By Katarina Arambasic-Pivic
Photo: Pexels/Joseph Ruwa
You probably remember how much the world public resented that Kim Kardashian did not speak out sooner about the campaign of the fashion brand Balenciaga, whose promotional face she was. She did so after five or six days in a statement that was basically spot on, but the timing was wrong – it was too late. If she had made the same statement quickly after the outbreak of the crisis, everything would have been fine; since she hadn’t, the public was not satisfied with her late response. Perhaps the most problematic for me, in this case, is that her message was published as an Instagram story, which lasted only 24 hours, but more on that another time.
Our response to a crisis can be proactive or reactive. Any expert would tell you that in a problematic situation, we need to be proactive because that’s the way we can “lead” the crisis and control the narrative. However, in practice, the rules are not always followed, so that same expert would admit that there were situations when he decided on a reactive approach.
In crisis communication, what do proactive and reactive statements mean? Proactive reaction, as the name suggests, refers to a prompt official response to a crisis that affects us, in which we inform the public about the incident and outline what the organization will do to address it. If we use a reactive approach, we wait to see how the crisis develops and may react once its impacts are already apparent or when it has intensified to the point where a statement is required.
In general, the main difference between a proactive and a reactive approach in a crisis is the timing of addressing the public and the content of the message. Consequently, that difference in performance often impacts the long-term credibility and reputation of the brand, but that’s the risk you take by opting for one of the two approaches mentioned.
What information should a proactive media statement in a crisis include? A great expert in our industry, Molly McPherson, says that our response to the problem should consist of three components: accepting responsibility, explaining the situation, and promising to change the practice (own it, explain it & promise). Doing this lets us control the narrative and prevent speculation and further damage. Additionally, we recover faster from the consequences and leave an important impression of responsibility and accountability on the public.
In which cases do organizations most often opt for a reactive approach? It is usually when the damage caused by accepting responsibility by being proactive is greater than the risk you take by waiting. For this reason, in the past, companies have been very cautious about proactive approaches out of concern that taking responsibility could result in criminal and civil trials and ample compensation they would have to pay. Taught by the experience of others and the increasing pressure of the public, a growing number of them decided to take a proactive approach to the crisis today.
