric
Source Citations
Citing sources for all claims made is critically important. External citations using a consistent style should be used to support the points. All citations should be in-text and in a references section (or should be footnotes) and include:
- Author/organization
- Year
- Link (if applicable)
- Title of article/book
- Publication
- Issue/volume (if applicable)
Final Round:
- Invite three case study submitters to speak about their cases and answer questions
- Judges must be present for all presentations to have scores considered
SUBMISSION CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTING
Case study categories vary in weighting. Each of the following categories will be evaluated using a 10-point scale (weak, basic, satisfactory, good, exceptional); the weights are next to the category:
- Case Study: Identification and analysis of the case (30%)
- Case Study: The business action (15%)
- Case Study: The communication action (15%)
- Case Study: Organization and case presentation (10%)
- Case Study: Quality of research and citation/inclusion of sources (10%)
- Assessment: Case study assessment and application of the Page and IPR missions (15%)
- Slide deck (5%)
In the case study portion of the submission, all should be objectively written and free of the opinion of the students. This includes the ability to:
- Separate facts from assumptions
- Avoid making conclusions that are not backed and supported by credible, secondary sources
- Avoid talking about what the enterprise “should have done”
- Uses unbiased language and cites supporting evidence when claiming something to be fact
Case study presentation: Each group presents for 12 minutes with 5-10 minutes of Q&A with standardized questions. Total call time: 1 hour. Discussion of case studies: 30 minutes
After the presentation, judges will rank cases starting with the strongest case. Can use Zoom in-app polling or Survey Monkey to conduct polls on calls (straw poll and then final vote). Judges will decide which case should receive First Place, and then subsequent prizes will be awarded from there. A judging group will have full authority not to award prizes if no award seems appropriate.
MATERIALS TO SUBMIT
❏ Online Entry Form (found here): This form should be submitted according to submission directions detailed below. The release within this form should be signed to grant Page and the Institute for Public Relations the right to reprint and distribute submission materials.
❏ Entry Fee: A non-refundable entry fee of $25.00 must be made for each case submitted. Payments can be made here. If you have any questions about making payments, please email casestudies@page.org.
❏ Abstract: A 100-word abstract must accompany each case entry as a separate text file. This abstract should explain the basic content, organization and direction of the case without revealing suggested resolutions or actual outcomes. Remember to remove any marks or insignia that could be used to identify a student, faculty member or academic institution.
❏ Case Study (See Judging Criteria and Evaluation)
❏ Assessment (See Judging Criteria and Evaluation)
❏ Slide Deck (See Judging Criteria and Evaluation)
Contact Information
Please contact info@instituteforpr.org with any questions
CASE SELECTION GUIDELINES
Case studies should not exceed 7,500 words in length not including cover page, table of contents, appendices, and assessment (max of 750 words). Attachments and appendices are welcome but should not dominate the content of the case entry. Remember to remove any identifying marks or insignia that would allow someone to identify a student, faculty member or academic institution. Submissions containing identifying marks are subject to disqualification.
The topic addressed must be significant, rather than an isolated incident. Also, this should be a relevant and current topic that occurred within three years of the entry submission date. Proper citations of reliable, credible sources should be included.
Source Citations
Citing sources for all claims made is critically important. External citations using a consistent style should be used to support the points. All citations should be in-text and in a references section (or should be footnotes) and include:
- Author/organization
- Year
- Link (if applicable)
- Title of article/book
- Publication
- Issue/volume (if applicable)
PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS
On the tally sheet, there are two sections for comments:
Notes Column: optional and is meant to aid each judge’s discussion during the judging panel calls if desired.
Feedback Column: Share constructive comments on each team’s case and provide vital information for the students’ professional development. The purpose of the competition is to introduce practical applications of the core principles that define corporate communication and to encourage research that contributes to the profession’s body of knowledge.
When providing feedback, please use the judging criteria rubric to guide your comments and be as fair and balanced as possible. Here are some tips:
- Use proper spelling and grammar as well as complete sentences.
- Be constructive and use a positive tone as many of them are undergraduate/graduate level and may have limited professional experience. Our goal is to help students develop into excellent communicators and critical thinkers.
- Start with the strengths presented in the case then move on to what would bring their case to the next level.
- Share your expertise and suggest what you feel should have been included in the entry.
SUBMISSION CATEGORIES AND WEIGHTING
Case study categories vary in weighting. Each of the following categories will be evaluated using a 10-point scale (weak, basic, satisfactory, good, exceptional); the weights are next to the category:
- Case Study: Identification and analysis of the case (30%)
- Case Study: The business action (15%)
- Case Study: The communication action (15%)
- Case Study: Organization and case presentation (10%)
- Case Study: Quality of research and citation/inclusion of sources (10%)
- Assessment: Case study assessment and application of the Page and IPR missions (15%)
- Slide deck (5%)
JUDGING PROCESS
Before Judging:
- Finalize dates for each of the rounds through a calendar poll
- Each judge reads and scores their assigned cases. Scores will be tallied.
Feedback for second round and beyond will be shared with students after the close of the competition.
All judges receive:
- A copy of the call for entries
- Scoring sheet
- Video guide to judging (to be created in December 2024)
Round 1:
- Each judge will review 7-10 cases (may differ depending on submissions and judging)
- The top 10 cases overall will move on to the next round (however, fewer or more cases than 10 can be acceptable depending on the quality of submissions)
- Each case study will be reviewed a minimum of 5 times
- No feedback provided to students in this round
Round 2:
- Each judge will review 3 cases and provide written, constructive feedback that will be submitted to the students.
- Each of the 10 case studies will be reviewed a minimum of 5 times
- The top case studies (approximately 4 to 5) will move to the next round. Each judge will review each case.
Round 3:
- Depending on the number of judges, host calls with panels of judges to decide the final three case studies (unless there are clear winners based on previous rounds) to present to the panel.
- Each case study should be discussed for no more than 10 minutes.
NOTE: If there are three clear winners, then this round can be eliminated. Judges may also invite two groups or four groups depending on the quality of submissions.
Final Round:
- Invite three case study submitters to speak about their cases and answer questions
- Judges must be present for all presentations to have scores considered
Case study presentation: Each group presents for 12 minutes with 5-10 minutes of Q&A with standardized questions. A judging group will have full authority not to award prizes if no award seems appropriate.
Rubric
Click here to see the full rubric
Insert judges video here