SHOULD WE RESPOND?Making the Communications Decision During a Reputation Crisis
SHOULD WE RESPOND? Making the Communications Decision During a Reputation Crisis
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
One of the first questions leadership asks during a reputation issue is usually, "Do we need to respond?" The answer is not always yes.
Organizations understandably want to defend themselves when information is inaccurate, criticism feels unfair or a negative story begins circulating. At the same time, every public response introduces something new into the communications environment. A statement can provide necessary context, but it can also extend a story, attract additional attention or create language that will be quoted long after the immediate issue has passed.
Determining whether to respond is therefore one of the most important decisions in crisis communications and reputation management. The decision should not be based solely on whether leadership dislikes what is being said. It should be based on whether engagement is likely to improve the organization's position with the audiences that matter.
Start With the ObjectiveBefore writing a statement, leadership should be able to explain what the response is intended to accomplish. Perhaps a material factual error needs to be corrected. Customers may need operational information. Employees may need reassurance. A regulator or business partner may need clarification. The organization may need to acknowledge a legitimate problem and explain what is being done about it.
Each of those represents a communications objective. "People are saying bad things about us" is not, by itself, an objective.
Without clarity about the purpose of a response, organizations can end up communicating simply because silence feels uncomfortable. That discomfort is understandable, but it should not determine strategy.
Consider the Scale of the IssueInternal perception of a crisis and external perception can be very different. Leadership may be intensely focused on a critical social media post or negative article because the subject is personally or professionally important. Outside the organization, however, the issue may have very limited visibility.
Responding aggressively can sometimes introduce the controversy to audiences who otherwise would never have encountered it. Before engaging, crisis communications counsel should assess how widely the issue is actually circulating, who is discussing it, whether credible media organizations are covering it and whether attention appears to be growing.
The scale of the response should be proportionate to the scale of the problem.
Determine Whether the Information Is Wrong or Simply NegativeThere is a meaningful difference between criticism and misinformation. A customer, employee, journalist or critic may express an opinion the organization considers unfair. A news article may accurately report a lawsuit, regulatory action or public controversy that leadership would rather not see covered. Neither situation automatically creates a factual issue that can be corrected.
Demonstrably false information deserves a different analysis. If inaccurate claims are spreading and have the potential to affect customers, employees, investors or other important stakeholders, providing factual information may be appropriate. The response should focus on correcting the facts rather than attacking the person or organization responsible for the criticism.
Credibility is more valuable than winning an argument.
Think About What Happens After You Respond
A public statement is rarely the end of the conversation. Will the response create another headline? Will the opposing party answer? Will reporters ask additional questions? Does the statement introduce information that was not previously public? Could it generate regulatory, legal or employee concerns?
Effective reputation strategy considers the second and third consequences of a communications decision, not simply the immediate reaction. Sometimes those consequences are worth accepting because the organization needs to establish its position. Sometimes they reveal that engagement is likely to create more risk than benefit.
Consider Other AudiencesA public response is not the only way to communicate. There are circumstances where employees, customers, investors, business partners or other stakeholders need information even though the broader public does not. Direct stakeholder communications can sometimes address the real reputational risk without creating a larger media event.
The communications question should therefore be broader than "Should we issue a statement?" The better question is: Who needs information from us, and what is the most effective way to provide it?
Silence Can Be StrategicChoosing not to respond does not mean ignoring the situation. Coverage and public conversation should still be monitored, leadership should remain prepared for new developments and potential response materials can be developed in case circumstances change.
An issue that does not warrant engagement today may require a response tomorrow if inaccurate information spreads, a significant stakeholder becomes involved or the situation changes materially. Strategic silence is active, not passive. It is a decision made with an understanding of the environment.
The Response Should Serve the Reputation, Not the EmotionReputation crises can become personal for executives and leadership teams. Criticism is difficult to absorb, particularly when leaders believe it is unfair. That is precisely when outside communications counsel can be valuable. The role is to separate the understandable desire to respond from the strategic question of whether responding advances the organization's interests.
Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes leadership should communicate directly with specific stakeholders. Sometimes the organization should correct the record quietly, and sometimes the strongest response is no response at all.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works directly with executives, companies, legal teams and organizations navigating crisis communications, reputation management, national media attention and other high-stakes communications matters.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides strategic communications, crisis communications and reputation advisory services to clients nationwide.
