Imagine someone records coaches altering ski jumping suits to give their athletes an advantage on air. Oh, wait. That actually happened last year, and I am pretty sure you are aware of it because it was widely reported online. The video was posted on YouTube, and it showed a coach and a team technician inserting extra stitching into the crotch areas of suits worn by their star athletes. You probably know what happened next. Social media took the video and flew with it.
Now, imagine if the coach and technician had said they didn’t do it when the whole world could see them doing it? Not a good look for anyone: the national team, the sport, the coach and technician, the athletes, the international federation, the event organizer, the country, and the fans. You can’t forget the fans.
Now, you have a full-blown crisis.
What Actually Counts as a “Crisis”?
In the academic world, a crisis is defined as a “perceived violation of stakeholder expectations”. But in simple language? It is a huge breach of trust that can create negative experiences for everyone involved, especially sport organizations. Crises are messy because they aren’t just about the facts. They are also defined by the feelings of the people affected, and it’s the interpretations fans express online that steer the conversation now. They usually threaten an organization’s reputation and require immediate action to try to prevent as much damage as possible.
One way to prevent damage is by implementing crisis communication strategies. Crisis communication is a tool that organizations use for addressing incidents such as ethical misconduct in sport. Organizations need to move beyond what is already known and embrace ethical, evidence-based communication strategies.
And now, we have social media.
Social Media: The Megaphone You Can’t Turn Off
I call social media a ‘multiplier of information’ because it takes an issue and blasts it to the entire world in a matter of seconds. Social media can play different roles in crisis communication. Crises can break through social media. Crises can be amplified on social media. Crises can be handled on social media. The important part here is to understand how social media has changed the general understanding of crisis communication.
Social media amplifies an organization’s perceived responsibility. It also demands unprecedented levels of speed and transparency. Let’s go back to the example. The leaked video of the altered suits was seen by thousands of people. It was very easy to point out who was in the wrong. But, if you (as an organization) wait too long to say something, your chance for repair might be gone.
Public accountability is now expected. If a crisis is talked about on social media, the response to said crisis should also happen on social media. That is my personal opinion. The required speed of response has increased drastically. While traditional media allows longer lead times, organizations now have only 30 to 60 minutes, in theory, to deliver an initial response on social media once a crisis breaks.
Audiences are expecting an explanation of what happened. And because information can go viral instantly, silence is no longer an option for avoiding reputational damage. Failing to respond quickly allows speculation to fill the void.
Let’s be honest, one post is not going to cut it.
You Are Co-creating the Narrative Now
With social media, everyone can weigh in on matters that are close or adjacent to their interests. It is easier than ever to give your opinion about anything. As with any innovation, it all seems great until it is not. Fans and stakeholders are no longer passive. They are co-creators of the crisis narrative, often through public outrage or being mad.
A single viral tweet from a disappointed fan can sometimes carry more weight than an official press release. Social media users voice their opinions on these platforms to release emotions and decide which aspects of a crisis to focus on, which can pressure an organization into taking specific actions or even forcing institutional change; at least, one can hope.
Social media enables a one-to-many communication flow, allowing organizations to speak directly to their audiences. On the flip side, this same environment facilitates information leaks which can become evidence in a court or decision-making room (scary, isn’t?). A video of something shady happening in a locker room? We have seen plenty of those during the past years.
So, what can one do with this power?
Using the Megaphone to Your Advantage
Not everything is bad, though. While social media makes crises louder, it also provides tools for direct and transparent communication. Social media also serves as a tracker for recovery, where organizations can monitor ongoing conversations to see if a crisis is being handled effectively. The information unfolds in front of your eyes and may guide you towards the right communication strategy.
So, yes. Social media takes information and multiplies it with never-before-seen reach, and that is a lot of speed that you can’t slow down. However, you (organizations) can take the social media ramp and use the speed to jump and control a crisis by implementing effective crisis communication strategies.
Just ask me!
About
Maria Fernanda Delgado is currently a double-degree PhD student at NIH with the Institute of Sport and Social Sciences, and Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. She is part of the Doctoral Training Network in Sport Ethics and Integrity (DAiSI). While you are it, make sure you follow them on LinkedIn @DAiSIProject.
She has worked on social media coverage and management for over 7 years in multiple organizations such as the Mexican Football Federation and Panam Sports.