In an era where misinformation spreads faster than verified facts and public perception can shift within minutes, crisis communication has become far more complex than issuing carefully worded statements. For brands operating in a hyper-connected, always-online environment, the challenge today lies in balancing speed with accuracy while protecting long-term credibility.In a conversation with Adgully, Anshuman Chakravarty, Vice President and Head of Marketing & Communication at SOMANY Ceramics said that modern crisis management is no longer just a PR function, but a continuous exercise in trust-building. He spoke about leadership visibility, misinformation risks, cultural nuances in crisis response, and why reputation management in the AI era will increasingly depend on authenticity, preparedness, and credibility.Over the years, you’ve worked across industries, geographies, and brand transformations. From your perspective, how has crisis communication evolved in today’s hyper-connected and always-online media environment?Crisis communication has fundamentally evolved from being a controlled response function to becoming a real-time trust management function as the traditional “golden hour” of response has now shrunk to just a few minutes. Earlier, organizations had the luxury of time, news cycles which lasted days, communication flowed through traditional media, and brands had the opportunity to verify information, carefully craft messages, and release structured responses. Today, in a hyper-connected and always-online environment, a crisis can emerge, escalate, and shape public perception almost instantly, often before all the facts are fully established.The biggest change is that brands no longer own the narrative. Social media, influencers, employees, customers, and even internal stakeholders can become publishers instantly. The challenge is no longer only managing facts, but managing velocity, sentiment and perception that too, simultaneously. I believe three shifts define modern crisis communication: First is, speed with accuracy. The expectation today is not to have all the answers immediately, but to acknowledge situations quickly and demonstrate action. Important to note here: silence is often interpreted as indifference. Second, authenticity over perfection. Audiences today can detect scripted or overly corporate messaging instantly. People expect transparency, empathy, and accountability rather than polished legally worded statements. Third, communication has become continuous. Crisis management no longer starts when an issue erupts; it starts much earlier through reputation building, social listening, stakeholder engagement, probability-based risk-assessment and action planning and trust creation. Ultimately, crisis communication today is less about protecting image and more about protecting credibility and in the process reputation merely gets tested. While there cannot be a standard template for response but being visible, acknowledging quickly, being empathetic, stating known facts, informing on actions initiated, committing to transparency, avoiding speculation and committing to regular updates helps to regain trust.In the age of social media, a brand crisis can escalate within minutes and public perception often forms before facts emerge. How should companies balance speed with accuracy during high-pressure situations?We saw recently in the sad airline crash in Ahmedabad, even before the ambulances and fire brigade could arrive, cameras started reporting live, this amplifies public anxiety in the absence of verified facts. Speed and accuracy are often seen as competing priorities during a crisis, but in reality, organizations today need to manage both simultaneously. The mistake many companies make is believing they must either respond instantly with incomplete information or wait until every detail is verified. Both extremes carry risks.In today’s environment, the first response is not necessarily the final response. The objective is to acknowledge with empathy quickly, establish that the organization is aware of the situation, and communicate that action is underway. Stakeholders and audiences do expect immediate answers, expect accessibility, visibility, accountability, and responsiveness. Silence creates a vacuum, and in the absence of information, speculation fills that gap.A practical approach is to think of crisis communication in stages. The first communication is about acknowledgment and empathy. The second is about verified facts and actions being taken. The third is about transparency around outcomes and corrective measures. As more information becomes available, communication should evolve accordingly.Equally important is preparation, under pressure, you cannot build a process, you can only rely on a process that you have built over years. Leaders in organizations must realize that Crisis preparation has a cost but it is much cheaper than re-building lost reputation.Ultimately, speed gets you into the conversation, but accuracy protects credibility. If speed helps control the narrative initially, trust is what sustains it over the long term.You have handled communication mandates across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Are there significant differences in how brands approach crisis communication across markets and cultures?Yes, there are meaningful differences, because while the principles of crisis communication remain universal, the response must always be adapted to local cultural and market realities. Trust, transparency, empathy, and accountability matter everywhere, but how stakeholders perceive and respond to communication can vary significantly across regions.In many Asian markets, communication often tends to be more relationship-driven and community-oriented, where preserving trust and long-term stakeholder confidence becomes critical. During the COVID-19 period, several Asian brands and businesses focused less on transactional messaging and more on community reassurance, employee well-being, and continuity communication because maintaining social trust became as important