For decades, the mantra in public relations has been simple: when a crisis hits, act fast. The idea was that a rapid response would allow brands to control the narrative and mitigate damage before the situation spiraled out of control. Seems logical, right?
Certainly, however, recent events have shown that speed alone can often do more harm than good. Your customers might not remember that your response arrived the next morning, but they definitely will remember a blunder.
The point is—rushed responses can lead to incomplete messaging, alienate stakeholders, and even intensify public backlash. In this article, I’ll explore why traditional crisis management, centered solely on quick fixes, is becoming obsolete and why the future of PR lies in a more thoughtful, strategic approach.
The pitfalls of speed: When rushing leads to ruin
When crises occur, the kneejerk response for most PR agents is to respond immediately. However, this rush to act often means that companies don’t have the luxury of fully understanding the situation.
Without a comprehensive grasp of all the facts, early statements can be inaccurate or misleading. This lack of context can lead to messaging that fails to resonate with a concerned audience or, worse, alienates them further. To make things even worse, even the biggest brands aren’t immune to this, as demonstrated by:
United Airlines ‘Non-apology’ – 2017
A prime example of this was United Airlines’ response to the backlash they received to footage shared on social media of a man being violently removed from an overbooked flight in 2017. United’s immediate response was to have the CEO issue a statement, which was largely judged to be defensive and lacked empathy, putting much of the blame on the injured man. This ‘non-apology’ utterly failed to read the room and the sentiment of the backlash United was receiving.
A response to a major incident shouldn’t be something a paraphrasing tool could cough out. It needs to take a considered approach that acknowledges fault and takes accountability for any wrongdoings. Even though they later issued a more considered response, the damage was done. United Airlines is still trying to rebuild itself as a brand.
Pepsi’s canned response – 2017
Another example from 2017. In this case, Pepsi shows how a speedy, defensive response can just make things worse. If you don’t remember Pepsi’s disastrous ad featuring Kendall Jenner, you’re lucky, as I still feel the cringe deep in my soul. The ad was rightly criticized for evoking images of the many human rights protests taking place globally in 2017, like Black Lives Matter, and indicating that all we needed to get along was a celebrity and a can of Pepsi.
Pepsi’s initial response, that the ad ‘reflects people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony’ failed to recognize criticisms that the ad minimized the very real concerns people were protesting about. This led to further backlash and mockery, and the ad was pulled completely. But the ad is still widely considered one of the worst of the 21st century so far, and the resulting PR crisis still lives long in people’s memories.
Volkswagen’s Dieselgate – 2015
While the previous examples were speedy, ill-thought-out examples of trying to deflect blame or defend mistakes, sometimes rushing to admit blame can make things worse. Case in point: Volkswagen’s 2015 ‘Dieselgate’ scandal.
In 2015, the car manufacturer was revealed to have installed software in its diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. The defeat device enabled cars to pass tests while emitting up to 40 times the legal limit of pollutants under normal driving conditions. Volkswagen’s response was rapid but uncoordinated, they quickly admitted wrongdoing, and a huge number of high-level executives resigned.
However, this chaos served to only make things worse: not only did the resignations lead to further hits to their stock prices, but it also meant that no one was prepared to step up and explain how Volkswagen was going to make up for their mistake or lead them through the crisis.
The scandal had a severe and lasting impact on the brand. Beyond the estimated $30 billion in fines, legal settlements, and vehicle buyback costs, Volkswagen’s reputation for engineering excellence and environmental responsibility took a major hit.
Key elements of modern crisis management
Modern crisis management isn’t just about a fast response, it’s about smart, strategic action. The first step is thorough preparation. You need to develop a detailed crisis communication plan, identify key stakeholders early, and have draft messages ready to go.
Equally important is transparency. Attempts to hide or sugarcoat issues can be quickly exposed by the hive-mind power of today’s internet-savvy consumers. A company in crisis needs to address things openly by explaining what went wrong and outlining corrective steps. The key thing is to show empathy and honesty over the impact of the crisis on people’s lives.
While situations around major crises can change rapidly, you shouldn’t rush to respond. To stay up to date on the public mood during a crisis, you can use social listening and media monitoring, coupled with sophisticated data extraction, to stay on the pulse of how your audience is responding. You can then adapt your messaging as situations evolve.
Above all, you need a unified approach, something that’s much easier with a considered, strategic response to crisis management, rather than focusing on speed. You need to maintain a continuous dialogue with all stakeholders. This doesn’t just include internal stakeholders; open communication with customers and regulators is just as important.
The power of strategy: Prioritizing the right message at the right time
A strategic approach to crisis management can make all the difference. When companies take the time to understand a crisis fully and craft a thoughtful response, they are better positioned to regain public trust and steer the narrative in a positive direction. This isn’t about being slow to respond, it’s about being smart in how you communicate.
Let’s take a look at brands that took the time to make a considered, strategic response to crisis management. In some cases, they didn’t just mitigate the impact of a scandal, they turned it into a win.
KFC’s ‘FCK Up’ – 2018
Your main job as the largest global fried chicken brand is to make sure you have enough chicken to feed your customers. However, in February 2018, a major supply chain disruption led to a mass shortage of chicken across their UK stores.
The public response was largely humorous, highlighting the absurdity of such a giant corporation failing at something perceived to be so basic. Rather than attempting to deflect blame, KFC took a measured, considered response that read the room. They leaned into the mistake and matched the tone of the public response.
The simple, full-page print ad with an iconic KFC bucket now emblazoned with ‘FCK’ matched the tone of their audience, admitted their fault, and promised to do better. The ad was a huge success and is widely considered a masterclass in modern crisis management, as it showed a real understanding of the audience and tone.
Starbucks’ shut down – 2018
While KFC had the benefit of leaning into the humor around their crisis, serious incidents require a different approach. In April 2018, Starbucks faced a major PR crisis when two African American men were arrested at a Philadelphia store after being asked to leave for not making a purchase. The incident quickly went viral, sparking widespread public outrage and raising serious concerns about racial bias.
Rather than reacting hastily or defensively, Starbucks took a strategic approach by acknowledging the error immediately. CEO Kevin Johnson issued a sincere public apology, taking full responsibility and promising to address the systemic issues that led to the incident. This measured response set a tone of accountability and empathy, demonstrating that a well-thought-out approach is far more effective than a rushed, panicked reaction.
Starbucks implemented a series of proactive measures to rebuild trust and reinforce its commitment to diversity and inclusion. The company made the bold decision to close over 8,000 U.S. stores for a day to conduct comprehensive racial bias training for nearly 175,000 employees. This move not only addressed the immediate concerns of the public but also laid the groundwork for long-term changes within the organization.
This strategic and considered approach to crisis management allowed Starbucks to transform a potentially damaging event into an opportunity to reflect, learn, and strengthen its brand reputation.
Conclusion
The era of crisis management defined solely by rapid responses is drawing to a close.
Companies that take the time to fully understand the situation, communicate transparently, and show genuine empathy not only manage to survive crises but emerge stronger and more trusted by the public.
The future of PR isn’t about being the first to speak but being the one who speaks wisely.
