Deny everything: it may work but is it right?

At Daymark we pride ourselves on being across different approaches to managing reputational crises. One approach is gaining more prominence even though it comes with questionable outcomes.

It’s an approach that can be best described as ‘deny, reject, refute’ everything, emphatically, even in the face of compelling and sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Without being specific, we have seen several examples here in Australia throughout 2023. In fact, this really is not a recent development – we have seen it regularly with certain overseas well-profiled politicians. And it would be naive to think that this approach has not been used in various other forums, for example courts.

Our point is the ‘deny, reject, refute’ approach appears to be becoming a more accepted approach in the management of crises with reputational impact. Presumably it is being used more regularly due to its perceived success elsewhere.

The approach goes something like this. A serious and credible claim is made against someone. The claim gains a mainstream media profile. A denial is made in strong and in no uncertain terms by the accused. The media dutifully report both sides of the story and the forcefulness of the claims and denials. And just like that with incongruous facts on the table, the prospect of truth fades.

Both parties can’t be right which means someone is lying.

The end result is twofold. First, the claim and denial create a degree of doubt in the minds of the public. It is simply too difficult to reconcile the two stated events.

Perhaps more alarming though is that the unequivocal nature of each side’s position and their polar opposites create a situation where the truth of what happened may never be realised. The matter may never be resolved, which we assume is the goal.

In short, the ‘deny, reject, refute’ approach legitimises uncertainty and the loss of truth as being a satisfactory outcome to a reputation crisis.

This may be effective in the short term but is it the right way to deal with such matters? Should this approach find its way into the crisis management playbook?

We don’t think so. We hope we are a long way away from companies adopting such an approach to address any high-profile reputation crisis events.

For one, a persuasive reason against the approach is that the truth often comes out in the end, making earlier denials and obfuscation worse.

Our role as crisis managers is to reduce uncertainty, give confidence that the matter at hand will be managed and that restorative action will be taken. It is not to create more uncertainty or an outcome where the issue may never be resolved.

Our advice is to keep an eye out for the ‘deny, reject, refute’ approach. Recognise it is only being used because the truth is unpalatable and keeping the matter unresolved is the goal.