Controlling the narrative is fundamental to protecting a company's reputation. However, audiences have become quite savvy and are ever more sceptical of polished corporate messaging, meaning that overly managed communication can create distance between a company and its audience.
For communication to build trust, it needs to demonstrate that an organisation's words align with its actions. In this Q&A, Vanessa Baard, Co-Founder of ByDesign Communications, considers what that looks like in practice, from communicating purpose authentically to preparing leaders for the media.
Many businesses say they want to "control the narrative", yet media trends show that audiences crave transparency and authenticity over perfection. How does this translate in corporate communications, especially with regards to protecting reputations and earning public trust?
The idea of "controlling the narrative" is often over-engineered.
Yes, organisations need clarity about what they stand for, what they want to communicate and where their reputational risks lie — but control can become counterproductive when it results in messaging that is so heavily managed that it no longer sounds credible or human.
Audiences are increasingly able to recognise when every word has been approved by multiple stakeholders and when every response follows a rigid corporate script. While this approach may feel safer internally, it can create distance externally. Communication that sounds overly polished may protect consistency, but it does not necessarily build trust.
The organisations that communicate most effectively understand that a clear narrative and authenticity are not opposing objectives. They have a strong sense of purpose, communicate consistently and remain disciplined about their key messages, while still allowing room for people to speak naturally.
This is particularly important when circumstances are difficult. Not every issue can or should be reframed as a positive story. There is value in recognising concerns and complexity, and in being honest about what is being done to address them.
At the same time, transparency does not mean sharing every detail, particularly where legal, commercial, or privacy considerations apply. It means being clear about what can be communicated and avoiding language that obscures more than it explains.
Protecting a reputation is therefore not about creating the appearance of perfection. It is about building confidence over time through credible, consistent and honest communication. Organisations earn trust when their words align with their actions and when the people representing them sound knowledgeable, accountable and recognisably human.
You work closely with Executives on messaging and media training. What's the biggest misconception senior leaders have about what makes someone an effective spokesperson?
One of the biggest misconceptions is that an effective spokesperson must have an answer to every possible question and be able to deliver every corporate message perfectly. In practice, this often places unnecessary pressure on executives and can make their communication feel rehearsed rather than authoritative.
The strongest spokespeople are not necessarily the most polished. They are the people who listen carefully, understand the question being asked and respond directly. They can explain complex issues in accessible language without oversimplifying them and they are comfortable acknowledging when further information is required.
Many executives approach media engagements as though they need to memorise pages of messaging. This can increase anxiety and create a tendency to focus on recalling the next approved phrase rather than engaging with the conversation. It may also lead to answers that sound disconnected from the question or overly reliant on corporate language.
Effective preparation is less about memorisation and more about understanding. Leaders should be clear on the three or four ideas that matter most, why these ideas are important and how they relate to their organisation's broader strategy.
When executives understand their messages deeply, they can adapt them to different questions and communicate with greater confidence and flexibility.
Media training should therefore help leaders develop judgement rather than simply teach them what to say. A spokesperson needs to know when to provide context, how to simplify complexity and when to say that an answer is not yet available.
Companies can usually communicate what they do, but when it comes to explaining why it matters, they struggle to formulate convincing language. What sets organisations that successfully communicate purpose apart from those that simply use purpose as another marketing phrase?
Most organisations can develop a compelling purpose statement, but the challenge lies in ensuring this purpose can be seen in the way the business operates. Consequently, communicating purpose is often more challenging than communicating products, services, or business performance.
Purpose becomes credible when it visibly influences decisions and actions.
Can an organisation point to choices it has made because of its purpose? Can it demonstrate how its purpose has shaped the experience of employees, customers, or communities? Is there tangible evidence of the organisation behaving differently because of what it says it believes?
These questions distinguish purpose as a lived business principle from purpose as a marketing phrase. A well-written statement can create a useful foundation, but language alone cannot establish credibility. Audiences look for consistency between what an organisation communicates and what they experience through its actions, products, leadership and relationships.
Organisations that communicate purpose successfully do not necessarily speak about purpose more often. Instead, they tell stories that demonstrate it. They show how a particular decision reflects their values, how an initiative has created meaningful change, or how their purpose guides the way they respond to challenges.
This approach also makes purpose more relevant. Rather than presenting it as an abstract concept, organisations connect it to real experiences and outcomes. The purpose becomes visible through evidence rather than explanation.
The strongest purpose-communication is therefore grounded in proof rather than promises. When an organisation has clear examples of its purpose influencing behaviour and creating value, the language becomes easier to formulate because the story already exists. Communications then has a meaningful role in identifying, articulating and sharing this evidence, rather than attempting to create significance through messaging alone.
Communicators are expected to have immediate answers during reputational crises. How do you advise leaders to communicate confidently when they don't have all the information?
One of the most common mistakes organisations make during a reputational crisis is believing that they need to have every answer before they can communicate. In many situations, particularly when events are still unfolding, this level of certainty simply does not exist.
However, waiting for complete information can create a vacuum in which speculation and misinformation take hold.
Communicating quickly does not mean rushing to conclusions or presenting unverified information as fact. The objective is to provide clarity without creating false certainty.
There is considerable credibility in communicating four things clearly: what the organisation knows, what it does not yet know, what it is doing to establish the facts and when stakeholders can expect a further update. This approach demonstrates accountability and provides reassurance that the situation is being actively managed, even while a situation continues to unfold.
Confidence should not be confused with having an immediate answer to every question. It is demonstrated through composure and transparency. Leaders can communicate confidently by explaining what actions are underway, who is responsible for what and how the organisation will keep stakeholders informed.
The role of communications during a crisis is not to manufacture certainty or make an uncertain situation appear resolved. It is to help the organisation communicate accurately, consistently and with appropriate empathy while the facts are still developing.
Sometimes the most credible response is simply: "We do not know yet". When this is accompanied by a clear commitment to investigate, provide updates and take responsibility where necessary, it can strengthen rather than undermine trust.
Did you enjoy this Q&A? Let us know in the comments section below.
*Image courtesy of contributor and Canva