A tale of two statements: how to get crisis comms right
We’ve seen both sides of the coin when it comes to crisis communications this month in two news stories you can’t have missed.
Ed Sheeran dropped a clanger with his lengthy and widely criticised statement responding to the decision to drop his support act Macklemore following the rapper’s pro-Palestinian comments.
Despite Sheeran’s attempt at neutrality, he was forced to step into the conversation. In a statement, shared to his Instagram page, he seemed to point blame at others and claimed it wasn’t his decision.
The statement was missing accountability. It was missing an apology. It lacked much substance. (And the bullet points, why the bullet points?!)
If you dissect it further, you could argue an element of hypocrisy too. In the statement, he claims that he does not want to use his professional platform for politics, yet he publicly supported Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and performed at Concert for Ukraine in 2022.
He followed this up a few days later with a speech at his concert in Philadelphia which did at least make a sweeping apology for any mistakes made. Breaking down in tears, he showed genuine emotion – but the delivery still lacked authenticity. Reading from an autocue can make even sincere words feel rehearsed. He was saying the words, but the words didn’t feel like his.
He’s reportedly lost followers at a rate of knots and his public image is certainly under huge scrutiny.
When it goes right
On the flip side, at the start of September, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) found itself in the middle of a debate over immigration and whether its crews should be involved in rescuing people crossing the Channel.
After videos of a rescue circulated on social media, the charity faced backlash from anti-migrant protestors. Staff and volunteers were harassed online and some were even victims of physical abuse.
But the RNLI didn’t stand for it. They took a markedly different approach.
Their statement was clear, concise, backed up by fact. They defended their team and rightly described the abuse “unacceptable”. The charity explained its role, reinforced its commitment and stood behind its staff and volunteers.
The response attracted public support, including increased donations following the backlash.
An individual and a charity, both brought into politically charged conversations, both handling it very differently.
This isn’t a look at whether their views are right or wrong. It’s a look at how the response was handled. Because in a crisis, what you say matters. But how you say it – and whether people believe you – matters too.
What can we learn from both examples?
Stick to the facts. The RNLI didn’t just say that they extend their support to anyone in distress in the water, they backed it up with verifiable statistics.
Clear evidence can help cut through speculation, particularly when misinformation is spreading. Grounding your response in what you know and what you can demonstrate helps your audience to understand what they need to.
Emotion needs to be authentic. The RNLI’s statement stood up for its teams and thanked its supporters. It had the right level of humanity without losing clarity.
Crisis communications shouldn’t be emotionless. In fact, showing that you understand the human impact of a situation can make a response more credible.
But emotion needs to feel genuine. People can be critical of a statement that lacks real concern or feeling.
Don’t assume you can stay out of the conversation. Arguably Ed Sheeran’s biggest mistake was assuming he could use neutrality like a shield. In today’s polarised world, that’s just as likely to attract criticism from all sides as it is to protect you.
This isn’t to say that everyone needs to pick a side. People have the right to choose what they want to speak about publicly. But it’s important to plan a proper response to the backlash that may well follow.
Keep it concise. The RNLI’s statement was concise and impactful (and fit on just one social media tile). Making responses like this too verbose means they can lose their impact and your main point is watered down, particularly on social media where attention spans are short.
Say what matters, explain what needs explaining, and remove what doesn’t add value.
Take ownership. Even when a decision is outside your direct control, your audience may still expect you to explain your role in the situation.
Saying “it wasn’t my decision” might be factually accurate, but it doesn’t necessarily clarify how you’ve been drawn into the conversation.
Be clear about what you did, what you didn’t do, what you could influence and what happens next. Transparency is more useful than simply distancing yourself from the problem.
If you need support to guide your organisation through a challenge or issue, our team can provide trusted counsel and expert advice. Contact us for an initial discussion.
Header photo by Rahul Himkar on Unsplash.
Written by
Share
Latest news & insights
Inspiring news, insights and comments from our Distinctive team.
