In an always-on digital environment, brands are increasingly expected to weigh in on cultural, social and topical conversations, even when those conversations may sit outside their immediate category or expertise. While having a clear point of view can help brands build relevance and demonstrate their values, responding to every trending issue can also raise questions around authenticity, intent and credibility.
The bigger challenge for communication teams, therefore, is not simply deciding what to say, but determining whether a brand needs to say anything at all. Hardik Barchha, Content Strategist at Eminence Strategic Consulting; Akshina Jindal, Founder, Bubble Me; and Bajrang Saharan, Founder & CEO, Pressmate OS, share their perspectives on when brands should take a stand, how they can avoid performative participation, and why strategic silence may be emerging as an important part of the communication playbook.
Hardik Barchha, Content Strategist, Eminence Strategic Consulting, believes brands first need to establish whether they have a legitimate reason to be part of a conversation rather than entering it simply because it is trending.
“The real test should be much simpler: Does the company have a legitimate reason to be part of this conversation?”
According to Barchha, brands that speak on every issue risk weakening the hierarchy of their own voice. When commentary becomes constant, stakeholders may find it difficult to distinguish between issues that genuinely matter to the organisation and those that are being addressed simply because they are generating attention.
He also believes that a public point of view creates an expectation of consistency, making it important for brands to ensure that their communication is supported by action.
“Sometimes that weight is expertise. Sometimes it is an investment. Sometimes it is a policy or business decision. Sometimes it is simply a long-standing commitment that the company has demonstrated over time. Without that foundation, a POV can become theatre.”
For Akshina Jindal, Founder, Bubble Me, the decision to speak should be evaluated through the lens of a brand’s values, consumers and ability to follow through.
“Before commenting on an issue, I would ask three questions: Does it connect to our values? Does it matter to our consumers? Can we support our words through our actions?”
Jindal notes that the pressure to remain visible can often push brands towards conversations that may not have a meaningful connection with their purpose. Instead, she believes brands need to pause, understand the context and assess whether their contribution can genuinely add value.
“My approach is to pause long enough to understand the context, listen to the people affected and decide whether our contribution adds value. Speed matters, but judgement matters more.”
This also makes strategic silence a deliberate communication choice rather than simply an absence of one. Jindal believes communication teams should consider in advance when a brand needs to respond and when restraint may be more appropriate.
“Yes, and I think it should become an explicit option in communication planning. Teams often have processes for approving statements but fewer for deciding that no public statement is needed.”
A similar view comes from Bajrang Saharan, Founder & CEO, Pressmate OS, who believes relevance should take precedence over visibility. For him, brands should use their voice where they can bring genuine expertise or insight to the conversation.
“A brand should look at whether the issue has a genuine connection with its purpose, customers or industry. Having a point of view is valuable when the brand can bring relevant experience or insight to the conversation, rather than speaking simply to stay visible.”
Saharan also believes the pressure for brands to respond quickly should not come at the cost of authenticity. Instead of attempting to participate in every cultural or social conversation, brands can build credibility by consistently contributing to areas where they have genuine expertise.
“There is certainly pressure on brands to respond quickly, but speed should not come at the cost of authenticity. Brands do not need to participate in every trending conversation.”
For Saharan, knowing when not to speak can be just as important as having something to say. When a brand lacks the context, expertise or connection to an issue, an unnecessary opinion can dilute rather than strengthen its credibility.
“In a world where brands are expected to comment on almost everything, knowing when not to speak is equally important.”
The common thread across these perspectives is that brand relevance cannot be reduced to visibility alone. As social platforms accelerate the news cycle and compress the time available for communication decisions, brands may need to become more selective about the conversations they enter.
The question is increasingly shifting from “Should we say something?” to “Do we have something meaningful to add?” For communication teams, that distinction could determine whether a brand’s voice builds credibility or simply adds to the noise.
