Grading Three Holding Statements Against the PRSA Standard
Objective: Given transcript excerpts from a mock crisis drill and three draft holding statements, correctly identify the spokesperson-rule violation and score each statement against the acknowledge-act-commit-to-a-time standard, matching the calibration key on all rows.
You're the PR lead at Nykaa running a quarterly crisis-readiness drill: a simulated packaging-safety complaint went 'viral' internally, three teams responded independently, and you need to score what they produced before the real thing happens.
Read the transcript log, flag the spokesperson violation, then score three draft holding statements against a known-good answer key.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
Free, shareable, sortable for a drill of this size
The process
2 steps
Step 01 of 02
The lesson's Spokesperson Rule requires exactly one designated spokesperson decided in advance, because reporters cross-reference quotes, and a second, slightly different voice turns the story into one about internal confusion instead of the original issue.
Three quotes below were given to the same trade reporter within 90 minutes of the drill starting. Which one breaks the spokesperson rule, and which reporter action does it trigger?
Procedure
- Import the 3-quote transcript log into a sheet with columns: speaker, role, quote, timestamp
- Flag any quote from someone other than the designated spokesperson
- Compare flagged quotes against the spokesperson's quote for factual or tonal contradiction
- Write one sentence describing the follow-up story a reporter would now file
10:02am Head of PR (designated spokesperson): "We're aware of the complaint and are investigating with the vendor. Full update by 2pm." 10:41am Regional Ops Manager (fielded a stray call): "Honestly this sounds like a one-off, our packaging line passed audit last month." 11:15am Head of PR: "Investigation ongoing, update still coming at 2pm."
Healthy
Only the designated spokesperson is ever quoted; every other team member routes press calls to that one person.
Unhealthy
The 10:41am quote contradicts the 10:02am holding statement's neutral tone, handing the reporter a 'company downplays complaint while investigating' angle.
What this means
The Ops Manager's quote is the violation. It doesn't just add noise, it actively undercuts the holding statement's 'we're taking this seriously' framing, which is a worse story than the original complaint.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A non-spokesperson quote appears in the log | Route every future press call through the spokesperson before the drill or crisis continues | 5 min |
Step 02 of 02
A holding statement does exactly three things: acknowledges the issue, states that action is underway, and commits to a specific update time. It never assigns blame, admits liability, or speculates on cause.
Score Draft A, B, and C below as pass/fail against the three-part structure, and name which single element each failing draft is missing.
Procedure
- Read all three drafts once without scoring
- Score each draft against the 3-part checklist, one row per draft
- For any draft missing an element, write the one sentence that would fix it
- Rank the drafts from most to least ready to send
Draft A: "We take customer safety seriously and are looking into this." -> acknowledges: yes, states action: partial, commits to a time: no Draft B: "We are aware of the packaging concern and are investigating with our vendor. We will share a full update by 2:00pm IST today." -> acknowledges: yes, states action: yes, commits to a time: yes Draft C: "This is being handled internally." -> acknowledges: no, states action: partial, commits to a time: no
Healthy
Draft B passes all three; it is the one a spokesperson should actually send.
Unhealthy
Draft C reads as evasive precisely because it skips the acknowledgment, the exact gap that makes reporters write 'the company declined to elaborate.'
What this means
A missing time commitment is the most common and most damaging gap: it is the specific detail that keeps a reporter from writing 'no comment' in their own words.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A draft has no specific time commitment | Add one exact time before it goes anywhere near a reporter | 5 min |
Final deliverable
A scored transcript log flagging the spokesperson violation, plus a 3-draft holding statement scorecard ranking drafts by readiness.
See a reference example
Honasa Consumer (Mamaearth), Crisis Drill Scorecard SPOKESPERSON LOG Violation: Regional Sales Lead quoted at 9:50am, contradicts 9:30am official statement Follow-up risk: 'Mamaearth gives mixed signals on ingredient complaint' angle HOLDING STATEMENT SCORES Draft A: FAIL (no time commitment) - rank 2 Draft B: PASS (all 3 elements) - rank 1, send this one Draft C: FAIL (no acknowledgment) - rank 3
Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- Correctly identifies the spokesperson-rule violation and its consequence
- Correctly scores all 3 holding statement drafts against the 3-part structure