Copyrighting of brand crisis communications
Explanation, not apology — where to start
It is better to structure a response to a complaint or public crisis not with repentance, but with describing what happened and what the brand has already done. The apology comes at the end, as a logical conclusion from the previously mentioned facts, not as a substitute for them. The phrase "We apologize for the inconvenience caused" at the beginning of the text irritates customers more than the problem itself — because it explains nothing and sounds like a formality inserted without understanding the essence.
The first public message about a crisis does not have to answer all questions. Its task is to show that the company sees the problem and is keeping the situation under control. Further information is clarified with updates every 24–48 hours: this is the only way to prove that the brand is not disappearing and is not hiding behind lawyers.
The anatomy of a working apology letter
A good apology letter is not emotion, but a structure made of six mandatory elements. Without any of them, the text turns into a "smokescreen" — a set of soothing words without substance.
- A specific failure — what exactly happened, without vague formulations.
- Consequences for people — how it has affected clients, not only company processes.
- Confirmed zone of responsibility — who and what acknowledges their fault.
- Already completed correction — what has been done at the time of publication, not 'planned'.
- Clear compensation procedure — a specific mechanism, not a promise to 'sort it out'.
- Date of the next update — a fixed point to which the audience can return.
A telling example is the communication from Yandex.Taxi in 2022 year, when a traffic jam formed on Kutuzovsky Prospekt due to fake orders. The company explained the mechanics of the attack, stated that the security service stopped it, that the algorithms were improved, and that the issue of compensation would be discussed separately. Not a single extra word about 'inconvenience' — only facts and the next step.
Words that cannot be written during a crisis
Some formulations have long become a signal of 'we have nothing to say.' The audience reads them automatically, even without considering the context.
- «We are working on the situation» — does not name either the action or the timeframe.
- «The issue is under control» — bureaucratic jargon that sounds like a dismissal.
- «We apologize for the inconvenience caused» at the beginning of the text — undermines the seriousness of the problem.
- «The situation is currently being resolved» — a legal mask behind which a person is not visible.
- Any formulations that shift responsibility through passive voice: «it was permitted», «an error occurred» without specifying who and why.
The general principle is simple: if a phrase can be inserted into any crisis of any company without changes — it does not work, because it lacks specificity.
Tone of voice: more serious, but not alien
During a crisis, the brand's voice shifts toward the serious pole — irony, wordplay, and excessive emotional delivery are abandoned. But completely changing the voice to a dry official style is no less of a gross mistake. If a company usually communicates in 'you' and with humor, but suddenly switches to a dry protocol language during a crisis, the audience feels a substitution and trusts the text less, not more.
A working approach is to leave the recognizable lexicon and syntax of the brand, but remove jokes, exclamations not in place, and superlative degrees. The tone becomes more composed, but does not turn into the voice of an unfamiliar legal department.
To apologize, to explain, or to thank — depends on the type of crisis
Not every incident requires an apology. Sometimes the right response is an explanation without repentance, and sometimes it is gratitude for the patience of the audience who suffered from external factors, not from the brand's actions.
| Type of crisis | Who is to blame | What to write |
|---|---|---|
| Reputational (employee statement, scandal, data leak due to company fault) | Brand | Apology with acknowledgment of the area of responsibility and specific steps |
| Technical failure (service outage, algorithm error) | Brand, but without ill intent | Explanation of the cause + correction, apology — a short line at the end |
| Service-related (courier delay due to weather, support line overload) | External circumstances | Thank you for your patience + explanation, without excessive apologies |
Error — apologizing for something that is not the brand's fault: this devalues apologies in cases where they are truly needed. And conversely, refusing to acknowledge clear fault under the guise of 'objective difficulties' destroys trust faster than any silence.
Preparing text before the crisis began
Red folder
Crisis communication texts are almost never written from scratch in the moment of panic — they are prepared in advance as a 'red folder': message templates for different audiences (employees, customers, media), escalation scenarios, contact details of responsible persons, and what is especially important, a ready Q&A with 12 and more tricky questions and coordinated answers. The absence of such a document is the main reason why the brand's first public reactions turn out raw and contradictory: the spokesperson makes up formulations on the fly, and they diverge from what the support team says to customers.
Q&A for complex scenarios should be written so that each answer contains a fact and the boundary of responsibility — without general phrases like 'we will figure it out'. If the question is provocative, the answer should not stray from it: it is better to have a short honest 'yes, this is our mistake' with a description of the next step than a long vague explanation.
Why this works — the psychology of trust in text
Crisis text is not read as advertising, but as a source of facts about personal safety or finances — hence the special requirements for language. Short sentences with a specific subject («security service stopped the attack») are perceived as control over the situation. Long constructions with passive voice («measures are being taken») are perceived as evasion.
In this logic, compensation does not work by its own amount, but by the very fact of acknowledgment: a promo code or partial refund reduces negativity more than complete silence, but only if the compensation amount is proportional to the damage—insufficiently small compensation is no less irritating than its absence. The balance between acknowledging guilt and protecting the brand's reputation is not achieved by softening formulations, but by precision: the more specific the area of responsibility is named, the less room there is for speculation, and the faster the crisis stops spreading in the media field.
