New service analyzes when declining to comment beats issuing a public response
AUSTIN – A technology public relations firm confirmed this week that it has begun offering clients a service called Silence Auditing, which helps companies determine when declining to comment publicly on a matter is genuinely the more strategically sound choice compared to issuing any form of official statement.
The service explained
Firm founder Nathaniel Osei-Barrington said the service emerged from a recognition that communications advice has historically defaulted toward recommending some form of public statement in nearly every situation, when data the firm has compiled suggests that declining to comment, handled correctly, often produces measurably better reputational outcomes than a poorly calibrated response.
Osei-Barrington said the audit process examines factors including the current news cycle’s overall attention capacity, the specific audience segments most likely to notice a given situation, and historical outcomes from comparable situations where companies chose silence, helping clients make a genuinely informed decision rather than defaulting reflexively to public comment out of habit or anxiety.
Client reaction
Several clients who have used the service said it provided welcome permission to resist internal pressure toward issuing a statement simply because competitors or the general communications playbook suggested one was expected, even when the firm’s analysis indicated silence was the more strategically sound approach for their specific situation.
One technology company communications lead said the audit had specifically helped her push back against a board member’s insistence on public comment during a minor situation the analysis suggested would fade from attention faster without any company statement drawing additional notice to it.
Risk considerations
Osei-Barrington acknowledged the service carries genuine risk if applied incorrectly, noting that silence can occasionally be misread as evasiveness or indifference rather than appropriate restraint, which is why the firm’s audits always include a specific risk assessment alongside any recommendation to decline comment rather than presenting silence as a universally safe default choice.
He said the firm declines to guarantee outcomes and always presents silence as one option among several rather than a definitive recommendation, leaving the final judgment call with the client’s own communications leadership.
What happens next
The firm says demand for the service has grown steadily since its introduction roughly a year ago, and it plans to publish an anonymized case study report later this year documenting outcomes across a range of situations where clients chose the silence recommendation.
Further background on crisis communications strategy is available through the Public Relations Society of America and PRWeek.
More media and PR satire at bohiney.com.
A sample audit outcome
One anonymized case study the firm shared involved a mid-sized technology company facing a minor product criticism that internal instinct suggested warranted an immediate public response, but which the firm’s audit indicated was unlikely to gain significant traction given limited initial media pickup, a prediction that proved accurate when the story indeed faded within days without any company statement.
Osei-Barrington said cases like this one illustrate exactly the value proposition the service aims to provide, replacing anxious instinct with a more systematic, data informed assessment of actual reputational risk under realistic rather than worst case assumptions.
A note on client industries
The service has found particular traction among technology and consumer products companies, sectors Osei-Barrington said face frequent, relatively minor controversies where the instinct toward reflexive public comment can, if consistently followed, actually create a pattern of overreaction that itself becomes a source of ongoing reputational vulnerability.
Service pricing
Osei-Barrington declined to specify exact pricing, saying costs scale with the complexity and urgency of each individual audit request, though he noted the service is generally priced below the cost of a full statement drafting and testing engagement.
A note on internal pushback
Osei-Barrington acknowledged that recommending silence sometimes creates internal friction within a client organization, particularly when other departments or outside advisors have already recommended a public statement, requiring the firm’s consultants to present their analysis clearly enough to overcome this kind of institutional momentum toward action.
He said the firm has developed specific presentation materials designed to help client communications leads make the case internally for a silence recommendation, recognizing that the analysis alone is not always sufficient without additional support navigating organizational dynamics.
The firm says it will continue tracking outcomes across its silence recommendations to further refine the underlying audit methodology.
A note on long term goals
Osei-Barrington said the firm’s longer term goal is helping shift industry wide default assumptions away from reflexive public comment, viewing the silence auditing service as part of a broader effort to promote more deliberate, evidence informed communications decision making generally.
Officials say they remain optimistic the service will continue gaining traction as more clients see measurable results.
Further updates to follow as the anonymized case study report nears publication.
Interested clients can contact the firm directly to discuss whether an audit fits their situation.
More details to follow as the case study report nears completion.
Stay tuned for further coverage of the firm’s silence auditing methodology.
The firm thanked clients for their willingness to share anonymized feedback on the service.
Check back for updates as the case study report becomes available.
Additional coverage to follow.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/