The Crisis Messaging Lab
Crisis Messaging Evolution
My interest in crisis messaging began in the late 2000s, when I observed how one organization responded to a crisis and recognized that the problem was not simply managerial failure, but a set of gaps that the larger system did not account for. That experience shaped my understanding that crisis communication has evolved beyond reactive messaging into a broader digital and operational practice.
Over time, this mirrors how tourism and hospitality crisis communication research (THCCR) has shifted from treating communication as a limited post‑crisis marketing or external stakeholder function in early work (1980–2013) to a more complex domain that, in later phases (2014–2019 and especially 2020–2022), foregrounds social media, COVID‑19, and stakeholder resilience as central “motor themes” within crisis management (Upadhyay et al., 2023).
Within that history, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) international outbreak stands out as a critical turning point: SARS exposed weaknesses in transparency, coordination, media relations, and international information sharing, leading governments, health organizations, and industries to adopt more proactive and communication-centered crisis strategies.
Organizations began to recognize firsthand how delayed responses and inconsistent communications intensified public fear, and undermined institutional credibility. During the early stages of SARS, several governments were criticized for withholding information or responding too slowly, which contributed to confusion, mistrust, and the rapid spread of rumors (Menon & Goh, 2005). As a result, future crisis communication scholarship and public health policy increasingly emphasized transparency, speed, and message consistency as essential components of effective crisis management (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005).
During the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, telecommunications were dominated by traditional media and official government briefings. AOL Chatrooms, Yahoo Messenger, and message boards existed, but did not have the global influence of modern day Facebook and X Corp. (formerly Twitter) (Cassidy, 2006). As a result, information moved more slowly, and public communication was one way: moving from authorities to audiences through television, newspapers, radio and official press conferences (Menon & Goh, 2005). Crisis managers focused heavily on message control, media relations, and public reassurance through centralized communication structures.
In contrast, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic occurred in an environment where platforms such as Facebook, X Corp., TikTok, and YouTube enabled instantaneous global communication. This fundamentally altered crisis communication in four ways.
First, communication became continuous rather than segmented. During SARS, public updates were typically tied to official announcements or scheduled media coverage. During COVID-19, organizations and governments faced pressure to provide constant updates across multiple digital channels in real time (Malecki et al., 2021). Silence or delayed responses could rapidly damage public trust because audiences expected immediate engagement and transparency.
Second, social media shifted crisis communication from a primarily one-way model to a participatory environment. Citizens were no longer only receivers of information; they actively interpreted, reshared, challenged, and produced crisis narratives themselves (Pang et al., 2021). This increased public engagement but also the speed at which misinformation could spread. COVID-19 demonstrated that managing the rapid spread of misinformation was nearly as important as managing the public health crisis itself (World Health Organization, 2020).
Third, emotional communication and trust management became much more central during COVID-19. Public audiences no longer evaluated leaders not only on factual accuracy but also on empathy, authenticity, and responsiveness across digital platforms (Malecki et al., 2021). Crisis communication evolved beyond information dissemination into ongoing relationship management and community engagement.
Fourth, COVID-19 made the integration of social listening and data analytics into a necessity for crisis management. Organizations began monitoring online conversations, hashtags, sentiment trends, and viral narratives in order to adapt messaging strategies in real time (Pang et al., 2021). This represented a major departure from the SARS era, when monitoring public reaction depended more heavily on traditional polling and news coverage analysis.
Taken together, these developments illustrate how crisis communication has evolved from a relatively centralized and reactive practice into a continuous, data-driven, and multidirectional process contingent upon organizational coordination and public trust. The transition from the controlled media environment of SARS to the dynamic digital environment of COVID-19 not only expanded the speed and reach of communication but also exposed new operational vulnerabilities. Crisis communication continues to intersect with digital infrastructure, analytics, logistics, and interagency coordination, and the field has grown substantially more complex than traditional models of post-crisis messaging alone (Upadhyay et al., 2023).
This trajectory reinforces my observation that crisis communication now spans strategy, evidence, documentation, logistics, and stakeholder management rather than simple message delivery (Upadhyay et al., 2023). Crisis Communication should not simply be about what message the public wants to hear, but if the message credible and functional. Recent research has reinforced my observation that crisis communication contains important gaps that are often overlooked in practice; as Purohit et al. note, “a gap exists in the critical analysis of the actual practices and uses of social media among EM agencies, across both geographical regions and phases of the EM lifecycle” (2025, p. 2). This supports the argument that crisis messaging is not only a matter of strategy, but also of evidence, documentation, logistics, and stakeholder management (Purohit et al., 2025; Upadhyay et al., 2023).
My interest in crisis messaging began in the late 2000s, when I observed how one organization responded to a crisis and recognized that the problem was not simply managerial failure, but a set of gaps that the larger system did not account for. That experience shaped my understanding that crisis communication has evolved beyond reactive messaging into a broader digital and operational practice.
Over time, this mirrors how tourism and hospitality crisis communication research (THCCR) has shifted from treating communication as a limited post‑crisis marketing or external stakeholder function in early work (1980–2013) to a more complex domain that, in later phases (2014–2019 and especially 2020–2022), foregrounds social media, COVID‑19, and stakeholder resilience as central “motor themes” within crisis management (Upadhyay et al., 2023).
