Crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion: the right way to deal with critical situ­ations

No business is safe­guarded from difficult situ­ations. In one way or another, they will be con­fron­ted with problems at some point in time. Issues could arise in­tern­ally because of incorrect decision making or ex­tern­ally and exert pressure on the business. To ensure that these issues do not lead to an economic cata­strophe, an efficient and well-thought-out crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion strategy is important, among other measures. When the right strategy is in place, a company can master many hurdles and survive a crisis with minimal damage.

When a business finds itself in a prob­lem­at­ic situation - and even before a crisis emerges – the right com­mu­nic­a­tion strategy proves to be vital. Those who remain silent, have already lost. It’s important to make employees, CEOs, stake­hold­ers, and even the public aware of the issues and the upcoming chal­lenges to overcome them.

To ensure that crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion can be effective, it needs to be well-prepared. If a proper strategy does not exist, the danger is that com­mu­nic­a­tion could be hampered. As part of the PR de­part­ment’s duties, crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion aims to minimise or avoid damage to the repu­ta­tion of a company. In a business context, crises are perceived as a danger to the existence of an entire business. In addition, massive damage to a business’s repu­ta­tion or dis­rup­tions of an operating schedule can be evaluated as crises.

Different scenarios that require crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion:

• Employees striking
• Defective products and product with­draw­als
• Board member scandals
• En­vir­on­ment­al scandals
• A “social media nightmare”

Problems that require crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion are usually caused by mistakes made by a company or in­di­vidu­al members of staff. It’s rare that a company ends up in a prob­lem­at­ic situation through no fault of their own.

One of the worst ap­proaches a company can take during a crisis is to remain silent. If a business does not actively shape the dis­cus­sion, the public can only ever talk about a company, but not with it. That’s why actively engaging in dis­cus­sion is a must. In this case, the people re­spons­ible or the PR de­part­ment will face various chal­lenges. It’s not just about reacting in an adequate manner. There is also immense pressure to react swiftly because the longer one waits, the more out of hand a situation may spiral. If you react too late, any damage already caused may become difficult to reverse.

Companies tend to gravitate toward hiding or playing down mistakes or problems. But outsiders are adept at noticing when dif­fi­culties arise. If a company does not provide sat­is­fact­ory in­form­a­tion, third parties may start to speculate. This can lead to rumours that may portray a company in a negative light. Busi­nesses whose value depends on public opinion (for example, cor­por­a­tions) can suffer immensely from a lack of crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion.

Or­gan­isa­tions should develop a strategy on how to com­mu­nic­ate during difficult times. Using a well-thought-out plan, they can react swiftly and pro­fes­sion­ally when issues arise. There are just a few things to bear in mind when it comes to com­mu­nic­at­ing well:

1. Keep calm: A crisis is a stressful time during which emotions tend to be heightened. Although problems should be com­mu­nic­ated quickly, they shouldn’t be rushed, and actions should be well-con­sidered.
2. Call on your crisis squad: Decide who should get together during a difficult time to lead the com­mu­nic­a­tion strategy. The elected people should have the re­spons­ib­il­ity and authority to attack issues.
3. One-voice strategy: It’s important that in­di­vidu­al de­part­ments in a business do not share con­tra­dict­ing in­form­a­tion with the public. That’s why a unified strategy should be agreed upon.
4. Monitor: To be part of the public dis­cus­sion, you need to monitor it. Review how media (and social media) report on your business.
5. Be trans­par­ent: Trans­par­ency is the only way to coun­ter­act rumors. Make sure you stay informed on the in­di­vidu­al steps you need to undertake to overcome these chal­lenges.
6. Keep up com­mu­nic­a­tion: A single press release is not enough. Prepare to issue state­ments long-term and regularly com­mu­nic­ate with the public via different channels.

Another example of crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion can be seen in how companies com­mu­nic­ate via email in a crisis. Many companies rely on news­let­ter marketing as an important tool to get in touch with customers. This strategy has many ad­vant­ages. Through the pos­sib­il­it­ies offered by modern email marketing software you can build up very personal com­mu­nic­a­tion style with your clients. This helps to limit bad outcomes in times of crisis However, in an un­pre­ced­en­tedly ex­cep­tion­al situation such as the COVD-19 pandemic, which began to hit economies hard in March 2020, many companies panicked and forgot about the use of good news­let­ter com­mu­nic­a­tion. Some brands bombard their customers with one e-mail after another.

