This article explains how organisations should use social media during a crisis, balancing the need for speed with legal, regulatory and reputational risks. It outlines how to identify key audiences, maintain consistent messaging across channels, and control who communicates publicly. It also highlights the importance of preparation, governance and clear decision-making to ensure responses are accurate, proportionate and aligned with wider crisis management strategies.
Key takeaways
- Social media requires fast but controlled responses during a crisis.
- Messaging must remain consistent across all audiences and channels.
- Clear governance is essential to control who can communicate publicly.
- Preparation, including draft responses and planning, improves outcomes.
- Legal, regulatory and reputational risks must be balanced in all communications.
Understanding social media in a crisis context
The world, as they say, has changed.
A couple of decades ago, if a company crisis arose there was often the luxury of time to react. Business stories tended to run in the Sunday papers or the Financial Times, and there was a chance to consider, craft and hone a response.
Now, we live in a world of instant media and even more instance demands for reaction. It is a 24/7/365 world, and much of it is on social media. If your organisation has a problem, everyone will know about it – and you need to determine what to do, how to do it and when – in short, how best to utilise social media during a crisis.
Coordinating internal and external advisers
If you work in-house, it is quite likely that you will have a communications team or communications specialists to hand. You may well also have specialist public relations advisers, and if your company is listed, you will also have financial advisers, brokers, and bankers retained, as well as the possibility of external public company lawyers. If (as is likely) the crisis may impact your company’s regulatory environment and stock price, you need to navigate those requirements while managing the conflicting demands of instant media.
Identifying and managing multiple audiences
In any crisis there will almost always be more than one audience. Your customers, your staff, your suppliers and creditors, pressure groups, your investors, your regulators – and of course those looking to take advantage of a problem through shareholder activism or short selling. But what they want – or need – to hear may not be the same. If you can begin to understand who is interested, and why, then you can begin to decide how to react.
Tailoring messages across different groups
One of the characteristics of social media, though, is that it is not easily possible to differentiate it for different audiences. What you need to say to investors and employees will differ and will differ again from what customers need to hear. You will need to use different channels to talk to each of them – but crucially what you say must be consistent and cannot contradict what you are saying through other routes.
Deciding what to say, and when to respond
In many cases, of course, the only absolute obligation to say anything comes about through regulatory requirements. If your organisation is listed, you may well have to respond in a range of situations, whether corporate actions such as takeover approaches, or crises which may impact your share price. But does that mean you can otherwise keep quiet?
In theory, it does, but is that the best route? Speculation fills a vacuum, so if you say nothing, inevitably others will comment. The best communications advice is often to be willing to respond, and ideally to get ahead of the crisis.
Preparing response templates and crisis scenarios
While what you can say will vary with the circumstances, it is entirely possible to have a range of reaction statements on the stocks for particular issues, and many organisations have these – from takeover approaches to health and safety issues, from customer complaints to media interest. They will inevitably need to be changed but will represent a helpful starting point. It is also a good plan to brainstorm what sorts of crisis may confront your organisation – you will likely have done that as part of your risk management and business continuity planning – and using that work as a basis to develop a reaction plan is advisable.
Controlling access to social media during a crisis
Implementing social media policies
An issue with social media is that it is social. Many of your executives and staff will be used to using it and may be tempted to comment in a crisis. You should have communications and social media policies indicating who can say what, when and on what topic – and in general that should be clear that in a crisis all comms must come through the central, approved route and that off-the-cuff posts, however well-meaning, are unlikely to be helpful.
Reducing risks from employee activity
Many companies will make compliance with their social media policy a condition of employment, but it is also important to ensure that staff understand the constraints, rather than telling them they cannot say something after posts have been made in a crisis.
Navigating regulatory and compliance constraints
Most large organisations will be constrained in what they can say, and how (and where) they can say it – there may well be an industry regulator, there will be listing rules, financial services, and compliance restraints and so much more. As an in-house lawyer you will know about the framework – but it is entirely possible that you may not know the exact details if the issue is one which you have not normally come across. You will, though, know how to access and bring together the relevant advice in a coherent and timely fashion, and this is a key skill in using social media in a crisis.
