The first customer asks whether their booking went through. The second sends a screenshot of a confirmation page that never loaded. By the time a reporter calls, your team can reproduce the error, but it still cannot tell how many people are affected or whether any bookings were lost.
A crisis holding statement gives you a way to speak at that point. You can tell customers that the confirmation page is failing without saying their bookings are gone. That distinction matters: if the first message tells people to book again, some may create duplicate reservations while your team is still checking the original ones.
What a crisis holding statement should say
Start with the part of the incident your organization can stand behind. Describe the effect people are experiencing, acknowledge the disruption, and name the unanswered question that matters most to them. Then explain what your team is checking and where readers can find the next update.
A useful statement usually covers four things:
- What you can verify now. Describe the affected service, location, or process as precisely as the evidence allows.
- What people still need to know. Identify a specific uncertainty, such as whether earlier bookings were recorded.
- What is happening now. Say what your team is checking. Give people an interim action only if your team has verified that it is useful and appropriate.
- When and where you will report back. Name a channel and set a time your team can meet, even if the next update simply explains what remains unresolved.
The Association of State and Territorial Health Officials’ crisis communications guide treats the holding statement as a brief account of what is known and what the organization is doing. The UK Government Communication Service planning guide also places verification alongside drafting and approval in the initial response. Both are useful references for the editorial principle: the first message can be timely without settling questions the evidence cannot yet answer.
Match each sentence to the evidence behind it
A holding statement often goes wrong when a sentence moves further than its source. A support ticket establishes that someone reported a problem. A reproduced error can establish that a feature failed under the conditions tested. Neither, by itself, establishes the cause or the full extent of the impact.
| What your team can verify | What you can say | What the evidence does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Support has received reports and the team is checking them. | “We’ve received reports that some customers can’t load their booking confirmation.” | That the underlying service is down or that bookings were lost. |
| The team reproduced the error on the web confirmation page. | “Some customers are unable to load the booking confirmation page.” | That every customer, booking channel, or location is affected. |
| The team has confirmed that some bookings are missing from the records it checked. | “We’ve confirmed that some bookings did not appear in our records.” | The number affected or the reason those bookings are missing, unless separately verified. |
Use one question to test each factual sentence: What would we show a colleague if they asked how we know this? If you can show only a report, describe it as a report. If the evidence covers one service or time window, keep that boundary in the sentence.
Pay particular attention to words like only, all, and no. “Only the confirmation page is affected” implies the team has ruled out problems elsewhere. “We’ve verified a problem with the confirmation page and are checking whether bookings were recorded” tells customers what the team can actually establish. The pressure to make those claims too soon is a recurring problem in incident response communications.
Crisis holding statement example: a booking disruption
The following scenario is hypothetical. The organization has reproduced an error on its website and confirmed that its support team can handle urgent booking checks. It has not yet verified whether every affected booking was recorded.
Some customers are unable to load their booking confirmation on our website. We’re sorry for the disruption, especially for customers who need to confirm an upcoming reservation. We’re checking whether bookings made during the disruption were recorded. If your reservation is for today and you cannot confirm it, please contact customer support before booking again. We’ll post another update on our service status page by 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time today.
The first sentence identifies the affected feature. It leaves room for the possibility that the booking succeeded even though the customer could not see the confirmation. The second sentence acknowledges the problem as the customer experiences it: they may have a reservation to use today and no way to confirm it.
The third sentence names the uncertainty the team is investigating. The fourth gives one group a useful action because support has confirmed it can perform those checks. The final sentence promises a communication update. It makes no promise about when the service will be restored.
If your team has not reproduced the error, change the first sentence to describe what people have reported. If support cannot handle urgent checks, remove that instruction. A template is useful only when the facts and the available help fit the scenario.
A short template you can adapt
We’ve [confirmed or received reports of a specific issue]. We understand this may [describe the practical impact on readers]. We’re checking [specific unresolved question]. If you’re affected, [give a verified action, if available]. We’ll share another update by [time and time zone] on [official channel].
Use the shortest version that still answers the audience’s immediate question. For a public post that may be shared or screenshotted, add the date to any update time that could be read out of context.
Decide who can approve the message and what belongs elsewhere
A short statement can stall if nobody knows who may release it. The person who confirms the operational facts, the person who approves the wording, and the person who posts it may be different. MonitoringClub.org’s guide to who has authority to communicate during a crisis explains how organizations assign those decision rights before a crisis.
Before release, check whether every material claim has a source, whether the statement identifies the uncertainty readers care about, and whether someone can meet the update commitment. Keep the approved wording and the time it went live. If the wording changes later, a communication audit trail helps establish what was known and approved at each point.
If the situation involves a possible safety issue, a recall, or a suspected data breach, involve the relevant response and compliance leads. A public holding statement does not replace any required warning, direct notification, or formal disclosure. Avoid identifying individuals or assigning responsibility while the facts are still being verified.
Follow through when the next update is due
At the promised time, publish what changed, what remains unresolved, and when readers will hear from you again if the issue is still open. If there is no material change, say that plainly and name the question the team is still working to answer.
If earlier wording turns out to be inaccurate, make the correction visible where people saw the original statement. For example: “Our earlier update described a problem with the confirmation page. We have since verified that some bookings also failed to record.” If the first statement was accurate at the time and you have since learned more, explain the new finding and its effect on customers.
Give readers a first account they can rely on
The strongest crisis holding statement gives readers enough verified information to make their next decision. In the booking example, that means telling people what they are seeing, what to do if their reservation is urgent, and when to check back. Before publishing, read the draft from the affected person’s point of view: would they know what to do next, and would they understand what is still uncertain?