The increase in com­mu­nic­a­tion is not sur­pris­ing – or at least the desire to do so is not. Some companies needed to inform their customers very quickly, about unusual events, delivery issues, limited services, and so on. The problem, however, is that if news­let­ters are overused, the external com­mu­nic­a­tion of many companies is at risk - and this must not happen, es­pe­cially in times of crisis. Sending news­let­ter after news­let­ter puts the overall ef­fect­ive­ness of this marketing strategy at risk.

In an in­ter­na­tion­al crisis such as the Coronavir­us pandemic, it is therefore more important than ever to consider how necessary each news­let­ter or form of com­mu­nic­a­tion is, and to show con­sid­er­a­tion. Other companies may have more in­form­a­tion that needs to arrive quickly. Finding the right measure is therefore useful in crisis situ­ations for several reasons. You do not put an un­ne­ces­sary burden on the network, and you don’t overload your customers with lots of in­form­a­tion at once.

• Com­mu­nic­ate in­form­at­ively: Do not use a crisis (whether in­ter­na­tion­al or limited to your company) primarily to conduct a marketing campaign. Limit your com­mu­nic­a­tion to the facts and avoid ad­vert­ising.
• Restrict the number of re­cip­i­ents: Do not blast your entire address book with the same message. Instead, use targeted E-mailing to achieve the highest possible en­gage­ment rate.
• Be sensitive to tone: Stay objective in your e-mails and avoid alarming terms. This makes your com­mu­nic­a­tion look more pro­fes­sion­al. In your News­let­ter subject in par­tic­u­lar, you should avoid scare-mongering language, so that your messages don't end up unread or in spam folders.

Often, companies attract attention because they com­mu­nic­ate badly or not at all during crises which can worsen the situation. However, there are plenty of examples of effective crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion. The following cases show how to turn a negative situation around.

Soft drinks maker Pepsi has faced up to a few different crises in its long history - and its crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion hasn’t always been positive. In 1993, however, the company managed to turn a near-dis­astrous situation into a boon to its image. Multiple people claimed that they had found dangerous objects such as needles inside Pepsi cans.

As a reaction, Pepsi launched videos depicting its pro­duc­tion process. This informed the public that tech­nic­ally it wasn’t even possible that objects could get into the cans. Fur­ther­more, the company presented sur­veil­lance footage from a su­per­mar­ket showing how a woman had inserted a needle into a Pepsi can – which was out of the company’s control.

Pepsi mastered the crisis well by attacking the issue from multiple aspects. For one, Pepsi remained calm and collected. First, it de­term­ined in­tern­ally whether the situation could be Pepsi’s fault. Sub­sequently, the company relied on increased com­mu­nic­a­tion to dispel consumer fears. Lastly, Pepsi remained trans­par­ent by providing an insight into its man­u­fac­tur­ing process thus avoiding rumours.

Coffee chain Starbucks ac­know­ledged racism issues among its staff after the cir­cu­la­tion of an online video. In one of its US branches, employees had called the police because of two dark-skinned customers who hadn’t ordered anything for a while because they were waiting for a friend. The public agreed: this wouldn’t have happened to a light-skinned guest.

Starbucks launched a large anti-racism campaign in the wake of the scandal. Instead of blaming the relevant employees, the company focused on a larger internal issue. For one day, the company closed all its branches to provide training to combat racial prejudice. Costing the company more than $10 million, the measure gained in­ter­na­tion­al attention and improved its image again.

Snapchat is a re­l­at­ively young tech­no­logy company that has already dealt with multiple problems. When in 2014 cyber criminals gained access to the CEO’s emails con­tain­ing sensitive in­form­a­tion, the company faced up to the issue. In reaction, its CEO drafted a personal cor­res­pond­ence to his employees and sub­sequently released the email on Twitter. His message un­der­lined his humanity, creating a tighter bond with staff and users of the app.

This form of crisis com­mu­nic­a­tion got the company through a difficult time while improving the CEO’s image.

Please note the legal dis­claim­er relating to this article.