The Pakistani belief that killing a story will kill the crisis – local PR agencies (and their clients) cling to this idea like it’s a life raft. The problem is killing a story doesn’t silence the noise; it amplifies it. Because let’s be honest: every time you try to suppress something in the digital age, it doesn’t disappear. It just gets louder, usually on platforms with more reach than the original story could have ever dreamed of. You are not killing the conversation; you are feeding it.

It’s not a stretch to say that this tactic is the equivalent of running a poorly targeted ad campaign. Imagine launching a campaign to silence people, but instead of controlling the message, you end up triggering a viral response that slips out of your control and beyond your tracking dashboards. You wouldn’t ignore your customers’ feedback on your latest product, right? So why ignore it when it’s negative press? Qualified marketers know you don’t just shut off the conversation; you reposition.

The advertising and marketing world understands this better than anyone. Brands are defined by what people say about them, not by what brands say about themselves. Crisis management is no different. Ignoring the backlash or, worse, trying to squash it, is like doubling down on a tone-deaf ad campaign and wondering why the ROI is not what you projected.

While qualified marketers have a laser focus on segmentation, targeting and positioning, corporate communications has to juggle more. They are managing all stakeholders: not just customers, but regulators, investors, future hires – and yes, the media. Everyone in the ad industry knows that getting your product placement wrong can kill your message. Well, the same goes for PR. And here’s the kicker: ignoring key stakeholders when a crisis hits won’t make them go away, just like ignoring a bad ROI won’t suddenly make it positive.

Now, things really go off the rails when unqualified marketers are running the crisis communication show. When their solution is to shut down conversations, it’s like handling negative reviews by simply turning off the comment section. Genius, right? No one will ever complain again! Except, of course, they do, only louder. There is something fundamentally flawed about a group of professionals who should understand human behaviour better than anyone; they fail to grasp the simple fact that telling people to stop talking usually results in the exact opposite.

Let’s pretend, just for fun, that a certain Pakistani mobile wallet made a PR blunder: customers were hit with a fee for a failed biometric check. In this pretense, people were outraged, because who wants to pay for failing an ID check? Cue this hypothetical uproar across social media, where anyone with a phone and Wi-Fi can voice their displeasure. Next, an imaginary award-winning reporter covered the story, expecting, naïvely, perhaps, that the PR team would respond with a coherent, timely statement. Instead? Radio silence. The imaginary journalist published the piece, after which an imaginary agency swooped in, not with answers or clarifications but with threats. Defamation suits, access denial and “You’ll never work in this town again” levels of drama ensued in this hypothetical situation.

Here’s the thing. When your PR response is to intimidate rather than communicate, you have already lost the battle. Imagine if Nike or Apple responded to a viral backlash by suing everyone who posted about them. How fast do you think brand loyalty would plummet? People expect more. Hell, people expect authenticity. And isn’t that what every agency pitches these days? ‘Brand authenticity.’ The irony is almost too much. In this case, the journalist’s publication stood firm and the PR agency eventually caved, offering the reporter a statement. But the damage was already done. The threats were unnecessary and only amplified the situation. It’s like launching a rebranding campaign without fixing the underlying brand problem – there is no pill strong enough to cure that kind of self-inflicted wound.

Here’s a nugget of wisdom for the advertising world: the golden age of two-way communication has a downside. Try to censor your audience and you are in a world of trouble. You would never dream of rolling out a product campaign and then refusing to address consumer complaints, so why would you do that in crisis management? If you have spent even 10 minutes on the internet, you know that people talk. And this is where the advertising and marketing industry lead the way. We have learnt that transparency, engagement and quick responses are not just nice to have; they are necessary. You don’t get away with burying bad news in the age of TikTok. If you botch a product launch, the response isn’t to threaten your critics; it’s to fix the damn product. And if your PR agency thinks they can handle negative press by threatening journalists, well, you might want to reconsider their role as your brand’s guardian.

Suppressing conversation, much like launching an ad campaign without understanding your audience, is a surefire way to erode brand credibility. The advertising industry has plenty of research to back this up: censorship, tone-deaf messaging and failure to engage chip away at consumer trust. Brand equity is not built by throwing money at big events with dull speakers or buying your way out of bad press. It’s built by fostering genuine connections, admitting when things go wrong and most importantly listening.

In today’s hyper-connected world, controlling the conversation is a myth. The only way forward is to participate authentically and with the humility to admit mistakes. Because whether it’s a crisis or a campaign, those who listen will be the ones who win.

Ad Mad Dude runs the eponymous Facebook page. admaddude@gmail.com