FOR CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE & CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRIES:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
One of the first questions leadership asks during a reputation issue is usually, "Do we need to respond?" The answer is not always yes.
Organizations understandably want to defend themselves when information is inaccurate, criticism feels unfair or a negative story begins circulating. At the same time, every public response introduces something new into the communications environment. A statement can provide necessary context, but it can also extend a story, attract additional attention or create language that will be quoted long after the immediate issue has passed.
Determining whether to respond is therefore one of the most important decisions in crisis communications and reputation management. The decision should not be based solely on whether leadership dislikes what is being said. It should be based on whether engagement is likely to improve the organization's position with the audiences that matter.
Start With the ObjectiveBefore writing a statement, leadership should be able to explain what the response is intended to accomplish. Perhaps a material factual error needs to be corrected. Customers may need operational information. Employees may need reassurance. A regulator or business partner may need clarification. The organization may need to acknowledge a legitimate problem and explain what is being done about it.
Each of those represents a communications objective. "People are saying bad things about us" is not, by itself, an objective.
Without clarity about the purpose of a response, organizations can end up communicating simply because silence feels uncomfortable. That discomfort is understandable, but it should not determine strategy.
Consider the Scale of the IssueInternal perception of a crisis and external perception can be very different. Leadership may be intensely focused on a critical social media post or negative article because the subject is personally or professionally important. Outside the organization, however, the issue may have very limited visibility.
Responding aggressively can sometimes introduce the controversy to audiences who otherwise would never have encountered it. Before engaging, crisis communications counsel should assess how widely the issue is actually circulating, who is discussing it, whether credible media organizations are covering it and whether attention appears to be growing.
The scale of the response should be proportionate to the scale of the problem.
Determine Whether the Information Is Wrong or Simply NegativeThere is a meaningful difference between criticism and misinformation. A customer, employee, journalist or critic may express an opinion the organization considers unfair. A news article may accurately report a lawsuit, regulatory action or public controversy that leadership would rather not see covered. Neither situation automatically creates a factual issue that can be corrected.
Demonstrably false information deserves a different analysis. If inaccurate claims are spreading and have the potential to affect customers, employees, investors or other important stakeholders, providing factual information may be appropriate. The response should focus on correcting the facts rather than attacking the person or organization responsible for the criticism.
Credibility is more valuable than winning an argument.
Think About What Happens After You Respond
A public statement is rarely the end of the conversation. Will the response create another headline? Will the opposing party answer? Will reporters ask additional questions? Does the statement introduce information that was not previously public? Could it generate regulatory, legal or employee concerns?
Effective reputation strategy considers the second and third consequences of a communications decision, not simply the immediate reaction. Sometimes those consequences are worth accepting because the organization needs to establish its position. Sometimes they reveal that engagement is likely to create more risk than benefit.
Consider Other AudiencesA public response is not the only way to communicate. There are circumstances where employees, customers, investors, business partners or other stakeholders need information even though the broader public does not. Direct stakeholder communications can sometimes address the real reputational risk without creating a larger media event.
The communications question should therefore be broader than "Should we issue a statement?" The better question is: Who needs information from us, and what is the most effective way to provide it?
Silence Can Be StrategicChoosing not to respond does not mean ignoring the situation. Coverage and public conversation should still be monitored, leadership should remain prepared for new developments and potential response materials can be developed in case circumstances change.
An issue that does not warrant engagement today may require a response tomorrow if inaccurate information spreads, a significant stakeholder becomes involved or the situation changes materially. Strategic silence is active, not passive. It is a decision made with an understanding of the environment.
The Response Should Serve the Reputation, Not the EmotionReputation crises can become personal for executives and leadership teams. Criticism is difficult to absorb, particularly when leaders believe it is unfair. That is precisely when outside communications counsel can be valuable. The role is to separate the understandable desire to respond from the strategic question of whether responding advances the organization's interests.
Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes leadership should communicate directly with specific stakeholders. Sometimes the organization should correct the record quietly, and sometimes the strongest response is no response at all.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works directly with executives, companies, legal teams and organizations navigating crisis communications, reputation management, national media attention and other high-stakes communications matters.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides strategic communications, crisis communications and reputation advisory services to clients nationwide.
FOR CONFIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE & CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRIES:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]