A Crisis Plan Built After a Crisis Starts Is Already Too Late
The Nigerian companies we have seen navigate a genuine crisis well — a product recall, a regulatory issue, a public controversy — almost always had at least a basic framework in place before the situation arose. Companies improvising their entire response in real time tend to make avoidable mistakes under pressure: inconsistent messaging across different spokespeople, slow internal approval processes that delay public response, or initial statements that have to be walked back once more information emerges.
What a Practical Crisis Communications Plan Actually Contains
A useful crisis plan does not need to anticipate every possible scenario in exhaustive detail. It needs to establish the structural decisions that are hard to make quickly under pressure: who is authorised to speak publicly on the company’s behalf, what the internal escalation and approval chain looks like, and a default tone and set of principles for how the company communicates during a crisis, even before the specific facts of any particular situation are known.
- Pre-designated spokesperson(s) authorised to respond without requiring multi-layer approval mid-crisis
- A clear internal escalation path so the right leadership is informed within a defined timeframe
- Template language for initial acknowledgment that can be adapted quickly, not written from scratch under pressure
- A defined process for coordinating between legal, communications, and leadership before public statements go out
The Cost of Not Having a Plan Shows Up in the First 24 Hours
In nearly every crisis we have helped manage, the most damaging period is the first 24 hours, when public attention and speculation are highest and a company without a plan is often still internally debating how to respond. Companies with even a basic plan can move from awareness to a coordinated initial response within hours rather than days, which makes a measurable difference in how a situation is perceived to have been handled.
