Opinion
The Ottawa Senators inadvertently amplified rumors about goaltender Linus Ullmark by choosing an aggressive, emotional response over standard crisis communication protocols, writes Pinkston’s Nathan Burchfiel.
Added 3 hours ago
When an organization faces an emerging reputational crisis, one fundamental principle should guide every decision: don’t make it worse.
The Ottawa Senators learned this lesson the hard way last week when general manager Steve Staios released an inflammatory statement condemning internet rumors about one of his players. In doing so, he elevated the story to millions of people who were previously unaware.
When the team’s star goaltender took a leave of absence for “personal reasons” on December 28, the team initially requested privacy. For nearly two weeks, the situation remained contained. Then, on January 8, unsubstantiated internet rumors about the goalie began circulating on social media. Rather than allowing the speculation to fade into obscurity — as such rumors typically do — Staios posted a statement that is a textbook example of crisis communication gone wrong.
“Our organization was extremely disappointed to read the completely fabricated and false stories that are spreading around social media about our hockey club,” Staios wrote. “Linus is away from our team for personal reasons, and he has the entire organization’s support. We asked that people respect his privacy, but clearly that request was not heard by the lowest forms of trolls and sick people who scour the internet. We are disgusted that outside forces are attempting to disrupt our hockey club. This statement will put an end to the ridiculous speculation that has spread online.”
The statement itself went viral not because it “put an end to the ridiculous speculation” but because it created more intrigue around a story primed for virality. Readers wanted to know what kind of rumor could possibly have sparked such an aggressive response, setting off a barrage of social conversations and media coverage.
Here are three lessons communicators can learn from the Senators’ slip-up.
In professional sports, privacy protections around player absences are commonplace. In many fields, it is often necessary to be vague about personnel issues. However, organizations must understand a fundamental truth about information vacuums: people will fill them with speculation.
When that speculation picks up steam, the organization faces a choice: respond to end it or let it die quietly. When responding, it is not enough to simply deny a false narrative. If an organization truly wants to convince people that rumors are false, it must find a way to replace bad information with good information. If it cannot do that, it may be better off letting a false rumor run its course.
Responding at all is bound to bring more attention to the issue, especially when the organization is responding on social media platforms whose algorithms are finely tuned to show people more content they may be interested in. While I don’t follow the Senators on any social media platforms, I am a hockey fan, so X showed me their initial statement.
It was the first I had heard of the goalie being absent from the team. That one click on the team’s post told X I was interested in the story, and it immediately started populating my feed with related posts. Within minutes, I knew all about the rumors because X put them in my feed without me ever conducting my own search.
When an organization feels attacked, the natural instinct is to hit back hard. But social media is not a hockey rink where conflicts are resolved through confrontation. Restraint, not aggression, is the hallmark of effective crisis communication.
The language in the Senators’ statement — “disgusted,” “sick people,” “ridiculous speculation” — made the story more interesting not just to trolls who thrive on conflict but to casual observers interested in a good story. The provocative language validated and fueled more speculation instead of shutting it down.
The Senators’ misstep offers critical lessons for any organization navigating reputational challenges in the age of social media. When rumors emerge about sensitive matters, the instinct to respond aggressively is understandable but almost always counterproductive.
The most effective strategy in most cases is silence. Allow the rumor to dissipate naturally without the oxygen provided by an official response. When a response is truly necessary, it should be measured, factual and devoid of emotional language that will fuel the fire. Focus on facts, not feelings. Provide context where appropriate. Above all, do not engage with trolls as though they are good-faith actors who can be persuaded by the force of your argument.
The Ottawa Senators had the opportunity to handle this quietly and professionally. Instead, they provided their critics with exactly what they wanted: a dramatic response that made the story bigger. In crisis communications, the most important lesson remains the simplest one: when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Nathan Burchfiel is senior vice president at Pinkston.
Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins
Hockey News