Within that history, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) international outbreak stands out as a critical turning point: SARS exposed weaknesses in transparency, coordination, media relations, and international information sharing, leading governments, health organizations, and industries to adopt more proactive and communication-centered crisis strategies.
Organizations began to recognize firsthand how delayed responses and inconsistent communications intensified public fear, and undermined institutional credibility. During the early stages of SARS, several governments were criticized for withholding information or responding too slowly, which contributed to confusion, mistrust, and the rapid spread of rumors (Menon & Goh, 2005). As a result, future crisis communication scholarship and public health policy increasingly emphasized transparency, speed, and message consistency as essential components of effective crisis management (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005).
During the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003, telecommunications were dominated by traditional media and official government briefings. AOL Chatrooms, Yahoo Messenger, and message boards existed, but did not have the global influence of modern day Facebook and X Corp. (formerly Twitter) (Cassidy, 2006). As a result, information moved more slowly, and public communication was one way: moving from authorities to audiences through television, newspapers, radio and official press conferences (Menon & Goh, 2005). Crisis managers focused heavily on message control, media relations, and public reassurance through centralized communication structures.
In contrast, the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic occurred in an environment where platforms such as Facebook, X Corp., TikTok, and YouTube enabled instantaneous global communication. This fundamentally altered crisis communication in four ways.
First, communication became continuous rather than segmented. During SARS, public updates were typically tied to official announcements or scheduled media coverage. During COVID-19, organizations and governments faced pressure to provide constant updates across multiple digital channels in real time (Malecki et al., 2021). Silence or delayed responses could rapidly damage public trust because audiences expected immediate engagement and transparency.
Second, social media shifted crisis communication from a primarily one-way model to a participatory environment. Citizens were no longer only receivers of information; they actively interpreted, reshared, challenged, and produced crisis narratives themselves (Pang et al., 2021). This increased public engagement but also the speed at which misinformation could spread. COVID-19 demonstrated that managing the rapid spread of misinformation was nearly as important as managing the public health crisis itself (World Health Organization, 2020).
Third, emotional communication and trust management became much more central during COVID-19. Public audiences no longer evaluated leaders not only on factual accuracy but also on empathy, authenticity, and responsiveness across digital platforms (Malecki et al., 2021). Crisis communication evolved beyond information dissemination into ongoing relationship management and community engagement.
Fourth, COVID-19 made the integration of social listening and data analytics into a necessity for crisis management. Organizations began monitoring online conversations, hashtags, sentiment trends, and viral narratives in order to adapt messaging strategies in real time (Pang et al., 2021). This represented a major departure from the SARS era, when monitoring public reaction depended more heavily on traditional polling and news coverage analysis.
Taken together, these developments illustrate how crisis communication has evolved from a relatively centralized and reactive practice into a continuous, data-driven, and multidirectional process contingent upon organizational coordination and public trust. The transition from the controlled media environment of SARS to the dynamic digital environment of COVID-19 not only expanded the speed and reach of communication but also exposed new operational vulnerabilities. Crisis communication continues to intersect with digital infrastructure, analytics, logistics, and interagency coordination, and the field has grown substantially more complex than traditional models of post-crisis messaging alone (Upadhyay et al., 2023).
This trajectory reinforces my observation that crisis communication now spans strategy, evidence, documentation, logistics, and stakeholder management rather than simple message delivery (Upadhyay et al., 2023). Crisis Communication should not simply be about what message the public wants to hear, but if the message credible and functional. Recent research has reinforced my observation that crisis communication contains important gaps that are often overlooked in practice; as Purohit et al. note, “a gap exists in the critical analysis of the actual practices and uses of social media among EM agencies, across both geographical regions and phases of the EM lifecycle” (2025, p. 2). This supports the argument that crisis messaging is not only a matter of strategy, but also of evidence, documentation, logistics, and stakeholder management (Purohit et al., 2025; Upadhyay et al., 2023).
My interest in crisis messaging began in the late 2000s, when I observed how one organization responded to a crisis and recognized that the problem was not simply managerial failure, but a set of gaps that the larger system did not account for. That experience shaped my understanding that crisis communication has evolved beyond reactive messaging into a broader digital and operational practice.
Over time, this mirrors how tourism and hospitality crisis communication research (THCCR) has shifted from treating communication as a limited post-crisis marketing or external stakeholder function in early work (1980–2013) to a more complex domain that, in later phases (2014–2019 and especially 2020–2022), foregrounds social media, COVID-19, and stakeholder resilience as central “motor themes” within crisis management (Upadhyay et al., 2023).
Within that history, the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) international outbreak stands out as a critical turning point: SARS exposed weaknesses in transparency, coordination, media relations, and international information sharing, leading governments, health organizations, and industries to adopt more proactive and communication-centered crisis strategies.
Taken together, these developments illustrate how crisis communication has evolved from a relatively centralized and reactive practice into a continuous, data-driven, and multidirectional process contingent upon organizational coordination and public trust.