Leading Communications in the Age of Rage

TL;DR

Consumer anger is different now in the Ragebait Economy
Values-driven responses are still the ones with the most integrity and the best chance of success.
Knowing your values, conducting quarterly values stress tests, and committing to them can make all the difference when speed of response matters
The 2-4-24 Rule can guide you in decisions when faced with an outrage incident.

Leading Communications in the Age of Rage

Doesn’t it seem like the whole world could use a course in anger management?

On the road. In airports. In the line at the supermarket. And most certainly online.

Everywhere you look, we seem to be increasingly angry people. If we’re not outraged about something, we’re not alive in ‘25.

This has a decided effect on all businesses, but especially big businesses from industries that touch lots of consumers or whose services we need; think airlines for the former and health insurance for the latter—among others.

I recently read a recap of a panel discussion at PRovoke Media’s recent Global Summit, “Getting Ahead in the Age of Rage.”

The panel was comprised of five leaders in PR, including some from these very same industries.

And they got me thinking.

I recently wrote an article on how important it is for communications leaders to serve as chief conscience officers of their organizations, understanding not only the company’s values but those of their core audience or customers.

Like everything else in our profession, effective execution of this responsibility calls for preparation, thought, and practice.

The Ragebait Economy

Angry customers aren’t new; we’ve always had them. What we haven’t always had is the ability for that anger to metastasize into a global issue before you’ve even finished your first cup of coffee. (Or your first energy drink, if you’re addicted to them like me.)

The mechanics of outrage in 2025 are different than anything that came before.

For starters, the audience is starting from a far more negative place. When you’re in an environment in which audiences actively want to believe the worst about you, you’re already behind the 8-ball when an outrage crisis looms.

If that’s not bad enough, social media algorithms don’t reward nuance or thoughtfulness; they reward engagement. And nothing drives engagement quite like rage—especially when the audience is more likely than ever to want to be angry.

A measured, wait-and-see response gets scrolled past; a hot take declaring corporate malevolence gets shared, quoted, and amplified. The platforms themselves have become rage accelerants.

This creates what you might call “the ragebait economy.” Content creators know that outrage performs. Media outlets know that controversy drives clicks. Consumers are frustrated by what seems to be an endless barrage of negativity from political leaders and talking heads.

They’re driven by a sense of powerlessness against rising costs of living and watching companies “get away” with behavior inconsistent with their stated values.

And they’ve learned that anger has power where nuance does not.

Some outrage is legitimate, driven by breaches of trust or poor brand experience, and deserves to be heard. Some outrage is performative, acted out by people who were never your customers but see an opportunity by piling on to the latest controversy.

And some outrage is deliberately manufactured—bad faith actors looking to weaponize anger for competitive advantage because chaos is profitable.

(Gini Dietrich has an excellent post about the dangers of bot-driven outrage and how to spot it.)

The Power Of Values-Driven Response

Ideally, your organization has principles that exist that are specific enough to guide communications decisions when the pressure is on. Values that are more than platitudes that decorate walls near the printer, but the principles by which a company reflexively acts. Values that tell you what to aspire to—and what you might be willing to sacrifice for.

When companies respond from genuine values rather than panic or having guessed what kind of outrage they’re dealing with, something shifts. It does. Authenticity is palpable.

Customers—your real customers who’ve paid your bills for years, not the ones manufacturing outrage because it fits their worldview—can sense the difference between a statement crafted by lawyers and one that reflects who you really are as an organization. And even those who disagree with your position often respect consistency more than contortions designed to turn the heat off.

Values-driven responses also make you harder to attack. When your stance is clear and your record is consistent, it’s much harder for a critic to claim hypocrisy. There’s no previous statement to contradict, no seeming about-face to cite. The outrage can lose some of its oxygen because a hypocrisy narrative can’t stick.

Most importantly, responding from values helps you find your people. Not everyone’s going to agree with you, and that’s okay. But customers who not only share your values, but see you consistently speaking and acting to them, can become advocates. They may defend you in comment sections you never see; they often will give you grace for the occasional stumble.

They stay loyal because they know not just what you say you stand for, but what you actually stand for.

A Practical Framework

Communications leaders are squarely on the hot seat when it comes to ensuring values-driven decision-making. It’s our responsibility to be that voice inside that isn’t just advocating for a response now, but advocating for a response how.

