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 minimize 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 rumors 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.

Or­ga­ni­za­tions 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 rumors.

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.

Click here for important legal dis­claimers.