Silence can be a brand’s smartest move. It’s important to know when to post, when to pause, and how to navigate crises with precision and empathy.

We’ve spent decades telling brands when to speak up. But these days, we’re more often advising them when to shut up.

Over the past four decades, we’ve mastered the delicate art of discernment—knowing when to act and, more importantly, when to hold back. We’ve learned that not every jab requires a counterpunch, and that sometimes, silence truly is golden. From minor stumbles to full-blown crises, we’ve helped brands navigate everything from executive firings, product tampering, plane crashes, and bomb threats to financial scandals, cyberattacks, labor strikes, lawsuits, public protests, influencer implosions, and controversial political entanglements. With the rise of global social media, this balancing act has become even more intricate; a post that resonates in one region might be glaringly inappropriate in another. Navigating this landscape requires a keen sense of timing, cultural nuance, and an appreciation for the strategic power of restraint. 

In today’s digital landscape, brands are under immense pressure to maintain a constant online presence. However, with events involving cultural sensitivity, geopolitical conflicts, political cycles, and the proliferation of deepfake technology, strategic silence has emerged as a crucial component of effective marketing. Understanding when to refrain from posting can safeguard a brand’s reputation and demonstrate cultural sensitivity.

Strategic Silence: When Saying Less Means More

In the realm of crisis management, there are instances where choosing not to respond publicly can prevent the escalation of issues and mitigate potential damage. This approach, known as strategic silence, involves deliberately refraining from immediate public comment to avoid amplifying unfounded claims or controversies.​

In 2020, Wayfair was subjected to a conspiracy theory falsely accusing the company of involvement in human trafficking through the sale of high-priced cabinets. The claims gained traction on social media, but the company opted not to respond publicly—likely assessing that engaging could lend credibility to the baseless allegations. The story faded without additional engagement from the brand.

In 2024, Patagonia underwent internal restructuring, leading to employee layoffs and relocations. While the changes sparked speculation, the company chose to keep public communications minimal, focusing on internal updates. This silent strategy helped them navigate scrutiny without elevating the issue into a media story.

Conversely, in 2023, Anheuser-Busch faced backlash after entering a debate on gender identity. The company’s initial engagement and subsequent retreat drew significant criticism, leading to a dominant news cycle of offended consumers, lost sales, and internal blame. This situation suggests that maintaining silence before and during the controversy might have prevented the escalation and negative outcomes. Lesson learned.

A Time for Cultural Sensitivity

During Ramadan, brands often attempt to engage Muslim consumers. However, missteps can occur when campaigns lack cultural understanding. For example, in 2018, MAC Cosmetics released a makeup tutorial titled “Get Ready for Suhoor,” featuring makeup artist Mariam Khairallah demonstrating a glamorous look intended for suhoor, the pre-dawn meal during Ramadan. The tutorial sparked debate among Muslims worldwide, as suhoor is traditionally a time for spiritual reflection.  ​In response to the controversy surrounding their “Get Ready for Suhoor” makeup tutorial, MAC Cosmetics issued a statement emphasizing their intent to honor regional customs. They explained that the video was inspired by suhoor gatherings in GCC countries, where friends and family often come together socially during Ramadan. MAC aimed to support their fans by providing makeup looks that celebrate the beauty of Ramadan. 

Understanding the diverse practices and traditions within different regions can help brands craft messages that resonate appropriately with their target audiences.​

When Silence Isn’t an Option: Owning the Narrative Before It Owns You 

That’s not to say a brand can always stay silent. Most often, it is quite correct to respond and take control and ownership of the situation. Experience and skill prove useful in know when or if to post. 

In 2023, Arla Foods, a Danish-Swedish dairy company, announced the trial use of Bovaer, a feed additive designed to reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. Despite extensive testing and regulatory approval, false claims circulated on social media suggesting the company was poisoning consumers. Arla quickly responded with factual statements and interviews, reaffirming their commitment to safety and sustainability—an example of proactive communication that helped contain misinformation before it overshadowed their intentions.

