REACT
When every reaction shapes the next one, test the response before making it public.
In an incident, the response does not meet a neutral audience: it meets stakeholders who are watching one another. Every statement changes how the next one is interpreted.
- 01EVENT
- 02FIRST RESPONSE
- 03INTERPRETATION
- 04CASCADE
- 05NEW RESPONSE
- 06TRAJECTORY
02 — WHAT THIS DECISION ACTUALLY CHANGES
What actually moves.
Trust is not lost at the moment of the incident, but when the response appears out of step with what is already known.
Timing produces more effect than content: speaking too early without certainty and speaking too late do not carry the same cost.
Stakeholders react to one another: the cascade matters more than the initial reception.
03 — WHAT MUST BE SIMULATED
What must be simulated.
- Several possible responses, tested on the same population
- The effect of the delay before speaking
- Acknowledging uncertainty and its effect on credibility
- Propagation across stakeholders and intermediaries
04 — POPULATIONS CONCERNED
Populations concerned.
- People directly affected by the event
- Audiences exposed indirectly, but concerned
- Intermediaries: media, associations, elected officials, representatives
- Internal stakeholders and employees
05 — MECHANISMS TO OBSERVE
Mechanisms to observe.
- Trust and credibility of the sender
- Timing and pace of information
- Propagation and cascades between audiences
- Repair, gesture and acceptance of responsibility
- Memory of the episode after the crisis
06 — EXAMPLE QUESTIONS TO TEST
Questions to test.
- “Should we speak now?”
- “What happens if we acknowledge the uncertainty?”
- “Which response limits the cascade?”
These formulations are examples of testable decisions. They do not report on any executed simulation.
07 — REAL CASE STUDIES
Decisions already tested.
- FINANCIAL SERVICES“How should a publicly disclosed cyberattack be handled without worsening the loss of trust?”5 communication strategies compared on the same population
- CRISIS MANAGEMENT“How can a product recall for a batch defect be initiated without turning a safety operation into a brand crisis?”240,000 units affected · 5 scenarios · 90 days
- CRISIS MANAGEMENT“How can a company respond within 48 hours to a whistleblower's disclosure of a questionable internal practice without worsening the loss of market value?”1.8M stakeholders · 21 typologies · 72-hour cascade
- CRISIS MANAGEMENT“How can an incident at a regulated industrial site be managed without triggering a lasting local crisis?”620,000 local residents, workers and elected officials · 15 typologies · 12 months
- CRISIS MANAGEMENT“How can media disclosure of inappropriate behavior by a senior executive be handled without damaging internal cohesion?”8,400 employees, extended to 24,000 profiles · 96 hours, then 6 months
- HEALTHCARE“ Anticipating population behavior in the face of a moderate epidemic resurgence. ”4.8M adults · 9 attitudes-to-risk profiles · 12 weeks
08 — HOW IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE SIMULATES
The method applied to this decision.
- Reconstructing the event as it is perceived by each stakeholder.
- Comparing several responses, timelines and levels of acknowledgment.
- Observing cascades between audiences, not only isolated reactions.
- Projecting the trust trajectory after the crisis.
Explore another decision
- LaunchTest what will drive adoption — or rejection — of something new.
- PriceUnderstand what a price change actually transforms in people's behaviour.
- RepositionChange perception without destroying the value that was already there.
- TransformChange an existing system without triggering the side effects that cancel out the expected benefit.
- ReformTest a new rule on the populations that will actually have to live with it.
- ArbitrateCompare several possible futures before making a decision that is hard to reverse.
- AnticipateExplore what can happen when behaviours evolve over time.
Your next decision
Which decision do you want to explore?
Describe your need. We can point you to the right level of support.
