Leo的恒河沙

Keep Quiet in a Crisis? The Why and How of Brands Maintaining Strategic Silence - Huxiu#

#Omnivore

Highlights#

Brands do not need to rush to issue an apology, but should selectively ignore trending topics and return to their main business battlefield. ⤴️ ^64d02d76

Returning to business should be the best choice, even launching some marketing activities.
The mouse challenges the lion, gaining the reputation of being brave enough to challenge the lion. However, the lion, when truly engaged, will be seen as a bully of the weak mouse.

The driving force behind trending topics is essentially a conspiracy of instigators, provocateurs, enablers, regulators, and the mob; brands need to understand and respond to these forces. ⤴️ ^93cddd34

A brand's crisis on open media platforms is actually a part of the commercial model of the traffic ecosystem. Your crisis is someone else's business. ⤴️ ^bad46d75

What you said here is fantastic; your crisis is someone else's business.
This is the essence of all problems.

The initiators have a strong need to be seen and a desire to accuse. They are generally the source or amplifier of crisis information. Each must be verified and analyzed. ⤴️ ^c4b4f906

The public netizens crave fairness and justice, influencers pursue traffic monetization, media and MCN institutions expect viral content, media platforms welcome controversial trending topics, regulatory agencies focus on the rule of law, and brands can only hope for the best. ⤴️ ^23222a22

Everyone thinks you deserve to be punished.

Emotional expression needs to be seen and accepted; this is its core demand. ⤴️ ^a9e87dc3

This is the emotional outlet for all keyboard warriors and netizens.
The mob.

News has found a way to monetize the culture of outrage by evoking anger. ⤴️ ^ef4401da

MCN institutions and platforms play the role of heating up topics to get noticed by the next round of advertisers; fundamentally, it is still about traffic monetization. They are merely amplifiers and generally do not act as initiators.

In response, influencers, media, and MCNs will update reports, extending the public's anger and gaining more traffic. If they do not respond, they will not suffer any losses. ⤴️ ^fe39167d

Seeing this is actually quite despairing; we do not have very good ways to solve such problems. Only rapid responses after they occur and pre-set emergency plans.

Ignoring hype and trending topics, and returning to the main business scene may be the best choice. ⤴️ ^4e9e335a

Delayed silence is usually a signal that work is ongoing to buy time for a response. ⤴️ ^614c3273

When encountering such situations, one should respond quickly but make no commitments or directional judgments until the investigation is complete, a complete solution is in place, and it is repeatedly confirmed that it can be decisive before breaking such silence.

Having the right values leads to eternal life. ⤴️ ^70c5d9a8

This is the real killer move.

This article explores the reasons and methods for brands to choose to maintain strategic silence in the face of crises. The author believes that ==brands do not need to rush to issue an apology but should selectively ignore trending topics and return to their main business battlefield.== The article analyzes the motivations of initiators and the essence of the driving force behind trending topics, and proposes that brands can adopt a strategy of delayed silence. Finally, the article introduces the action strategies and choices brands can take when facing a crisis, including not responding or even apologizing initially.

• Brands do not need to rush to issue an apology and can selectively ignore trending topics, returning to their main business battlefield.

• The motivations of initiators are varied; brands need to analyze and respond accordingly.

• ==The essence of the driving force behind trending topics is a conspiracy of instigators, provocateurs, enablers, regulators, and the mob; brands need to understand and respond to these forces.==

Today, a certain hot pot brand issued a statement acknowledging the online reports about its sub-brand allegedly mixing lamb with duck meat, stating that if there are issues, they will "scrape the bones to cure the poison," and if there are no issues, they thank for the supervision.

The event was initiated by a self-media person who purchased lamb at the store out of pocket and found duck meat after testing. Subsequently, this self-media person went to the store to seek an explanation and published multiple short videos on social media.

In fact, brands do not need to be in such a hurry to issue an apology. I have written about this topic in several articles for the tabloid.

• Why does the pursuit of a good reputation turn good companies into bad people?
• Why should brands avoid apologizing easily?
• Why choose to selectively ignore trending topics, abandon the secondary battlefield of public opinion, and return to the main business battlefield?
• Why should brands avoid being opportunistic in manipulating public sentiment?
• Why do the truth, honesty, and genuine attitude become like a meat bun hitting a dog in the traffic ecosystem, misplacing true love?

