The risk of our reliance on data centres – the challenge for crisis communicators

Who could have missed the craze for turning yourself into a Mattel-style action figure? Until recently, these colourful, quirky and uncannily realistic Al-generated images were popping up on every social platform going. Our family, friends and countless celebs have been immortalised as plastic packaged toys, complete with snappy names and pointless accessories. But these vanity projects have a huge environmental cost. The data centres that power AI gobble up precious resources like hungry beasts. They consume massive amounts of electricity and water and for this reason alone, AI should be employed judiciously.

In what feels like just a few years, data centres have become the silent backbone of modern life. From generating images and videos to storing and processing vast amounts of data, almost every organisation that depends on digital operations relies on them. Think customer transactions, internal systems, supply chains, and public-facing services – the list is endless. 

What has all this to do with the world of crisis comms? Data centres create a new and distinctive challenge: data-centre incidents are both highly technical and deeply consequential, often unfolding in ways that are invisible to the public yet immediately felt by end-users. When a bank’s app goes down, a local authority loses access to its systems, or a health provider can’t retrieve records, the root cause may be a complex failure in a facility few people ever see.

Communicating clearly, confidently, and credibly about incidents that are hard to visualise – and sometimes even harder to explain – is a core competency in the crisis comms toolkit.

Navigating this gap between cause and effect is precisely where crisis communicators sit. Communicating clearly, confidently, and credibly about incidents that are hard to visualise – and sometimes even harder to explain – is a core competency in the crisis comms toolkit. As far as data centres are concerned, there are several risks and considerations to consider.

First up – technical opacity. Data-centre failures rarely present as a single, simple error. Power interruptions may cascade into cooling failures; a network routing issue can manifest as a total outage; a fire-suppression system activation may destroy equipment even when it successfully prevents a fire. For communications teams, the difficulty lies in extracting explanations from engineering teams who are themselves still diagnosing the problem. This can delay messaging or create pressure to provide answers prematurely. In these scenarios, communicators must balance transparency with accuracy: avoid speculation, acknowledge investigation is ongoing, and give audiences a sense of what’s being done rather than why the failure happened.

Closely linked is the speed-accuracy dilemma. The effects of a data centre outage can become public within seconds as users post their real-time experiences on social channels. Silence from any organisation suffering the consequences – even if only for a few minutes – can be interpreted as evasion, incompetence, or even indifference. Yet rushing to confirm details can introduce errors that may undermine trust. Strong pre-crisis preparation is key: having pre-approved templates, known communication pathways to data-centre operators, and a clear internal process for verifying technical details helps reduce response time without sacrificing precision.

A third risk might be called ‘dependency complexity’. Many organisations rely on colocation providers (where you rent space for your own equipment) or cloud suppliers they do not own. Communication teams may face the added challenge of relaying information that originates from a third party, over whom they have no control. Providers may release updates slowly or may not tailor explanations to the needs of your audiences. This creates two challenges: managing expectations internally (especially among senior leaders who want rapid certainty) and adapting provider updates into language suitable for customers, partners, regulators, or the media. Crisis communicators should plan for this by building strong relationships with data centre or cloud providers before a crisis, ensuring clear points of contact and escalation routes.

Crisis communicators should plan for this by building strong relationships with data centre or cloud providers before a crisis, ensuring clear points of contact and escalation routes.

Another consideration is pressure from multi-stakeholders. When a data-centre incident hits, you may need to communicate simultaneously with customers, employees, suppliers, the media, and regulators. Each group has different levels of technical understanding and varying concerns. Customers want reassurance and timelines for service restoration. Regulators look for compliance with reporting obligations. Employees need to know how to continue their daily operations. Journalists want clear storylines backed by evidence. Misjudging the order or content of communications to these groups can amplify reputational damage. If, for example, customers learn about an outage in the media before they hear it from you directly, trust can erode quickly. Take time to map stakeholder needs in advance and rehearse tailored messages for each.

Then there are the physical risks, particularly from fire, extreme weather, or power-grid instability. These can be sensitive topics for external comms because of concerns about exposing vulnerabilities. Yet stakeholders increasingly expect openness about resilience measures and climate-related risk. Communicators need to craft messages that acknowledge the seriousness of physical incidents without offering unnecessary operational detail. Emphasising continuity plans and lessons learned can be more impactful than focusing on the failure itself.

Finally, there is the reputational risk associated with overpromising on resilience. Many organisations publicly promote the reliability of their digital services. When an outage occurs, stakeholders may perceive a gap between expectation and reality. Communications teams should work closely with operational leaders to ensure that resilience claims in everyday marketing or corporate communications accurately reflect actual capabilities. Focus on concrete actions being taken to reduce future risk.

Communications teams should work closely with operational leaders to ensure that resilience claims in everyday marketing or corporate communications accurately reflect actual capabilities. Focus on concrete actions being taken to reduce future risk.

Crisis communication around data centres is ultimately about bridging the divide between technical infrastructure and human impact. The public may not see server halls or power systems, but they feel the consequences when those systems fail. Communicators who anticipate the unique risks of this environment – technical information gaps, multi-stakeholder pressures, third-party dependencies, reputational risk (to name just a few) – are better positioned to respond quickly, honestly, and persuasively when the inevitable incident occurs.

Authors: Rosie Hamilton, CIPR Crisis Communications Network Committee Member and Jo Barrett, Senior Director of Communications, Risk & Broking, WTW

Image: AI generated