Explanation, not apology — where to start
It is better to structure a response to a complaint or public crisis not with repentance, but with describing what happened and what the brand has already done. The apology comes at the end, as a logical conclusion from the previously mentioned facts, not as a substitute for them. The phrase "We apologize for the inconvenience caused" at the beginning of the text irritates customers more than the problem itself — because it explains nothing and sounds like a formality inserted without understanding the essence.
The first public message about a crisis does not have to answer all questions. Its task is to show that the company sees the problem and is keeping the situation under control. Further information is clarified with updates every 24–48 hours: this is the only way to prove that the brand is not disappearing and is not hiding behind lawyers.
The anatomy of a working apology letter
A good apology letter is not emotion, but a structure made of six mandatory elements. Without any of them, the text turns into a "smokescreen" — a set of soothing words without substance.
- A specific failure — what exactly happened, without vague formulations.
- Consequences for people — how it has affected clients, not only company processes.
- Confirmed zone of responsibility — who and what acknowledges their fault.
- Already completed correction — what has been done at the time of publication, not 'planned'.
- Clear compensation procedure — a specific mechanism, not a promise to 'sort it out'.
- Date of the next update — a fixed point to which the audience can return.
A telling example is the communication from Yandex.Taxi in 2022 year, when a traffic jam formed on Kutuzovsky Prospekt due to fake orders. The company explained the mechanics of the attack, stated that the security service stopped it, that the algorithms were improved, and that the issue of compensation would be discussed separately. Not a single extra word about 'inconvenience' — only facts and the next step.
Words that cannot be written during a crisis
Some formulations have long become a signal of 'we have nothing to say.' The audience reads them automatically, even without considering the context.
- «We are working on the situation» — does not name either the action or the timeframe.
- «The issue is under control» — bureaucratic jargon that sounds like a dismissal.
- «We apologize for the inconvenience caused» at the beginning of the text — undermines the seriousness of the problem.
- «The situation is currently being resolved» — a legal mask behind which a person is not visible.
- Any formulations that shift responsibility through passive voice: «it was permitted», «an error occurred» without specifying who and why.
The general principle is simple: if a phrase can be inserted into any crisis of any company without changes — it does not work, because it lacks specificity.
Tone of voice: more serious, but not alien
During a crisis, the brand's voice shifts toward the serious pole — irony, wordplay, and excessive emotional delivery are abandoned. But completely changing the voice to a dry official style is no less of a gross mistake. If a company usually communicates in 'you' and with humor, but suddenly switches to a dry protocol language during a crisis, the audience feels a substitution and trusts the text less, not more.
A working approach is to leave the recognizable lexicon and syntax of the brand, but remove jokes, exclamations not in place, and superlative degrees. The tone becomes more composed, but does not turn into the voice of an unfamiliar legal department.
To apologize, to explain, or to thank — depends on the type of crisis
Not every incident requires an apology. Sometimes the right response is an explanation without repentance, and sometimes it is gratitude for the patience of the audience who suffered from external factors, not from the brand's actions.
| Type of crisis | Who is to blame | What to write |
|---|---|---|
| Reputational (employee statement, scandal, data leak due to company fault) | Brand | Apology with acknowledgment of the area of responsibility and specific steps |
| Technical failure (service outage, algorithm error) | Brand, but without ill intent | Explanation of the cause + correction, apology — a short line at the end |
| Service-related (courier delay due to weather, support line overload) | External circumstances | Thank you for your patience + explanation, without excessive apologies |
Error — apologizing for something that is not the brand's fault: this devalues apologies in cases where they are truly needed. And conversely, refusing to acknowledge clear fault under the guise of 'objective difficulties' destroys trust faster than any silence.
Preparing text before the crisis began
Red folder
Crisis communication texts are almost never written from scratch in the moment of panic — they are prepared in advance as a 'red folder': message templates for different audiences (employees, customers, media), escalation scenarios, contact details of responsible persons, and what is especially important, a ready Q&A with 12 and more tricky questions and coordinated answers. The absence of such a document is the main reason why the brand's first public reactions turn out raw and contradictory: the spokesperson makes up formulations on the fly, and they diverge from what the support team says to customers.
Q&A for complex scenarios should be written so that each answer contains a fact and the boundary of responsibility — without general phrases like 'we will figure it out'. If the question is provocative, the answer should not stray from it: it is better to have a short honest 'yes, this is our mistake' with a description of the next step than a long vague explanation.
Why this works — the psychology of trust in text
Crisis text is not read as advertising, but as a source of facts about personal safety or finances — hence the special requirements for language. Short sentences with a specific subject («security service stopped the attack») are perceived as control over the situation. Long constructions with passive voice («measures are being taken») are perceived as evasion.
In this logic, compensation does not work by its own amount, but by the very fact of acknowledgment: a promo code or partial refund reduces negativity more than complete silence, but only if the compensation amount is proportional to the damage—insufficiently small compensation is no less irritating than its absence. The balance between acknowledging guilt and protecting the brand's reputation is not achieved by softening formulations, but by precision: the more specific the area of responsibility is named, the less room there is for speculation, and the faster the crisis stops spreading in the media field.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
