A dissatisfied customer posts a complaint that begins attracting attention. An employee’s conduct becomes the subject of public criticism. A service failure affects customers and quickly moves from private frustration to social media discussion. A damaging allegation appears online, journalists begin making enquiries, and people expect the company to explain what happened. Situations like these can develop rapidly, leaving organisations with little time to decide what to say, who should say it and how much information should be made public.
The first 24 hours of a brand crisis are therefore important, not because every problem can be resolved within a day, but because the organisation’s initial response can influence how the situation develops. A poorly considered statement can create a second controversy, while prolonged silence can allow assumptions to become accepted as fact. At Laerryblue Media, crisis communications is treated as a reputation management responsibility that begins with understanding the situation before attempting to control the conversation. The priority is not to respond fastest at all costs. It is to respond with enough speed, accuracy and judgment to prevent an already difficult situation from becoming unnecessarily worse.
The first mistake is reacting before understanding what happened
When criticism begins spreading online, the pressure to respond immediately can be intense. Executives may want a statement published within minutes because silence feels dangerous. Social media teams may begin replying individually to angry customers, while different departments circulate their own explanations internally. If facts have not been established, this urgency can produce contradictory messages or claims that later have to be corrected.
The first task should be verification. The organisation needs to determine what actually happened, when it happened, who was affected, what information is already public and whether any claims circulating online are inaccurate. Relevant teams may need to provide records, timelines or operational information before the communications team can recommend a response. Where legal, regulatory or safety issues are involved, the appropriate specialists should also be consulted.
Verification does not mean disappearing while the company conducts an endless investigation. If public attention is already significant and the facts will take time to establish, a brief acknowledgement may be appropriate. The company can confirm that it is aware of the issue, state that it is reviewing the situation and indicate when further information will be provided. This gives the organisation time to investigate without pretending that nothing is happening.
What should be avoided is certainty before certainty exists. A confident but inaccurate statement can damage a company’s reputation more severely than admitting that some facts are still being established.
Silence is not always neutral
Some organisations respond to public criticism by saying nothing and hoping attention will disappear. In minor situations, restraint can indeed be sensible. Not every negative comment deserves a corporate statement, and responding to a small issue can sometimes give it an audience it did not previously have. The challenge is knowing when silence has stopped being restraint and started becoming a reputational risk.
A useful assessment considers who is discussing the issue and how quickly it is spreading. A complaint seen by a handful of people is different from one being shared by customers, journalists and influential industry voices. The seriousness of the underlying allegation also matters. Issues involving customer safety, financial loss, discrimination, misconduct, data, regulatory concerns or senior leadership generally require greater attention than ordinary dissatisfaction with a service.
Stakeholders will often interpret an information vacuum themselves. If the organisation provides no credible explanation while screenshots, videos and accusations circulate, the public narrative may develop without its input. By the time the company eventually responds, people may already have formed strong conclusions about what happened.
The decision to speak should therefore be based on risk rather than discomfort. Organisations do not need to answer every criticism, but they should recognise when an issue has become significant enough that silence itself communicates something.
One organisation should not have five different explanations
Crises frequently expose weaknesses in internal communication before they expose weaknesses in public communication. Customer service may tell customers one thing while the social media team says another. A senior executive may make an informal comment that conflicts with the official statement, and employees may share unverified information privately that eventually reaches the public.
This creates a credibility problem because people begin questioning which version is true.
During the first hours of a serious issue, the organisation should establish a clear internal source of verified information. The people responsible for communications need access to the latest confirmed facts, while employees who may receive enquiries should understand what they can communicate and where questions should be directed. This does not mean preventing employees from speaking about legitimate concerns. It means avoiding a situation where speculation becomes the company’s unofficial response.
Leadership also needs clarity about responsibility. Someone should have the authority to approve communications without forcing every sentence through an unnecessarily long chain of decision-makers. Organisations that wait until a crisis to determine who can approve a statement often lose valuable time arguing internally while the issue develops publicly.
The first statement should solve an information problem, not a PR problem
One of the weakest approaches to crisis communication is producing a statement that sounds polished but says almost nothing. Expressions such as “we take these matters seriously” have become familiar because companies frequently use them without providing meaningful information about what has occurred or what will happen next.
The public usually wants clearer answers. What does the company currently know? What action has been taken? Are customers affected? Is the problem continuing? What should affected people do? When should they expect another update? Not every answer will be available immediately, but the statement should provide whatever verified information can responsibly be shared.
Tone also matters. A company dealing with people who have experienced genuine inconvenience, financial loss or distress should not sound defensive or self-congratulatory. The organisation can protect its legal and factual position without appearing indifferent to the people affected. Where the company is responsible for an error, acknowledging that responsibility clearly is often stronger than hiding behind vague corporate language.
An apology is most meaningful when it is connected to action. If a business says it is sorry but provides no explanation of what is being corrected, audiences may see the apology as an attempt to end criticism rather than address the problem.
