Handling an online pile-on

Online criticism escalates in a recognisable pattern, and the escalation is usually caused by the organisation's own response.

The pattern

A complaint appears. The organisation deletes it, or replies with a template, or says nothing for a day. The deletion or the non-response becomes the story. Others join, many of whom do not care about the original issue. Media pick it up because the pile-on is now itself newsworthy.

At each of those steps, the organisation's behaviour did more damage than the original complaint.

The first hour

Assess what it actually is. Three categories, with different responses.

Misclassifying is expensive in both directions. Treating a genuine grievance as a campaign is arrogant; treating a campaign as a genuine grievance rewards it.

The response

One public statement, on the channel where it started, containing: acknowledgement of the specific point, what is factually the case, what you are doing, and a route to contact you directly.

Not: a template, a legal statement, an explanation of how much you value feedback, or an argument.

Then reply individually to substantive points, briefly, and stop. Replying to everything sustains the visibility and gives the algorithm reason to keep showing it.

What never to do

Delete. Screenshots exist. Deletion is the accelerant.

Argue. You cannot win a public argument with a customer, whatever the facts.

Use humour. Occasionally brilliant, usually catastrophic, and impossible to judge from inside the situation.

Go silent for a day. Twelve hours of silence during an active pile-on is interpreted as either indifference or panic.

Threaten legal action publicly. It converts a complaint into a story about a company threatening a customer.

The internal response

Tell employees what is happening and what the position is, quickly. They are being asked about it by friends and customers, and without guidance they will improvise.

Afterwards

Within a week: what was the original cause, was it valid, what has changed, and would the same thing happen again.

If the criticism was justified, publishing what changed is the strongest possible recovery. Organisations that do this recover their standing quickly; those that wait for it to be forgotten carry it for years.

The proportion to keep

Most online criticism affects a small audience and fades within days. Overreacting, particularly by involving lawyers or issuing formal statements about minor complaints, creates the visibility that would otherwise not have existed.

Judge the actual reach before deciding the scale of response.