Although I have always been a staunch advocate of truth and apologies, after this period of practice, writing, and reflection, I have changed. Will you forgive me?

Well, regardless of whether you forgive me, let me make three points:

1. The motivation of the initiator: What is the motivation behind the anti-fraud evaluation?
2. The economic driving force behind trending topics: The traffic ecosystem of instigators, provocateurs, enablers, regulators, and the mob.
3. Brand behavior: How to choose and implement strategic silence?

1. Analysis of Initiator Motivation#

Recently, I received a consulting request from a client, a home appliance brand, which encountered relentless questioning from a furniture self-media account on Douyin. The client asked me if it was sent by a competitor. I quickly checked and found it was not, as they had evaluated almost all brands in the industry. I looked at the two core issues raised, and neither was significant.

The brand wanted to focus on production and sales and did not want to pay attention to these online doubts. However, over time, this self-media account began daily live broadcasts and a series of short videos, gathering many fans in the comment section who were watching the fun, complaining, and supporting. The brand's single-digit employees and distributors also entered the live broadcast and comment section to refute some of his statements. He also entered the brand's online flagship store live broadcast room, continuously questioning and doubting.

Coincidentally, at the end of the peak sales season, this product line could not withstand internal and external pressure and began seeking professional third-party brand reputation consulting services, thus reaching out to me.

==A brand's crisis on open media platforms is actually a part of the commercial model of the traffic ecosystem. Your crisis is someone else's business.==

Now let's look at a recent report on a trending topic involving an influencer.

In July 2023, a female influencer from Changsha, Hunan, posted a video on a short video platform titled "Dining with a Girlfriend and Being Asked to Accompany a Drink by a Stranger," which was shared by some media and netizens. This account has 3.84 million followers, and the video received over 200,000 likes, quickly climbing to trending status.

The Changsha Municipal Internet Information Office and the police intervened immediately, discovering that the video was staged according to a predetermined script, intending to create a gender conflict for traffic. The team shot the video three times, creating a viral video that earned 80 yuan.

On July 31, the Kaifu Branch of the Changsha Public Security Bureau legally detained Shen and three others and ordered the platform to cancel the account that published the false video.

The above case preliminarily explains the traffic mechanism and operational model behind such crises.

Influencers develop in three stages: the initial phase, explosive growth phase, and mature influencer phase.

For example, the account "Iron Head Punishes Evil and Promotes Good" that reported on New Oriental in Hangzhou in mid-July 2023 was in the explosive growth phase. Various platforms' top-tier IPs with millions of followers have already entered the mature influencer phase.

The mature influencer phase has formed a stable monetization loop through business cooperation, sales, advertising, and platform traffic sharing. They generally do not actively initiate crisis events against a specific brand, as they still need to do business.

In the explosive growth phase, influencers are setting their account positioning, persona, and monetization path. If a certain brand happens to enter the traffic design path, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it will become the initiator or caller of a brand crisis. Iron Head Punishes Evil and Promotes Good had previously engaged in a series of anti-fraud actions, such as the Hainan seafood market's weight discrepancies, and already had 3 million followers on Douyin.

Using the moral card of punishing evil and promoting good to achieve traffic monetization goals. For instance, he solicits fan donations in the comment section of each video, stating in his profile that the "Punishing Evil Fund" has 29,469 yuan, of which 54,000 yuan has been used.

In contrast, during the initial phase, the selection of themes is also a matter of killing Buddhas when encountering Buddhas and killing gods when encountering gods. Once a brand is included in the topic scope, it may also become a "victim" of a crisis. The team of Shen mentioned at the beginning was in this stage.

Returning to the case at the beginning of this article, this self-media account may be following the path of Iron Head.

So, what is the motivation of the initiator? Different initiators have vastly different motivations.

