The way news is reported has drastically changed since the Exxon Valdez spill. The frequency in which information is created and shared is not only greater, but the reach is also much larger. The very nature of what social is – sharing – alone makes the impact far greater than what traditional mediums had on previous crises.

The other issue that is intriguing to me is accuracy. Information – whether valid or not – is being rapidly being shared across a plethora of platforms. In today’s “first to break” society, content is rushed to publication. As a result, distorted facts and information is bound to pop up. However, with the role social plays, assumptions and rumors run rapid. Does the digital space make situations appear larger than they are?

The impact on reputation

As we saw with Dominos, the method in which a brand’s reputation can be tarnished has drastically changed. In a matter of a few seconds, all the hard work you’ve put into establishing a positive reputation for your brand can be shattered. With our focus on social responsibility and social good, are we holding brands to a higher standard than before? What role has digital played on how we define reputation?

So what about the good

Most of what I’ve been talking about addresses the negative impact that digital has on a crisis. What about the positive? One of the biggest benefits digital provides brands is the ability for instant communication. As soon as a crisis happens, a brand can address the public via their website, video, Facebook, etc. While there probably isn’t a resolution, and most of the time the brand will still be trying to gather facts, at least there’s a venue to state what you know and what you plan to do.

One of the big flaws in crisis communication is generally, the message is manufactured. There isn’t any emotion behind it. Most messages and statements are bland and mechanic. You can tell they are trying to avoid conversation. One of the benefits of digital is that it allows an organization to add some human touch to their message. Having a CEO shoot a video or having an executive release a blog post detailing the impact can help ease tension.

Finally, digital helps control the message. While an organization never truly has complete control of the message, digital has provided a method in which a brand can help partially control and shape what’s being reported. By being active and understanding digital, a brand can take advantage of real-time news and continue to update the public without having to rely on another outlet reporting.

So what’s the verdict

It’s clear that digital has a profound impact on crisis. News is shared and reported quicker and faster, although not always more accurately. If anything, the digital revolution is forcing brands to communicate in a more efficient manner. The problem is, however, a lot of brands aren’t prepared or completely understand digital. As brands continue to evolve and adopt a more social and digital lifestyle, the lines of crisis communication will begin to blur with everyday communication. Those brands that understand this will be in a better position should a situation arise.

Have any of you been in the unfortunate situation of having to lay employees off, or been through a layoff? How did you/they communicate the process? Things you think they could have done better?