A client’s announcement of a much-loved brand’s closure was complicated by inaccurate information shared on social media. The brand had been acquired a few years earlier while in financial difficulty. Delays by the previous directors in properly winding up the company created confusion, making it appear (albeit incorrectly) that the decision to close had been made a year prior to the official announcement.
Managing misinformation without publicly engaging
The communications strategy for the closure announcement had already been agreed: the client would stand behind its official statement and not engage publicly. This stance raised the question of how to manage the emerging misinformation without contradicting the agreed approach, balancing the need to protect the client’s reputation with the importance of staying strategically silent.
Silent monitoring and targeted correction
As soon as the misinformation was identified, a focused internal process was activated:
- Source Investigation | the origin of the misinformation was traced, mapping how the narrative was building online.
- Internal Fact-checking | conversations with key internal stakeholders confirmed the timeline and facts, separating assumptions from reality.
- Explainer document | a clear, concise explainer document was drafted, setting out the correct sequence of events and pre-empting any further confusion.
Although the misinformation mainly came from low-influence accounts and had minimal immediate impact, the explainer document became a crucial tool for handling the situation. When key stakeholders and journalists directly queried the misinformation, the document allowed the client to correct the narrative calmly and factually, preventing further escalation.
By holding the line and resisting the urge to engage publicly, the false narrative was kept out of formal media coverage and allowed to fade without gaining real traction.
Reputation risk contained and narrative corrected
Through strategic internal preparation and targeted private responses, the false narrative was excluded from media articles preventing wider amplification; stakeholder confidence was reinforced through direct, fact-based communication; and online conversations came to a natural conclusion without significant impact on the client’s reputation. By projecting calm authority, the client maintained full control of its communication strategy.
Leadership Insight
“In the face of misinformation, patience paired with quiet preparation often protects a reputation better than public confrontation.”
Not every false narrative needs a public rebuttal. By equipping teams with clear internal resources and trusting the strategy, businesses can neutralise misinformation without giving it unnecessary oxygen that could fuel the fire.