as addressing operational issues.In parts of the Middle East, reputation, credibility, and institutional trust carry significant weight, and communication often requires greater sensitivity to cultural nuances and social dynamics. For example, during major regional disruptions such as the Red Sea crisis, many businesses placed emphasis on calm, authoritative communication and stakeholder confidence rather than frequent public commentary.European markets, on the other hand, generally place a stronger emphasis on regulatory compliance, data privacy, and direct communication. A good example is a European Airways data breach incident, where the conversation quickly extended beyond brand reputation to regulatory scrutiny, customer rights, and compliance obligations.In India, crises often evolve differently because media intensity, social conversations, and public sentiment can escalate rapidly. A recent example was the controversy involving an educational institution, where questions around the presentation of robotic dog technology displayed at a summit was frivolously claimed by a representative as an in-house development, whereas it was sourced. A single interaction by a representative and a wrongful statement unfurled a huge backlash. Fact is you cannot defend and communicate against visual evidence. The incident demonstrated how, in today’s environment, communication challenges are not always created by the original event itself but by the speed at which narratives form and spread. Once visual content and public perception begin shaping the conversation, organizations need clarity, accountability, and timely communication, rebutting and disowning doesn’t work. The challenge for global brands is that crises today are rarely local in nature. A comment made in one market can become a global conversation within minutes. We have also seen this with incidents such as an American airlines passenger removal incident, where an event originating in one geography quickly became a global reputation issue. So, while the core values of crisis management should remain consistent globally, the tone, channels, speed of engagement, and stakeholder approach often need local adaptation. Effective crisis strategies are therefore not built on a “one-size-fits-all” model. They combine global consistency with local relevance, because in crisis communication, context is often as important as content.Reputation management today goes far beyond issuing official statements. What role do empathy, transparency, and leadership visibility play during a crisis?Empathy creates connection, transparency builds credibility, and leadership visibility reinforces confidence. Together, they shape not just how a crisis is managed, but how an organization is remembered even after the crisis has passed. It is important to have clarity over improvisation, and facts over emotion.Reputation management today is no longer about simply issuing official statements or controlling messaging or the narrative; it is about building and sustaining trust during moments of uncertainty, important to note here that sometimes even uncertainty creates crisis. In a crisis, stakeholders are not only evaluating what an organization says, they are observing how it behaves, how quickly it responds, and whether its actions align with its words. A response that demonstrates genuine concern for affected stakeholders can create far greater trust than a perfectly crafted corporate statement.Transparency is equally important because in an environment where information travels instantly, attempts to hide, delay, or selectively disclose information can often create a bigger crisis than the original issue itself. Organizations may not have all the answers immediately, but they should communicate honestly about what they know, what they do not yet know, and what actions are being taken.Leadership visibility also becomes essential. During uncertain situations, people look for confidence, accountability, and direction. Leaders provide a human face to the organization and reinforce that responsibility is being taken at the highest level. Visible leadership is about showing up at the right moments with clarity, empathy, and purpose. Even scheduled calendar bulletins or hourly updates instill confidence. Conversation, instead of recorded monologues helps, scrutiny though difficult to manage, but if managed well rebuilds trust and reputation at a much faster speed.During your tenure at Orient Electric and now at SOMANY CEREMICS, you’ve led large-scale integrated campaigns across ATL, BTL, PR, and digital. How important is having a unified communication strategy during both brand-building and crisis management?Communication today is not about managing channels independently; it is about orchestrating a unified narrative. Whether building a brand or protecting one, consistency transforms communication into trust.Organizations need a “single source of truth” supported by agile execution. Messages can be tailored for customers, employees, media, investors, or partners, but the facts, intent, and organizational stance must remain aligned.This becomes critical because stakeholders experience brands across multiple touchpoints simultaneously: advertising, PR, digital platforms, retail, employees, influencers, and customer interactions. During brand-building, every channel should reinforce the same brand promise and emotional proposition. Formats may differ across ATL, BTL, PR, social, or experiential platforms, but the core message should remain consistent. Familiarity builds trust over time.As traditional PR becomes increasingly commoditized, creativity and narrative mapping aligned to business purpose become stronger differentiators. Earned media increasingly acts as an independent currency that strengthens credibility and protects reputation.In a crisis, the stakes become even higher. If official statements, social media, customer service teams, and internal employees communicate different narratives, organizations end up managing confusion instead of the issue itself. This is why spokespersons and customer-facing