Does your “silence” mean you stop communicating to others? For brands, this is not the case.
Silence can be interpreted in different ways based on culture, timing and context. This subjective dependency has actually made “silence” more difficult to understand than just plain communication. We will consider silence in two situations: one for during good time of a brand and the other one for during bad time of a brand.
A good quality brand launching in the market with bare minimum promotion, afterwards turns itself silent, might have two consequences of its silence. First, once consumers are satisfied after using this brand, they would spread the message through words-of-mouth, so silence of a good quality brand does not mean “no communication”. We can term this as “passive communication”. There is one advantage and one disadvantage of this approach. Words-of-mouth is very credible and authentic communication, so the brand might find itself being promoted by customers themselves without actively spending money on expensive campaigns by the company. The biggest disadvantage, for which this approach of being silent for good quality brands is not recommended, is the nature of competition in the market. Even if you are silent about your good quality brand assuming that viral messaging will be running, you are forgetting the fact that competitors would also be promoting good quality brands without the kind of “silence” that you have. In this war of Good vs. Good, or Better vs. Better, the “talking and visible” one is most likely to win, not the “silent” one.