Orchan Consulting | Asia Sdn Bhd

Southeast Asia is a region full of contrasts. Cultures, religions, economies, and political viewpoints exist side by side. In this environment, global events often ripple through local markets in unpredictable ways. The recent consumer boycotts of Western fast‑food brands in Malaysia and Indonesia, driven by solidarity with Palestine, show how geopolitical sentiment can affect everyday brand choices. But the reality is rarely black and white. What began as social‑media calls in late 2023 led to real outcomes: some outlet closures, revenue pressure on brands like McDonald’s, KFC, and Starbucks, and faster growth for local alternatives. Yet geopolitics is only part of the story. Emotion, identity, economics, pricing, and post‑pandemic habits all play a role. A Human Story Within Larger Forces Take Lailatul Sarahjana Mohd Ismail*, a Malaysian mother who started frying chicken at home when her children craved fast food but familiar brands felt off-limits. That simple choice grew into Ahmad...

Performative versus purposeful has become the dominant way we talk about brand communication in Southeast Asia. It is a useful provocation, but it only tells part of the story. Many communication failures don’t come from bad intent or cynical leadership. They emerge from misaligned systems, structural constraints, or uneven change. Brands can sound fake not because they are lying, but because their organisations aren’t set up to speak clearly. This isn’t a defence of performative PR. It’s a clear-eyed look at why it happens, when it can still serve a function, and why moralising oversimplifies the challenge. If you missed our first article in this series, Performative or Purposeful? Decoding Brand Communication in Southeast Asia , you can read it here: https://orchanpr.blogspot.com/2025/09/performative-or-purposeful-decoding.html The False Binary The performative–purposeful debate travels fast on LinkedIn. It signals values and sparks conversation. But in practice, it flattens reality....

For years, silence has been treated as a kind of corporate virtue. Say nothing. Wait it out. Hope it passes. In theory, it sounds disciplined. In practice, it usually does the opposite of what brands intend. Silence is not neutral. It is interpreted. And in a real-time media environment, it is almost always interpreted badly. Why Brands Choose Silence Most decisions to stay quiet come from a reasonable place. Legal risk. Global sensitivities. Incomplete information. Fear of saying the wrong thing. In major M&A activity, restructuring, or crises, local communications teams often have limited room to move. Messages are cleared centrally. Words are scrutinised. Restraint is necessary. But somewhere along the way, restraint gets confused with disappearance. When nothing is said publicly, brands often tell themselves they are being careful. What they are really doing is outsourcing interpretation to everyone else. What Actually Happens When Brands Stay Silent Silence does not...

Global think pieces keep diagnosing “purpose fatigue.” To a certain extent, that's fair. However, consumers everywhere are sick of brands preaching values they cannot operationalise. But here’s the nuance many articles miss: the solutions they propose i.e., transparency, measurable impact, global ESG frameworks, do not port cleanly into Southeast Asia. They don’t just need translation; they need structural rewiring, sensitive to local governance, culture, and economics. Southeast Asia is not a single market. It is eleven distinct markets, each with its own cultural landmines, regulatory quirks, income gaps, and moral boundaries. What charms Jakarta can get you dragged on Facebook in Kelantan. What trends in Bangkok barely registers in Ho Chi Minh City. Despite this, many brands continue to ship lightly localised Western “purpose” decks across the region expecting them to scale. Often, they fail. Malaysia is frequently positioned as the “stress test” for SEA purpose marketing. Thi...