• They are netizens with plenty of time to be keyboard warriors. They enjoy the sense of control and aggression that comes from hiding behind a screen.
• They see themselves as embodiments of justice and fairness, while you are just a windmill.
• They are the PR team of a competitor, sent by the CEO to find water army to attack your brand.
• They are undercover interns tasked with reporting a big news story to secure a full-time position.
• They are editors of new media accounts anxious for traffic, with trending topics and 100,000+ views hanging like the sword of Damocles over their heads.
• They are founders of black PR companies, looking for prey to attack.
• They are media editors with revenue targets, using negativity to seek brand business cooperation as their daily core task.
• They do not want to see you succeed; they want to see your organization collapse and your leaders disgraced.
• They believe your business has an inherent original sin and is the embodiment of an evil organization. They want to take you down.
• They are advocates and practitioners of certain social issues, and you happen to be caught in the crossfire.
• They are public officials responding to consumer complaints, and their duty requires them to investigate thoroughly.
• They are newly appointed corporate executives who have launched a high-profile marketing campaign, not wanting to touch the public's pain points.
• They are members of the corporate PR team, whose anxiety and pressure lead them to say things they shouldn't to the media during major unexpected events, inciting public outrage.
• They are loyal fans of your products and services, but a terrible experience has made them completely furious.
• They feel wronged and just want to seek justice and an explanation.

==Initiators have a strong need to be seen and a desire to accuse. They are generally the source or amplifier of crisis information. Each must be verified and analyzed.==

In this case, the initiator is a self-media account or an MCN institution that thrives on traffic, creating clickbait titles and provoking netizen emotions; they need the platform's advertising revenue and investment returns brought by high traffic, not you. You should not jump into the arena; otherwise, you will be the bull being teased by a red cape, blood pumping and exhausted.

So, why respond?

Next, let's zoom out and look at the entire traffic ecosystem of trending topics, and the situation will become clearer.

2. What is the Essence of the Driving Force Behind Trending Topics?#

1. The traffic ecosystem of instigators, provocateurs, enablers, regulators, and the mob

The emergence of such artificially hyped crises forms a conspiracy of coincidence:

The pressure level of a brand facing negative online reports X

= The desire for monetization of influencer traffic hotspots A

• The emotional intensity expressed by netizens B

• The amplification degree of media and MCN institutional matrix accounts C

• The algorithmic weighting of the platform's traffic pool D

• The degree of intervention by regulatory agencies E

In this conspiracy, the demands of the five roles are all different. ==Public netizens crave fairness and justice, influencers pursue traffic monetization, media and MCN institutions expect viral content, media platforms welcome controversial trending topics, regulatory agencies focus on the rule of law, and brands can only hope for the best.==

Influencers or top-tier accounts act as conveners, initiators, instigators, and callers, planning to hype traffic topics, gathering a continuously interactive and real-time responsive fan base, evoking anger or anxiety, embodying the hero of justice, the caller, or the revealer, while the implicated brand often becomes the villain, the unscrupulous enterprise, or the immoral merchant. The desire for monetization is their core demand.

Netizens, as an opinion group, aggregate around specific themes and events, expressing emotions and attitudes, and converting them into interactions such as likes, shares, and comments, even escalating to active attackers, shamers, and insult participants. ==Emotional expression needs to be seen and accepted; this is its core demand.==

Media and MCN institutional matrix accounts, as enablers, gain traffic value and follower growth through multi-account matrix forwarding, subsequently entering the media list for brand advertising. They earn traffic by either reposting or creating hot topics with one hand while monetizing that traffic into business income with the other. The brand becomes the unscrupulous merchant in negative reports and subsequently becomes the client for business cooperation. ==News has found a way to monetize the culture of outrage by evoking anger.==

Social media platforms act as instigators, overlooking the entire situation from an omniscient perspective, and based on algorithmic logic and topic planning, push negative news to trending topics. The trending topic mechanism rewards accounts that distill topic influence through direct cash incentives, traffic platform revenue sharing, follower growth, and content traffic bias; this is one of the economic driving forces of the business model.

Government agencies act as regulators, paying real-time attention to hot events and trending topics. They assess and decide whether intervention is necessary and how to intervene. If a brand indeed violates industry regulations or laws during an event, regulators will intervene. Even if there are no violations, significant events triggered by public sentiment will also lead to inquiries and questioning from regulatory agencies. This can significantly disrupt the production and operation of brand enterprises.

Initiators, enablers, instigators, and opinion groups, under the guise of "punishing evil and promoting good," "fairness and justice," and "public order and morality," conspire to create "commercial terrorism," hunting down brands that are isolated and passively involved, profiting from it.

