In recent times, Kenyan entities have been confronted with a surge of reputational risks, a trend that has been significantly amplified by the influence of Gen Z-led protests. This unprecedented scenario has necessitated a re-evaluation of crisis management strategies and the exploration of novel approaches to mitigate damage. While the knee-jerk reaction to respond immediately to public outcry may seem natural, a strategic silence combined with targeted commercial strategies often proves to be a more effective approach.

Silence, often seen as a passive response, can be a strategic choice in certain situations. When a brand is caught in the crosshairs of public outrage, immediate responses can sometimes exacerbate the situation. This approach allows for a more measured and calculated response, avoiding the risk of inadvertently escalating the situation.

By taking a step back, organisations can assess the situation more objectively, identify key stakeholders, and develop a tailored communication strategy. This is particularly essential when the brand’s actions could be subjected to multiple interpretations or when the issue at hand is deeply polarising. In such cases, silence plays a crucial role in preventing the brand from making hasty statements that may later need to be retracted or clarified. It also provides an opportunity for the brand to assess the situation, understand the concerns of its consumers, and develop a well-thought-out response.

Strategic silence is not a new concept

The concept of strategic silence in crisis management is not new. Historically, many organisations have successfully navigated reputational crises by choosing to remain silent or issue limited statements.

Case studies from the past have depicted the effectiveness of strategic silence:

1. a)  The case of Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol scare of 1982: After several bottles of Tylenol were found to contain cyanide, leading to the deaths of seven people, the company faced a public health crisis of immense proportions. Rather than immediately issuing a public statement, Johnson & Johnson chose to recall all Tylenol products from the market. This decisive action demonstrated the company’s commitment to consumer safety and helped to rebuild trust.

While the initial recall was costly, it ultimately proved to be a wise decision. By taking a proactive approach and removing all potentially contaminated products, Johnson & Johnson avoided further harm and demonstrated its willingness to put consumer safety above all else. In the aftermath of the crisis, the company launched a public relations campaign to reassure consumers and rebuild trust in the Tylenol brand. The company’s decision to remain silent during the initial stages of the crisis allowed it to gather information and develop a comprehensive response that effectively addressed the concerns of consumers.

1. b) Volkswagen’s emissions scandal: In 2015, it was revealed that Volkswagen had installed software in its diesel engines that allowed them to cheat on emissions tests. The scandal triggered a global outcry and resulted in significant financial penalties for the company. Volkswagen initially responded to the allegations by denying wrongdoing, but as evidence mounted, the company was forced to admit its involvement.  

 While Volkswagen’s initial denial was a mistake, the company ultimately recovered from the crisis by taking a proactive approach. Volkswagen issued a public apology, accepted responsibility for its actions, and implemented measures to address the emissions issue. The company also invested heavily in research and development to develop cleaner technologies. By taking a transparent and accountable approach, Volkswagen was able to rebuild trust with consumers and investors.

Combining silence with commercial value propositions

While silence is a powerful tool, it is most effective when combined with strategic redirection. This involves subtly shifting the brand’s narrative to align with consumer concerns without directly addressing the controversy. Strategic re-direction allows a brand to acknowledge the underlying issues without becoming embroiled in public debates that could further damage its reputation. By focusing on actions rather than words, brands can demonstrate their commitment to addressing consumer concerns tangibly.

The rider is that while strategic silence can be a powerful tool in crisis management, it is important to note that it is not always the best approach. In some cases, immediate action may be necessary to prevent further harm or to address urgent concerns. However, in situations where the facts are unclear or where there is a risk of escalating the crisis, a more measured response may be appropriate. It should, therefore, be applied on a case-to-case basis.

Conclusion

The Gen Z-led protests in Kenya have introduced a new dynamic in the relationship between brands and their consumers. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z is not only highly informed but also more willing to hold brands accountable for their actions or inactions. This has created an environment where any misstep, perceived or real, can quickly escalate into a full-blown crisis. Brands that once relied on traditional crisis management tactics, such as public apologies or damage control, are finding these methods less effective. The new reality demands a more nuanced approach, where silence, coupled with strategic action, can be a more powerful tool.

Strategic silence can be a powerful tool for navigating a reputational crisis. By remaining silent or issuing limited statements, organisations can avoid the risk of escalating the situation and develop a more measured and calculated response. While the temptation to immediately respond to public outcry may be strong, a strategic silence coupled with targeted commercial strategies often proves to be the most effective approach. By learning from past case studies and applying these lessons to current challenges, Kenyan brands can better prepare themselves for future reputational risks and emerge stronger than ever.