The most effective crisis response is therefore not necessarily the one that produces the fastest statement. It is the one that gives stakeholders a credible account of what happened, demonstrates that the organisation understands the consequences of what happened, and clearly explains what happens next.
Recently, my hands have been itching to write. The desire was there; the problem was finding the right topic.
I kept asking myself, Bodex, what exactly do you want to write about? Then, boom! It occurred to me that for the better part of the last two years, I have been managing digital media crises back-to-back. So why not write about something I practically eat, sleep and breathe?
|
|
As I settled down to write, I knew I needed a perspective from which to approach the subject, so I opted for the sociological and communication perspectives.
From both perspectives, crisis is simply a part of life. Lulofs and Cahn (2002) and Peil (1977), as cited in Popoola (2015), alongside the Weberian theory of power, present crisis as an inevitable occurrence in the life of every individual or corporate establishment.
|
|
|
|---|
In simple English, crisis is part of life. Whether you are an individual or an organisation, nobody is completely exempted. Instead of acting shocked when a crisis erupts, the wiser approach is to prepare ahead so that you can contain and manage it effectively whenever it occurs.
And if you still do not realise that technology has moved far beyond what it used to be, let me break it to you before you sit on a long thing: technology has moved.
That significant transformation has completely changed the way organisations communicate and, by extension, the way they manage crises. Corporate establishments are now expected to think several steps ahead and prepare themselves to respond within a technologically driven environment where information travels faster than ever before.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
Imagine that you are peacefully sitting in your house or office, thinking about how to survive the day and mind the business that pays your bills. Then boom! Someone makes a single post on X about your company. Before you can say “Jack Robinson,” the post is trending and already shaping the public perception of your organisation.
Now you are struggling between thinking about your own life and figuring out how to manage an X post that has suddenly developed wings.
Omo, na long day for you.
That is the reality of crisis communication today.
In a Digital Crisis, Speed Matters — But Accuracy Matters More
The distance between a company’s credibility and the collapse of its reputation can sometimes be remarkably short. An allegation, customer complaint or misleading claim can attract widespread attention before an organisation has even had the opportunity to establish what actually happened.
For PR professionals, this makes crisis management a race against time. But please, make speed no go make you lose guard.
Speed must always be matched with accuracy, judgement and credibility. Responding immediately to a developing crisis can certainly be useful, but responding when you do not yet understand the facts can be extremely costly.
The objective is, therefore, not simply to respond as quickly as possible. The real objective is to respond as quickly as the verified facts can responsibly support.
Because imagine trying to manage one crisis only for your hurried response to land you inside another one.
Better gobe.
The pressure to respond quickly also does not mean an organisation must rush to fill every information gap. Yes, silence during a crisis can create room for speculation, but an inaccurate statement can give that speculation an even longer life.
As a PR professional, your responsibility is not merely to put your organisation’s voice into the conversation because everybody around you is shouting, “Say something! Say something!” Whatever you eventually say must be informed, credible and capable of withstanding public scrutiny.
Should I repeat myself?
Issokay.
Just remember that sometimes saying, “We are aware of the situation and are currently establishing the facts,” can save you from writing one long epistle today and another one tomorrow explaining what you actually meant in the first one.
Everybody Has a Voice Now
The digital environment has also completely changed the nature of crisis communication itself.
There was a time when information largely travelled in a straight line: an organisation released information to journalists; the journalists reported it; and the public consumed it.
Those days are gone.
Today, everybody participates in the production and circulation of information. Customers can publish their experiences directly. Employees can disclose internal concerns. Eyewitnesses can provide their own accounts. Influencers can amplify an issue to audiences far beyond the organisation’s immediate reach.
Even somebody who was nowhere near where anything happened can quote another person’s post and confidently add, “I knew it!”
Knew what exactly?
But that is the world we live in.
A crisis can therefore develop across several conversations at the same time, with new claims, interpretations, screenshots and opinions emerging faster than an organisation can respond.
This brings me to one of my favourite parts of modern PR: social listening and continuous monitoring.