2. The Pathway of Brand Pressure

Next, let's see what response strategies brands will adopt under the multi-faceted public opinion pressure on social media. As shown in the diagram below.

The instigator, after creating a topical event, reaches the brand along two paths. One is direct, tagging or naming the brand, as shown in path ②. The other is recruiting and mobilizing a small group of fans, as shown in path ①. This opinion group may exert pressure on the brand, for example, questioning under the official account, as shown in path ③.

For instance, allegations of food safety regarding hot pot ingredients have evoked public anxiety. The accompanying drinking video successfully mobilized an anti-male group. The home appliance influencer successfully recruited a group already in consumer disputes or simply netizens watching the fun. Iron Head Punishes Evil and Promotes Good recruited a group interested in the topic of extracurricular training, who may be there to like or to insult; both black and red are traffic, as shown in path ②.

Under pressure from both sides, the brand faces the first round of choices: whether to respond. If the choice is yes, the brand will respond and take action. If the choice is to not respond for now, as shown in path ④, the brand will enter an internal pressure phase, waiting for the impact to gradually dissipate.

If enablers intervene at this time, selecting content from the instigator and opinion group and amplifying it into a hot topic—such as a certain hot pot brand responding to allegations of mixing lamb—will create a multiplication and amplification effect, as shown in paths ⑤ and ⑥. The topic will quickly rise to trending status, increasing pressure.

If the brand cannot withstand this trending-level pressure and decides to respond and take action, as shown in paths ⑦ and ⑧, this will push the event into the next round of development.

Meanwhile, the platform remains behind the scenes, seemingly unaware of any action. However, algorithmic interventions, traffic biases, and hot topic promotions are quietly completed in the background. All of this is also under the observation of regulatory agencies. Once the event falls under the jurisdiction of public sentiment management and handling by the department, decisive action will be taken. The outcome of the drinking video was the collective intervention of the Internet Information Office and the Public Security Bureau.

As a brand, under the siege of four forces, the disadvantaged position is undeniable.

3. Brand Action Strategies and Choices#

1. Brands can choose not to speak

Responding, or even apologizing, will lead to relentless pursuit, while not apologizing will be criticized as indifference.

Responses will be taken out of context, while not responding will be labeled as "the company is silent out of guilt."

==In response, influencers, media, and MCNs will update reports, extending the public's anger and gaining more traffic. If they do not respond, they will not suffer any losses.==

Because regardless of how the brand chooses, it will enter the following established narrative framework:

• The brand's response will fall into a passive mode of calling/responding. Actions are constrained by public opinion; any words or actions feel like being held at gunpoint in a "performative" manner. Like an ostrich.
• The brand's role will enter a binary mode of hero/villain. The instigator is the hero challenging the strong and slaying the dragon. The villain.
• The brand's actions will fall into a challenge/action mode, losing the proactive and positive image of improvement, falling into the blame of "if they don't expose you, you are just playing dead." Playing dead.
• The brand's endgame will inevitably enter a win/lose mode, losing miserably to highlight the "victory of the common people."

If communication is performed according to a predetermined script and role, it is not considered equitable.

Of course, some say that brands must respond to public opinions, but only a few companies have enough resources to respond to all trivial issues raised on social media and open platforms.

My basic view is: do not fear the negative trending topics initiated by a minority; companies need to think carefully about whether to respond. ==Ignoring hype and trending topics, and returning to the main business scene may be the best choice.==

However, it is difficult; human anxiety, panic, and shame are all related to survival. Once our defense and survival instincts are provoked by those who can profit from it, the instinct to survive will emerge.

Moreover, the internal environment of the brand is also a market of diverse opinions; PR worries about the situation escalating, business fears performance decline, and the CEO is concerned about reputation damage.

However, academic research and practice show that silence can also be a strategic choice for brands.

2. Brands can choose to remain silent initially

Although crisis communication advocates dialogue and interaction, over 80% of organizations and brands will remain silent in practice.

So, when should organizations and brands remain silent? When should they not? Does silence involve strategic thinking and deliberate silence? How is silence decided, adopted, maintained, and broken within organizations? What are the subsequent effects?

