This document discusses the history and use of the "no comment" response in crisis communication. It traces the origins of "no comment" back to the 17th century with the advent of print media. Over time, "no comment" evolved from a clear statement to a strategy of subterfuge or delay. While traditionally taught as something to avoid, the document argues that "no comment" may be a viable strategy in some contexts, such as other cultures where silence is more accepted, or when minor issues could blow over. It concludes that "no comment" should be considered as a possible crisis communication tool rather than an absolute to never use.

1. Never say never to “No comment:”
A reevaluation of the “No comment”
paradigm of crisis communication
Eilene Wollslager, PhD, APR
SSCA, Tampa, FL
April 10, 2015
Slide Template Courtesy SmileTemplates

2. • Standard PR Instruction
– Never say “No Comment” in a crisis
• When do academics accept “absolutes?”
• “No Comment” practice is considered an
“absolute”
The Paradigm

3. History of “No Comment”
• 17th Century - Advent of print brought
about “no comment” issue
• Original print references to “no comment”
meant communication was clearly stated
and need no further explanation
• Concurrent rise of Yellow Journalism and
development of PR contributed to “No
Comment” response

4. History of “No Comment”
Subterfuge
• Likely first published
reference of “No
comment” as subterfuge
New York Times April 14,
1890
• Bell Telephone founder
Gardiner Hubbard made
“no comment” about
allegations of greed

5. History of “No Comment”
Delayed Response
Strategy
• 1901 William Jennings
Bryan used strategy to
delay comment until
more information known
about the capture of
Philippine President
Emilio Aguinaldo

6. History of “No Comment”
Avoiding Conflict
• Chicago Tribune 1923
• White House refused to
comment on US
Ambassador George
Harvey’s controversial
comments on British
Loans
• Used unattributed
sources to issue criticism

7. Legal Pressures
Open Communication vs. “No Comment”
• Legal Communication Strategies
– Say nothing
– Briefly communication little information
– Use justifications (privacy, company policy) for silence
– Denial or indignation
– Shift or share blame with accuser
• One study 80 percent of sexual harassment
cases used legal or mixed strategies

8. PR Education
• Universally teach avoidance of “no comment”
• Conveys negative tone (Heath and Coombs
2006)
• Public concludes the organization is at fault

9. Theoretical Perspectives
• Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT)
– Considered “No Comment” as a possible response,
then later abandoned it
• Image Restoration Theory (Benoit 1995)
– Silence initially was a strategy
– Dropped early in the theory
– Acknowledged as a possible short-term response
• Advocated considering “silence” as a possible strategy
(Ferguson, Wallace & Chandler 2012)

10. Euphemisms
• No information is available, but we will share
when we have more
• Pending litigation
• We will get back to you

11. A viable strategy?
• May work in high-context cultures
– Lee (2004) found more accepting attitude in
Hong Kong study
– A silent, reserved gesture is seen as wisdom
not obfuscation
– Less need for individual blame
• Investor Communication
– SEC and courts at times advocate “no
comment” for impending mergers &
acquisitions
• Minor issues may “blow over”

12. Media & “No Comment”
• AP guidelines – state reason for no
comment
• 24-hour news cycle
• Some things better left unsaid
– Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky case
– Pat Robertson – Hugo Chavez
comments

13. Crisis Cases
• Positive evidence of quick, open response
– Tylenol, Malden Mills
• Misstatements can lead to longer crises
– Bill Clinton
• Crises eventually fade
– Exxon Mobile had record earnings $44.9 billion (2012)

14. Conclusion
• Euphemisms are a “no comment”
strategy
• Delaying comment
• Cultural acceptance of strategy
• Possible benefit of silence
• Strategy should be considered as a
possible tool in crisis communication