The Hidden Betrayal: Why Adjectives Are the Most Dangerous Part of Your Crisis Strategy

The Narrative Lab — Strategic Comms | By Alice Sionne

Some words pretend to be neutral because they sound administrative. "Onerous" is one of them.

We saw it clearly this week. When the Trump administration released an Executive Order flagging "onerous laws" regarding AI, the backlash wasn't just about policy: it was about framing. By labeling safety regulations as a "burden," the administration unintentionally signaled that speed mattered more than security.

But this isn't just a political problem. It is a universal corporate trap.

You see it in the Trump administration's push against "onerous" safety laws. You see "unforeseen" in outage apologies. You see "isolated" in data breach notifications.

They feel safe to the legal team because they sound objective. But to the public, these adjectives act like a "micro-expression" on a human face—a tiny, involuntary signal that reveals what the company is really feeling.

And usually, what they are revealing is detachment.

The Adjective Trap: Distancing vs. Owning

When organizations are in crisis or managing change, the instinct is to protect the brand. We reach for "Shield Words"—adjectives that create distance between the company and the problem.

But in doing so, we often create distance between the company and the customer.

If your Customer Experience strategy is built on "meaningful connections", you cannot use language that minimizes your customer's reality.

The Translation Layer

Here are three common "Shield Adjectives" companies use, and what the customer actually hears:

"Unforeseen" (e.g., "Due to unforeseen technical issues...")

What the Company Means: "We didn't plan for this."

What the Customer Hears: "You weren't watching. You don't have control over your own systems."

The Better Alternative: "Unacceptable." Validate their frustration before you explain your surprise.

"Isolated" (e.g., "This was an isolated incident...")

What the Company Means: "Please don't look for a pattern."

What the Customer Hears: "You are minimizing my pain because I am just a statistic to you."

The Better Alternative: "Specific." (e.g., "This issue affected a specific group...") It's factual without being dismissive.

"Complex" (e.g., "Navigating this complex regulatory environment...")

What the Company Means: "It's not our fault it's taking so long."

What the Customer Hears: "You are prioritizing your internal friction over my resolution."

The Better Alternative: "Rigorous." (e.g., "We are being rigorous in our compliance...") This turns a burden into a value proposition.

Why This Breaks Trust

We know that a "clunky or frustrating experience drives customers away". Language is part of that experience.

When you use defensive adjectives, you are forcing the customer to do the emotional labor. You are asking them to understand your complexity. That is a tax on their loyalty.

Great brands do the opposite. They use adjectives to absorb the stress, not deflect it.

The Fix: The "Adjective Audit"

Before you hit send on your next stakeholder letter, crisis response, or policy update, run a quick Adjective Audit:

Circle every adjective. (Ignore the nouns and verbs; they are just the mechanics).

Test the Temperature. Are the words cold (technical, procedural, necessary) or warm (committed, clear, eager)?

The "Human" Test: Would you use this word to apologize to a friend?

You wouldn't tell a friend, "My lateness was due to onerous traffic."

You would say, "I'm sorry I'm late; the traffic was terrible."

The Takeaway

Your adjectives are the emotional temperature of your brand. If you want to "build a brand people love to talk about", stop using words that sound like a lawyer trying to win an argument.

Start using words that sound like a leader trying to solve a problem.