The Strategic Silence: When Not Responding to a Crisis is the Response

When a public relations crisis hits, there are many strategies to consider. Crafting an effective response is never black and white, and rarely a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Sometimes, brands and high-profile celebrities choose not to respond at all, opting for strategic silence.

The Benefits of Staying Silent

Remaining silent during a crisis can have both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, staying silent can help avoid fueling the flames of a scandal, preventing it from turning into a bigger story. A crisis typically unfolds in several news cycles: the initial breaking news, the response, and the aftermath. By eliminating the response, a brand can potentially shorten the news cycle, causing the coverage to dissipate faster. Without a response, there’s no additional ammunition for further stories and updates.

This strategy can also serve to delegitimize a story. In certain situations, responding to a rumor can actually give it credibility, making the story more damaging. Not responding or providing comment on a scandal may call the story into question. The “we don’t comment on rumors or buy into hearsay” approach can be beneficial in this way, particularly for high-profile personalities.

Understanding Potential Risks

However, there are significant downsides to this approach. By not responding, a one-sided narrative can persist in the public domain. This means that whatever is reported is potentially being accepted by the public as fact, with no counterbalance from the accused party. Additionally, silence can affirm the truth of the narrative and allow rumors to continue to spiral.

Consider the example of Arielle Charnas, the influencer behind Something Navy. Her company faced accusations of financial mishandling and toxic company culture in an expose that quoted several former employees. Charnas chose not to address the story, continuing on her platform as if it never happened. This strategy allowed the story to persist and resurface whenever new press about her was written, cited as background context. Had she responded to the accusations, she could have balanced the story and reduced the impact of future references. Silence may have initially buried the story, but it ultimately created an unavoidable scenario in future reporting.

Another example is Justin Timberlake’s recent DUI arrest. The incident occurred in the middle of his latest tour, and he chose not to make any public statements about it. Instead, his only comments came at a concert where he vaguely addressed his faults and expressed appreciation for his fans' enduring support, without specifically mentioning the DUI. This lack of direct response caused the story to persist longer in public memory, and also came with presumed guilt.

Conclusion

Choosing not to respond can be a calculated move in crisis management. This strategy might be suitable when the story is based on rumors or unverified information, when responding would amplify the story further, or when the crisis is likely to fade quickly without a response. However, it’s crucial to weigh the potential for long-term damage against the short-term benefits of silence. A well-thought-out approach, sometimes in consultation with PR experts, can help mitigate the risks and protect the brand’s reputation.