For someone like me, monitoring gives a different kind of joy because, sometimes, you can literally see a crisis trying to wake up before it has even opened both eyes.
PR teams must be equipped to identify emerging concerns, distinguish legitimate complaints from misinformation and recognise when what appears to be an isolated issue is beginning to attract wider public attention.
Waiting until the matter has become a trending topic before you start running around may leave you trying to respond to a narrative that other people have already defined for you.
Don’t allow it.
Monitor, listen and observe. Sometimes the best crisis you will ever manage is the one the public never even knew was trying to happen.
Let’s Bring Erisco Foods Into Our Gist
You know I cannot just be talking and talking without giving you an example that can make everything I am saying find proper comprehension.
So, let’s talk about the Erisco Foods controversy.
In 2023, consumer Chioma Okoli published a Facebook complaint concerning the taste of the company’s Nagiko Tomato Mix. What initially began as a consumer complaint expanded considerably after Erisco Foods responded, and legal action followed.
Okoli’s arrest generated even greater public attention. Suddenly, the conversation was no longer simply about the taste of a tomato product. It had expanded into questions about consumer rights, corporate conduct, freedom to criticise products and how organisations should respond when customers express dissatisfaction.
That case demonstrates something every organisation needs to understand: your response to a crisis can introduce an entirely new dimension that was never part of the original crisis.
So please, open your ears, your eyes and every other vital organ that can help you choose the right approach.
Not every dissatisfied customer is an enemy of your brand. Sometimes, somebody genuinely does not like your product.
And please, they are allowed to do so.
For PR professionals like myself, online criticism requires judgement, not automatic defensiveness. Before responding, ask the important questions. What exactly is the person complaining about? Is the complaint true or false? Is there an operational issue behind it? Is there evidence available?
If the criticism is unfounded, correct the record with evidence. If it is legitimate, acknowledge it and explain what you intend to do about it.
Don’t turn something that could have been resolved quietly into a national conversation simply because you wanted to show who has power.
Acknowledgement Is Not Admission
This distinction is extremely important.
An organisation can acknowledge that stakeholders are concerned without accepting an allegation that has not been established as fact. Saying, “We are aware of the concerns raised and are investigating the matter,” is not an admission of guilt.
You have simply told people, “We hear you.”
There is a significant difference between acknowledgement and admission, and understanding that difference can save an organisation from unnecessary trouble.
In a fast-moving digital environment, communication of this nature can help prevent speculation from gradually becoming accepted as fact while an investigation is still ongoing.
Screenshot Is Waiting for You
Crisis communication in the digital age must also account for the permanence of digital content.
You issued a statement in haste? No problem. You deleted it? Beautiful. But somebody already screenshots it. Now what?
That deleted statement can be screenshots, reposted, quoted and reported by news organisations long after the original post has disappeared. The painful part is that your eventual correction may not reach half the number of people who saw the original mistake.
This is why accuracy is not simply about getting your first statement right. It is also about maintaining consistency as more information becomes available.
If new facts emerge and your position changes, explain why. Do not behave as though people did not see what you said yesterday. Internet people have data and time. Don’t test them unnecessarily.
Please, Have a Crisis Structure Before Crisis Arrives
Organisations need a clear crisis communication structure long before an incident occurs.
Who monitors conversations around the organisation? Who verifies information? Who makes decisions during a crisis? Who approves public statements? Who speaks for the organisation? Who communicates with journalists? Who controls access to the organisation’s social media platforms? Who communicates directly with affected stakeholders?
These roles should already be defined.
Please don’t wait until everywhere is hot before somebody starts asking who has the Instagram password.
The organisation’s spokesperson should also be trained to communicate uncertainty without appearing evasive, while the communication team must have access to the operational information required to respond accurately.
During a major crisis, legal, technical, management and PR teams may all need to work closely together. Collaboration is essential, but please everybody should remember their lane while still working towards the same goal. And let me quickly tell my fellow PR people something.
During a crisis, everybody suddenly has an idea.
Management has an idea. The legal arm has an idea. Your client has an idea. Sometimes, your client’s friend has an idea too. Somebody will say, “Post this immediately.”
