By Blaise Tracy, Director, Novitas Communications
One strategy during a PR crisis can be doing nothing. In other words, making the choice not to respond to the situation. It’s a tactic, although I recommend it be used rarely. As in, almost never.
Why? Because your lack of response says something. And often, it is not something good. There’s an old saying, “If they don’t know you, they will invent you.”
In the PR industry, this is often called a “no response” or “prolonged silence.” Doing nothing during a PR crisis can have a strongly negative impact, especially in today’s fast-moving, always-on media and social environment. Our team at Novitas Communications is a strong advocate of doing something vs. doing nothing, because silence is rarely neutral – instead, it often allows others to control the narrative.
Unfortunately, some companies do not respond in a crisis for a few alarming reasons including not knowing what to say, fearing that any response could worsen the issue, hoping the problem will subside on its own, or simply lacking a crisis management plan altogether. Frankly, I call this list of reasons a crisis in itself!
Consequences of Doing Nothing
When an organization stays silent or delays meaningful response, consequences can be profound and lasting. Here are four of the most devastating results of staying quiet.
- Loss of narrative control: This is where the story gets shaped by media, critics, competitors, social media influencers – and further speculation fills the vacuum. It often leads to the worst assumptions being accepted as fact.
- Perceived guilt, indifference, or cover-up: Silence is frequently interpreted as admission of wrongdoing, lack of care, or hiding something. Public trust erodes quickly when stakeholders feel ignored. It’s like invoking your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination—legally valid, but rarely a good look in the court of public opinion.
- Amplification of the crisis: Negative stories linger longer and spread wider without any counter-narrative. The issue can dominate news cycles, hashtags, and search results for weeks or months.
- Long-term reputational and financial damage: This includes lost customers, declining stock prices, boycotts, reduced revenue, damaged stakeholder relationships, and sometimes regulatory or legal pressure. In many cases, it could mean the demise of your entire product line, all credibility of your service, or the eventual shutdown of your organization altogether.
Let’s look at some recent real-world examples where organizations remained silent—or delayed responding—for extended periods:
- ChatGPT / OpenAI – suicide recommendations (2025): After multiple teen suicide cases linked to AI chatbot interactions—including 16-year-old Adam Raine’s death in April 2025—OpenAI issued no immediate public statement. The company only addressed the crisis publicly after a wrongful-death lawsuit was filed in August 2025. By then, media coverage and Senate hearings had dominated the narrative, fueling widespread distrust in AI emotional-support tools and calls for regulation.
- Astronomer Inc. CEO kiss-cam scandal (2025): Viral video of the CEO and HR director in an intimate moment at a Coldplay concert (July 2025); the company stayed completely silent for 48–52 hours. The vacuum allowed fake apology videos and employee leaks to explode online, forcing the CEO’s resignation and massive cultural fallout.
- Boeing 737 MAX 9 door-plug blowout (Alaska Airlines, 2024): After the mid-air panel failure, Boeing’s delayed transparency and slow document production with investigators allowed safety concerns to dominate the narrative, reigniting 2019-era doubts and triggering new regulatory scrutiny.
In the digital age, the expectation is for some form of acknowledgment within minutes or hours, not days. Prolonged inaction hands the story to the “court of public opinion,” which rarely rules in your favor.
When Strategic Silence Can Actually Work
There are rare, specific situations where deliberate silence is the smarter play — but it’s strategic, time-limited, and paired with intense behind-the-scenes work, including fact-gathering, legal review, stakeholder outreach, and the like.
Here are a few areas where you may consider this option. Still, I recommend a PR firm’s guidance, as this strategy can quickly take a turn.
- Very low-visibility or low-engagement issues like a minor complaint that isn’t gaining traction. In this case, responding may amplify something that would have died naturally.
- Highly emotional or misinformation-driven storms where responding adds fuel. In these cases, providing a public rebuttal gives critics new quotes and keeps the topic alive.
- When facts are still unclear and premature statements risk inaccuracy. It may be better to wait briefly than speculate or contradict later. However, a simple statement of acknowledgment on the issue and mention of investigations taking place may be in your favor.
- Niche influencer or celebrity disputes where engaging every critic keeps the drama going. Entertainment news, in particular, is often overhyped and tends to fade quickly. In these cases, silence can starve the narrative of oxygen.
When managing a crisis situation, the best course of action usually requires transparency, accountability, and action once the initial heat subsides or facts solidify. Pure “head-in-the-sand” avoidance almost always fails.
The bottom line: the longer you do nothing, the harder—and more expensive—it becomes to regain control of the narrative. The best strategy? Partner with a PR expert before a crisis hits, so your team is prepared to respond quickly and confidently when it does.
