Publishing a statement: where, when and when better not

Is there an enquiry at all?

Before you write a word, clarify three things: is there a specific enquiry, with which list of questions, by when, and with what expected publication date. Only these answers decide whether a statement belongs on the table at all. The most common mistake in acute situations is the reverse: drafting starts immediately, before the situation has been assessed.

If there is an enquiry, the starting point is clear. A newsroom has committed itself, it is researching your company and will usually publish. In this situation, a bare “no comment” is often read as an admission of guilt¹. Anyone who does not respond leaves the framing to the other side.

It is different if there is no enquiry. If a newsroom is researching without a list of questions, without a deadline and without a known broadcast date, restraint is often the better choice. In this case, your own communication creates the story in the first place, and the newsroom reads every statement as confirmation that there is something to report here. The yardstick for every measure is therefore: does it reduce the expected damage, or does it create attention that would otherwise not exist?

Assessing the situation in three points

• Secure the enquiry in writing: who is asking, on what topic, with which specific questions, and by when is a response expected?
• Clarify the expected publication: is a broadcast or publication date known, and how large is the outlet’s reach?
• Prepare the decision: with an enquiry and a deadline, a statement is usually the right route. Without an enquiry, without a deadline and without a known broadcast date, restraint is often the better choice.

What belongs in a statement that holds up?

A version that holds up consists of three building blocks: confirmed facts, open points and the next step. What is proven is phrased as fact; what is unresolved is named as such, with the time at which more can be expected. The next step shows that the company is in control of the situation, for example an ongoing investigation or a named person responsible. Nothing goes in that does not also hold up when quoted on its own.

What is the right channel?

The channel follows the actual spread of the allegation, not the wish for visibility. With a press enquiry and a deadline, the direct response to the newsroom is the norm; it lands where the story is being created anyway. A text of your own on the website is worthwhile if customers, employees, authorities or local residents are affected and are searching for the company: searchers then find your own framing rather than just the coverage, without the text itself creating additional reach. A social media post only belongs on the table if the debate is already raging in public, for example in a shitstorm. Anyone who posts without an enquiry and without a public response turns an internal matter into a public story in the first place. In every case, the yardstick remains the expected damage.

When is the right time?

The timing depends on two clocks: the newsroom’s and that of your own facts. The editorial deadline and the broadcast date set the frame within which a response arrives at all. Your own investigation, by contrast, needs its time. If the two diverge, a short interim update is better than a late full account: what is confirmed, what is being checked and when more can be expected. Respond according to the current state of knowledge, with a caveat if necessary¹. The more comprehensively and the earlier you take the initiative, the more likely you are to prevent conjecture and speculation, which the newsroom would otherwise have to identify as such². An interim update buys time for the investigation without staying silent.

When does a statement do more harm?

Three cases argue against a publication of your own. First: there is no enquiry, and the reach of the allegation is small. Here, your own communication creates the story in the first place and gives the newsroom confirmation that there is something to report. Second: a review is still under way, for example an internal investigation or proceedings. Every statement must then be agreed in light of the legal position; a premature detail can make the investigation harder. Third: the allegation only concerns a narrow circle, for example individual customers or employees, whom you reach directly and personally. A public statement would then be the only step that makes the matter public at all. This weighing-up is not a one-off decision: with every new development, for example when a broadcast date becomes known or competitors react publicly, it belongs back on the table.

Who signs off, and who speaks?

Before the first publication, two names are fixed: who speaks, and who signs off. There is exactly one final sign-off authority, including a deputy; anything else delays every piece of wording in an emergency. The spokesperson must know the facts and be practised in dealing with newsrooms. In serious cases, an appearance by the top leadership carries trust; an on-camera appearance and a written statement are two routes that can both be prepared³. If management lacks the time for operational implementation in an acute case, that is not a quality problem of the statement but a capacity problem: the situation is then handed over to a crisis communications adviser who takes over newsroom contacts, coordination and texts, while sign-off remains with the company.