Another person will say, “Attack them.” Somebody else will insist, “Don’t say anything.”
Omo, this PR no easy, but na him sweet pass. Listen to everybody because collaboration is important. However, as the expert in the room, no gree for anybody o.
And by that, I do not mean you should become arrogant or ignore everybody else’s contribution. I mean you must not allow pressure to push you into professionally endorsing something you know can damage the same reputation you were brought in to protect.
If everybody says ‘jump’ and your professional judgement tells you that jumping will land the brand inside a bigger crisis, please remain on the ground.
Because when everything scatters tomorrow, nobody will remember who told you to jump.
They will simply ask: “Who is handling their PR?”
PR Is Not Magic
The public expects more than beautifully written statements when an organisation is facing a crisis. People want action.
If your product is unsafe, abeg, withdraw it. No go let money make you hurt people by leaving a dangerous product in the market. The money you are desperately trying to protect today may become the same money you will spend managing a much bigger crisis tomorrow.
If customers have been affected, tell them what remedy is available. If somebody within the organisation has done something wrong, address it. Do not protect bad behaviour simply because the person involved is a top-performing employee, a senior executive or somebody’s relative.
Wrong is wrong.
If an investigation is underway, communicate responsibly about its progress and eventual outcome. And this is where I need to say something very clearly:
PR is not magic.
We can manage perception. We can protect our reputation. We can communicate strategically. We can help an organisation tell its story clearly and responsibly.
But you see when something is fundamentally wrong and you want me to use grammar to make it look right?
Wo, I don’t know how to speak that English o. Fix the problem first, then call me to do my job.
Ultimately, the credibility of your crisis response will be tested by the relationship between what you said and what you actually did. Communication cannot permanently compensate for an organisation that refuses to correct the underlying problem.
The Trend Has Ended. Has the Crisis Ended? Not necessarily. This is another area where organisations sometimes relax too quickly.
Nobody is talking about you anymore. Your company’s name has disappeared from X trends. Blogs have moved on to the next story. Everybody appears happy again.
That does not automatically mean the crisis is over. Online conversations can resurface months or even years later, particularly when a new development gives people a reason to revisit the original controversy. Crisis recovery, therefore, is not simply about surviving the period when everybody is making noise.
What happens afterwards matters just as much.
How is the organisation rebuilding confidence? What corrective measures were introduced? What lessons were learned? What still appears when someone searches the organisation’s name online? How are stakeholders who were directly affected being engaged?
The end of media attention does not necessarily mean the end of reputational damage.
A good crisis-management strategy therefore extends beyond controlling the immediate situation. It must also consider recovery, accountability, rebuilding trust and the organisation’s long-term digital footprint.
Finally, You Cannot Control Everybody
For the modern PR professional, crisis communication is becoming less about controlling information and more about earning authority within an information environment that nobody completely controls.
You cannot determine every conversation that people will have about your organisation. You cannot delete every criticism. You cannot prevent everybody from having an opinion, and you certainly cannot fight everybody on social media.
You will tire.
What you can do is ensure that your own communication remains timely, factual, empathetic and consistent with your actions.
The most effective crisis response is therefore not necessarily the one that produces the fastest statement. It is the one that gives stakeholders a credible account of what happened, demonstrates that the organisation understands the consequences of what happened, and clearly explains what happens next.
So yes, in this digital age, crisis communication is a race against time. But it is not a race to speak first.
It is a race to establish credible information before somebody else defines the crisis for you.
And if you remember nothing else from this my long gist, remember this: prepare before the crisis comes. Monitor before it trends. Verify before you speak. Fix what is wrong before you start speaking grammar. And when everybody suddenly becomes a PR expert during your crisis, listen to them oooo, but as the professional in the room, use your training, experience and judgement.
After all, when the dust finally settles, they will still ask:
Who handled the PR?”
And you better make sure the answer comes with pride.
Bodex Hungbo, a PR and digital media strategist, is the founder of Bodex Media and convener of the Bodex Social Media Hangout.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
