How to handle negative comments about your company on social media
If you manage a company page on LinkedIn (or any social platform), it’s not a question of if you’ll face negative comments or posts… it’s when.
It might be a disgruntled ex-employee.
A frustrated customer.
Or someone choosing social media as their preferred dispute forum.
The instinctive reaction is usually the same: respond quickly, defend the company, correct the record. Unfortunately, that’s often the worst thing you can do.
First rule: pause before you respond
Social media creates pressure to act immediately. But not every comment deserves a response, and not every allegation belongs in a public forum.
Before replying, ask:
Is this feedback, opinion, or a legal issue?
Will responding publicly reduce risk… or increase it?
Does this belong on social media at all?
South African social media lawyer Emma Sadleir regularly reminds organisations that online content carries the same legal and reputational consequences as traditional media. Social platforms don’t change the rules. They just make the audience bigger.
Not all negative comments are the same
One of the biggest mistakes companies make is treating every negative comment the same way.
In practice, most posts fall into three categories:
1. Genuine customer feedback
These usually deserve acknowledgment and a calm, professional response. When handled well, they can actually build trust.
2. Emotional or opinion-based criticism
These don’t always need engagement. Responding can escalate emotion rather than resolve anything.
3. Legal or employment-related allegations
This is where companies get into trouble. These matters should never be argued on social media.
Sadleir’s work consistently reinforces that serious allegations, particularly those involving reputation, defamation or employment disputes, are best handled through formal legal or labour processes, not public comment threads.
“Digital content is dangerous content. If you wouldn’t put it on a billboard, don’t let it exist in digital format.”
Why public arguments rarely end well
Once a company starts explaining, correcting details or defending itself publicly, it:
Validates social media as the dispute channel
Encourages others to weigh in
Creates screenshots that live forever
Increases legal and reputational exposure
Even a carefully worded response can be taken out of context.
One of the consistent themes in Sadleir’s media commentary is that the internet is permanent. Posts don’t disappear just because the conversation moves on.
The value of a holding statement
When a response is necessary, less is more.
A short, neutral holding statement should:
Acknowledge the issue
Set a clear boundary
Redirect the matter appropriately
For example:
We don’t discuss individual employment matters on public platforms. Where disputes arise, these are handled through the appropriate formal channels.
No emotion. No detail. No fuel.
This approach aligns with best-practice legal advice: acknowledge without validating, then disengage.
When silence is the right strategy
Sometimes the smartest response is no response at all, particularly when:
The post has limited reach
The matter is already being handled formally
Any response would amplify visibility
Monitoring quietly is often more effective than reacting publicly.
Behind the scenes, however, action matters. Legal teams should be briefed, documentation preserved, and leadership aligned on messaging in case media enquiries follow.
A final thought
Social media feels immediate and personal, but companies need to respond with distance and discipline.
You don’t need to win the argument.
You need to protect your reputation.
As experts like Emma Sadleir often point out, good digital judgement comes down to knowing when to speak and when to step back.
