Purpose-led communication is often designed to strengthen a company’s relationship with consumers. By addressing social change, inclusion or cultural identity, brands attempt to demonstrate that they understand the world their audiences inhabit. But when the message, the organisation’s actions and the surrounding social context do not align in the public’s perception, the campaign can generate a crisis instead of goodwill.
The challenge is particularly visible in India, where advertising often intersects with religion, tradition, identity and changing social expectations.
Consider Tanishq’s 2020 Ekatvam campaign. The jewellery brand released an advertisement featuring a Hindu woman married into a Muslim family, with her in-laws organising a traditional baby shower for her. The film was intended to celebrate cultural harmony and familial acceptance. However, it triggered intense online backlash and accusations that the advertisement promoted an interfaith relationship agenda. Tanishq subsequently withdrew the film, citing severe reactions and concerns for the wellbeing of its employees and store staff.
A similar tension emerged in 2021 when Dabur India’s Fem brand released a Karwa Chauth advertisement featuring a same-sex couple celebrating the festival together. The campaign attracted both support and criticism before the company withdrew the advertisement and issued an apology. The controversy demonstrated how a brand’s attempt to broaden representation can become entangled in competing interpretations of tradition and social change.
Neither example establishes that discussing social issues is inherently a communications mistake. Instead, both reveal the complexity of purpose-led messaging in a diverse market.
Authenticity is not determined exclusively by what a brand intends to communicate. It is also shaped by how stakeholders interpret the message, what they believe about the organisation and whether they consider its actions consistent with its stated values.
This distinction matters because brands cannot completely control public interpretation. A campaign may be carefully researched, legally reviewed and creatively polished, but could still attract reactions that its creators did not anticipate. Social media accelerates this process by allowing criticism, support and misleading interpretations to circulate simultaneously.
However, a backlash should not automatically be treated as evidence that a campaign has failed. Negative reactions may reflect disagreement with the underlying message rather than a legitimate flaw in the creative execution. Equally, widespread online support does not guarantee that a campaign is commercially effective or that the organisation’s conduct matches its claims.
For communications teams, the first task is to diagnose the nature of the problem before responding. Is the criticism based on a factual error, a misunderstanding, a genuine inconsistency in company behaviour or disagreement over the values being expressed? Each situation requires a different response.
If a company has made a factual mistake, correcting it promptly is essential. If the message has been misunderstood, additional context may help. If the organisation’s actions contradict its stated values, a revised advertisement will not resolve the underlying credibility problem.
There is also a difference between acknowledging stakeholder concerns and abandoning a position simply because it attracts criticism. A withdrawal may reduce immediate pressure, but it can create another question: did the brand believe in the values it communicated, or was it prepared to defend them only while public reaction remained favourable?
Tanishq’s withdrawal, in particular, generated debate about this tension. Some observers criticised the decision as a retreat from the campaign’s intended message, while the company emphasised employee and partner safety. That distinction is important: crisis decisions often involve competing responsibilities, and they should not be judged solely through the lens of advertising performance.
The practical lesson is that authenticity must be built before a campaign launches. Brands need clear principles, informed cultural understanding, realistic risk assessment and a response plan that considers employees, consumers, distributors and other affected stakeholders.
Purpose communication is not simply about choosing a progressive message. It is about understanding the responsibility that comes with communicating it.
In a fragmented public conversation, authenticity cannot guarantee universal approval. It can, however, help a company explain its decisions consistently, respond to criticism thoughtfully and avoid treating every controversy as a reason to abandon its values.
For PR professionals, the real test is not whether a campaign attracts criticism. It is whether the organisation’s response reflects the principles it claims to represent.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
