This month, we’ve been discussing best practices for crisis communications and management, including the biblical way to combat a crisis in addition to how we can handle external disasters, such as COVID-19. Today, we’re highlighting an issue commonly seen and mishandled in crisis communication situations that is best explained by the Streisand Effect.
The term Streisand Effect comes from a scandal that occurred in 2003. That year, photographer Kenneth Adelman unintentionally took an aerial photo of Barbara Streisand’s home, and many others built along the California coast as part of his job to document properties for the California Coastal Records Project. When Streisand discovered that a photo of her home had been taken, she endeavored to sue the photographer. Even though, at the time of the lawsuit, the picture had only been accessed six times in total, two of which were by her lawyers. As a result of her choice to take legal action, the photo became the point of national attention as the lawsuit made worldwide news.
By raising concerns about privacy over something that had not gained public attention, Streisand produced greater awareness surrounding something she wanted to keep secret; hence, the Streisand Effect.
Like Streisand did with her lawsuit, sometimes, organizations and individuals unintentionally create a crisis or magnify an existing one by bringing undue awareness. Of course, there are instances in which audiences need to be made aware of a crisis. For example, if a church discovers biblically immoral or illegal behaviors by a volunteer or staff member, that information should be disclosed to the concentric circles of audiences most impacted by the individual’s behavior - whether that be parents of children in their care, other staff members who work with them daily or the full congregation if warranted.
In those types of scenarios, it is best to share the most pertinent facts with key constituents early on to ensure that those who need to know what is happening receive the news from the source, rather than the media or another third-party informant.
However, most crises can stay well contained and quickly die on the vine when the concerned constituents avoid bringing intentional awareness to the situation. Had Streisand not engaged in a public lawsuit, the photo of her home would have likely gone undetected and continued only to be accessed by those who needed it for professional purposes. But because she brought it to public attention, the photo was seen by thousands.
An overarching and straightforward tip for avoiding a Streisand Effect in your crisis is not to broadcast to a narrowcast. In other words, if there isn’t an imminent need or legal or moral reason to introduce bad news to an audience, don’t.
That said, every crisis situation is different and there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to determine who to inform and when. For this reason, if you are experiencing a crisis at any level or suspect that one could be coming, it is wise to seek guidance from an agency or firm with crisis and reputation management experience that can offer personal and unbiased consultation.
Very often, a crisis can remain at a low-level if those concerned simply practice discretion and do not raise undue alarm. There is a pertinent piece of advice being circulated right now concerning how we should act about COVID-19 that applies to those handling a crisis: be alert, not anxious.