Long-term effects of a PR scandal

Years after the designs of small creators are stolen by the big, greedy corporate; long after the ill-conceived promotional idea is somehow deemed to be appropriate by out-of-touch marketers; some time after the publicity breaks that executives have scooped up outrageous remuneration packages, despite presiding over a business that consistently under performs...what lasting effects do these 'PR scandals' have on brand perception?

PR thought leaders tell us that the general public...over time...forget about the headline grabbing slip-ups, and simply go back to their previously held (positive) views of the brand.

Time heals all as the saying goes.

But surely something (even if unmeasurable) must shift, ever so slightly, in the collective 'market mind'.

What was once a respected brand, working hard to provide 'a fantasy world of quality, authenticity and professional design', has since been exposed as flawed. The ephemeral allure of what was has been publicly shattered; never to be pieced back together again.

Blind faith and belief gives way to 'scepticism of true motivations'.

Trust and reputation cannot be empirically measured, but they nevertheless do affect individual and collective perception and appeal.

Perhaps though the real issue isn't the scandal itself (people and the businesses that they manage are obviously not perfect), but rather the idealistic way in which brands themselves are somehow presented as perfect.

The squeaky-clean 'industrialised-propaganda model' of brand building opens up a lot of risk under conditions that allow for falsifiability of that lofty positioning.

Trust is earned when there is congruency between what is said and what is done. If a disconnect is revealed, our sense of psychological and social safety is challenged.

To maintain trust? Lower expectations, or transform into a saintly being. Choose whichever is more sustainable.