Singaporean scholars Le and others propose three types of strategic silence: evasive silence, hidden silence, and delayed silence:

• Evasive silence is used when organizations/leaders intend to avoid certain stakeholders and/or issues at hand;
• Hidden silence is to conceal relevant information from stakeholders;
• ==Delayed silence is usually a signal that work is ongoing to buy time for a response.==

The last type of delayed silence is a strategic silence worth focusing on; it is a viable crisis response strategy.

Delayed silence can avoid missteps in response and reduce the escalation of crises. At the same time, it can indicate that the crisis party has the confidence and ability to endure some negative emotions or better control the initiative in the crisis, providing opportunities for later brand image recovery.

Delayed silence has three benefits:

1. It releases a signal that work is underway; for stakeholders, delayed silence is more easily tolerated and can reduce the escalation of crises.
2. Intentionally maintaining silence will place the organization in a proactive position, as they will decide when to break the silence, thus controlling the crisis.
3. Delayed silence can also provide the organization with additional time for further investigation before issuing an initial response.

Therefore, if delayed silence is adopted as a response signal and maintained long enough to formulate and release an appropriate primary response, then delayed silence can prove to be positive. In other words, maintaining silence for a period, waiting until the plan is formulated, and then deciding to release it externally is a positive signal.

Here is a roadmap that brands can refer to when adopting a delayed silence strategy.

When to adopt delayed silence

• When the organization needs time to investigate the crisis, especially when the cause is unclear;
• To resolve a clearly caused issue without causing panic;
• When collecting information or arranging initial response measures, delayed silence can be used.

In this case, delayed silence can serve as an auxiliary strategy to prepare for the initial response.

Planning to maintain silence

• Once a crisis arises, the organization should begin formulating the primary response strategy.
• The crisis situation should be assessed. For example, can stakeholders understand the silence according to the company's intentions? Silence is due to ongoing investigations and is inconvenient to speak out.
• Once the company has sufficient information, it will choose to release the first response statement to indicate that work is ongoing.

Maintaining silence

• Investigate and resolve issues, and prepare to release a formal response.
• The organization needs to continuously monitor the threat of the crisis and its impact on stakeholders, avoiding further deterioration of the situation. For example, if more and more consumers come to the store demanding compensation or initiating collective lawsuits. If regulatory agencies begin inspections and tests at multiple stores. If internal employees proactively leak information to the media.
• If it becomes necessary to break silence early, the triggering timing must be determined. For example, if a statement was originally planned for release a week later, but the official test results are released early, a statement can be released ahead of schedule.

Breaking silence

• If everything goes according to plan, the organization has obtained sufficient information and is well-prepared, it will release the primary response as expected.
• Continue to monitor stakeholders' attitudes and emotions.
• Equally important is to monitor stakeholders' perceptions of the statement and assess whether the organization's image—whether social, financial, product, or recruitment image—has been negatively impacted, and propose appropriate follow-up image repair measures.

Now, the last question is whether to remain completely silent from the beginning? Not necessarily.

3. A Little Bit Can Be Said Initially

Delayed silence is used to indicate that work is ongoing, so should a first response statement be issued before silence? I believe it is necessary, and I operate this way in practice.

The first statement should express that we are aware, we are taking action, and we are verifying the situation, and we will inform as soon as there are updates.

The first response does not take a clear position. This statement needs to be clearly distinguished from the formal statement released after appropriate investigation and breaking silence.

Five benefits of issuing a first response statement immediately before taking delayed silence:

1. If the organization remains completely silent before issuing a formal response, it will face criticism. It may be perceived by the public as concealing information, admitting guilt, being guilty, or lacking empathy for public concerns, especially when the severity of the crisis is high or may escalate.
2. It avoids making serious commitments at the outset, which may lead to the moral hazard of over-commitment.
3. It releases a signal to stakeholders that we are aware and are paying attention to the situation.
4. It helps the organization focus on resolving issues without external interference.
5. It allows for the collection of accurate information to make an appropriate initial response.

Of course, if the investigation can be completed quickly, a first response statement is not necessary.

In conclusion, ==having the right values leads to eternal life.==

This content represents the author's independent views and does not reflect the position of Huxiu. Reproduction without permission is prohibited; for authorization matters, please contact hezuo@huxiu.com
If you have any objections or complaints regarding this article, please contact tougao@huxiu.com

Those who are changing and those who want to change the world are all on Huxiu APP