Social media is often where the crisis moves fastest
Even when a crisis begins elsewhere, social media can rapidly become the place where people encounter it. Screenshots remove context, short clips circulate without complete explanations, and old complaints can resurface as users begin discussing their previous experiences with the company. This means organisations need to understand the conversation rather than simply monitor the number of mentions.
The communications team should identify the main concerns driving discussion and distinguish verified information from speculation. Repeatedly answering every hostile account is rarely productive. Instead, the company should ensure that accurate information is easy to find through its official channels and update that information when meaningful facts change.
Deleting criticism also requires judgment. Removing legitimate complaints simply because they are uncomfortable can create accusations that the company is attempting to suppress customers. Content involving threats, private information, impersonation or clear platform violations is different. The response should be guided by a defined moderation policy rather than panic.
If the issue has implications for African business audiences, Crest Africa, with its focus on entrepreneurship, business leadership and developments shaping enterprise across the continent, can provide useful context when there is a genuine story to communicate. The objective should never be to use editorial coverage to disguise an unresolved crisis. Once credible information exists, however, responsible media engagement can ensure that developments are understood within their proper context rather than through fragmented social posts alone.
Leadership should appear when leadership is needed
Not every problem requires the CEO to record a video or issue a personal statement. Bringing the most senior executive into a minor customer complaint can unnecessarily increase the perceived seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, keeping leadership completely invisible during a major crisis can make the organisation appear detached.
The appropriate spokesperson depends on the nature of the issue. An operational problem may be better explained by the executive responsible for that area, while a crisis involving the organisation’s values, leadership decisions or widespread stakeholder impact may require the chief executive. Whoever speaks should understand the facts and be capable of answering predictable questions without introducing new uncertainty.
Preparation is particularly important when journalists become involved. An executive who agrees to an interview without understanding what can be confirmed, what remains under investigation and which questions are likely to arise can unintentionally create additional headlines. Media engagement during a crisis is not simply another visibility opportunity; it requires disciplined messaging supported by verified information.
Empire Magazine Africa covers business, leadership and developments influencing African industries, making it relevant when a corporate situation develops into a wider business story. Engaging with publications serving the audiences affected by an issue can help an organisation provide factual context, but only when there is substantive information to communicate. Media placement cannot substitute for solving the underlying problem.
Different stakeholders may need different information
A public statement is only one part of crisis communication. Customers directly affected by a problem may need more detailed instructions than the general public. Employees need enough information to understand what is happening and how the organisation is responding. Investors, partners, regulators or suppliers may require direct communication depending on the seriousness of the situation.
Sending everyone exactly the same message can therefore be ineffective. The central facts should remain consistent, but the information provided should reflect what each group reasonably needs to know. A customer waiting to understand whether their money is safe has a different concern from a journalist asking how the incident occurred.
Internal communication is particularly easy to neglect. Employees who learn about a major company problem through social media may feel excluded and unprepared. They may also be approached by customers, relatives or journalists before management has explained what is happening. Where appropriate, an internal update should accompany the external response so that employees understand the verified facts and the organisation’s next steps.
For issues involving women’s leadership, careers or organisations serving women, Talented Women Network can become relevant when there is a legitimate professional story about response, accountability or recovery. Its focus on women’s professional achievements and experiences means the context should determine whether engagement makes sense. As with any publication, relevance is more important than simply securing another mention.
What happens after the first statement matters just as much
A common mistake is treating the publication of a statement as the end of crisis management. In reality, the first response usually creates expectations about what the organisation will do next. If the company promises an investigation, customers will expect an outcome. If it says affected people will receive assistance, they will expect that assistance to materialise. If it promises another update, failing to provide one can renew criticism.
This is why communications and operations must remain connected throughout the response. Reputation cannot be repaired through messaging when the underlying conduct remains unchanged. The communications team may explain what the organisation is doing, but the business itself has to deliver the correction.
At Laerryblue Media, this connection is central to crisis communications. The work involves assessing reputational risk, developing appropriate messaging, preparing spokespeople and managing media engagement, but it also requires understanding what the organisation is actually doing about the situation. Communication is strongest when it can point to concrete action rather than relying on language designed to make a problem appear smaller.
Once the immediate pressure has reduced, the company should examine what the crisis revealed. Perhaps complaints were escalating internally without reaching senior management. Maybe there was no clear approval process for emergency communications, or executives had never received media preparation. A crisis can expose operational and communication weaknesses that would otherwise remain hidden.
The first 24 hours cannot determine every aspect of what happens next, and organisations should resist the temptation to treat crisis management as a race to make a controversy disappear within a day. Some situations require weeks or months to resolve properly. What the first day can determine is whether the company enters that longer process with control of its facts, a coherent response and a willingness to address legitimate concerns.
A strong crisis response does not require perfect information from the beginning. It requires the organisation to verify before making claims, communicate what it genuinely knows, recognise what affected stakeholders need and follow its words with visible action. When those principles guide the first 24 hours, the company gives itself a far stronger chance of protecting the reputation it has spent years building.