10 phrases that should (probably) never appear in your crisis communications

Crisis communications isn't always about finding the perfect words. More often, it's about avoiding the wrong ones.

By Joe MacIntyre

Whether you're drafting a holding statement, briefing a spokesperson, responding to journalists, communicating with stakeholders or updating employees, the words you choose matter. In a crisis, seemingly harmless phrases can undermine credibility, inflame criticism or create fresh problems.

I say “probably” for a reason. Every crisis is different, as is every organisation. Communications is rarely an exact science, and some phrases have a legitimate place in the right context. The word alleged, for example, is often a legal necessity, even if it can feel uncomfortable when paired with words such as victim or incident.

As a general rule, however, these are ten phrases worth avoiding.

1. “No comment”

It sounds clever in a courtroom drama, but in real life it sounds evasive. Audiences are likely to read it as guilt, panic, contempt, or all three.

When it might work: Rarely on the record. If you genuinely cannot comment, explain why on background appropriate.

2. “It's not X, it's Y”

Simply renaming a problem rarely changes how people see it. Attempts to reframe a crisis through language alone can easily backfire. United Airlines’ infamous decision to describe forcibly removing passengers as ‘re-accommodating’ passengers remains a textbook example.

When it might work: it may be appropriate in internal communications, but you have to be aware that anything published internally rarely stays internal for long.

3. “Thoughts and prayers”

If you want to express empathy, avoid clichés. Better still, focus on the practical support you're offering. Neither thoughts nor prayers hold much value on their own.

When it might work: Faith-based organisations speaking sincerely to their own communities may use this language authentically. Most businesses can't.

4. “Witch hunt” or “media attacks”

Few audiences will accept an organisation portraying itself as the victim of media attacks while facing legitimate public scrutiny. Donald Trump has used this strategy successfully with his supporters, but he is the exception.

When it might work: Only in limited circumstances, and usually if you have a loyal audience that already distrusts the press or other institutions.

5. “Mistakes were made” or “Lessons have been learned”

Both phrases are passive and vague unless they are elaborated on. Which mistakes? What lessons? If you’re prepared to answer those questions immediately afterwards, you’ll probably find you don’t need the phrases in the first place.

When it might work: Only if followed immediately by specific examples and clear actions.

6. “Robust”, “transparent” or “zero tolerance”

Some words have become corporate comfort words. Simply using these words doesn’t automatically mean people believe you or that your processes are effective. In fact, you might be losing perspective and falling into the trap of language inflation, which my colleague has written about previously.

When it might work: When you’re confident that you have acted robustly (for example) - and can actually back it up.

7. “Time to move on” or “We want to draw a line under”

Telling people to move on rarely persuades them to do so. More often, it reminds audiences that the issue remains unresolved. In communications terms, it sits uncomfortably close to the Streisand effect.

When it might work: internally, once the issue has genuinely been resolved and colleagues need permission to refocus. Rarely as a public instruction.

8. “At this time”

Timestamp your statement clearly at the top. Similarly, think twice before relying on its corporate cousin, "going forward".

When it might work: If facts are changing hour by hour and a specific sentence within the statement needs its own timestamp. Even then, say ‘as of 2pm today’, or similar.

9. “Appropriate action has been taken”

The word “appropriate” doesn't act as a magic wand, and vagueness here invites the very questions you're trying to close down. Where possible, explain what action has been taken. If legal or employment constraints prevent that, say so.

When it might work: When privacy or employment law genuinely prevents what can be disclosed. Even then, say so, and say what you can share. And consider if there’s a better adjective than “appropriate”.

10. “There will be no further comment”

Firstly, the reality is that this won’t stop people asking questions. Secondly, in most crises, there will eventually be further comment.

When it might work: During ongoing legal proceedings or when explaining that no further statement will be issued until a specific stage of the process. It can also be useful in conversations with journalists if you're offering clarification off the record.

Every word counts

Navigating a crisis from a communications and reputational sense is rarely straightforward. Legal, operational and reputational pressures often collide, and every statement is likely to be scrutinised.

Avoiding these familiar phrases will not resolve a crisis on its own, but it can help prevent avoidable ‘own goals’. In high pressure situations, clarity and authenticity almost always serve organisations better than well-worn corporate cliches.

Joe MacIntyre is account director at reputation, risk and crisis advisory firm Alder.