Dear Companies: Say Goodbye to 'No Comment'
Our Data Reveals: Speaking Up Always Outweighs Silence
What if I told you that a simple, straightforward tweak could help your company consistently enhance sentiment in press stories by 5%? That’s not a complete transformation, but it's a consistent and impactful edge that will add up over time.
But before I tell you how, let me first share some backstory . . .
A few months ago, I was involved in a debate with two executives at a company I advise. The burning question: How should we respond to a press inquiry about a particularly sensitive issue? On one side, the CEO favored complete silence. On the other, a high-ranking executive pushed to make a public comment. My stance has long been unequivocal: It's always better to be proactive than to let critics control the narrative. But while my intuition behind this principle is based on decades of experience, I never had data to prove the benefit. Until now.
Thanks to a study I just completed, I can now quantify the impact of 'no comment' in press stories. And it clearly shows why this practice should be mostly put to rest.
The TLDR
An analysis of 200 tech company articles revealed that replacing 'no comment' responses with even basic comments led to a sentiment improvement of at least 5% in 98% of cases.
And that 5% improvement matters a lot:
The key is in the concept of "narrative baselines" - the past sentiment in press coverage sets the stage for future stories. By nudging this baseline positively, even negative stories become less damaging.
This strategy taps into psychological concepts of negativity bias and positivity effect: keeping negative stories from becoming less memorable, and helping positive ones become more sticky.
A 5% improvement is much more than a small tweak; it’s a strategic shift that influences the starting point and memorability of stories, shaping public perception significantly.
Read on to learn more.
Methodology
I analyzed 200 press articles featuring 10 tech companies — all household names in the United States — that did not provide any comment for these stories (e.g., different versions of “declined to comment”, “not immediately available for comment”, “could not be reached for comment”). These articles were sourced from a variety of US media outlets, across Top Tier, Upper Tier, and Mid-Tier.
A bit about the process:
AI Analysis: Each article was analyzed using my AI measurement system, which evaluated several attributes, including sentiment.
Quote Insertion and Re-analysis: I then added a standard quote from a fictional generic corporate spokesperson to these articles and re-ran the same analysis . These quotes were crafted to express care or action regarding the criticism, avoiding both full admissions of fault and/or aggressive rebuttals.
The Results
The takeaway was clear: it is always better to make a comment whenever possible:
For 98% of articles, sentiment improved when a comment from their company was included.
Sentiment was typically 5%-7% better vs. the original ‘no comment’ story. The highest improvement +11%.
That being said, the benefit had its limitations. While improved, none of these fictional comments flipped the overall trajectory of a news story. Whether an article was originally negative or positive, it stayed in that general category 100% of the time.
But to me, the data tells an unambiguous message: saying something is consistently better than saying nothing.
But How Much Does This 5% Improvement Actually Matter? (Spoiler: A LOT)
A very reasonable person might challenge whether a 5% increase in sentiment is actually worth the organizational headaches and incremental risk of commenting. After all, it requires valuable executive time to get the right statement drafted, approved and out the door.
But I’d argue it is absolutely worth it. In fact, I have a hypothesis that the benefits greatly exceed 5%. Here are two connected ideas to explain why:
The Power Of Narrative Baselines: Imagine your company’s public sentiment as a weather pattern. This is the essence of what I call 'narrative baselines.' Just like a series of rainy days sets an expectation for more rain, a trend of negative press coverage creates a 'cloudy' narrative baseline for your company. In this scenario, a reporter writing your company’s next story during ‘overcast’ conditions is more likely to continue the negative trend. You've likely observed this pattern without fully realizing it, often expressed with frustration as 'piling on' during a crisis or, conversely, as 'getting the benefit of the doubt' during more favorable times.
But by consistently engaging in ways that slightly improve sentiment—like capturing the 5% benefit from avoiding 'no comment'—your Communications team can influence this weather pattern. This is akin to helping rays of sunshine break through a gloomy week, slightly shifting expectations towards better conditions. By raising your narrative baseline, even if your next story still starts with a negative angle, it's less likely to be as severe as it would have been without your prior efforts.
The bottom line is that when reporters and the public start with a more favorable view—or at the very least, a less negative one—of your company, it might influence future coverage to adopt a more balanced tone, potentially avoiding overly critical narratives.
I'm already exploring ways to visualize this concept through data and will share more insights in a future follow-up.
Negativity Bias + Positivity Effect
Are you aware of the psychological concepts known as Negativity Bias and the Positivity Effect? Negativity Bias suggests that people tend to remember negative events more vividly, while the Positivity Effect relates to the enhanced memorability of positive stories. Polarities get remembered, while stories near neutral tend to be forgotten.
In this concept, even a modest 5% improvement in sentiment can be incredibly powerful. Shifting negative stories to slightly less unfavorable territory reduces their lasting impact on public memory. Similarly, enhancing the sentiment of positive stories by just 5% can transform them from simply positive to memorably so, significantly increasing their recall and impact.
To illustrate the effect of proactive communication, the chart below visually compares the original sentiment of news stories that didn’t include a comment vs. those that did include a simple comment. It's a snapshot from a larger dataset, designed to make the concept straightforward and easy to read, but reflects the overall trends of the analysis.
So, while the chart might seem like a simple comparison of before and after, it's actually a window into how small tactical shifts can lead to significant, lasting benefits in public memory, turning the tide in your company's favor. A simple 5% improvement in sentiment pushed all negative stories into less memorable territory and made positive stories more likely to stand out.
Now, before I get a bunch of upset data scientists in my inbox, let me clarify: what you're seeing extends beyond raw sentiment scores. We're considering how the Positivity Effect and Negativity Bias could potentially skew the public's perception of these stories, but we haven’t tested memorability specifically. The left axis represents this idea — it's not just a measure of sentiment, but an estimation of how these psychological biases might amplify or diminish the impact of the narratives. So while we’re making some assumptions, they’re based on well-established concepts in psychology.
Of course, a true memorability analysis is on The Repute’s wishlist, so reach out if interested in collaborating! I’d love to take this further!
The Bottom Line
The evidence strongly shows that silence is not golden when it comes to shaping your corporate reputation. Going on the record, even minimally, positively influences public perception. This approach underlines the importance of engaging, even amidst controversy, to maintain influence over the narrative and demonstrate accountability.
However, I'm not taking an absolutist stance. There may be reasonable edge-case exceptions where commenting to capture the 5% improvement in sentiment might be outweighed by the risks. For instance, commenting might put your company in an uncomfortable position with key partners, or legal counsel might advise against it due to potential litigation risks. These situations are reasonable, but should be the exception, not the rule.
A 5% improvement in sentiment might seem small, but its impact is anything but. This modest gain can stop negative stories from sticking in people's minds as overly negative. It can also turn positive stories into ones that people remember as exceptionally good. Essentially, this 5% shift lets you set the stage for how stories about your company are first received and remembered. It's a straightforward yet powerful approach in narrative management, turning small shifts into significant, lasting benefits in how the public sees your company.
A hat-tip and heartfelt thanks to Alexandra LaManna of Steelwire Communications for pushing my thinking on this piece.