When is it better to take the loss rather than respond?

Sometimes, your messaging must compete with a vocal, effective and often sympathetic opponent.

Let’s say the opponent is a “David”—a small group perceived to be fighting for a fair cause—while the organization is perceived, fairly or not, to be the unfeeling “Goliath.”

When Goliath receives media inquiries, it replies with a written statement. It has calculated that the risks of combating their opponent through an unpredictable on-camera interview are too high and that a misstatement would only give detractors more fodder for their criticism.

The problem is that the little-guy opponent, the David, accepts on-camera interviews, which creates a stark contrast between the two parties.

News stories have a video clip from David’s on-camera interview, which is then butted up against the anchor or correspondent having to read—in voice over—Goliath’s statement from an on-screen graphic. It’s easy to imagine viewers concluding that David is as open and reasonable as Goliath is cold and distant.

By refusing to appear on camera, Goliath is taking a five-yard loss in every interview. Yet, are there times when a five-yard loss is an acceptable outcome?