One thing brands and non-profit organisations have in common is dealing with the backlash of negative publicity when something goes wrong. In this era of social media, negative publicity spreads quickly and often gains traction. The consequences for both brands and non-profit organisations can be disastrous in terms of reputational damage, loss of revenue, and clients or customers.

Social silence refers to an organisation's failure to communicate or engage on social media and other digital platforms. This failure includes activities such as:  

• Not posting or sharing content regularly.  

• Ignoring customer comments, questions, or feedback.  

• Failing to address industry trends, crises, or social issues.  

• Avoiding participation in relevant cultural or business discussions.  

Silence is often an organisation's first response when things go awry. This reaction typically stems from internal crises, fear of backlash, lack of resources, or uncertainty about the appropriate messaging. However, it is crucial to understand that social silence is more than just the absence of communication – it conveys a message in itself, and consumers or clients pick up on this unspoken sentiment, which can lead to negative consequences for the brand.

This article explores social silence's impact on a brand or non-profit organisation and other practical options they can consider. 

Social Silence is not a new phenomenon.

Social silence isn't a new phenomenon; however, with the rise of social media, it has become a significant challenge for brands and non-profit organisations. Previously, brands and non-profits managed their messaging through traditional media like television, radio, and print. With these conventional forms of marketing, there was minimal direct interaction with customers or clients. The emergence of real-time digital communication has fundamentally transformed consumer engagement expectations and how businesses, in turn, must respond.

How consumer engagement expectations have changed.

Facebook launched in 2004, Twitter in 2005, and Instagram in 2010. These platforms provided consumers with direct access to brands, and as a result, they began to expect immediate responses to their inquiries, complaints, and trends. Brands that failed to respond swiftly were perceived as unresponsive and uncaring.

First major PR Crises

In the 2010s, the first major social media PR crises emerged, compelling brands to recognise the dangers of silence. For instance, in 2017, a video went viral showing a passenger being dragged off a United Airlines flight, and a delayed response from the airline resulted in a severe backlash that not only damaged their reputation but also led to a drop in their stock price of $1 billion. In 2018, Dolce and Gabbana faced severe criticism over an ad perceived as racist. D & G remained silent while the criticism escalated, resulting in a loss of credibility that took the brand years to recover.

Brand Activism

In 2017, the #MeToo movement emerged, and in 2020, Black Lives Matter gained prominence. These social movements and ongoing climate activism have heightened consumer expectations for brands to take a stand on social issues. A failure to do so is viewed as apathy or complicity. 

Pepsi and CrossFit faced backlash in 2020 due to their silence on social justice issues. Pepsi lost credibility for its lack of commentary on Black Lives Matter, while competitors like Coca-Cola took active stances on these issues. Similarly, CrossFit's silence led to thousands of gyms severing their affiliations, damaging the brand's long-term reputation.

The Pandemic and Digital Acceleration

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of clear and consistent brand communication. Customers expected brands to keep them informed regularly about closures, safety measures, and support initiatives, and the rise of cancel culture made it riskier for brands to remain silent. These expectations have persisted even after COVID.

Social silence became a strategic concern for brands in the 2010s. However, its significance has surged in recent years due to the emergence of digital activism, heightened crisis response expectations, and real-time social media interactions. Today, silence is seldom neutral—it can safeguard or harm a brand or non-profit, depending on its context and strategy.

Why is social silence still used when dealing with a crisis?

Given the damage social silence can do to a brand in terms of consumer backlash, reputational damage and financial losses, it is a strategy that needs careful consideration to be used effectively. In many situations, it is the default strategy. This can be for several reasons, such as:

1. Fear of making the situation worse.

Brands and non-profit organisations are fearful that any response could escalate a crisis rather than resolve it. This fear is understandable in hyper-connected work where missteps go viral. This fear often revolves around the tone of the message and how to express it, particularly when the issue is politically or socially divisive.

Organisations often delay any response because they fear that a poorly constructed apology or an apology perceived as an excuse will lead to further outrage, making silence the default position.

2. Lack of Crisis Management Preparedness

Some brands and many non-profit organisations have failed to develop risk management strategies, leading to a lack of policies, procedures, or plans for sensitively and effectively managing crisis communications. Without established PR strategies, brands and organisations scramble for a response, resulting in delayed or ineffectual communication or communication that is rushed, ineffective, or exacerbates the situation.

In 2020, Snapchat remained quiet for too long after facing backlash over a racist Juneteenth filter. This delayed response indicated a lack of internal awareness and management's readiness to address cultural sensitivities.