The first rule in crisis communications is this: Protect the brand.

When faced with a crisis that could explode in the media, crisis communicators work to minimize damage to the brand. 

The less coverage, the better.

But should Amazon be running the violent abduction of its employee, Alexander “Sasha” Troufanov, like a classic crisis communications scenario instead of exhausting all means and resources to free him?

Amazon is indeed succeeding in its efforts to keep journalists off the story.

Shortly after the New York Post reported in November that Sasha, an Amazon employee in its Tel Aviv lab, had been kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, I did a round of pro bono media outreach to offer Sasha’s friends for interviews.

I contacted local Seattle media outlets and major financial news organizations.

Over and over, I was told, “the delicacy of the situation” made them decline to cover the story — in deference to Amazon’s claims that bringing attention to Sasha’s plight would further endanger him. 

For PR folks, including those at Amazon, the only thing better than a positive story is killing a negative one.

Amazon has business interests around the world, in places with a range of political leanings.

If Amazon is perceived to be siding with Israel, would protesting employees occupy their Seattle headquarters? 

Would Prime customers sympathetic to terrorist groups boycott?

Could an AWS data center in the Middle East come under attack?

Might its efforts to win business in terror-supporting countries be hampered?

Executives are likely making a cynical, craven calculation: weighing the reputational and business risks to the brand against the life of a single employee, one of their 1.6 million. 

Local Seattle media and financial publications have their own calculations.

Amazon is the largest employer in Seattle. 

Its executives are a source for stories, and the company is an important advertiser.

So when a member of the Amazon comms team calls a media outlet seeking to dampen coverage “to keep Sasha safe,” it is easier to fold than to ask tough questions.

I spoke to a reporter at a large financial news outlet late on a Friday evening (using my phone on Shabbat to aid in saving Sasha’s life) and explained at length why Amazon’s insistence on secrecy didn’t make sense. 

The secret was out.

The Post and many other publications had reported on the broader issue.

Indeed, the faces and names of all the hostages have been well-publicized, and there’s been a coordinated official push to free them.

Amazon’s claims that his life would be in greater danger through more stories on his plight is baloney.

I pointed out that Hamas has released several hostages as a gesture of appreciation to Vladimir Putin.

But reporters were unwilling to challenge Amazon and ask if it had flexed its corporate rolodex through its relationships with countries allied with Hamas, including Qatar. 

Has Amazon engaged its hostage insurance vendor — every global corporation has one — to free Sasha?

Amazon surely spends a considerable sum on such insurance policies for its executives.

Sasha isn’t an exec, but was the vendor retained for a one-off project?

So far there is no evidence that Andy Jassy, Jeff Bezos or any senior Amazon executive has worked the back channels on Sasha’s behalf.

If the silence strategy was appropriate at first, the time has come for a change — while Sasha sits underground for close to eight months.

We’ve seen that bringing attention to individual hostages has been helpful.

The first Hamas hostages to be released, Judith and Natalie Raanan, were the highest-profile American victims in the days following Oct. 7.

Just last week, families of five young Israeli women released Hamas-recorded videos in an effort to keep their daughters at the top of the agenda.

Many families have secured the services of the world’s major communications firms.

This week Amazon issued a cleverly crafted crisis communications statement: “We continue to focus all of our efforts to bring Sasha back home safe.”

The word “focus” is perfectly vague. 

It may suggest action, like devoting Amazon’s resources toward Sasha’s release; it may mean merely the daily collection of social-media mentions of his case.

The statement says nothing.

Most corporations have refrained from speaking about the atrocities of Oct. 7.

These brands have the privilege of staying on the sidelines because they aren’t involved.

They are following the first rule of crisis communications.  

Amazon does not have that luxury. 

Its employee is being held by a US-designated terrorist organization that violently stole him and murdered his family.  

Where is Amazon? 

David Weissmann is vice president of media strategy at Gova10 who previously handled crisis communications at a Fortune 30 company.