Aligning board expectations with crisis communications
The progress of technology being what it is, it is quite likely that some members of your board may not be as familiar with social media as your audiences. If they are, they probably use different channels from the people you need to reach and express themselves in different ways. They may also prefer to say nothing when the professional advice is to respond. Those views and preferences are entirely valid, but as with other areas where the organisation seeks professional advice, they need to be tempered. What you say is, of course, the responsibility of the organisation as a whole and of the Board.
Deciding when to explain or apologise
It used to be said that the Royal Family’s unofficial motto was ‘never explain, never apologise.’ Generally speaking, that is not helpful – or possible – for a company in crisis. The underlying rationale, though – that sometimes apologies or explanations confound or extend the crisis – does have some value. In any comms, there is a balance to be found in saying enough, but not too much – and there is always a risk that a well-meaning explanation will be misinterpreted.
In recent years there has perhaps been a tendency for organisations to apologise when it is not really clear what they are apologising for, or why, with the danger that it may appear insincere or inappropriate. If it is called for, a genuine apology given at the earliest opportunity and carefully drafted with professional comms and legal advice is likely to be a sensible course.
Using specialist crisis communications support
In a major crisis, you may want to consider using specialist crisis management organisations, either directly or perhaps via your insurers – some insurers will require that as a condition of a claim, for example. In that case, they will almost certainly advise – or even require – what is said as part of your social media response.
Planning the timing and frequency of updates
Many issues benefit from a detailed comms plan, identifying what you should say, and when. It may not be necessary or appropriate to issue a full and detailed explanation all at once, and your true message – for instance, an apology in the case of a major incident – may be lost or obscured. You may also find that you are responding to a developing situation, and if this is so, being able to tailor your response to specific allegations is also important.
Maintaining records of communications
It may sound obvious but do keep a clear record of what is being said over social media and ensure that it is consistent with the communications plan and with previous communications. If you need to say something which contradicts earlier messages, explain why. If you use your record to note the rationale for the decision and the communication concerned, it will make life easier if you are challenged in future.
Deciding when to respond to misinformation
Sometimes crises generate comments which are ill-informed, or quite simply wrong. The nature of social media is that they will certainly generate material which you would prefer not to see. It is even the case that sources which should know better – even including regulators – have been known to make comments or responses which are inaccurate in whole or in part. Should you respond? Really this is a question of proportionality and record – think about whether it is proportionate that you should respond, or whether it is necessary to say something to correct the record.
Common risks in social media crisis response
The pressure to say something, and to say it quickly – or inexperience in dealing with crisis meaning that colleagues do not necessarily understand the implications of a response – can be a real pitfall. Saying the right thing at the wrong time can also be an issue, as well as the temptation to explain something before the circumstances are known.
Frameworks for crisis communication planning
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations produces a helpful best practice guide (which you can find referenced in Further Reading) and includes an example of a social media appendix to a crisis communications plan.
The role of the in-house lawyer in crisis communications
The first point to make is that your skills as a lawyer are invaluable. You are used to expressing yourself clearly, to working with words, to identifying and answering questions and to understanding constraints. That said, the social media world has some key differences – not least speed and the reality that at least some of the audience may be more focused on the story than the facts.
Some may feel that the communications professionals and the lawyers are at odds. Some members of your own board may even feel that way, but this is not the case. The skills are hugely complementary and each can learn and benefit from the other. In some organisations the comms team reports to the GC or CoSec, and even if this is not the case, it is important that you work very closely.
Turning crisis response into opportunity
While some crises are fatal to organisations, the majority will pass. What you say on social media will be on record, and if there are future problems, inevitably your statements will be brought out and you will be expected to explain or comment on them. Conversely, though, the increased prominence a crisis brings can present an opportunity. Your audiences will see how you respond. You may find that potential customers are more aware of what you offer. You can have a new opportunity to put your offering before a new audience.
Further reading and crisis communication resources
Crisis Communications and Social Media – a CIPR Best Practice Guide Crisis Communication and Social Media Best Practice Guide