Navigating Political and Social Turmoil

In times of political unrest or social movements, brands must tread carefully. For example, during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, some brands attempted to promote messages of unity and humor. However, a GWI survey found that 22% of U.S. consumers stopped using or purchasing a product due to a brand’s political opinions over a three-month period spanning late summer and early fall. 

During the early weeks of the Israel-Gaza conflict in 2023, most major fashion and beauty brands remained silent—an intentional choice that helped them avoid criticism. In contrast, brands that posted vague calls for peace or attempted neutrality were swiftly called out by both sides for tone-deafness, showing how silence can be the wiser strategic move in polarized contexts.

In some cases, there is just no way not to offend.

The Deepfake Dilemma

The rise of deepfake technology presents new challenges for brands. Misinformation can spread rapidly, and brands may find themselves implicated in fabricated content. In such scenarios, it’s crucial to assess the situation carefully before responding, as addressing certain deepfakes might inadvertently amplify them.

Pfizer, for example, has taken an active role in correcting vaccine misinformation by maintaining a dedicated section on its website titled “The Facts.” There, it publicly addresses common myths and misrepresentations. The company’s choice to correct only widespread, verifiable misinformation—rather than every baseless claim—shows how precision and timing are key.

Guidelines for When to Post and When to Refrain
Before reaching for the “post” button, brands should pause and consider these five filters—each a test of whether engagement is wise or tone-deaf.

1. Assess Relevance:
   Start by asking: is this our place to speak? If the issue doesn’t intersect with your brand’s purpose or audience, your voice may not be welcome.
2. Cultural Sensitivity:
   What resonates in one culture may offend in another. During observances like Ramadan, ensure your message respects local values and traditions.
3. Avoid Performative Activism:
   Supporting a cause means more than posting a black square or hashtag. If your values aren’t backed by real-world action, expect skepticism.
4. Verify Information:
   In the race to be timely, don’t be sloppy. Check your facts—because posting unverified content can make your brand part of the problem.
5. Consider Timing:
   Even well-intentioned messages can land poorly during a global tragedy or national crisis. A post that’s fine today could seem oblivious tomorrow.

When to Correct vs. Let Go of Misinformation
False claims about your brand don’t always deserve a reply—but some absolutely do. Use these guidelines to know when to step in and when to let the noise fade. This is where a well-crafted crisis or issues management plan should create guiderails when action is required.

When to Correct Misinformation:
Speak up when silence could be mistaken for complicity—or when the damage could stick.

• Significant Reach:
  If a falsehood is spreading widely, don’t wait. Step in early with clarity to avoid letting the narrative spiral out of control.
• Credible Sources Involved:
  If reputable voices are sharing misinformation, the risk of it being believed increases. A correction can help stop the spread at the source.
• Clear Evidence Available:
  When you have hard facts on your side, use them. Concrete data adds credibility and shows accountability.

When to Let Misinformation Go:
Sometimes, engagement does more harm than good—especially when rumors are small, strange, or self-defeating.

• Limited Impact:
  If a false claim is confined to a niche corner of the internet, a public rebuttal may unnecessarily spotlight it.
• Lack of Traction:
  Not every whisper becomes a headline. If no one’s listening, it may be best to move on quietly.
• Source Credibility:
  When the misinformation comes from dubious or unserious sources, acknowledging it could elevate it. Let it die the quiet death it deserves.

Famous Last Words

In an era where consumers are increasingly discerning and socially aware, knowing when to remain silent is as crucial as knowing when to speak. By exercising restraint and demonstrating cultural and social awareness, brands can maintain trust and credibility, turning silence into a strategic advantage.

Whenever we’re debating whether to post during a crisis, I can’t help but hear the late great American country singer, Kenny Rogers, in my head: “You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em.” From his iconic hit song “The Gambler”. Sure, he was talking poker—knowing when to play a hand or fold and wait for the next one—but it applies surprisingly well to public relations and social media. These days, knowing when to keep quiet might just be the boldest move in your marketing playbook.