We have to have the executive presence to speak truth to power when a C-suite leader wants to react in a way inconsistent with who the company portrays itself to be. We have to be the conscience officers.

The work starts long before the crisis arrives. Define your core values in plain language and test them against the most uncomfortable scenarios through a values decision matrix.

Take each core value and write out three columns: “What this means we do,” “What this means we don’t do,” and “Real tradeoffs.”

For example, if one of your company’s core values is transparency, column one might say “We publicly disclose pricing information,” column two says “We don’t hide behind the lawyers when we make a mistake,” and column three acknowledges, “We may reveal information competitors keep private.”

These are your guardrails for that value.

Run quarterly “values stress tests” with leadership. Present real scenarios.

“What if our biggest customer demands we compromise our values?” “One of our long-term suppliers was just credibly accused of labor violations.” “What if speaking up on this topic costs us market share?” “What if a malevolent actor manufactures outrage against us?”

Make people defend their answers using your stated values. The disagreements you discover here are gold; they show where your values are vague or where leadership isn’t aligned.

Document the responses and the learnings about your company values, and train your teams to apply them in real decisions, not just cheer for them at internal town halls.

The more you practice applying those decisions, the more muscle memory it will be when the stuff hits the fan.

Be practiced enough that you can tell the difference between manufactured or performative outrage versus the real thing. And when the real thing hits, know how the company you say you are would respond.

Then do it, using the 2-4-24 rule. (I learned this the hard way when I represented General Motors online during the 2009 bankruptcy crisis.)

The 2-4-24 Rule

In the first two hours, conduct triage only. Assign specific roles: one person owns fact-gathering (what actually happened?), one owns stakeholder identification (who’s actually affected vs. who’s performing?), one owns values alignment (which of our values is being tested here?).

Everyone else steps away from social media; doomscrolling kills clear thinking.

Over the next four hours, draft your response against a values-driven checklist. Does it reference our specific values by name? Would our long-time customers recognize this as honestly us? Does it explain our reasoning, not just our conclusion? Can we actually deliver on any commitments we’re making? Have we removed as much lawyer-speak and as many buzzwords from it as we can?

Before publishing, ask three more questions:

Who are we really talking to here? (The answer should not be “everyone.”)
What happens if we say nothing? (Sometimes silence aligned with your values is stronger than speaking up.)
In six months, will we be proud we said this? (If not, maybe you shouldn’t say it.)

Then, in hours 7-24, execute and monitor. Post your response, and then immediately shift from broadcasting to listening with structure. Divide your team into three monitoring tracks:

Stakeholder response: monitoring the reaction of the people who really matter to your business—current customers, employees, investors. Create a simple spreadsheet: are they satisfied, confused, or more upset? What specific questions keep coming up? These may be the only people you need to engage further.
Narrative tracking: Is your message being accurately represented or twisted? Set two or three specific search alerts for your company name plus keywords from your statement. Don’t worry about volume; you’re looking for whether your actual position is being communicated or whether a different narrative is taking hold.
New information: Assign one person to watch for facts that might change your understanding of the situation. Did any new information emerge that contradicts what you said? This is the only reason to issue an update in the first 24 hours.

That’s what to do. Here’s what not to do: Don’t respond to every criticism individually.

You made your statement; let it stand. Don’t “clarify” because someone willfully misunderstood you.

That’s how they drag you in with them; don’t take the bait. Don’t mistake performative or malevolent responses for the ones that matter to your top stakeholders.

And don’t issue updates unless genuinely new facts emerge. Multiple statements convey panic or inauthenticity..

Don’t forget to do a post-mortem.

Do it within a week of the incident. Evaluate honestly. Did your response align with your values? If not, what went wrong—process or principle?

If process, that’s fixable. If principle, that might call for a serious look in the mirror.

What could improve the next time (because in this environment there’s almost sure to be a next time)?

If the communications leaders practice this in the regular execution of your work, values become far more than just crisis management tools. They’re how you operate every single day, which makes it that much easier to abide by them in a crisis..

Leading Through Angry Times

It’s a reality none of us wants, but it’s reality just the same: audiences assume the worst, and outrage pays a lot of bills. Someone is going to be upset with your company, and you’re going to have to quickly decide how to respond.

The best way to do it is with consistency and honesty, and knowing who you are before an outrage crisis forces your hand. And this is where communications should be leading the way.

Leading Communications in the Age of Rage

TL;DR