In the face of a crisis or incident, swift action is vital. Often, it’s not the crisis itself that defines how an organisation is perceived in the aftermath, but how well the response was managed.
The response to a crisis can be managed in one of two ways, on a proactive or reactive basis. One mistake organisations often make is leaving it until the day a crisis breaks to make this decision, when the wiser choice is to have a protocol in place well in advance.
In this post, we’ll discuss the circumstances in which either approach should be used. By the way, whether you agree or disagree – I’d love to hear from you – leave a comment once you’ve read the post and let me know if you found it useful.
But first, what is a crisis? For the purpose of this post, a crisis is defined as follows:
“…an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organisation’s performance and generate negative outcomes”
Should the communications response be proactive or reactive?
When a crisis breaks, you should start working on a statement for the press straight away. (Click here to read our post on preparing a holding statement) The statement should briefly give details that are confirmed and next steps; you can see some examples and templates here. Once your statement is prepared, a decision should be made on whether it should be issued on a proactive or reactive basis.
A proactive release means that you make the statement public immediately; this could be at a press conference if the situation calls for one, or by posting the statement to your website and your social channels for the public to see. It may also mean proactively contacting journalists your organisation has a good relationship with and giving them the statement to get ahead of the story.
A reactive statement means you get your statement ready but hold off on publishing it anywhere unless you receive specific enquiries on the crisis or incident. A reactive response can be used if it is likely that the story won’t reach the media. In these circumstances, releasing a statement too soon can do more harm than good. A reactive statement is the right choice when you know that there is a chance a negative story might break, but it has not yet happened.
A proactive statement is likely to be required if:
- The incident has already attracted traditional or social media interest
- There is a legal requirement to issue a statement to any Stock Exchange
- People have been injured or their safety/well-being is at risk
- The environment has been affected or there is a high-profile risk to the environment
- The incident has already attracted regional or international NGO interest
If the situation warrants a proactive response, the crisis response team will nominate a spokesperson to release the agreed statement to relevant traditional and social media (including local) as well as on the corporate website (or a specific website set up to manage the incident) and any other relevant owned channels.
Don’t forget to consider stakeholders other than the media who may be impacted. Read more on that here.
Make sure to start monitoring online news services and social media for mention of your crisis, and when the incident starts to wind down, spend some time on learnings that can be applied next time.
Have you managed crises for your organisation? Have you got a crisis plan in place that outlines proactive and reactive protocols? Don’t forget to leave a comment!
To share these posts easily with your LinkedIn connections, follow our page HERE. And if you’ve got colleagues who might be interested in reading this – share the link (These posts take a while to put together, and we really appreciate the support!)
We post curated content from some of the world’s top PR professionals, as well as our own articles, over here on Twitter. Follow us there for trends and best practices in PR.