Orchan Consulting | Asia Sdn Bhd

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...

When a crisis hits, speed isn’t a luxury... it’s oxygen. And in APAC , where social chatter moves faster than official statements, brands that hesitate don’t just stumble -- they fall flat on their face. The question isn’t if a crisis will hit. It’s when . And when it does, your response decides whether you come out scarred but standing or dragged through the mud for months. Case Study 1: Bitis vs. Khaisilk -- Apology vs. Denial Two Vietnamese brands. Two very different outcomes. Bitis , the footwear brand, ran a cultural campaign that backfired. Instead of stonewalling, they did the simplest, smartest thing: apologised quickly, corrected the issue, and kept moving. Consumers noticed the humility, and the brand survived with minimal scars. Khaisilk , on the other hand, was caught mislabelling “ Made in Vietnam ” silk that was actually from China. At first? Denial. Then, when the truth came out, scrambling apologies, recalls, compensation. By then, it was too late -- the damage w...

TikTok isn’t just a dance app anymore -- it’s where Southeast Asian consumers discover products, engage with communities, and drive purchasing decisions. For some brands, TikTok has overtaken Facebook and Instagram as the top channel for reach and engagement. But governments from Washington to Jakarta are increasingly questioning the platform’s data practices and national security implications. Bans aren’t just hypothetical; they’re already happening in India, Nepal, and parts of the U.S. If the hammer falls in Southeast Asia, brands heavily reliant on TikTok could see their audience pipelines collapse overnight. So the question isn’t “Will TikTok get banned?” It’s “If TikTok gets banned, will your brand be ready?” The Risks on the Table Audience over-dependence: For some consumer brands, 70–80% of digital visibility now runs through TikTok. That’s dangerous concentration risk. Algorithm reliance: Unlike YouTube or Instagram, TikTok’s “For You” feed is hyper-dependent on a...

In APAC, a crisis doesn’t escalate. It detonates. When crisis hits in Asia-Pacific, speed and nuance decide whether a brand sinks or swims. Social media storms in Jakarta. Regulatory crackdowns in Singapore. Consumer backlash in Bangkok. It’s a volatile region where reputations are built (or shredded) in hours, not weeks. And now AI is in the mix. Tools that can scan sentiment in real time, predict reputational flashpoints, or even draft holding statements are reshaping how brands respond. But here’s the kicker: AI doesn’t replace crisis communications. It simply raises the stakes. Brands that misuse it risk amplifying the very chaos they’re trying to contain. So, what lessons can we take from APAC brands already navigating this AI-crisis intersection? Lesson 1: Speed Is Useless Without Context AI excels at velocity. It can monitor thousands of conversations across Twitter/X, TikTok, WeChat, WhatsApp and niche local platforms like Line or Koo. But speed without cultural context is dang...

A few years ago, a regional brand we worked with found itself in the middle of a fast-moving online storm. A minor service error had escalated into angry tweets, then media pick-up. Their instinct? “Let’s wait it out. If we don’t feed the fire, it’ll burn out.” But silence doesn’t look neutral. In today’s environment, silence looks like guilt. Within 48 hours, the narrative was out of their hands. By the time they finally issued a statement, the damage wasn’t just about the service error -- it was about “a company that doesn’t care.” This isn’t a one-off. We’ve seen it across industries in Asia-Pacific : brands that equate silence with safety almost always dig themselves deeper . The public doesn’t interpret silence as strategic restraint ; they interpret it as evasion . And competitors or activists will happily fill that vacuum with their own version of the story. The lesson is clear: crisis management is not about hiding; it’s about speaking quickly without losing control . That’...

Most crisis management plans fail the moment reality hits. Here’s why your playbook is probably useless -- and what actually works when reputation is on the line. Crisis management plans look great on paper. Thick binders. Colour-coded tabs. Executive signatures on the front page. But when the fire alarm goes off? Most of those plans are about as useful as duit pisang. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the majority of crisis plans fail the second they’re needed. Not because people don’t mean well, but because the plans are written for boardrooms, not for the chaos of real life. The Big Flaws We See Over and Over 1. Too Slow to Matter Plans are often thick binders or pretty PDFs that require endless approvals before anyone can act. By the time the press statement is “perfected,” the damage is already viral. 2. Too Sanitised to Be Believed Crisis templates are full of jargon and corporate-safe language. But in a real crisis, audiences crave honesty , not clichés. If your respons...