5 Communications Mistakes Companies Make During a Crisis
A crisis rarely arrives according to schedule. A customer complaint suddenly goes viral. A regulatory investigation becomes public. An employee makes an allegation. A technology platform goes down. An executive says the wrong thing. A journalist calls with questions about an issue nobody expected to become public.
Whatever the trigger, companies can quickly find themselves operating under intense pressure with incomplete information. The decisions made during those first hours and days can determine whether the situation remains manageable or develops into a lasting reputational problem.
There is no universal crisis communications playbook. Different circumstances require different responses. But there are several mistakes companies make repeatedly.
1. Responding before establishing the facts
Speed matters during a crisis but accuracy matters more. Social media has created enormous pressure for companies to respond immediately to emerging situations. Sometimes that is necessary. But there is a significant difference between responding quickly and responding prematurely.
A confident statement based on incomplete information can create a second crisis if subsequent facts contradict it. The first priority should therefore be establishing what is known, what remains unknown and who needs to be involved in determining the facts.
Where an immediate response is required, companies can acknowledge the situation without speculating. "We are aware of the issue and investigating" may feel unsatisfactory to a communications team under pressure, but it is considerably safer than making definitive claims the company may later have to retract.
Trust is difficult to rebuild once stakeholders believe they have been misled.
2. Saying nothing because the lawyers advised caution
Legal and communications teams approach crises from different perspectives. Lawyers are understandably focused on liability. Communications advisers are focused on reputation and stakeholder confidence. Both matter. The problem arises when "don't say anything" becomes the default response to every difficult situation. Silence is not neutral.
When a company provides no information, journalists still publish. Customers still speculate. Employees still talk. Social media still fills the vacuum. The result can be a public narrative built almost entirely from sources outside the organisation.
This doesn't mean ignoring legal advice or publishing information that creates unnecessary exposure. It means legal and communications teams should work together to identify what can safely and constructively be said. The best crisis response protects both the company's legal position and its credibility.
3. Treating every criticism as something that requires a response
The opposite mistake is responding to everything. Not every negative tweet is a crisis. Not every critical article requires a statement. Not every allegation deserves the amplification that an official corporate response can provide.
Sometimes responding transforms a minor issue into a much bigger one. Companies should assess who is making the criticism, how credible they are, how far the issue has travelled, whether important stakeholders are concerned and what is likely to happen if the company remains silent.
The objective of crisis communications isn't to win every argument. It is to achieve the quickest and most favourable resolution while protecting the relationships and reputation that matter to the business. Sometimes that requires a forceful public response. Sometimes a private conversation is more effective. Sometimes the best decision is to do nothing. Knowing the difference is critical.
4. Allowing too many people to speak
Crises create internal pressure as well as external scrutiny. Executives want to defend the company. Employees answer questions from friends. Customer service teams improvise responses. Different departments communicate with their own stakeholders. Before long, the company has five slightly different versions of the truth circulating publicly.
Message discipline is essential. Companies should quickly establish who is authorised to speak, what information has been verified, what the core messages are and how enquiries should be escalated. That discipline should extend internally.
Employees do not need every confidential detail, but they should understand what is happening and what is expected of them. In the absence of internal communication, employees can become another source of speculation. One coordinated voice is almost always more credible than several competing ones.
5. Assuming the crisis ends when the headlines disappear
Media attention has a short memory. Stakeholders often don't. A company can disappear from the news cycle while customers remain concerned, employees feel unsettled, regulators continue asking questions or potential partners quietly reconsider their relationship.
Crisis communications therefore has two phases: response and recovery. The recovery phase may involve explaining what changed, demonstrating accountability, rebuilding relationships, correcting inaccurate information or providing evidence that commitments made during the crisis were fulfilled.
Companies should also conduct a proper post-crisis review. What happened? What did we know and when? Where did decision-making break down? Which stakeholders mattered most? Were responsibilities clear? What should change before the next issue?
The worst time to create a crisis plan is during a crisis. Organisations should establish decision-making structures, escalation processes, spokesperson protocols and stakeholder maps while things are calm. Because ultimately, good crisis communications isn't about winning an argument on social media or making an uncomfortable headline disappear. It is about protecting trust among the stakeholders whose opinions actually matter to the business. And that work starts long before the crisis does.
If you’d like some help preparing for or managing crisis situations, do get in touch - hello@talkingdrumcomms.com