teams must be informed and trained in advance to ensure a consistent response.With misinformation, online outrage cycles, and AI-generated content becoming more common, what are the biggest communication risks brands need to prepare for today?Communication risk is not misinformation itself; it is losing control over trust. Trust isn’t built by technology and automation; it’s built by intention and in the process, credibility increasingly becomes a brand’s most valued asset.The communication landscape today is becoming increasingly complex because brands are no longer managing only traditional crises, they are also managing information volatility. Misinformation, online outrage and AI-generated content have significantly reduced the time available to distinguish fact from perception.One of the biggest risks is the speed of misinformation amplification. A rumour, edited clip, or misinterpreted statement can gain momentum within minutes and create reputational damage before the organization even enters the conversation. The second challenge is the rise of outrage culture and sentiment-driven narratives. Social media conversations often operate on emotion and not on evidence. Brands increasingly face situations where perception becomes reality in the short term, and isolated incidents can rapidly evolve into broader discussions and witch hunts.A third emerging concern is AI-generated manipulation, deepfakes, synthetic content, fabricated visuals, voice cloning, and highly convincing false narratives. The challenge is not only technological; it is purely trust-related. As AI lowers the barrier for creating realistic content, organizations will need stronger mechanisms to verify authenticity and respond rapidly.This is why crisis preparedness today can no longer be reactive. Brands need continuous social listening, strong verification processes, predefined response protocols, scenario planning, and clear escalation frameworks. The focus is shifting from simply responding to crises toward building organizational trust and resilience.Many organizations still treat crisis communication as reactive rather than preventive. What systems or preparedness frameworks should companies build before a crisis actually occurs?Effective crisis communication begins long before the first headline appears. The strongest responses often look effortless, because they have prepared for multiple scenarios in advance.Organizations need a clear crisis framework with defined roles, decision-making authority, escalation protocols, and spokesperson responsibilities. They also need real-time listening systems- social monitoring, media tracking, and stakeholder feedback, to identify issues early before they escalate. Another aspect is risk and crisis evaluation if not monthly, at least quarterly assessment of new risks and probabilities should help re-evaluate the crisis-response processes for better preparedness. This should be treated as a fire-fighting drill.Regular scenario planning and simulation exercises are equally critical. Whether it is a product issue, cyberattack, misinformation campaign, or leadership challenge, response mechanisms should be tested repeatedly until they become organizational muscle memory.Finally, creating a single source of truth through communication playbooks and keeping employees aligned ensures consistency across all channels and stakeholders.Ultimately, crisis preparedness should not be treated as an insurance policy; it should be viewed as a strategic capability. Reputation takes years to build but can be tested in moments.Recent crisis in India where an airline failed to adequately prepare for new pilot duty and rest regulations. Thousands of flights were cancelled or delayed, creating airport chaos and affecting a very large number of passengers. The issue moved quickly from an operational problem to a reputation challenge for an airline whose reputation was built on “on-time arrival”. Crisis demonstrated that in service industries, customers judge organizations not only by the disruption itself, but by the speed, clarity and empathy of communication during uncertainty. Operational failures may happen; but communication often determines whether they become reputation failures.Looking ahead, how do you see crisis communication and corporate reputation management evolving over the next five years, especially with AI, digital media fragmentation, and changing consumer trust patterns?The challenge ahead is that trust will become harder to earn and easier to lose. Technology will continue to evolve, but credibility, transparency and authenticity will remain the strongest differentiators. In the future, trust will not simply support reputation; it will define it.Over the next five years, crisis communication and reputation management will become far technology-led, and trust-centric. Organizations will move from reacting to crises toward anticipating them through AI-driven monitoring, sentiment analysis, and early warning systems that can identify risks before they escalate.At the same time, digital media fragmentation will make the landscape more complex. Audiences are increasingly spread across multiple platforms, communities, creators, and ecosystems, meaning brands will no longer be managing a single narrative but multiple conversations happening simultaneously.AI will also create a new trust challenge. While it will improve speed, monitoring, and decision-making, it will also enable deepfakes, synthetic content and misinformation at scale. The ask will be both: “How fast can we communicate?” and “How credible can we remain?”. Consumer trust patterns are also evolving. Trust is moving from what brands say to what stakeholders see, experience, and validate independently. People today increasingly trust authentic voices: employees, communities, creators, and peer networks, social voices and influencers, sometimes more than traditional corporate communication. This will require brands to become more transparent, human and values-driven. Ultimately, reputation management will move beyond managing image to managing trust ecosystems.
